Re: real-life example
Thomas: I have long puzzled over this question of democracy and I would like to propose the Democratic Lottery. For it to work, there is only one assumption that needs to be made and that every citizen is capable of making decisions. Whether you are a hooker, housewife, drunk, tradesman, businessman, genius or over trained academic, we all are capable of having opinions and making decisions. I suggest that every citizen over 18 have their name put into a National Electoral Lottery. I suggest "draws" every two years at which time 1/3 of the Parliment is selected. Each member chosen will serve one six year term. The first two years are the equivalent of a backbencher in which the individual learns how parliment works and can vote on all legislation. The second two years, the member serves on various committees that are required by parliment. The third and final term is one from which the parliment as whole choses a leader for two years and also appoints new heads to all the standing committees. This does away with the professional politician, political parties, and the dictatorship of party leadership of the ruling party and it's specific cabinet. It ensures a learning curve for each prospective parlimentarian and allows in the final term the emergence of the best leader as judged by all of parliment. Every parlimentarian knows that he will be removed from office at the end of the sixth year. We could extend this to the Senate in which parlimentarians who have served for the full six years could participate in a Lottery to select Senate members who would hold office for a period of 12 years. This would give us a wise council of experienced elders to guide parliment and because the Senate could only take a small increase of new members every two years, only the most respected members of parliment would be voted by parlimentarians into a Senate position. This would eliminate political parties - it would eliminate the need for re-election, it would eliminate campaign financing and all the chicannery that goes with money. It would provide a broad representation of gender, ethnic groupings, regional groupings, age spread and abilities - and though some may question abilities, the prepronderance of lawyers in government has not proven to be superior. If the idea of a representative democracy is for citizens to represent citizens, then a choice by lottery is surely the fairest and has the least possibility of corruption, greed or the seeking of power to satisfy a particular agenda. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -Original Message- From: Colin Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: January 27, 1999 4:42 PM Subject: Re: real-life example 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 xperience -- 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)
Re: real-life example
Suppose society decided the primary "goal" was for our kids to live long enough to retire. Obviously, this implies a functional society, which is a "technical" question -- somewhat like asking "How can I make the cooking fuel on my boat last the entire trip?" Who decides the goal and do the selection? Who decides what people want? What if they ready to put up with hard bread for part of the journey in exchange for some luxuries? How do you know? Have you got the right to decide because an education system haphazardly did not fail you and you have better reading skills? We are running out time. You cannot do anything without informing people about the present choices. This is the first step even towards your dream tyranny. Eva The logical way to proceed would be to the experts specific questions, and then "hire" -- not elect -- qualified "leaders" (CEOs) to lead us to explicit goals. If they fail to meet specific benchmarks, fire them and hire someone else. We do not need the 90 million Americans, who read below the 7th grade level, to make decisions. A constitution with checks-and-balances has done a fairly good job of looking after their welfare so far. We would need to build this kind of "protection" for the disadvantaged into a new system. Indeed, I suggest universal welfare at: http://dieoff.com/page168.htm The bottom line is we are out of time. Our political and economic systems are based on utopian nonsense left over from the enlightenment. It's time to invent new social systems for the new mellienum. Jay [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: real-life example
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: real-life example
Direct democracy cannot selectively exclude people. The elitists are a minority by definition. If they vote themselves out from the collective decisionmaking, we may have fun to see how they manage on their own. Eva 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' 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). If you do, he will destroy it of course, and if you don't then of course it destroys itself. 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? 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 PROTECTED] UK tel/fax: 0044.181.747.9167 French tel/fax:0033.450.20.94.92 Swiss tel/fax: 0041.22.733.01.13 L'aiuola che ci fa tanto feroci. Divina Commedia, Paradiso, XXII, 151 _
Re: real-life example
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' 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). If you do, he will destroy it of course, and if you don't then of course it destroys itself. 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? 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 PROTECTED] UK tel/fax: 0044.181.747.9167 French tel/fax:0033.450.20.94.92 Swiss tel/fax: 0041.22.733.01.13 L'aiuola che ci fa tanto feroci. Divina Commedia, Paradiso, XXII, 151 _
Re: real-life example
