Hi Ian
I like the idea of nested representation for a democracy.
Where we form groups of 25 and from that pick one
representative who then form another 25 at the next level
and pick another single representative. With eight levels
you can form a UK parliament and have immediate recall
and change of the representatives if the lower levels make
the call. And by picking a rep you may improve the
quality.
DM
Chris, most of what you say is pragmatic / common-sense, so I won't be
disagreeing - though you'll have to come back further on the "Nordic
model".
The pragmatic problem I have is that you cannot say simply that "the
first step" is to lift the masses. I mean, you're not suggesting we
put democratic freedoms on hold until we (someone) considers the
masses have been lifted are you ? This is my point about (cough)
"intellectual elite". To put it bluntly - who decides when the
opinions of the masses are intellectual enough to be given the freedom
of more opportunity to choose / decide ?
"Broad support" is a nice euphemism for "I / we'll decide" - and you
don't mean one individual / one vote democracy on every individual
decision.
Education, education, education - someone once said - so no argument
about education as the priority. So education has to be an important
"part of the system".
The question is what system ?
Clue - the answer is not "no system" nor is it "place the world on
hold until we have the perfect system". Choosing what makes for a
better system, not simply choosing between least-worst existing
systems, I say. What is good ? someone asked.
Sorry to jump on you Chris - but this is THE debate I want to have.
(All others are subsidiary to this one.)
Ian
On 7/30/08, Christoffer Ivarsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Grateful for your input Ian, and I see and agree with your points.
I believe the answer lies in education, and generally raising the
standard
of living of the population in general. I mean, if a democracy is to work
properly (the way we want it to work =) we need to make sure that people
are
generally more guided by the intellectual level. I believe that is step
one.
Moreover, I believe in the potential of the Nordic Model to regain it's
former strength and continue to serve Quality. Because the most important
aspect of that is that you have a general movement towards giving people
equal opportunities - and it had, and still has really - a broad
support,
it is built for the people by the people.
So if the leaders of this movement can regain their strength (or really
be
replaced) and get the whole thing going again I think we are on the road
to
a Quality serving society.
So, the first step is to "lift the masses" so to speak, and create a more
equal and more educated society, and this is being done.
This was a short answer, I think I'll have to return again to clarify,
but
have to go now, but you could give me a general input if you whish
Regards
Chris
> Gad you started this thread Chris,
>
> I've tried many times before. I start from the position "Democracy is
> the worst from of governance, except for all the others." So our
> (worthwhile) task is to see what "kind of" free-democracy would be an
> improvement (from a MoQist perspective).
>
> The debate always founders on the social / intellectual "confusion".
>
> The general points in your thread with Bo, are clearly true - social
> patterns must accept some dominance by intellectual paterns , whilst
> intellectual patterns must recognise that they are supported by social
> patterns.
>
> To be provocative, this boils down to what intellectual (elite)
> arrangements are valid to control / limit the freedoms of social
> arrangements. Practically, the answer cannot simply be one individual
> one vote on every decision that affects every individual - for that
> case read anarchy instead democracy. Even if social and intellectual
> patterns are intermixed in one "cultural" level - as I see it - it's
> the same question of which more-intellectual patterns may limit the
> freedoms of which more-social patterns. If the answer is "any" - that
> is all intellectual patterns dominate and control all social patterns,
> then a VERY clear distinction between social and intellectual patterns
> becomes essential. Otherwise Platt might pass for intellectual ;-)
>
> If the answer is that pragmatically some social institutions must
> agree and enforce intellctually-based limits, the questions become
> practical ones of which and how ? And how do we avoid such
> institutions becoming some embodiment of the Giant ?
>
> Not found a better answer yet than a pragmatic cultural & teleological
> mythology answer so far - but I'm still looking. Freedom is a
> fundamental part of the answer, but totally unlimited freedom is not
> the whole answer.
> Ian
>
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
