Dear Kieth:
I agree A new way to do democracy is sorely needed.
As Noam Chomsky said in his book, "Manufacturing Consent" the major problem
is that no NGO exists that is organized on the same basisas electoral areas.
In Japan, if memory serves from reading Charles Handy's book "Age of
Paradox", they have what is called "jichikai". That is, an area about the
size of a riding poll (150 - 350 electors) elects for two years a
representaive who acts as none partisan go between for all matters
political. The representative either gets satisfactory answers or action,
or the elected legislator/administrator politician is cast out next election.
==========
Regarding the question of fuel prices, the answer may lie in applying to
passenger vehicle ownership licenses the same criteria as currently applied
to taxi ownersip licenses. Allow only an increase in the number of licenses
as a % of population increase. To inhibit a Mosenee licensee from residence
in TO, the license could be designated for certain FAS's only. (An FSA is
the first 3 digets of our CA postal code, about 30,000 people. Equvialent
to the 5 number US PC?)
That would assuredly create a market for licenses but it would buy time for
the increase in housing density to facilitate public transit. The money
saved from building roads could go to the transit's capital budget.
Certainly in southern ON some of our best farmland is being paved and
housed and "lawned.".
The solution may leave few oxes gored, only neutered..
In ther matter of referendums, to bad even most journalists do not know the
difference berween a plebiscite and a referendum. while both refer to the
people, one binds, the other advises.
Regards
Ed G
At 08:22 PM 27/09/2000 +0100, you wrote:
>Arthur,
>
>At 09:31 26/09/00 -0400, you wrote:
>>The debate over high fuel prices doesn't give one much confidence on how we
>>will deal with
>>a. future shortages, as we really begin to run down reserves
>>b. cutting back to deal with global warming.
>>
>>As Keith said, some sort of rationing will be necessary. How in a
>>consumerist democracy will this come about? What politician will commit
>>political suicide to trade off present pleasure for future gains, except in
>>times of national emergency? And if its a true national emergency, won't it
>>indicate that we have left things go to far?
>
>You ask: 'How in a consumerist democracy will this come about?' Quite
>simply, the answer lies in a fundamental change in our political system.
>
>Our present type of party system developed historically when there were
>relatively few serious issues at any one time. And for each one of these
>issues there was usually a clear Yes or No involved. A good example from
>English history is the issue of the Corn Laws (protective tariffs against
>cheaper grain for the working man). According to their interests, everybody
>lined up unambiguously on one side or the other. So, in most developed
>countries we arrived at a fairly simple adversarial situation with usually
>two main parties, even in those countries with proportional voting. The
>result of this is that, because we now have a multitide of complex modern
>problems, the elections manifestos of each of the main parties has a huge
>plank of policies which is hoped to be popular with nary a policy which
>might bring bad news.
>
>But the electorate is quite capable of deciding on difficult issues if the
>relevant information is presented to them. For example, in one US State
>(I've forgotten which), the public were able to decide on an extremely
>difficult problem: the prioritisation of different types of hospital
>treatment in the public health services. In England, the issue of
>prioritisation usually occurs behind closed doors by "experts". The result?
>Repeated controversies and huge disparities in treatment between one part
>of the country and another.
>
>As mentioned before, every single thoughtful motorist in England knows full
>well that we can't keep on building roads for ever unless we want to detroy
>the countryside completely, that the petrol/diesel-driven car/lorry is
>enormously polluting, that new forms of transportation must be developed in
>the next decade or two, and so on and so on. Yet every time a government of
>whatever political party tries to suggest one remedy or another, such as
>high fuel taxes, toll roads, etc, etc. it meets with a storm of protest
>which paralyses legislation.
>
>When will politicians learn that the way to answer this and other similar
>problems is to lay out all the information that's potentially available in
>order to stimulate real public discussion, and then to call a referendum as
>to the various alternative solutions that have emerged? This is the true
>form of democracy in the modern complex age.
>
>But no! Present-day politicians (with complacent civil services quietly
>supporting them) do not want to jettison their present comfortable
>institutions, perks and jobs, such as our dinosauric House of Commons (and,
>for a considerable number of MPs during the summer, foreign "study" trips
>to exotic places).
>
>Yes, the answer is quite simple: we need new types of specialised forums,
>with subsequent referenda on issues, not elections of parties which seek to
>be popular with every item on their agendas. Unfortunately, human
>institutions take generations to adapt to new conditions and I fear it will
>be the same in modern times -- issues will be decided by crises and rather
>crude outbursts by the public instead of by informed debate. In the case of
>fuel tax protests in England, Wales and Scotland a couple of weeks ago, the
>whole country came to within a day of grinding completely to a halt except
>for emergency services. In the case of Mad Cow Disease, information was
>smothered for several years by the civil services and politicians, and
>nothing was done until people actually started dying in the most
>distressing way it is possible to imagine.
>
>Keith Hudson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>Arthur Cordell
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>Sent: September 25, 2000 4:27 PM
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: Re: Price or policy?
>>
>>
>>Keith Hudson wrote:
>>> The main problem (at least in the UK) is that no-one has an accurate idea
>>> of what are the costs of different transport and energy systems.
>>
>>This is an excuse for continuing to do nothing. What *is* known is that
>>the costs of the *present* transport and energy systems (fossil fuels)
>>are MUCH HIGHER than what consumers are paying for fuels today. Adjust
>>the fuel prices to the actual costs (environmental, public health and
>>infrastructure damages) *first*, and then talk about the costs of
>>alternatives.
>>
>>Anyway, due to the catastrophic effects of CO2 on the global climate,
>>phasing out fossil fuels would be necessary even *before* the last
>>reserves are consumed.
>>
>>In this context it is terribly ironic that Mr. "Earth in the Balance"
>>(Al Gore) is advocating to deplete the U.S. Strategic Oil Reserve
>>in order to lower oil prices.
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