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 PROTECTED] UK tel/fax: 0044.181.747.9167 French tel/fax:0033.450.20.94.92 Swiss tel/fax: 0041.22.733.01.13 L'aiuola che ci fa tanto feroci. Divina Commedia, Paradiso, XXII, 151 _
Re: real-life example
(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 PROTECTED] UK tel/fax: 0044.181.747.9167 French tel/fax:0033.450.20.94.92 Swiss tel/fax: 0041.22.733.01.13 L'aiuola che ci fa tanto feroci. Divina Commedia, Paradiso, XXII, 151 _
Re: real-life example
Hitler was not elected, he's got in power through a militarry-type take-over with the financial and power support of the capitalist class that was terrified by the previous victories of the german worker's movement. He used his power to terrify and brainwash the people. Don't tell me that there was a free flow of information and no intimidation by the time there were "elections". You might as well say that Brezhnev was "elected". Well, torture is not legal anymore in most countries. There is international popular pressure against countries where it is or where it is used illegaly. The problem is, that it is not in the interest of the capitalist countries to do anything about it, because they make good profits in these countries. It was the people who made the law to outlaw the slave trade. They could only do it, when all the information about it was available and those who made the profits from it were defeated. Human society is not static. What was accepted behaviou a generation go, can be totally abhorent now. Normal people control their aggressive, sexual etc.urges, only when society somehow breaks down are conditions arising that allows such controls to break down. How would your benevolant technocrat scientists overcome all this innate nastiness you talk about? You repeat your stuff without answering any of these points. Eva That's exactly my point. Given the opportunity, it would happen anywhere, at any time. There is nothing inherent in man that keeps him torturing and murdering his fellows. For example, the practice of human torture was "legal" for at least 3,000 years and formed a part of most legal codes in Europe and the Far East. Remember that Hitler was elected by "the people". Moreover, the men who ran the camps during WW2 were, for the most part, average people. Remember the Slave trade? Just some conscious family men trying to make a buck and put their kids through school. Let "the people" make all the laws? Bad idea! Jay
Re: real-life example
Didn't they have something like this in the Constantinople in the 12th-13th century with the blues and greens under the eastern Holy Roman Empire? Apologies if this is just a folk memory. Thomas Lunde wrote: Thomas: I have long puzzled over this question of democracy and I would like to propose the Democratic Lottery. For it to work, there is only one assumption that needs to be made and that every citizen is capable of making decisions. Whether you are a hooker, housewife, drunk, tradesman, businessman, genius or over trained academic, we all are capable of having opinions and making decisions. I suggest that every citizen over 18 have their name put into a National Electoral Lottery. I suggest "draws" every two years at which time 1/3 of the Parliment is selected. Each member chosen will serve one six year term. The first two years are the equivalent of a backbencher in which the individual learns how parliment works and can vote on all legislation. The second two years, the member serves on various committees that are required by parliment. The third and final term is one from which the parliment as whole choses a leader for two years and also appoints new heads to all the standing committees. This does away with the professional politician, political parties, and the dictatorship of party leadership of the ruling party and it's specific cabinet. It ensures a learning curve for each prospective parlimentarian and allows in the final term the emergence of the best leader as judged by all of parliment. Every parlimentarian knows that he will be removed from office at the end of the sixth year. We could extend this to the Senate in which parlimentarians who have served for the full six years could participate in a Lottery to select Senate members who would hold office for a period of 12 years. This would give us a wise council of experienced elders to guide parliment and because the Senate could only take a small increase of new members every two years, only the most respected members of parliment would be voted by parlimentarians into a Senate position. This would eliminate political parties - it would eliminate the need for re-election, it would eliminate campaign financing and all the chicannery that goes with money. It would provide a broad representation of gender, ethnic groupings, regional groupings, age spread and abilities - and though some may question abilities, the prepronderance of lawyers in government has not proven to be superior. If the idea of a representative democracy is for citizens to represent citizens, then a choice by lottery is surely the fairest and has the least possibility of corruption, greed or the seeking of power to satisfy a particular agenda. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -Original Message- From: Colin Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: January 27, 1999 4:42 PM Subject: Re: real-life example 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 xperience -- 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 PROTECTED] UK tel/fax: 0044.181.747.9167 French tel/fax:0033.450.20.94.92 Swiss tel/fax: 0041.22.733.01.13 L'aiuola che ci fa tanto feroci. Divina Commedia, Paradis
Re: real-life example
