Noam Chomsky-Democracy
Forwarded message >Sender: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Citizens Council on Corporate Issues Newsletter) >Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 21:50:24 -0800 >From: Gil Yaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >This is from an interview with Noam Chomsky in The Sun magazine titled "The >>Common Good", November 1997. It was too juicy to not share around! >>Paul Cienfuegos >> >> >>"...I started from the beginning, with Aristotle's POLITICS, which is the >>foundation for most subsequent political theory. Aristotle took it for >>granted that a democracy would be fully participatory - with the notable >>exception of women and slaves - and would aim to promote the common good. >>But he argued that, in order to achieve its goal, the democracy would have >>to endure "lasting prosperity to the poor" and "moderate and sufficient >>property" for everyone. If there were extremes of poor and rich, or if you >>didn't have lasting prosperity for everyone, Aristotle thought, then you >>couldn't talk seriously about having democracy. >> >>Another point Aristotle made was that if you have a perfect democracy, yet >>have big differences of wealth - a small number of very rich people and a >>large number of very poor - then the poor will use their democratic muscle >>to take away the property of the rich. He regarded this as unjust and >>offered two possible solutions. One was to reduce poverty. The other was to >>reduce democracy. >> >>A couple of thousand years later, when our Founding Fathers were writing >>the Constitution, James Madison noticed the same problem, but whereas >>Aristotle's preferred solution had been to reduce poverty, Madison's was to >>reduce democracy. He said quite explicitly in the Constitutional Convention >>that, if we had a true democracy, then the poor majority would use its >>power to demand what nowadays we would call agrarian reform, and that >>couldn't be tolerated. The primary goal of government, in Madison's words, >>is "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." He also >>pointed out that, as time went on, this problem was going to get worse, >>because a growing part of the population would suffer serious inequities >>and "secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of [life's] blessings." He >>therefore designed a system that would ensure democracy didn't function. >>As he put it, power would be in the hands of the "more capable of men," >>those who held "the wealth of the nation," and the rest would be >>factionalized and marginalized in various ways. ..." >> > > >Gil Yaron >Citizens' Council on Corporate Issues >Website: http://www.corporateissues.org
Leadership Best-Seller reads like a Thriller
Leadership Best-Seller reads like a Thriller To: Politicians, Managers, Journalists, Book reviewers, Bureaucrats, Activists, and Readers everywhere Birth of the Chaordic Age (from Chaos/Order) by Dee Hock,Founder and CEO Emeritus, VISA Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc - 1999 - This book reads like a funny thriller, crammed with fresh insights, yet it contains more governance know-how, and more community than my 1970s MBA. Hopefully Politicians, Managers, Journalists, Book reviewers, Bureaucrats, Activists, and Readers everywhere will read it, and sloowly absorb, adjust and EVOLVE! "Written by the founder of VISA, the largest business enterprise on earth, with 22,000 member institutions worldwide, 750 million customers, and $1.25 trillion in transactions annually. Visionary yet pragmatic ideas about the nature of money, information, organization, and community, and hope for a better future in an increasingly complex and troubled world." >From http://www.chaordic.org/ The balance of this Review is extracts from: Amazon.com 5-STAR * Review at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1576750744/qid=951969311/sr=1-1/002-2 473715-9921830 and Dee Hock's website at http://www.chaordic.org/ I hope you enjoy it as I have done Colin Stark PS It was in stock in Vancouver at: Banyen 732-7912 http://www.banyen.com/ Chapters 431-0463 http://www.chapters.ca/ http://www.amazon.com and Vancouver Public Library This message is broadcast e-mailed widely to Politicians, media, Listservs, and other groups Please feel free to forward it, or to print it out and hand it to print devotees From: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1576750744/qid=951969311/sr=1-1/002-2 473715-9921830 Birth of the Chaordic Age ~ Dee W. Hock / Hardcover / Published 1999 Our Price: $19.57 ~ You Save: $8.38 (30%) Average Customer Review: 5 STAR * Editorial Reviews Amazon.com Birth of the Chaordic Age is a compelling manifesto for the future, embedded within the intriguing story of a personal odyssey. An engaging narrator, Dee Hock is the man who first conceived of a global system for the electronic exchange of value, becoming the founder and CEO of VISA International. He looks critically at today's environment of command-and-control institutions and sees organizations that are falling apart, failing to achieve their own purposes let alone addressing the diversity and complexity of society as a whole. The solution, Hock claims, lies in transforming our notion of organization; in