From: | "Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan" <vijayaraghavan.p(at)rediffmail.com> |
---|---|
Date: | 24 Nov 2009 02:18:19 -0000 |
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 ideaWe 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 ZampettiSent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 11:38 AMTo: wddm@world-wide-democracy.netSubject: 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 alternative51% majority or other 'democratic' but not consensus-pursuing systemsWho 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 otherexamplesyou 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 <dnevrghm(at)powerup.com.au> wrote:
Yes, Bruce, I miswrote sociography for sociocracy
.
.
.