- Original Message - From: Edward Weick [EMAIL PROTECTED] No thanks! I saw direct democracy in action the other night on a PBS program about Rwanda: eight-hundred-thousand dead in one hundred days. Don't you think your being just a little unfair? That was butchery, not democracy. Given its background, it could have happened under any form of government. That's exactly my point. Given the opportunity, it would happen anywhere, at any time. There is nothing inherent in man that keeps him torturing and murdering his fellows. For example, the practice of human torture was "legal" for at least 3,000 years and formed a part of most legal codes in Europe and the Far East. Remember that Hitler was elected by "the people". Moreover, the men who ran the camps during WW2 were, for the most part, average people. Remember the Slave trade? Just some conscious family men trying to make a buck and put their kids through school. Let "the people" make all the laws? Bad idea! Jay This puts us at a dead end, which may also be your point. I don't like the idea of scientists running things. I've worked with too many of them. One of the best couldn't think his way out of a paper bag, but he could do wonders inside that bag. They really don't want to govern. Who's left? The Pope? The UN? The IOC? For want of other options, I would put my money on the street kids of India or Brazil. They could teach us a thing or two about survival. Ed
Re: real-life example
- Original Message - From: Edward Weick [EMAIL PROTECTED] This puts us at a dead end, which may also be your point. I don't like the idea of scientists running things. I've worked with too many of them. One of the best couldn't think his way out of a paper bag, but he could do wonders inside that bag. They really don't want to govern. Who's left? The Pope? The UN? The IOC? Basically, I am suggesting a new governing structure with specific goals -- something like a corporation under a constitution with checks and balances. The entire system would be based on merit -- not popularity contests. Suppose society decided the primary "goal" was for our kids to live long enough to retire. Obviously, this implies a functional society, which is a "technical" question -- somewhat like asking "How can I make the cooking fuel on my boat last the entire trip?" The logical way to proceed would be to the experts specific questions, and then "hire" -- not elect -- qualified "leaders" (CEOs) to lead us to explicit goals. If they fail to meet specific benchmarks, fire them and hire someone else. We do not need the 90 million Americans, who read below the 7th grade level, to make decisions. A constitution with checks-and-balances has done a fairly good job of looking after their welfare so far. We would need to build this kind of "protection" for the disadvantaged into a new system. Indeed, I suggest universal welfare at: http://dieoff.com/page168.htm The bottom line is we are out of time. Our political and economic systems are based on utopian nonsense left over from the enlightenment. It's time to invent new social systems for the new mellienum. Jay
Re: real-life example
Would someone help me on this. What was Neo-Corporatism in the 1930s? I've run across the term and have found no description. As for hiring your leaders, that is what most American cities do. The elect a mayor and hire a City Manager to run the place.It works pretty well but does not avoid the issues of pollution or loss of resources that you were complaining about in your past posts. Ray Jay Hanson wrote: - Original Message - From: Edward Weick [EMAIL PROTECTED] This puts us at a dead end, which may also be your point. I don't like the idea of scientists running things. I've worked with too many of them. One of the best couldn't think his way out of a paper bag, but he could do wonders inside that bag. They really don't want to govern. Who's left? The Pope? The UN? The IOC? Basically, I am suggesting a new governing structure with specific goals -- something like a corporation under a constitution with checks and balances. The entire system would be based on merit -- not popularity contests. Suppose society decided the primary "goal" was for our kids to live long enough to retire. Obviously, this implies a functional society, which is a "technical" question -- somewhat like asking "How can I make the cooking fuel on my boat last the entire trip?" The logical way to proceed would be to the experts specific questions, and then "hire" -- not elect -- qualified "leaders" (CEOs) to lead us to explicit goals. If they fail to meet specific benchmarks, fire them and hire someone else. We do not need the 90 million Americans, who read below the 7th grade level, to make decisions. A constitution with checks-and-balances has done a fairly good job of looking after their welfare so far. We would need to build this kind of "protection" for the disadvantaged into a new system. Indeed, I suggest universal welfare at: http://dieoff.com/page168.htm The bottom line is we are out of time. Our political and economic systems are based on utopian nonsense left over from the enlightenment. It's time to invent new social systems for the new mellienum. Jay
Re: real-life example
- Original Message - From: Ray E. Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] As for hiring your leaders, that is what most American cities do. The elect a mayor and hire a City Manager to run the place.It works pretty well but does not avoid the issues of pollution or loss of resources that you were complaining about in your past posts. Yes, I haven't put all the bits and pieces together so it sounds coherent. Right now we DO hire our leaders -- even the elected ones -- but with the wrong goals (make more money) and selection criteria (good for business). In brave new "Hansonland", corporations would not exist "to make a profit", they would only exist for specific purposes to serve the public good. It used to be that way. Leaders with specific qualifications would be hired for specific functions. The corporation is probably the right form, but it needs a different purpose. Maybe next year (if there is one) I will crank out a longer paper about Hansonland. Jay
