From: | "Jim Powell" <autoinfo(at)acenet.co.za> |
---|---|
Date: | Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:02:06 +0200 |
Subject: | RE: [WDDM] Democracy and Direct Democracy |
Politicians are the employees of the voters. Use this as the founding principle. Voters decide which politician gets employed and voters pay the salaries through taxes. Implementing Referendum and Initiative will give the power to the voters. The voters will then decide what is best for them. Consider that each municipality, province or country is a company. Each voter owns a share in the company and as such can call for a decision by the shareholders (referendum and initiative) or change the directors (recall recall of politicians) WDDM has become a discussion forum where we exchange ideas to educate each other. It is very effective at this With a democratic type organisation, do not expect consensus. It is the principle of the voter being in charge of the politician that must be focussed upon We are mostly preaching to the converted in WDDM I would like a discussion of changing the system from within. Set up a Direct Democracy organisation where the members will openly join political parties, NGOs and community organisations to educate people on the principles of Direct Democracy. It is either that or a revolution. I prefer discussion and education It would help if each contributor would state their city and country as this would assist in understanding their political environment Regards Jim Powell Johannesburg, South Africa From: Joseph Hammer
[parrhesiajoe(at)gmail.com] If I write the term 'Liberal' in my Mises institute contributions, it means "Classic Liberal". If I write for the NYT, (Which they never publish) I understand that their readers will associate it with the Democratic Party and socialism. It doesn't matter what I think they should mean, but it does matter that when I say "Liberal" at Mises.org, I won't be misunderstood by other serious contributors. If we define direct democracy as "A form of government that involves SOME popular control", then I will simply use another term to get my meaning across. I will say, "Non-representative system" or "Popular legislative creation" to mean the same thing that I use the term "direct democracy" to mean at Mises.org. A project vernacular is important, regardless of our individual opinions on the meaning. We build a glossary of terms, and when a new contributor shows up, we point them there. We say, "What you are calling 'direct democracy', we refer to as 'popular legislation'... please see our glossary (link). I think that is why you were confused about the post.
I was confused about the goals of WDDM for a couple weeks after I started contributing. I didn't know whether it was a group fighting for direct popular law creation, or representation under different election rules. I must admit, I'm still a LITTLE unclear. I think that is because of a lack of consensus. One part of that lack is the confusion over terminology. If you define something in a way that I disagree with, I will just use a new term for it, and suggest if for our glossary. Do we have a glossary? I hate to flout credentials (mostly because I don't have many), but I did work designing Microsoft Project for 7 years. The title of my one patent is "Method and system for providing cross project commitments" (They'll give a patent to anyone these days). A discussion about whether terms need to be defined on a large project would be regarded as silly in the business world. It is just good sense. It is good in theory, and it is good in practice. Not doing it incurs great pains. A glossary is one of the first things a project settles on. It is typically in each business plan and specification, or it is considered incomplete. Every contract defines its terms, either by referencing a predefined set, or defining them inline in the document. We don't have to define them well, but we have to define them. In project, we would first look for the most commonly accepted form of a word, and then decide if that term was useful to us. We were always hesitant to change a word from its commonly understood meaning, because there are REAL costs in retraining people to contribute to a discussion. For a group this size, my old boss Keshav would have said, "Just decide to use the first definition in wikipedia or the regular dictionary. If anyone doesn't like it, tell 'em, TOUGH. If you need anything else, make up new words". I like "Snerk"... I'm not sure what it means yet, but it's going into my next glossary. Anyhoo, I gotta go learn more Silverlight RIA... I'm just addicted to this stuff... Truth. Parrhesia On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 8:56 PM, <Antonio Rossin> wrote: Hi Dave, and all,
It's always the same type of argument isn't it, Symantec's. In a true or real direct democracy we would be electing new ideas not new leaders, governors, with no idea. This talk of fair governance is not change. Governments are not and never will be capable of solving humane social problems. Governments make their living off of problems. They only treat the disease they don't seek to cure it. That's why we have some 60,000 laws on the books and more being written every year. That's also why we have more police, cameras on every corner, luggage searches and road checks on the rise and burgeoning prison systems. A starving mother that steals to feed her children is not a criminal but we toss her in prison and her children bounce around deviant foster homes until they turn to crime In a real direct democracy there would be no "government". There would be a central database. There would be plant and systems managers. Resource and product managers. They wouldn't be dynasties. We would get rid of the nonsense that you are born to earn a living to pay taxes to support government employees at a higher standard of living than those they are supposed to serve and work for. They would be rotating positions that you would apply for, not have special interests buy your votes and then get you to do what they want in the face of all the promises and lies. New ideas would include automation of key services to provide food, water, clothing, shelter and utilities to raise the 2 billion plus that go without electricity and are starving to death as I type this to a higher standard of living. While it's not possible to raise everyone to the standard of waste and abuse we have grown used to in the developed world we could give up the four car garage, heated pool, air conditioned cabin in the hills and closets full of shoes until everyone at least has electricity, food, clean water, clothes and a habitable dwelling. Everything needed for this is already in place