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:
From: Luca Zampetti
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
From: Luca Zampetti
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
From: Luca Zampetti
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. |