Good idea
We can also present the result of discussions and
votings for media and power elites and ask them to respect peoples will and not
their own interests and decisions.
Hamid
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 11:38 AM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree
I recommend the formation of a multinational, multiethnic and
multi-locational army for the export of DD from Switzerland all over the world,
first of all US and Russia, maybe for 3rd to China ... and for zeroeth, to Italy
... as well as into the so-called "international" organizations ...
Luca Zampetti
Da: Doug Everingham <dnevrghm(at)powerup.com.au> A: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net Inviato: Mer 18 novembre 2009,
07:30:46 Oggetto: 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/ycx9vpzhttp://usinitiative.comhttp://vote.org/
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 1:53 AM, < Doug Everingham>
wrote:
Hi,
Hamid.
As sociography web sites may explain,
sociography started as a commercial management system. Each
planning and decision-making section and level of the organization is
split into more manageable sized parts if it becomes unwieldy. Rather
than a pyramidal hierarchy structure. each administrative unit strives
to reach consensus decisions with all agreed or at least no-one
persisting in dissent. Each unit includes liaison persons who are each
also a member of a related unit or levels of responsbility. Similar
'nested networking' work in Spain's Mondragòn Cooperatve Corporation
incorporating thousands of people, and various stakeholder (employee,
customer etc.) cooperatives in USA.
Dr Shann Turnbull's
papers http://ssrn.com/author=26239
etc. are relevant,
He is Principal of the International Institute for Self-governance
.
Cheers,
–Doug
====
On 16/11/2009, at 3:17 PM, Hamid Mohseni
wrote:
Why? Could you explain
yourself?
Regards Hamid
From: dnevrghm(at)powerup.com.au Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009
11:47:18 +1000 To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net Subject: Re: [WDDM]
Agree or Disagree
It seems to me that DD
is more attainable using the
consensus--seeking
nested network principles of sociocracy
(several google links)
than any multi-party,
one-party or other majority-vote system,
–Doug
===
On 16/11/2009, at 4:13
AM, Hamid Mohseni wrote:
Hi
Jim
If voters don't trust
or are not satisfied with what politicians do, they should be able
to take their political destiny in their own hands. Nobody is
allowed to make decisions in behalf of you in
your private life as long as you have not officially and lawfully
accepted be represented by others, with execption for children and
mentally sick people. Why should this be
allowed in political systems. I feel that you are
worry for politicians to loose their power and easy earned
advantages by changing the political system to DD but I don't
understand why. Do you work as
politician or are there any other reasons for that? Everybody should be
able to bring up political questions important for him / her for
discussion and voting without asking politicians to permit it. Of
course for people who prefer it there
should be possibile to let others (you can call them politicians) to
represent them in some or all questions but this does not mean an
obligation for everybody. As you told
before politicians are employees of voters, so if voters like they
can fire their employees and take the political power in theri own
hands.
Do you
agree? Hamid
From: autoinfo(at)acenet.co.za To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009
19:15:12 +0200 Subject: RE: RE:
[WDDM] Agree or Disagree
Hi
Vijayaraghavan,
We do not have to have
an alternative to political parties. This would be imposing an
alternative on the voters. Politicians have a job to do so that the
average person can get on with his/her life.
Voters just need the
power to reject, modify or create legislation. Our energies need to
be in this direction
Regards
Jim Powell South
Africa
From: Vijayaraghavan
Padmanabhan [vijayaraghavan.p(at)rediffmail.com] Sent: 15 Nov 2009 04:57
PM To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net Subject: Re: RE: [WDDM] Agree
or Disagree
For people to be
really able to do this, an independent setup (free from party
influence) is needed. We need to conceptualize an alternative to
political parties.
Vijayaraghavan
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009
23:12:23 +0530 wrote
Hamid,
Thatis
exactly the point of DD. If people have the power to make
decisions, makemistakes,
learnfrom
their mistakes, and then correct them, they will ultimately mature
into
grownupcitizens.
Otherwise, we live in our parent's house
forever.
B.
T.Marking
www.sdindie21.org
From: Hamid
Mohseni[esi1mohseni2(at)hotmail.com] >Sent: Friday, November 13,
20093:16 AM >To: World Direct
Democracy >Subject: RE: [WDDM] Agree
orDisagree
Outcome of bad laws
decided by people by refrandom willaffect people badly and make them
to changethe law later on >by new
refrandoms. > >Regards >
From: parrhesiajoe(at)gmail.com >To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net >Date: Mon, 9 Nov
2009 19:31:02 -0800 >Subject: RE:
[WDDM] Agree or Disagree
Good point. The
removal of bad laws has proven trickythroughout
history.
What is a bad law?
Should they be judged by theirintentions or their
outcomes?
Or, does a law become
“good” if it issupported by a majority of the people, or their
representatives?
If a people are unjust
or immoral, should a democracyallow them to design an unjust or
immoral social structure?
For example, if 90% of
the people in Seattle want to outlaw outdooradvertising… billboards,
etcetera… is it a good law? It violatesproperty rights, but those
rights are DEFINED by the public in general.Certainly, other
building codes already allow the liberty of an owner to besuperseded
by will of the public. If 90% of the people want to outlaw
Muslimchurches, should that be allowed? Please, take into account
that this isalready the case. Our representatives can effectively
change any part of theconstitution if they think it will gain them
votes, and 90% means a politicianwould be suicidal not to take up
the call. (Honorable, but politically,
aloser).
So…
Should good law based
on a defined set of virtues (if so,then who defines the set), or
should it be based on the public will? Or both?Or neither? Or
something else? Be very specific.
Parrhesia
P.S.
Our current system
makes it very possible for ourprejudices to work their way into law.
As long as the people do not clamor forlimits to government power,
the representatives tend to give them what theywant. Even when the
public is 40% in favor of something, the government willlatch onto
it if it increases their scope and power (Health Care Bill,
$700Billion Bailout). When the people are highly in favor of a
measure that limitspower, however, the government is less
responsive. For example, term limits forcongress have had over 50%
public support for over half of the last 100 years,and no congress
has ever acted on it.
From: wingsprd[wingsprd(at)goldenwest.net] >Sent: Sunday, November 08,
20099:05 AM >To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net >Subject: RE: [WDDM] Agree
orDisagree
Andthe
repeal of those that have proven ineffective or that
have
outgrowntheir
usefulness.
B.Thomas
Marking
From: Joseph
Hammer[parrhesiajoe(at)gmail.com] >Sent: Saturday, November 07,
200910:52 PM >To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net >Subject: [WDDM] Agree or
Disagree
A stable, fair and
productive government should promotethe formation of new laws and
changes to existing ones.
(To keep them fresh,
one might suppose?)
Parrhesia
|