embracing the belief that the chaos of competition and the order of cooperation can and do coexist, succeed, even thrive; and in welcoming in the chaordic age. The underlying tenets of Hock's ideas are well illustrated by the incredible story of the birth of VISA International, an organization formed on chaordic principles that now links in excess of 20,000 financial institutions, 14 million merchants, and 600 million consumers in 220 countries. Hock deplores an age where ingenuity and effort are wasted on circumventing the rules and regulations of insular, hierarchical bureaucracies. In a bold-type subtext interspersed throughout the book, he examines how this situation is stunting our potential as individuals and communities and contemplates what can be changed. This rumination is propelled onward by "Old Monkey Mind" (Hock's own thoughts). Though the technique allows the reader to engage in stimulating mental discovery along with the author, its New Age spiritual tone is sometimes a bit saccharine. His insights, however, are clear and provocative. In the Chaordic Age, he contends, "success will depend less on rote and more on reason; less on the authority of the few and more on the judgment of many; less on compulsion and more on motivation; less on external control of people and more on internal discipline." Hear, hear. --S. Ketchum >From Kirkus Reviews If only the world were more like VISA International, chaos and order would be in balance, and people would work happily together in communities based on ``shared purpose.'' At least, that's the utopian vision of Hock, founder and ``CEO emeritus'' of VISA International and head of a group called The Chaordic Alliance, advising mostly not-for-profits how to reorganize themselves in a new humanitarian way. Hock advocates an evolutionary system of social organization: Top-down control is out, and a... read more Book Description In Birth of the Chaordic Age, Dee Hock argues that traditional organizational forms can no longer work because organizations have become too complex. Hock advocates a new organizational form that he calls "chaordic," or simultaneously chaotic and orderly. He credits the worldwide success of VISA to its chaordic structure: It is owned by its member banks, which both compete with each other for customers and cooperate by honoring one another
Re: FW Corporate Crime (fwd)
At 05:06 PM 1/12/2000 +0100, S. Lerner wrote: >Crime of the Century > > >The corporate century ends with private enterprise unanswerable to the public. etc This piece intrigues me, and I have forwarded it to other Listservs To me the two key paragraphs are: "In the beginning, we the citizenry created the corporation to do the public's work build a canal or a road and then go out of business. We asked people with money to build the canal or road. If anything went wrong, the liability of these people with money * shareholders, we call them today * would be limited to the amount of money they invested and no more. This limited liability corporation is the bedrock of the market economy. The markets would deflate like a punctured balloon if corporations were stripped of limited liability for shareholders." [Does anyone know the original reference for this paragraph? -- CS] and "Let us not forget that corporate control was never inevitable. They took it from us, and it is our responsibility to take it back." These paragraphs have strong implications for the balance between the power of governments and Corporations i.e. the definition of Democracy Obviously, I believe that, over time, Direct Democracy could do much to re-balance this situation. I know of no other change to our governance system that has the potential to do so Colin Stark Canadians for Direct Democracy Vancouver, B.C. http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/ * >Date:Mon, 10 Jan 2000 15:10:40 -0500 >From:Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Corporate Crime >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain > > >http://www.sfbg.com/focus/71.html > >Crime of the Century > > >The corporate century ends with private enterprise unanswerable to the public. > >By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman > > >AS WE MOVE to the end of the millennium, it is important to remind >ourselves that this has been the century of the corporation, when largely >unaccountable, for-profit organizations of unlimited longevity, size, and >power took control of the economy and of the government. And did so largely >to the detriment of the individual consumer, worker, neighbor, and citizen. > >Let us again remind ourselves that corporations were the creation of the >citizenry (thanks here to Richard Grossman of the Project on Corporations, >Law, and Democracy for resurrecting and teaching us a history we would have >collectively forgotten). > >In the beginning, we the citizenry created the corporation to do the >public's work build a canal or a road and then go out of business. We asked >people with money to build the canal or road. If anything went wrong, the >liability of these people with money * shareholders, we call them today * >would be limited to the amount of money they invested and no more. This >limited liability corporation is the bedrock of the