[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

02438: Re: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree

From: Doug Everingham <dnevrghm(at)powerup.com.au>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:30:46 +1000
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree

Bruce, 
Sociocracy is in practice more successful in increasing consensus than alternative 
51% majority or other 'democratic' but not consensus-pursuing systems        
Who then succeeds in " times [when] democratic vote is necessary"?
Abortion laws reach a variety of compromises related to the national, religious etc. cultures. 
At one extreme, aborters and voluntary abortees are charged with murder. 
At the other extreme, abortion is imposed on women for national, religious etc. reasons. 
Similar compromising applies to the other examples you mention: 
"... war, tax rate, climate issues, individual election to office ... "
Thus war is often launched by a relatively old, rich, powerful minority, 
or by an oppressed, desperate populace, not a 51% popular ('democratic') vote,  

Cheers 
–Doug 
====

On 17/11/2009, at 11:48 AM, Bruce Eggum wrote:

Doug, the example abortion was one of many examples I provided where "consensus" was unlikely, yet decisions need to be made. Thus there will be times democratic vote is necessary. There needs to be consideration of this need or sociocracy will hamper democracy.
Regards, Bruce



On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 7:37 PM, <Doug Everingham> wrote:
Yes, Bruce, I miswrote  sociography  for  sociocracy  .

The issues you specify (abortion etc.) will not achieve total consensus but may narrow the differences.  Thus Vatican-approved writings allow uterine curettage within 12 hours after heterosexual rape or incest, presumably withholding judgment against the equivocally aborting parties who opt to decide that 'conception' (union of sperm and ovum) is unlikely durng thst time. and some 'pro-choice' abortion providers refuse to terminate pregnances later an 16 weeks' gestation unless the pregnancy gravely threatens the woman's life. All but sadistic or militaristic cults prefer to work for law changes within the local law to suit their ethics before resort to legal or vigilante executins of their opponents in the abortion debate. 
–Doug
====


On 16/11/2009, at 11:50 PM, Bruce Eggum wrote:

Doug,

I believe you meant sociocracy. I agree with the sociocracy concept, however I do not believe you can always reach consensus although a decision is necessary. Democratic methods would need to be made in those cases.

How could you reach "consensus" on; abortion, war, tax rate, climate issues, individual election to office etc. Nested networks are great ways to deliberate but they may adamantly disagree and have totally opposite views. [IE: right vs left]
Cheers, Bruce

Bruce Eggum
Gresham Wisconsin, USA
Health Care http://tinyurl.com/ycx9vpz
http://usinitiative.com
http://vote.org/

.
.
.
.


[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]