and available. Sensors, surveys, data galore on every aspect of resources and production. Housing, transportation and the know how to get it all done are ready and waiting. All that is missing is the will. People have been saying this for generations. I remember R. Buckminster Fuller in the 70's, when I was much younger, saying these exact same things. Has anyone in here ever seen his 42 hour lecture titled Everything I know? He wasn't the first and he won't be the last. I saw a lecture by Peter Joseph in Iowa last month where he was saying these exact same things in almost the same way. You may have heard of him, he's part of that Zeitgeist movement. It's sad to think that greed will win the day. We are nearly a global police state. Journalists like Daniel Pearl & Gary Webb die for bringing us the truth while war criminals go on speaking engagements and book signing tours. They don't even write their own material, it's a patristic hero worship farce. If any in here think we aren't lied to daily and spit upon by government and the media I feel sorry for your ignorance. Just look at the global warming scam. Billions of dollars poured into it with no return. Some people got to go on nice holidays to exotic locations and stay in air conditioned resorts while people starved to death just miles away. You see climate gate now? The whistleblower/hacker that released those thousands of emails from the brains of the anthropomorphic global warming machine? Clear evidence of lying, manufacturing data to fit their theory, covering up data that didn't fit, harassing skeptics and causing them their careers, funding and any opportunity to publish articles for peer review. You see now people are calling for Al Gore to lose his Oscar, not only for the bad science and data they claim to have lost but for the movie itself. You know those spectacular scenes of huge chunks of ice breaking off and falling into the ocean? CGI, fake, no such place or events ever occurred, fake fake fake. They showed that lie to school children around the world repeatedly. My son saw it 3 times in his senior year and a friend of his saw it 6 times. I think deep down they still believe it. Did your children watch it in school? This brings me to my final point. If it's government approved it can and will kill you. If you know of something government approved that isn't harmful do let me know. Oh ya, kids can buy beer on nearly every street corner but they go to prison for growing and smoking a joint in the privacy of their own home. This is what we call civilization. I'm out and headed back to the hills but I had to reply. We all want to live in peace but there is never going to be peace with open competition hence warfare for the greatest market share. Who wants to defend their idea of DD? Are you willing to kill to be the one chosen? Chosen by whom? Our current "Leaders/Rulers/Owners" We don't need leaders and governors, we need thinkers and doers, people of means to create the database, server farm and software management then promote it globally. Start bypassing government. What's their choice? Capitulate or bomb the facility, spread propaganda and try to subvert it, expose themselves for what they are? People seem to think this is all new but as I mentioned others have said the same things long before me. End the struggle for money, incentive accusation reward, hence poverty and free us from our slavery. We could be so much more than bickering, penny pinching misers chiseling off each other for the money to pay our Lord's taxes. Speaking off Lords can imagine the resistance from the religious community in doing away with money? Why how would they tithe? This is the work of the devil I say, hang those heretics. I leave you with that thought. http://members.shaw.ca/davefparker/ Cheers. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Joseph Hammer Sent: December 8, 2009 11:48 PM To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net Subject: RE: [WDDM] Democracy and Direct Democracy I didn't mean to derail discussion. I believe it fully appropriate for WDDM to define its terminology. We shouldn't force our meanings on others in common conversation. If someone uses the term 'liberal' in casual conversation, for example, there is always the desire for someone to say, "Classically, the term 'liberal' means quite the opposite." However, in the context of "Getting things done", we must have a rigid vernacular to avoid confusion. This is only in the context of a project, which I feel WDDM is, and so a definition for "Direct Democracy" in the CONTEXT of WDDM is very important. Otherwise, we will talk past each other. For this and other terms, it is appropriate to find the most useful definition for detailed examination of the topic... in this case, governing systems. A system that is called "Direct Democracy" is more consistent if it is a type of "Democracy", which is also defined in the context of WDDM. If we define the two in our "Glossary of Terms", we may say... perhaps it doesn't agree with your definition, but this is what it means when we speak of it HERE. I kinda like the Wikipedia definition, but that is beside the point. It is important to define terms if we want to engage in meaningful discussion using those terms, which I feel WDDM has been productively seeking to do, and accomplishing. I applaud the process. My original post wasn't aimed at "Direct Democracy", but it's more abstract parent, "Democracy". At the end of the day, how you define "Direct Democracy" will determine whether I am in favor of it or not, but not whether you have chosen the "Right" definition. If it is a useful definition, it is good enough use in discussion. Powuh to the people :) Parrhesia. -----Original Message----- From: Esi Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 10:34 AM To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net Subject: Re: [WDDM] Democracy and Direct Democracy I agree. Take care -------------------------------------------------- From: "Antonio Rossin" <rossin(at)tin.it> 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: ofIt 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 <mailto:parrhesiajoe(at)gmail.com> *Sent:* Thursday, December 03, 2009 5:33 AM *To:* wddm@world-wide-democracy.net 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 <mailto:rossin(at)tin.it>> wrote: Hi, some comments of mine inside Lata Gouveia wrote, in reply to Parrhesia:my comments below ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Joseph Hammer <parrhesiajoe(at)gmail.com> <mailto:parrhesiajoe(at)gmail.com> *To:* wddm@world-wide-democracy.net 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, antonioOur 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. |