market economy. The >markets would deflate like a punctured balloon if corporations were >stripped of limited liability for shareholders. > >And what do we, the citizenry, get in return for this generous public grant >of limited liability? Originally, we told the corporation what to do. You >are to deliver the goods and then go out of business. And then let us live >our lives. > >But corporations gained power, broke through democratic controls, and now >roam around the world inflicting unspeakable damage on the earth. Let us >count the ways: price-fixing, chemical explosions, mercury poisoning, oil >spills. > >Need concrete examples? These are five of the most egregious of the century: > >Archer Daniels Midland and price-fixing >In October 1996, Archer Daniels Midland, the good people who bring you >National Public Radio, pled guilty and paid a $100 million criminal fine at >the time, the largest criminal antitrust fine ever for its role in >conspiracies to fix prices to eliminate competition and allocate sales in >the lysine and citric acid markets worldwide. >Union Carbide and Bhopal >In 1984, a Union Carbide pesticide factory in Bhopal, India, released >90,000 pounds of the chemical methyl isocyanate. The resulting toxic cloud >killed several thousand people and injured hundreds of thousands. >Chisso Corporation and Minamata >Minamata, Japan, was home to Chisso Corporation, a petrochemical company >and maker of plastics. In the 1950s fish began floating dead in Minamata >Bay, cats began committing suicide, and children began getting rare forms >of brain cancer. Thousands were injured. The company had been dumping >mercury into the bay. >Exxon Corporation and the Valdez oil spill >Ten years ago, the Exxon Valdez oil tanker hit a reef in Prince William >Sound, Alaska, and spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil onto 1,500 miles >of Alaskan shoreline
Re: population resolution, Aspen Colorado
At 01:21 PM 12/15/1999 -0500, Steve wrote: >Despite the fact that the US is the most wasteful of the developed >nations, and Aspen is a city with a high average income, the resolution >seems rather balanced. Note particularly clauses 1. and 3. I post it >here, with the complete rationale (WHEREAS...) following. I sense a weak attempt to balance, by the City of Aspen I sense a slightly stronger attempt to balance, by yourself > >I know there are those who will see ONLY selfishness in this, but please >respond with debunking of claims, not just with emotions or moral >indignation. Voluntary simplicity is not freely chosen by the vast >majority of humans. Hence it isn't a viable alternative to proffer. >Involuntary simplicity is the most likely alternative in my opinion. As >long as human population expands, migration pressure will continue until >all habitats are trashed and predation becomes the universal norm. snip I am glad that you raise the Voluntary Simplicity topic I believe that the balance that must be reached is between Voluntary Simplicity (mainly on the part of the developed Nations) and population REDUCTION -- the main contribution the City of Aspen (and most of us in N. America) can make is in the realm of Voluntary Simplicity -- rather it focuses on Immigration, which is at least one step removed from population reduction Two Voluntary Simplicity sites The New Road Map Foundation -- Dominguez/Robin, authors of the best-selling "Your Money or your Life" --http://www.newroadmap.org/ Global Living Project -- http://www.netidea.com/~jmerkel/ Colin Stark >Reversing population growth is the most humane choice in my opinion. >BTW, the US is the 4th most populated nation on earth. > >Steve Kurtz >- >>NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the City of Aspen hereby petitions the >>Congress of the United States and the President to immediately implement-with >>deliberate speed and by means consistent with the Constitution of the United >>States, the consensus of the American People and the President's >>Council-legislation appropriate to stabilize the population of the United >>States and insure sustainability: (1) that will encourage and promote all >>opportunities toward establishing and maintaining material and energy >>efficiency, social and environmental responsibility; (2) by a return to >>traditional replacement levels of legal immigration , approximately 175,000, >>all-inclusive, annually; (3) by requiring equitable wages and benefits for >>workers and community environmental protections to be part of all free trade >>agreements; and (4) by mandated enforcement of our immigration laws against >>illegal immigration, thereby promoting the future well being of all the >>citizens of this Nation and the City of Aspen. >>___ >>Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 snip
Re: FUTURE PLANNING AFTER SEATTLE
