Re: real-life example

[Selma Singer]

I have not had time lately to follow this thread but I was able to read
this post this morning and wonder if anyone has mentioned Plato's Republic
in the course of this discussion.



On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Eva Durant wrote:

 (I think I mentioned it before BTW,
 I am Hungarian, as centre-european as any.)
 I don't think it is valid to link political ideas with
 ethniticy.
 Also, I can only picture DD as a global
 phenomena, once established,
 you cannot stop it, just like the internet.
 
 Eva
 
 
  At 07:16 AM 1/29/99 +, Mark Measday wrote:
  Mentioning a version of your comments to a central european-born manager,
  I was a
  little surprised to receive the following tirade back I paraphrase 'Why would
  Direct Democracy be a good system? Intelligent people know from experience
  that
  most other people are idiots. Therefore most decisions will be made by
  idiots for
  idiots with idiots,. Those people are idiots. They will have only
  themselves, the
  idiots,  to blame'
  
  Are all intelligent people non-idiots?
  Are most intelligent people non-idiots?
  Do some people who consider themselves intelligent have limited experience
  from which to make such harsh, polarized, one-dimensional judgements of
  their fellow-humans?
  etc
  
  I do not value your friend's opinion
  What does he know of DD?
  
  With the visceral, if obviously intellectually inconsequential, anglosaxon
  desire
  for fairplay, tolerance and conflict-avoidance (Chamberlain at Munich
  comes to
  mind), I agreed pro tem, whilst mentally noting that I woudl like to ask
  whether
  you would be happy to include such a person in your direct democracy (or
  not). 
  
  by definition, he would have one vote
  I would be neither happy nor unhappy
  You may be exhibit both tolerance and conflict-avoidance -- while I strive
  for the first, I have few tendencies to the second. But then I am Celtic,
  not anglo-saxon
  
  If
  you do, he will destroy it of course, and if you don't then of course it
  destroys
  itself. 
  
  I do not attribute to him any more power than one vote, so I cannot accept
  your view
  
  Do you then have to destroy him to preserve your democracy? And what kind
  of democracy is it that has to preserve itself by destroying its elitists?
  
  The whole question is hypothetical.
  But I do not believe anyone has to destroy him
  Nor do I believe that all elitists are so narrow-minded
  
  I have little experience of Central Europe, and I am not advocating DD for
  Central Europe.
  I have met several E/Central. Europeans in Canada, and I am not unfamiliar
  with the characteristics you describe.
  In Canada such people are not numerous, and have little influence in the
  circles I move in.
  The biggest obstacle in Canada would appear to come from political,
  academic, and business Elites whose worlds are bound up in money and power
  -- obstacles enough without paying undue attention to people like your friend.
  
  I sincerely believe that DD is viable in Canada, US, and UK, the three
  countries with which I am most familiar
  
  Colin Stark
  
  Colin Stark wrote:
  
   At 11:50 AM 1/26/99 -1000, Jay Hanson wrote:
   - Original Message -
   From: Edward Weick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   
   and social complexity grew.  While hunting and gathering societies needed
   only transitory hierarchies, more complex societies needed permanent
  ones.
   However, there is no reason on earth why these couldn't be democratic,
   allowing a particular leadership limited powers and only a limited
  tenure.
   
   Democracy makes no sense.  If society is seeking a leader with the best
   skills, the selection should be based on merit -- testing and
  experience  --
   not popularity.  Government by popularity contest is a stupid idea.
   
   Jay
  
   Democracy does not mean putting the most "popular" candidate in the job. A
   broad range of people (e.g. the workers in a factory) might choose a
   DIFFERENT leader from what the Elite would choose, but they will not be
   more likely to make a "stupid" choice.
  
   But beyond the "choice of a leader" is the question of the "accountability
   of the leader".
  
   In our N. American  democratic (so-called) systems the leader is not
   accountable to ANYONE (i.e. is a virtual Dictator), except that once every
   4 or 5 years the people (those who think it worthwhile to vote), can kick
   the bum out and choose another gentleperson who will be equally
   UNACCOUNTABLE, and who will thus, corrupted by power, become a BUM also!
  
   Hence the concept of Direct Democracy:
   " a SYSTEM of citizen-initiated binding referendums whereby voters can
   directly amend, introduce and remove policies and laws"
  
   Colin Stark
   Vice-President
   Canadians for Direct Democracy
   Vancouver, B.C.
   http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Listserv)
  
  --
  
  
  
  Josmarian SA   [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL 

Re: FW Request for ideas

[Selma Singer]

I know there's been some discussion from time to time on this list about
the way Norway, e.g., has been able to provide that security. Perhaps
those who are knowledgeable about that can provide us with some detail
about how it works and/or why it doesn't work as well as it might.

Certainly there is a big difference between the way many of the Northern
European countries have approached this matter and the way the United
States has handled it. I don't have the economic savvy to explore this in
much depth but maybe a discussion of some of the differences in approach
would be a fruitful starting point.

It's a very complicated subject, of course, and involves much more than
just economics.Certainly all the major institutions of every country and
its history and culture affect what is done and what can be done, but I
believe it is possible to learn alot from looking at the way different
countries attempt to deal with these issues and even from looking at the
way some countries (The U.S.?) don't seem to want to even be bothered.



On Tue, 19 May 1998, S. Lerner wrote:

 FWers - If we think it's important to ensure basic economic security for
 all citizens of the industrialized 'have' nations, what suggestions do you
 have as to how this should be accomplished?
 
 Sally Lerner
 
 
 

Selma

*Pain is Inevitable; Suffering is Optional*
 (Loosely translated from The Buddha)
   
Sylvia Boorstein 
   

  

Re: FW - Some hard questions about a Basic Income 1

[Selma Singer]

And how well it works! Not just to create alienation and political
passivity, but also to keep the lower and lower-middle classes at each
other's throats via racism, sexism, etc. When things are tough, they
attack each other instead of the elite that is the source of their
problems.



On Mon, 23 Feb 1998, Tom Walker wrote:

 
 Huntington's prescription for encouraging democratic "self-restraint" was
 for governments to _deliberately fail_ to deal with economic problems. The
 point of doing this was to create a generalized alienation, which in turn
 could, "reinforce tendencies towards political passivity engendered by the
 already observable decline in the sense of political efficacy."
 
 Note that Huntington didn't reckon economic distress as the result of the
 government's inability to deal with economic problems, but as a strategy to
 assist the governing elite deal with it's political problems. In retrospect,
 Huntington's prescription is plausible as an explanation of policies that
 western governments have actually pursued over the past two decades. It's
 also credible as a prediction of what would be the political result of a
 purposeful anti-prosperity regime -- the entrenchment of the elites whose
 policies were designed to spread poverty and insecurity.
 
 
 Regards, 
 
 Tom Walker
 ^^^
 Vancouver, B.C.
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (604) 669-3286 
 ^^^
 The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
 
 

Selma

*Don't Just Do Something, Sit There*
Sylvia Boorstein