At 02:11 PM 11/25/98 -1300, pete wrote:
>It seems to me you (Eva) have been advocating a society with cooperative
>ownership - a variety of democratic socialism - along with large
>amounts of direct democracy. The problem is there is no guarantee
>that large amounts of direct democracy will necessarily result in
>the society you envision.
What do we have to lose???
What guarantee do we have now (that the rich get richer and the poor get
poorer -- what else?)
>It is by no means clear that letting
>people participate in the day to day decisions of government
>directly will result in enlightened policy. Not that it might
>be any worse than what we have now,
Oh good, you have seen the light!
>but it might certainly go
>in a completely different direction than you expect.
that could even be interesting
If only the comfortable majority could see that the screwing they are
getting might NOT be worse than the screwing they are going to get if we
keep going in this direction.
There are circumstances where risk is preferable to apparent safety.
Perhaps Tom Walker could run a spreadsheet on the likely behaviour of the
middkle class if their salaries were cut in half
"but it might certainly go in a completely different direction than you
expect"
How about it Tom?
>Remember,
>half the population are of below average intelligence,
Intelligence has little to do with it, nor, do I believe, does education in
the conventional sense
I was a factory manager for 25 years
I heard as much common sense on the shop floor (toilet cleaning personnel
seemed to have particular insight into the foibles of the human condition),
than in the boardroom.
And I heard more horseshit from Presidents than from any other single
occupational category (even more than from sales managers)
Just 1 man's experience.
A poll is not a referendum
>and there
>is a reason why the word "demagogue" is in our vocabulary.
I do not get the connection.
I certainly do not advocate demagoguery, not does direct democracy seem to
encourage it in any way
Colin
> -PV