Dear Ole I respond to this post partly because I have SOME sympathy with the general sentiments expressed. Partly because I do believe that "Seattle" was an important turning-point However, I believe the views you express are seriously sub-optimal At 06:07 PM 12/12/1999 +0100, Ole Fjord Larsen, wrote: >The IDEAL prerequisites for the resistance movement's >victory over corporate rule by means of demonstration >are It is IMPOSSIBLE to state "necessary and sufficient" pre-requisites I further believe that "victory over corporate rule" is not a desirable objective I DO BELIEVE that the disparate groups that made up the protest lack cohesive objectives, and that even if they literally "got what ALL of them wanted" the world would not be any better off. I DO BELIEVE that ONE of the goals which these groups should at least DISCUSS and hopefully agree upon, is that the federal governments of the participating nations (Canada and US are the ones I follow most closely) should be called upon to CHANGE their GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES to become ACCOUNTABLE to their citizen groups as a whole. This is the basic definition of DEMOCRACY. Of course I further believe that Direct Democracy -- the right of citizens to have referenda on any issue see -- http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/ -- is an appropriate form for this accountability The balance of my comments are merely responses to SOME of Ole's points > >- a completely peaceful, numerous demonstration with >which all humanity outside the corporate headquarters >can identify, and > there are human beings inside corporate headquarters too -- I used to be there >- a fair worldwide media coverage of the event. > desirable, but FAIR has never happened in the history of the World, and I see no prospect of it happening soon >Basically, hooligans - whether paid by the corporations >or subject to anarchist ideology - therefore are factual >enemies of the people. > >However, since 99 % of the media are controlled by the >capital, we normally do NOT get a fair coverage of our >efforts, to say the least !! Silence normally is their >very efficient weapon to protect their masters. > >To ensure that the event be covered at all, even in >distorted version, some controlled degree of violence >directed against precisely identified appropriate targets >in some cases may be justified, in spite of the consequently >reduced number of sympathizers. > >In Seattle the previous long preparations and focus >on the event made any further attention unnecessary. >The violence of the police furthermore ensured the big >headlines in the media. > >The hooliganism in Seattle therefore must be strongly >condemned, because it unnecessarily reduced the sympathy >in the world population whom we represent, and >considerably discouraged the vast majority of the >demonstrators who up until then had been in great >enthusiastic spirit. > >Additionally, the casual smashing of windows was directed >against small as well as big stores and made it completely >meaningless from our point of view. > this long rant against hooliganism and "masters" puts emphasis on the wrong events I was at two-two-hour meetings with 20 people present, of whom 3-6 of whom had been present at Seattle -- they emphasised the spirit of hope and co-operation amongst disparate protesters >CONCLUSION > >FLEXIBILITY must be a key word in the planning of the >coming demonstrations. > good >The coordinating group of the participating organisations >must to an even higher degree than this time prepare the >demonstrators for knocking down and turning over to the >police any anwanted hooligans. >Even if a hooligan should be killed, it would be a very >little loss as compared with the daily rate of 20.000 >dead children due to corporate rule. irrelevant > >The coordinating group must beforehand have arranged for >contacts worldwide to report continually on the local >media coverage. > good >Only in cases where the previous focus on the event or >the police brutality is insufficient to make the media >cover the story, is a minimum degree of violence >justified, and only directed precisely at easily >understandable targets. > I believe your "conclusion" misses the key point: "what are the desired outcomes? I believe they would include: A seat at the WTO table for a wide range of inputs from NGOs, Unions etc. Governments being made "democratic" along the lines of Direct Democracy >Ole Fjord Larsen, >member of United Peoples Colin Stark Vice-President Canadians for Direct Democracy Vancouver, B.C. http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Listserv)
Re: electronic vote systems
At 04:18 PM 12/6/1999 +0100, you wrote: >Hi ! > >I am looking for electronic vote systems with the following specifications. >Each person should, for example, have a kind of infrared remote control with >3 buttons for voting. I do not have this info But check out these two extracts and their operators for Electronic voting "Campaign for Digital Democracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >I've just voted securely online in the first Internet Presidential Primary >and you can too. Go to: >http://www.politics.com/elections/elections_frame.htm ****** http://www.vote.org * Colin Stark Vice-President Canadians for Direct Democracy Vancouver, B.C. http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Listserv)
Re: torn
