Sir,
The
system I developed used a group of seven randomly selected volunteer citizens
who meet
to draft the language of referenda that are then put to a full national vote.
I
called them the Caucus. A new Caucus would meet about 4 times a year.
Note:
these referenda deal with broad policy direction. The policy decisions of
the
citizenry are then binding upon the other branches of government.
B. T.
Marking
From: Esi
[esi1mohseni2(at)hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009
1:02 PM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Agree or
Disagree
What I am looking for is a system which let people bring
up questions of important for them and others, discussions between people for
soliving problems or development of the
society and if necessary voting for solutions and
realization of the solutions. Simply it is people and not elite and
illegal represenatants who vote for solutions and rules in the society.
I don´t mind if you call it DD or anything else.
Probably practical problems made it difficult to realize
these kind of political systems before but thanks modern communication
technologies and more knowlede it is much easier to realize
such systems at the present time.
You are almost right that these kind of societies are not
common at the present time as cars, airplane and many other things which did
not exist before but exist now.
If those political systems which has been existing or
exist today work satisfactory why do we have milliards of unsatisfied people in
the world. Why is it important for you
to start from existing systems even though they obviously
does not work properly and create many unhappy individuals and a world close to
collapse?
What is your definition of DD and how do you think you can
realize it?
Sent:
Wednesday, November 18, 2009 5:23 PM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re:
[WDDM] Agree or Disagree
Hamid,
the proper instrument is the financial referendum ... and the budgeting rights
taken away from parliaments and shared between courts of accounts and the
people at large, according to level of jurisdiction ... as well as the
establishment of PERMANENT constitutional assemblies, directly elected, who
exercise some ordinary legislative powers under exclusive obligatory and
facultative referendum ... like: fiscal laws, pay and compensation of public
officers, constitutional revision, constitutional politics, election and
nomination of judges, the calling and supervision of elections, referendums,
initiatives and recalls ... a few competences, but heavy and strong ... I
wonder really sometimes WHICH direct democracy many of you are talking about
here ... if there is anyone who has a CONSTITUTIONAL CLUE of what DD is about
... or why 250 years of constitutional history passed under the bridges leaving
nothing but the Patriot Act intact ... many of you are looking at something
that does not exist anywhere in the world, not even at the stage of a
(political) embryo ... did anybody ask himself/herself why?
Was the dethronement of monarchy in 1776 illegal?
LZ
Da: Hamid Mohseni
<esi1mohseni2(at)hotmail.com>
A: World Direct Democracy <wddm@world-wide-democracy.net>
Inviato: Mer 18 novembre 2009,
17:04:14
Oggetto: RE: [WDDM] Agree or
Disagree
I agree but this is one alterantive to force peoples will to the power. It
must be combined with many other possible different
means to make it possible for people to take over the power. Some example
are civil resistance. Avoiding to pay taxes.
Avoiding to follow official rules and decisions and demonstrations. It is also
possible to sue politicians for illegaly representing
people. If we think we find many ways to fight for peoples will.
Regards
Hamid
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009
14:11:34 +0000
From: luca_zampetti(at)yahoo.it
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree
Hamid,
you can ask these categories of self-appointed beings or of agents of hidden
powers many things, all things you want, no one will listen ... or rather they
will apparently listen with one ear and transmit to direct output for discharge
with the other ... Ostrogorski once said that the state is a (relatively)
stable institution because it has a generalized capability for INTIMIDATION on
its subjects, who, according to some should not be called subjects, but deserve
to be deemed "Citizens", at least as if ... well: you can expect to
be heard ONLY if you have some power of COUNTER-INTIMIDATION on these people
... until they have the power to buy media and votes and you don´t, nothing
will change ... until there will be such a COUNTER-INTIMIDATION thing,
everybody needs to take care not to snarch so loud as to wake up his own or
somebody else´s dog ...
Luca Zampetti
Da: Esi
<esi1mohseni2(at)hotmail.com>
A: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Inviato: Mer 18 novembre 2009, 14:18:22
Oggetto: Re: [WDDM] Agree or
Disagree
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.
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 ...
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 examplesyou
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,
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.
====
On 16/11/2009, at 11:50 PM, Bruce Eggum wrote:
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]
Bruce Eggum
Gresham, Wisconsin, USA
Health Care http://tinyurl.com/ycx9vpz
http://usinitiative.com
http://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 .
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
than any multi-party,
one-party or other majority-vote system,
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
|