Subject: Re: [WDDM] Democracy and Direct Democracy
I agree.
Take care
--------------------------------------------------
From:
Antonio Rossin
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 4:24 PM
To: <wddm@world-wide-democracy.net>
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Democracy and Direct Democracy
> Hi,
>
> IMHO, it would become reductive and un-democratic if
> everybody were banned from having his-her own definition
> of Direct Democracy.
>
> Let's accept that Direct Democracy means Direct Democracy
> and that's enough.
>
> Also, my target is suggesting the concerned people (women,
> men and children) a free room where they can express their
> own proposals and policies from their territory grassroots
> bottom-up, without intruding the room of their neighboors
> except in the virtual world only.
>
> (of course, a common room cannot but be virtual, first of all).
>
>
> Regards,
>
> antonio
>
>
> Esi wrote: of
>> It is confusing if everybody has his own definition of Direct democracy.
>> I suggest we accept official definitions like Wikpedia´s.
>> Refers to definition of Direct democracy in Wikpedia,
>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy.
>> Definitions are important but the target is more important.
>> My target is finding and realizing efficient and well working political
>> sytem accepted almost by all society members as soon as possible.
>> Regards
>> Hamid
>>
>> *From:*
Joseph Hammer
>> *Sent:* Thursday, December 03, 2009 5:33 AM
>> *To:* wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
>> *Subject:* Re: [WDDM] Democracy and Direct Democracy
>>
>> Always a pleasure to read your responses, Antonio.
>> Dream. Act.
>> Parrhesia.
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 1:39 AM, Antonio Rossin <
rossin(at)tin.it> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> some comments of mine inside
>>
>>
>>
>> Lata Gouveia wrote, in reply to Parrhesia:
>>> my comments below
>>>
>>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *From:*
Joseph Hammer
>>> *To:* wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
>>> *Sent:* Tue, 1 December, 2009 6:44:24
>>> *Subject:* [WDDM] Democracy and Direct Democracy
>>>
>>> It is good to define terms precisely, and I believe it is
>>> required for an intelligent debate on a topic. I have seen a lot
>>> of time spent on the definition of “Direct Democracy” and it
>>> gives me pause.
>>>
>>>
>>> While direct popular consent is the manner of law formation that
>>> I would personally elect, that is only half of the term… DIRECT.
>>> The other half is the choice… the democracy portion.
>>>
>>>
>>> The power of democracy is in the idea that the form of government
>>> that gains the support of the greatest proportion of a society
>>> will be the best form of government for that society. In other
>>> words, a form of government that is supported by 80% of the
>>> people will be more prosperous than one that is supported by 60%
>>> of the people.
>>>
>>>
>>> (No. The concept of democracy is not so much related to
>>> effectiveness as it is with fairness. It will always be possible
>>> that a Dictator makes BETTER decisions... but dictatorship is
>>> unfair. Again, prosperity has nothing to do with the concept,
>>> other than prosperity is something the majority of people seek
>>> and which should, therefore, be a democratic outcome. However
>>> should does not always make it so )
>>>
>> (ant)
>> Right - but this looks like a false problem. Indeed, if the local
>> policies of a collective arrangement (democracy included) were
>> really and fairly originated by the local responsible inhabitants
>> grassroots bottom-up, these policies will not fail to be the best
>> prosperous decisions in that space-time. Here the key-word is
>> responsibility, meant as well-acknowledged freedom from demagogues
>> and serenity of judgement.
>>
>>>
>>> Democracy is the key here… not direct democracy or representative
>>> democracy or socialist democracy. If the people choose it, it
>>> will be the best government for them. If you do not believe this,
>>> then you are using the word, “Democracy” to claim that if the
>>> people like your system better, it is somehow worthy of the word.
>>> It is NOT.