At 07:10 AM 12/5/1999 -0800, Tom Walker wrote: > >It isn't capital that is the source of the problem, it is the political >resistance of capitalists to resolving the contradictions of capitalism >that is the source of the problem. What is intolerable to me is that the >more we acquire the means of actually solving some of the big problems the >more strenuously do the vested interest gate-keepers refuse to employ >them for humane ends. Why? Because it would interfere with THEIR >individual sovereignty. snip *** Dear Tom I agree with what you say totally I believe that one possible way to get a lever on the problem is through Direct Democracy -- i.e. make our governments ACCOUNTABLE to the CITIZENS. Citizens will then be able to bring forward legislation through the referendum process that will control those capitalists, or Postumists as you re-label them This process is quite well advanced in the US -- except at the Federal level, which is VERY powerful (and while it is well-advanced at the STATE level, I have strong reservations about the mechanisms, which allow money to have a strong influence on the outcome of the vote) I realize as I write this that this sounds like a long way around to get to a solution. But in three years of working in this area, I have yet to stumble over ANY OTHER solution that has a better chance of success. So until I do so, I will keep my brain from atrophy by pursuing Direct Democracy. Please, anyone out there, let me know if you have a better idea! Colin Stark Vice-President Canadians for Direct Democracy Vancouver, B.C. http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/ ** > >http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/postum.txt > >On Sun, 5 Dec 1999, Ed Weick wrote: > >> Is capital and its owners, the capitalists, really responsible for the sorry >> state of the world? > >Tom Walker >TimeWork Web >http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/worksite.htm >
Re: God save us from .pdf files!
At 05:29 PM 10/11/1999 -0400, Ray Evans Harrell wrote: >Why? Snip >Colin Stark wrote: > >> God save us from attachments! Seldom is there anything in the attachment that is graphically significant. Usually the message is adequately transmitted by cutting/pasting into the e-mail program. Obviously attachments take many more keystrokes to delete than e-mail I personally limit sending attachments to individuals whom I am reasonably sure REQUIRE the added information. I believe that I have NEVER sent an attachment to a listserv, where no-one has explicitly expressed their desire to receive attachments. Colin Stark
God save us from .pdf files!
> >God save us from .pdf files! > >\brad mccormick God save us from attachments! Colin Stark
A new concept in Election Websites
http://yourpolitician.com/ is a fabulous new website for the Nov/99 BC elections that is well worth checking out. Despite the fact that it has received widespread publicity in BC, politicians and voters are just beginning to take advantage of its many free services. Here are just a few of its offerings FREE websites to ALL candidates for ALL offices in ALL municipalities in BC FREE access to posting questions for YOUR candidates to record their answers to POLLING on ALL questions posed FREE e-mail advice on updates in YOUR municipality Voters can use this site to pose questions to ALL candidates, and to VOTE on the major issues in their own campaign. It is impossible to predict how much effect this site will have on THIS election, but I am CERTAIN that in the next Provincial election, and EVERY subsequent election worldwide, this site, and its imitators will play an increasingly major role, and the experience we all gain in this election will play a critical role in shaping DD in future elections You may also want to revisit www.npsnet.com/cdd It has been recently revised One addition is an election flyer -- two-sided, letter-size -- brilliantly designed by Corrie Kost with stunning graphics, and text that succinctly expresses the DD message. It can be downloaded, customized to your needs, and printed out for mailing, mainstreeting, etc at minimal cost and effort. CDD has also started up a new Listserv for the duration of the election, to enable communication amongst people interested in the Direct demcoracy debate in this election: New subscribers can JOIN the Listserv by sending a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "SUBSCRIBE elections99" in the message BODY. Colin
Linux
Linux "open architecture" software, a competitive product to Windows, is featured on pages A34,5 of today's Vancouver Province. Further information on this product (including free download) is at http://www.redhat.com "Redhat", a $10 million company, is said to be going public shortly. Note that this operating system is not, at this point, for novice users, but is tipped to be the operating software of the future. Colin Stark
Re: Jeremy Rifkin - 1-6-99
