"Robert F. Tatman" wrote:
>
> As a Quaker and a longtime activist in the movement for peace and social
> justice, I have a lot of experience with decision-making by consensus, in
> sometimes very large groups (1000+). It *is* possible to make decisions this
> way, but it takes a loooong time, and the nature of the decision is often
> determined by who has the harder butt. Decision-making by consensus is also
> highly susceptible to manipulation by a controlling minority. I've seen
> *that* happen both among Quakers and among leftists committed to
> "participatory democracy." (LaRouche's Labor Committee people were VERY good
> at hogtieing groups until they were the only people left awake.)
>
> BUT: when decision-making by consensus works, it works very well indeed,
> precisely because there is no disgruntled minority; everyone owns the
> decision, everyone has bought into the decision, everyone defends and
> promotes the decision.
This is true. I too have worked within a political framework of consensus
and found it to be tedious but workable. This does not mean however that it
would be at all usefull as a national political system in a country of 175
million of which about half were eligable to vote.
I personally see direct democracy as being more workable, but only to be used
for major issues. Otherwise representative democracy will do, but only if the
representative can be fired on the spot at any time by a majority of his/her
constituents, and his/her last vote be considered null and void.
Furthermore, ONLY an elected official's constituants will determine the
official's salary.
Just thoughts,
J2
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nurev Ind Research" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2000 9:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [CTRL] Big Bizness Wants YOU to Vote
>
> > nessie wrote:
> > >
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED],Internet writes:
> > > >> You may be right, but if your saying there is no democratic solution,
> > > >> who should rule?
> > >
> > > Nobody. Everybody.
> > >
> > > Everybody should directly participate in any decision that impacts their
> > > life. We need to, learn to consense before we act.
> >
> > Have YOU ever been in a situation where important decisions need to be
> made
> > by consensus? Consensus is not possible in large groups.
> >
> > J2
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths,
misdirections
and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and
minor
effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said,
CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
<A HREF="http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