>>>
>>> Oh yes... but people will democratically choose a form of
>>> dictatorship.... You can't tell them "You can choose whatever you
>>> want" and then when they turn around and say "We choose Adolf
>>> Hitler" say... "well... except for that".
>>>
>>>
>>> Designing a true democracy requires that these decisions be made
>>> by those subject to the jurisdiction of the new government… the
>>> people themselves.
>>>
>>>
>>> ...and they will decide whichever option demands the lowest level
>>> of personal commitment... like... humm... representation....
>>> (whilst maintaining that they want to have a say all along)
>>>
>>>
>>> Democracy… choice… must be the centerpiece of any new government
>>> that we hope to form. If we do not let the people CHOOSE whether
>>> they prefer representation, partial representation, random
>>> representation or NO representation, then we are not being true
>>> to our principals… if we claim democracy to be among them.
>>>
>>>
>>> Democracy is not the same as choice so I hope you meant
>>> "Democracy AND choice". I though you said it was good to "to
>>> define terms precisely".
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree with the rest of the argument. This is like saying that a
>>> Constitution should be drafted by the people, democratically.
>>> Good idea...but do you realize how hard it is to get people to
>>> participate in the political process? I'm sure you do. This is
>>> what I run into again and again... and again. Almost like a law
>>> of nature, the vast majority of people DON'T WANT to participate
>>> in the political process, they want someone to govern them. They
>>> want to spend their time doing whatever else it is they do. The
>>> fact that most of them would not admit to this (to being sheep)
>>> does not change their behaviour. Of couse if you ask them they'll
>>> say they want democracy and they want to have a say, etc, etc.
>>> But their behaviour is mostly passive and subordinate to the
>>> cults of personality and partisanship, peer pressure and keeping
>>> up with the Jones'. That's why we're still just a handfull of
>>> geeks discussing this in a "World Wide" forum that could fit in
>>> my flat. Nobody in mainstream society, mainstream media or even
>>> specialised media knows about the "World Wide Movement for Direct
>>> Democracy". This is the evidence of what our REAL obstacle is. If
>>> you had a picture of a naked woman on the home page, the
>>> membership would be 10 times what it is today.
>>>
>>
>> (ant)
>> Indeed. This is no false problem...
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Like our descendants, we are blinded by our vanity in thinking
>>> that we can design a government as a whole and demand a vote on
>>> this imperfect beast. The ideal democracy must be designed by the
>>> people… not voted on as a single entity, but elected, piece by
>>> piece, according to the preferences of the individuals.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think you meant "ancestors" and... yes, perhaps it is vanity
>>> that drives us to design alternative models which are,
>>> inevitably, imperfect, but I don't think so. I don't believe it
>>> was vanity that drove Charles Darwin or any scientist working
>>> towards finding solutions. Politics is, in a way, a science and
>>> democracy (the real kind) is like a solution but we don't even
>>> have lab mice to try it on.
>>>
>>
>> (ant)
>> We have ourselves, with lots of biases banning ourselves from
>> "serenity of judgement",
>> encompassing judgements for what democracy should be.
>> Therefore, we are unable to speak fairly of "fair democracy" (the
>> real kind) until we still suffer from biases. Traditional
>> scientists of politics cannot help so much, if it is true that the
>> same Einstein once said: "To break an atom is easier than to break
>> a bias."
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Still. again, I like the concept of what you are proposing, but,
>>> who's going to organize the very 1st action? Is there a deadline
>>> for the process of initiative that would, supposedly, kick start
>>> this Constitutional drafting procedure? What do you do about the
>>> vast majority which will choose to abstain from participating? If
>>> you ignore them (like we do in the current systems) will it not
>>> be a Constitution drafted by a minority of geeks like us? Or do
>>> you make participation compulsory? Who makes it compulsory? You
>>> see? It's a chicken and egg thing. A leaderless and equal society
>>> is something I would literally die for. But every single day life
>>> shows me that we have leaders because we want to have them, not
>>> because they impose themselves upon us and we are anything but
>>> equal. The process seems irreversible to me.