At 05:39 PM 7/14/99 +1200, Ian Ritchie wrote: >To: "'futurework'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Jeremy Rifkin - 1-6-99 >Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:39:26 +1200 >X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Work, Social Capital, and the Rebirth of the Civil Society: >A Blueprint for a New Third Sector Politics > >Rapporteur: Mr Jeremy Rifkin, President of the Foundation on Economic >Trends, Washington, DC *** I have admired Rifkin since 1990. I still believe that his analysis is largely accurate. Rifkin put on an all-day seminar in Vancouver in 1996 for the "Three Sectors", when he said much of what he says here. He spoke to Provincial Cabinet. Premier Clark held at least two follow-up meetings, one public, one with the NDP party -- despite Clark's support, there has been no action in BC on his proposals, and total silence for 2 years. Evidently business and unions do not welcome Rifkin's 30-hour work week, etc. For the past 20 months CDD has advocated Direct Democracy (DD, a SYSTEM of citizen-initiated referenda), which has been used in Switzerland at ALL levels of government for 140 years, and which is operating, after a fashion, in about 26 States of the U.S.A., but NOT at the Federal level in the U.S.A. And NOT in BC. So while I agree with Rifkin's main thesis, he seems to lack the TOOL to make real his solution. I believe that that tool could be DD. >" . . . Redirecting the political debate to a tripartite model with >the civil society in the center between the market and government spheres, >fundamentally changes the nature of political discourse, opening up the >possibility of re-envisioning the body politic, the economy and the nature >of work and society in wholly new ways in the coming century." How does he propose to attain this "Redirecting the political debate to a tripartite model . . ."? He does not say. The only PRACTICAL method I know of is "Direct Democracy" (see http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/), which allows the PEOPLE to decide those issues which the elites will not tackle. A citizen-initiated referendum might activate Rifkin's proposals. As citizen-initiated referenda could activate many other noble proposals that favour the public good! Colin Stark Vice-President Canadians for Direct Democracy Vancouver, B.C. http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Listserv) >The global economy is undergoing a fundamental transformation in the nature >of work brought on by the new technologies of the Information and Biotech >revolutions. These profound technological and economic changes are going to >force every country to rethink their long held assumptions about the nature >of politics if they are to adjust to the radical new world being readied for >the 21st century. In the new era, the traditional political spectrum of >marketplace vs government is likely to be replaced by the notion of a >three-legged political stool with the marketplace, government, and civil >sectors each acting as a check and balance against the other in a new kind >of tripartite politics. The new political paradigm is going to have far >reaching consequences, reshaping our very ideas of citizenship in the coming >century. etc
A Digital Future for Kosovo?
>Date: 9 Jun 1999 05:00:59 - >Mailing-List: ListBot mailing list contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: Campaign for Digital Democracy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Campaign for Digital Democracy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: A Digital Future for Kosovo? > >Campaign for Digital Democracy > >A Digital Future for Kosovo? > >by Marc Strassman > > > Half a century after it wrecked havoc in Germany, the U.S. Air Force has >again reduced the infrastructure of a European nation to rubble. Again, >the time has come to talk about rebuilding a country's devastated physical >plant. > > Why not do what worked so well for the Allies after World War II and >rebuild Kosovo, not as it was, but as it could be? Why not use the >billions that will no doubt be appropriated and spent there to give its >million people the technology to not just restore their level of >subsistence, but to move them, en masse and now, into the 21st century, >the internet century. > > Before addressing some of the inevitable objections to such a suggestion, >let me just sketch out the rudiments of what I have in mind. Integrated >broadband telecommunications is at the heart of the new technological, >economic, and cultural paradigms that are emerging throughout the >developed world. The people of Kosovo are just as entitled to benefit >from these tools as anyone, and, with billions of dollars in aid money >soon to be coming their way, they'll be better able than most to afford it. > > Instead of replacing antiquated, "legacy" phone systems in Kosovo, the >province ought to be made a testbed for the latest and best technology, >systems that can deliver wireless broadband communication services to >every farmhouse, village, and city apartment and house. To jump-start the >local economy, every resident of the province should be given the >opportunity to generate and use a personal, unique digital certificate. >This certificate could be stored on a smart card, and used to identify and >authenticate its owner in e-commerce, in transactions with the government, >for educational purposes and other in other appropriate situations. > > The wireless broadband digital internet communications web that would be >created using cellular or related technologies would, in conjunction with >a good, basic, Pentium III-based laptop computer, enable every resident to >access educational and medical services, to communicate with friends and >family, and to participate in the democratic political life of their >country as it rebuilds. > > Far from destroying the benefits of having a mixed economy that