Re: real-life example
Interesting but what would you do about initiative?That has been the problem with all of the "job" oriented labor in the communist and socialist countries or so goes the propaganda here about it.In my culture it is the Sacred, the family, the work (power) and the life of the imagination that is considered to fulfill one's destiny.If a person does not have work that is bad but it is also as bad for a person's work to lack the potential to challenge and develop their imagination and creativity. Most non-profit state organizations are only for the highly motivated, others need profit or they stagnate according to the dominant political theories. What do you think? REH Jay Hanson wrote: - Original Message - From: Ray E. Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] As for hiring your leaders, that is what most American cities do. The elect a mayor and hire a City Manager to run the place.It works pretty well but does not avoid the issues of pollution or loss of resources that you were complaining about in your past posts. Yes, I haven't put all the bits and pieces together so it sounds coherent. Right now we DO hire our leaders -- even the elected ones -- but with the wrong goals (make more money) and selection criteria (good for business). In brave new "Hansonland", corporations would not exist "to make a profit", they would only exist for specific purposes to serve the public good. It used to be that way. Leaders with specific qualifications would be hired for specific functions. The corporation is probably the right form, but it needs a different purpose. Maybe next year (if there is one) I will crank out a longer paper about Hansonland. Jay
Re: real-life example
- Original Message - From: Edward Weick [EMAIL PROTECTED] How about an explicit definition of the job and explicit qualifications? We do that with every other job, why not politics? God will write them? Theocracies worked for a while, but they too had their problems -- e.g. the classic Mayas screwed up their environment just as badly as we have. Gee! Why not try science for a change?
Re: real-life example
- Original Message - From: Colin Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hence the concept of Direct Democracy: " a SYSTEM of citizen-initiated binding referendums whereby voters can directly amend, introduce and remove policies and laws" No thanks! I saw direct democracy in action the other night on a PBS program about Rwanda: eight-hundred-thousand dead in one hundred days. Jay
Re: real-life example
From: Edward Weick [EMAIL PROTECTED] How about an explicit definition of the job and explicit qualifications? We do that with every other job, why not politics? God will write them? Theocracies worked for a while, but they too had their problems -- e.g. the classic Mayas screwed up their environment just as badly as we have. Gee! Why not try science for a change? Jay, I've known enough scientists to convince me that that might not be wise. Ed
Re: real-life example
No thanks! I saw direct democracy in action the other night on a PBS program about Rwanda: eight-hundred-thousand dead in one hundred days. Jay Jay, Don't you think your being just a little unfair? That was butchery, not democracy. Given its background, it could have happened under any form of government. Ed
Re: real-life example
- Original Message - From: Edward Weick [EMAIL PROTECTED] No thanks! I saw direct democracy in action the other night on a PBS program about Rwanda: eight-hundred-thousand dead in one hundred days. Don't you think your being just a little unfair? That was butchery, not democracy. Given its background, it could have happened under any form of government. That's exactly my point. Given the opportunity, it would happen anywhere, at any time. There is nothing inherent in man that keeps him torturing and murdering his fellows. For example, the practice of human torture was "legal" for at least 3,000 years and formed a part of most legal codes in Europe and the Far East. Remember that Hitler was elected by "the people". Moreover, the men who ran the camps during WW2 were, for the most part, average people. Remember the Slave trade? Just some conscious family men trying to make a buck and put their kids through school. Let "the people" make all the laws? Bad idea! Jay
Re: real-life example
If energy (oil?) is in short supply, can one afford to be "fair"? we can be only fair if the decision is made collectively on how to use a scarse resource, especially if the all the information and the options are well known by everybody. Eva Just wondering ... ! Bob Eva Durant wrote: You have the contradiction in your own paragraph: "as just as possible" vs "best possible way" I can't see contradiction. The two have large overlapping section. -- ___ http://publish.uwo.ca/~mcdaniel/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: real-life example
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)
Re: real-life example
Jay Hanson writes: Democracy makes no sense. Right, democracy is the worst system except for all the others, since power will always corrupt. Government by popularity contest is a stupid idea. So is the corresponding straw man form of any kind of government. Government by age? Government by family name? Government by bank account? Government by narrow technical expertise? -- P-) ___o -o Peter Marks [EMAIL PROTECTED] _-\_, -_\ /\_ 15307 NE 202nd St., Woodinville, WA 98072 (*)/ (*)-(*)^(*) (425)489-0501 http://www.halcyon.com/marks -- More comfortable AND faster ... that's REAL technology!
