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

02448: Re: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree

From: "Esi" <esi1mohseni2(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:10:02 +0100
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree

Thank you

See my view below:

Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 9:51 PM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree

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.
As I understand you can not state, DD does not exist if you don´t have any definition for it.
I don´t understand neither how you can say it is not required if you don´t have any definition for it and even if you have some sence for what it is for whom 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.
As I understand of what Jim Powel wrote before DD exist in Swiss. I myself have not enough knowledge about Swiss to have some opinion about it. Anyhow if DD exist in Swiss or not
is a case of what you define the DD concept. For me it does not matter what you define DD or if it exist in Swiss or not. What is important for me to support real democracies which
means people get the real control over the common laws and decision making system in societies they are living in. If this is achieved in Swiss, good for them and I hope more progress
for them but I am not attendig to imitate what is going on in Swiss or any other countries blindly. I strive to give people their right to affect and control common rules, laws and decisions
in societies they are living in.

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.

I am interested to study it when I get time. Can I find any articles about it in itenrnet and in this case where?
 
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.
Would you please explain more?

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 ...
 
Fortunately consensus on many issues does not affect everybody and when it does not always negatively. Therefore we can most of the time find consensus for limited number of individuals
and places if democracy works as it is supposed to do. Anyhow unfortunately I guess you are right about what is happening in EU and this is one of the motivations to get rid of illegal
representant politicians (politicians who has got the power by using force, deceiving and desinformation of voters by media and in school institutions.
 
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 ...
I think you are right.

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" ...
Fortunately modern communication technology has removed many filters installed by elites and illeagl politican representants. An example is revealing of Alcaida declaration lies made by
politicians and their media to explain 11th September catastrophy. Anyhow these filters and selective information by elites is another motivation to change and develop political system.

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 ...
 
The Swiss complain DD slows down and make many thing impossible is something that wory me too for realizing the real democracy but I think there must be ways to make fast decisions
when necessary. Prabably we should have rules and methods to make fast and temporary solutions to problems when necessary, similar to the way human body reacts to accidents (usually
in urgent situations our body reacts spontaneously and out of our control in decided ways).

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 ...
It is not an easy challenge to change the dictatorships and false democracies to real ones, but I am afraid we are forced to fight for it by all means if we like to save humanity and survive.
It is a solace that those who are deceived of dictators to help them are also humans, not totally isolated from the rest of society and have advantages of a democracy whorth its name.
We have seen many times in history that these deceived people has stopped to support dictators when they get unfiltered information and get aware about advantages of a better political
system.

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/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 . 

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


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