>>>
>>
>> (ant)
>> Why, irreversible? I don't think so. Before being able to say
>> that a process cannot be reversed, you must know how it has
>> been... versed. In this case, the questioned process should be
>> the "installing (top-down led) biases in one's mind" educational
>> procedure. If you (know and) reversed that procedure, the problem
>> is solved.
>>
>>>
>>> Like Antonio often explains, people would have to prepare for
>>> democracy before democracy can be. Our indocrination systems (we
>>> call them education systems) would have to totally change and we
>>> would have to wait for that generation to grow up and take the
>>> reigns of a democratic government. In the past, full employment
>>> was the golden concept. In the future we will realise that,
>>> without full PARTICIPATION, true democracy is impossible.
>>>
>>
>> (ant)
>>
>> I read, in someone's signature: "Educate your child, and you'll
>> educate yourself"
>> and have no further coments to the remaining debate
>>
>> cheers,
>> antonio
>>
>>>
>>> Our current legal system shows that big sets of rules that get
>>> passed as one unit are polluted with a myriad of riders designed
>>> to gain the support of special interests. A constitution is no
>>> different. If it is designed as one big chunk, we will have to
>>> make “compromises” to enlist the support of certain groups, and
>>> it will taint our new government.
>>>
>>>
>>> If we define direct democracy as having no representatives, then
>>> we have a solid new term to use in our debate (what other
>>> definition could there be?). This is great, but if we are
>>> championing the form of government as the “best” without
>>> consulting the people who must be subject to it, then the term
>>> democracy is not appropriate to it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Again, I don't think most of us are saying it is "the best". We
>>> have no proof of that. I think what frustrates most of us is that
>>> it never was, we don't know if it's the best or even good. It was
>>> never given a chance. It seems to me like it would be the
>>> fairest, the most evolved system of government, sure, but Direct
>>> democracy has to be tested in many different incarnations (with
>>> and without weighted voting, with and without compulsory
>>> participation, with and without universal initiative provisions,
>>> etc) before we can assess its effectiveness....
>>>
>>>
>>> But what percentage of the population is interested in such
>>> experiments? As long as people have reasonable standards of
>>> living they will (the majority) choose to spend their time doing
>>> anything else, it doesn't matter what, just NOT this. The only
>>> situation that can reverse that is if people are in a desperate
>>> and immediate struggle to survive. We spend Billions supposedly
>>> bringing "democracy" to former dictatorships and we can't even be
>>> bothered to participate in our own. I'd like to think it's
>>> because it's NOT really a democracy and our desillusinment with
>>> it is what causes the low turnouts. But this is not the truth.
>>>
>>>
>>> Look at reality. Look at the free choices people make, as
>>> consumers, as parents, etc. How far down their list of priorities
>>> is something like "Constitutional reform"? How many adults with
>>> serious careers, children, the whole nine yards have I met who
>>> told me to my face that they don't have any interest in politics,
>>> don't know the first thing about it, don't want to know and can
>>> we change the subject please... although the last month of last
>>> year's Presidential campaign was quite exciting... seeing all
>>> those people in Chicago was almost as good as watching Pop Idol.
>>> I'm not making any of this up. This is the average Western
>>> citizen, not some trailer park example. This apathy is the
>>> biggest obstacle to any of the ideas put forward in this forum.
>>>
>>>
>>> To be a direct DEMOCRACY, it must be both DIRECT and CHOSEN by
>>> the people.
>>>
>>>
>>> The best use of all the research that is being done here is to
>>> inform the public when they decide for themselves what course
>>> they wish to pursue. No one can predict what that will be, and
>>> the assumption that the best government can be guessed is pure
>>> hubris.