Re: real-life example
- Original Message - From: Edward Weick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Democracy makes no sense. If society is seeking a leader with the best skills, the selection should be based on merit -- testing and xperience -- not popularity. Government by popularity contest is a stupid idea. Somehow I'm not at all surprised that this is your point of view. But then how is merit to be determined? Testing and experience, you say, but who will assess this? Surely an intelligent and informed public should have You said it yourself. When we want a leader to fly a plane, we find one who has passed tests and has air time. When we want a leader to do surgery, we find one who has graduated medical school. Qualifications for these leaderships have explicit tests and measures. Since the human mind evolved predisposed for social manipulation, when we chose leaders by popularity contest, we naturally get the best "manipulators". In other words, we get the most-corrupt, most-accomplished- liars waving their arms in front of our faces each day on television. Sound familiar? Since they really aren't that entertaining, why bother? If they were any good at law, they would still be practicing. What possible skill is anyone selected by popularity contest likely to be qualified for? Used cars? Life insurance? Jay -- www.dieoff.com
Re: real-life example
- Original Message - From: Peter Marks [EMAIL PROTECTED] Government by popularity contest is a stupid idea. So is the corresponding straw man form of any kind of government. Government by age? Government by family name? Government by bank account? Government by narrow technical expertise? How about an explicit definition of the job and explicit qualifications? We do that with every other job, why not politics? If democracy means "rule by the common people", then America has never been a democracy What's more, our founding fathers never INTENDED for America to be a democracy: "These passages all too neatly anticipate Madisons conception of citizenship: do not give "the people" any power when they are assembled; allow some of the white males, acting in isolation, the fleeting participation of voting for their representatives and restrict the right for as long as politically possible to one branch of the legislature. Beyond this minimalist approach to politics, ask little else of the people, except under extraordinary conditions." As it has turned out, modern evolutionary scientists have found that the Founding Fathers were right: true democracy wont work. Natural selection and genetic development created a human tendency for dominance, submission, hierarchy, and obedience, as opposed to equality and democracy. As one political scientist recently put it: "[ Evolutionary scientists ] Somit and Peterson provide an informative account of the evolutionary basis for our historical (and current) opposition to democracy. For many, this will be an unwelcome message like being told that ones fly is unzipped. But after a brief bout of anger, we tend to thank the messenger for sparing us further embarrassment." Read all about it at: http://dieoff.com/page168.htm Jay
Re: real-life example
Jay: How about an explicit definition of the job and explicit qualifications? We do that with every other job, why not politics? God will write them? Theocracies worked for a while, but they too had their problems -- e.g. the classic Mayas screwed up their environment just as badly as we have. Ed Weick
Re: real-life example
You have the contradiction in your own paragraph: "as just as possible" vs "best possible way" I can't see contradiction. The two have large overlapping section. I think I'd be most upset if I were of your crew; they are NOT stupid, if it WERE the question of life or death, they would have made the same choice as you. With hindsight you are aware a larger set of data i.e. you know how long the gas actually lasted. You behaved like a stingy employer, you should have taken more gas. You lost weight, had an interesting experience, the democratic choice was a good one. Jay, I hate to be personal, but you'd brough up this example, and it demonstrates that you count yourself as apart from the rest of us, The Good and Benevolent Leader With the Only Correct Solutions... ... and as often happens to such people - you are wrong! Eva A few years ago, I was skippering my sailboat on a 50 day trip from Guam to San Francisco. Sailboats carry a finite amount of propane for heating drinks and cooking. Moreover, if one runs out of anything a thousand miles from land, one is out for the remainder of the trip. We took the great circle route and it got quite cold in the northern latitudes. My four crew members liked hot chocolate and coffee before going on watch. However, I informed the crew that if they used propane to heat their drinks every time they went on watch, we would run out before reaching San Francisco. I assumed if we ran out of propane the worst would be that we all would lose