I have no own definition of DD, as far as I know it does not exist and to my best science and conscience it is not required.
I read round 60% of the existing Swiss constitutional law books, at cantonal and at federal level, from 1830 to these days, there is no such thing anywhere. There is no "definition" of DD anywhere.
If you look for a "prime engine", look into the concept of limited government. Swiss constitutional law - in its historical evolution - is a materialization of it, but the concept itself it originated from the English Revolution (1640 - 1690) as a reaction against monarchical rule.
All these concepts are multidimensional and cannot be reduced. Reducing them is even dangerous, for those - like
myself - for whom democracy is a NORMATIVE concept before than an empirical one.
There is no "method" for reaching consensus on all issues in all times and on all dimensions. Deciding not to decide, or agreeing not to agree, is a dispute resolution or consensus brokerage method too. The EU practices it regularly since 1964, most of the times of course at levels that are of interest only to "professional" politicians, who then say that that is the "national interest", meaning THEIR OWN national interest ...
Limited government means also that people should be let alone on issues on which consensus is impossible or too expensive to be reached. The problem is that for the "professional" politician it is always better to try and strike some deal, to lie about real cost or to roll over the real cost of a deal on those who cannot defend themselves, even if only by pure chance - like most of the decisions of "professional" politicians appear to be
taken nowadays on issues on which consensus seems possible - ... the miserable results of this delirium omnipotentiae of course lead to the decay of credibility of politics and politicians ... and in consequence to the collapse of political institutions ... we are there right now, like in 1770 in His Majesty´s tobacco colonies or in 1740 in the country of la democratie c´est moi ... the patient is kept under pharmacological coma ...
The political system in which knowledge availability and transmission is how you imagine it, perestroika i glasnost, is not there yet ... it will be there somewhen and necessarily it will not be parliamentarism or presidentialism as these systems are based both positively and normatively on the assumption that politics is and MUST BE BASED on informational asymmetry ... you look at something that is based on informational symmetry ... political institutions are everywhere statistical filters, i.e. they SELECT
the preferences that go into so-called collective decisions ... you look at something that aggregates preferences ... it does not exist because it is not desired to be existing ... the mere ubiquitary AVAILABILITY of knowledge in thee "knowledge society" - even if 51% of it is rubbish - is putting the statistical filters in crisis ... they can´t filter anymore the information overflow and of course they lack the credibility for filtering "justly" ...
Switzerland works because it implemented historically in the most practical ways some DD processes and institutions, among others in some cantons also the financial referendum, processes and institutions that were PRACTICABLE at the time when they were introduced, compatibly with a wide social consensus on the ideal that "democracy" - not necessarily DD - means materialization of the realm of human rights (... Zaccaria Giacometti ...) within a frame of limited government(s) ... the Swiss complain
that DD makes everything slow and many things impossible ... this is exactly what limited government is about ... fast shooters managed to create weapons of planetary financial destruction without even realizing it ... the right place of these people is in jail, not in government ...
Well, all these elementary concepts are simply ignored in all countries, in all universities and in all governments of the Western world ... these things are "out of fashion" in our so-politically-correct Western mainstream party-cratic parliamentarian and presidential systems ... and this is why Switzerland is on the list of the things to be made disappear from this planet like Iraq, Afghanista, Russia and China and many others ... unless you set up an army of soldiers ready to fight to introduce in other countries (and especially into the "international" organizations) the virus of the financial referendum ... the rest are simple corollaries of the main theorem
...
LZ
Da: Esi <esi1mohseni2(at)hotmail.com>
A: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Inviato: Mer 18 novembre 2009, 21:02:18
Oggetto: 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?
Regards
Hamid
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
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