>>>
>>>
>>> I can predict that if you phone people and ask them, the majority
>>> will tell you they are not interested in taking part in your
>>> "survey" or whatever you're selling.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have gotten a lot more positive response from, “Would you like
>>> to choose for yourself?” than “Would you like to switch to
>>> [Insert form of government here]?”
>>>
>>> Well, of course you have!!! Did you expect people to SAY "No, I
>>> prefer not to choose for myself, I am a sheep and I know it." ?
>>>
>>> How can you draw any conclusions from that? How many of the
>>> people who SAID they would prefer to choose for themselves would
>>> even cross the street, IN ORDER to make those choices? Just like
>>> anything in life, talk is cheap. They won't lift a finger to make
>>> it happen.
>>>
>>>
>>> Democracy must be the goal. It has never been tried. Not really.
>>>
>>>
>>> Fully agree. Please forgive my negativity. I have faith in the
>>> concept of democracy. It's Western people I'm not so sure about.
>>> I think that an alternative democratic experiment would be very
>>> popular in North Korea, China or Cuba... but it would not be
>>> allowed.
>>>
>>>
>>> Think BIG,
>>>
>>> Parrhesia
>>>
>>>
>>> PS… something to think on.
>>>
>>> What a fine example of leadership you're giving us below. Don't
>>> worry, I've been accused of the same myself.
>>>
>>> My point is that it will always take instigators, leaders,
>>> motivators...like you.
>>>
>>>
>>> Welcome to Democracy
>>>
>>> In each step, you will be
>>> choosing what role you wish government to play in your everyday
>>> life. Vote according to your preferences. In each step, there
>>> will be content and guidance provided by the organizations you
>>> have selected.
>>>
>>> You have selected: WDDM and The
>>> Mises Institute as your scholars. (Choose more /here/ if you wish)
>>>
>>> If these organizations provide
>>> video, text or other media for each decision, they will be made
>>> available at the appropriate times. You will also see the
>>> recommended choices of these scholars next to the options
>>> themselves.
>>>
>>>
>>> Would you support
>>>
>>> (choose all that
>>> apply)
>>>
>>> X _ _ Anarchy,
>>> the complete absence of a compelling body of government.
>>>
>>> X X X A system of
>>> government.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You chose a system of government.
>>> In proceeding, you may elect to make each decision
>>>
>>> How
>>>
>>> X X X Cooperate
>>> to design a democratic government from the ground up according to
>>> the preferences of society.
>>>
>>> _ _ _ A new
>>> government designed by random representatives
>>>
>>> _ _ _ The current
>>> government, in its existing form
>>>
>>> _ _ _The current
>>> government, with some changes.
>>>
>>> (This will preset all of the choices to the values currently
>>>
>>> established by our government, which you can change)
>>>
>>>
>>> Would you support
>>>
>>> (choose all that apply)
>>>
>>> Completely
>>> Representative Government
>>>
>>> X X X
>>> Non-representative government
>>>
>>> X X X Mixed
>>> government
>>>
>>>
>>> For representation, do you prefer
>>> your representatives to
>>>
>>> (choose all that apply)
>>>
>>> _ _ X Pass
>>> binding laws (on areas you select)
>>>
>>> _ _ X Make
>>> non-binding suggestions (on areas you select)
>>>
>>> X _ X A Mix of
>>> the two
>>>
>>>
>>> You said you would supported a
>>> government with mixed representation. What areas and what powers
>>> would you assign
>>>
>>> None Suggestion
>>> (NSB)
>>>
>>> N N N Military
>>>
>>> N NS N Banking
>>>
>>> NSB NS S Trade
>>>
>>> …
>>>
>>>
>>> Etcetera… you get the idea. From the decisions of the governed
>>> emerges real democracy… as socialist or free as the people wish.
>>> Do not attach freedom to democracy… do not attach capitalism or
>>> socialism or any other ism to it… make it the pure _expression_ of
>>> the public will and it will be beautiful>>>
>>>
>>> Beautiful. Accept no less.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>