a little weight, but since everyone could stand to lose a few pounds anyway, I decide to let the crew decide. They decided to take a chance and keep heating their drinks. Well, we ran out of propane about half way across. Can you imagine eating raw brown rice? It was a memorable experience. Collectively we lost about 100 pounds. Had the crew forgone the hot drinks, they would not have suffered any harmful effects and we wouldn't have run out of propane. The "just" answer was to have hot drinks, but the "right" answer was not to have hot drinks. Had there been lives at stake, I wouldn't have given them the choice. A world that is over carrying capacity and about to run out of fuel is just like my sailboat, except for one thing. If the fuel runs out this time, billions are going to die. I wouldn't give them the choice. Jay -- www.dieoff.com -- ** Beispiel-Signatur **
Re: real-life example
- Original Message - From: Eva Durant [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think I'd be most upset if I were of your crew; they are NOT stupid, if it WERE the question of life or death, they would have made the same choice as you. First of all you did not know my crew. G Moreover, the reason they have skippers on boats is because they are better trained than crew and passengers. It's a fact of life. Human society is inherently hierarchical for the simple reason that it contributes to "inclusive fitness". Could anyone imagine democracy on a commercial airliner? "I want to fly higher so I can see further!" "No I want to fly lower so I can see the cows!" "OK, let's vote on it." Jay, I hate to be personal, but you'd brough up this example, and it demonstrates that you count yourself as apart from the rest of us, The Good and Benevolent I am surprised it took you so long to notice my captain bars. G Jay
Re: real-life example
Hi This issue reminds me of the difference between equitable and efficient locations. An equitable location (of say, a school) ensures that distances travelled by pupils are as alike as possible (minimizes variation); an efficient location, on the other hand, minimizes the total distance travelled by all pupils, but at the cost of greater variation among the distances travelled by individual pupils. If energy (oil?) is in short supply, can one afford to be "fair"? Just wondering ... ! Bob Eva Durant wrote: You have the contradiction in your own paragraph: "as just as possible" vs "best possible way" I can't see contradiction. The two have large overlapping section. -- ___ http://publish.uwo.ca/~mcdaniel/
Re: real-life example
Jay Hanson: First of all you did not know my crew. G Moreover, the reason they have skippers on boats is because they are better trained than crew and passengers. It's a fact of life. Human society is inherently hierarchical for the simple reason that it contributes to "inclusive fitness". Could anyone imagine democracy on a commercial airliner? Human society does not have to be permanently hierarchical and hierarchies do not necessarily have to be undemocratic. In their original state, northern Aboriginal groups followed certain people because they had special abilities - e.g. they would allow a particular person to take the lead in hunting because he was a very good and successful hunter. However, this did not mean that he led in other ways. The pilot of an aircraft is a little like this. While the aircraft is flying, he clearly leads. When he is on the ground, he is like anyone else. My point is that, in relatively simple social situations, hierarchies exist around special circumstances or activities, but they apply only to those. The Aboriginal hunter could not command people to hunt with him just as the pilot cannot command people to fly with him. Hierarchies became more fixed and permanent as population numbers increased 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. That in many cases they became undemocratic and permanent reflects a usurpation of the rules by a leadership, or conquest or some such thing. During the past two centuries, a great deal of effort has been devoted to developing methods by which complex and populous societies could maintain essential hierarchies and still operate democratically. In my opinion, much of this has been successful. Ed Weick
Re: real-life example
- 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
Re: real-life example
Jay Hanson: Democracy makes no sense. If society is seeking a leader with the best skills, the selection should be based on merit -- testing and xperience -- not popularity. Government by popularity contest is a stupid idea. Somehow I'm not at all surprised that this is your point of view. But then how is merit to be determined? Testing and experience, you say, but who will assess this? Surely an intelligent and informed public should have something to do with it. But, I suppose you would then argue that much of the public is neither intelligent nor informed, a point which I would, alas, have to agree with. Ed Weick