includes >intellectuals sitting around urban cafes while hardworking farmers >actually grow crops and raise animals, overlaying a powerful >telecommunications grid on Kosovo would allow those in the country to stay >there, while making all the cultural advantages of living in the capital >available to them right where they are. > > As for the transportation of goods and people, if there are a few billion >dollars left after building the telecomm grid and supplying everyone with >a computer, I don't see why it might not be possible to build a network of >fast and quiet maglev trains to carry people into the capital for a visit >and whisk them back by bedtime. > > One might imagine that there is something romantic about a people >innocent of the joys and tribulations of a fast-paced, diverse, >up-to-the-minute urban existence. Perhaps there is. But it would be hard >to argue that bringing the people of Kosovo into internet space on >internet time could be any more disruptive of their lives and their >beliefs than what's been done to them already in the last year. > > Even if pre-ethnic-cleansing Kosovo was an arcadian paradise, it no >longer is. Of course, the people themselves need to be consulted and >asked what they want for themselves and their country. If they want it >rebuild just the way it was, they deserve to have that done. But if most, >or some, of them now decide that what they want is to experience, learn >about, and benefit from tools developed elsewhere that can make them more >productive, better informed, and better able to cope with all the forces >sweeping the world, some of which have recently swept them into exile with >much attendant suffering, then perhaps we should begin thinking about how >we can give them these tools, as a way of making amends, and of empowering >them against any future such incursions into their lives. > > On top of this, of course, there is the fact that none of this >paradigm-shifting, transformative reconstruction will be offered to the >people of non-Kosovo Serbia until the engineer of the extended season of >ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, Slobodan Milosovic, is removed from >office. By itself it may not be enough, but when the general population >of Serbia sees how those in Kosovo are prospering while their economy >
Galbraith/Cathedral/Bazaar
Dear Thomas I am basically in agreement with yourself/Galbraith/Elliot, and Gurstein/Raymond's "Cathedral/Bazaar. I particularly agree with Bob Olivero's clear and precise remarks re Cathdral/Bazaar So please bear with me as I nit-pick with the EMPHASIS that your writers place on some key concepts. Bear in mind that I have concluded in the past two years that while CONCEPTS are necessary, they are not SUFFICIENT, and that DIRECT ACTIVISM in local politics is the area in which I personally focus much of my attention (with, I believe, some modest success) At 11:52 AM 5/31/99 +, you wrote: > >------ >>From: Colin Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Subject: Re: Created Unequal by James Galbraith >>Date: Sun, May 30, 1999, 10:36 PM >> > >> To me the essence of this excellent Review is in the Summary paragraph >> While the problem is clearly stated; the potential remedy of Direct >> Democracy is unstated >> >> Colin Stark > >Dear Colin: > >Let me answer your implied question by quoting the first paragraph of an >excellent book out from England called The Age of Insecurity by Larry Elliot >and Dan Atkinson - two writers who actually can make all this stuff >interesting and exciting - I highly recommend it. > >Quote PageVII > >The central struggle of our time is that between laissez-faire capitalism, >which represents the financial interest, and social democracy, which >represents democratic control of the economy in the interests of ordinary >people. These ideologies are incompatible, in that at the heart of social >democracy is the one economic feature specifically and unashamedly ruled out >by the resurgent free market: security. I totally agree. But "social democracy" has always been represented by a party in a system of representative democracy which has been UNACCOUNTABLE to anyone BC has had an NDP -- social democrat -- government since 1991 which has been just as unaccountable (and unsocially undemocratic) as our typical governments Social Democracy remains an interesting concept that has yet to be put into practice. >Social democracy offers nothing if >it does not offer security; the free market cannot offer security (to the >many at least) without ceasing to be itself. This is an exaggeration DIRECT Democracy offers the majority a prospect of some degree of CONTROL over those who up till now have been their political and economic masters -- at least some degree of power balance Note that DD is a control on Representative Democracy, not a "system of government by referenda" >Instead it provides security to >the financial interest at the expense of the majority, upon whom is shifted >the entire burden of risk and "adjustment" whenever the system hits one of >its periodic crises. > >Thomas: > >Whether we have a DD system or a Representative System, the will of the >people is constant. Security is the goal of all people. Again an over-simplification Most people want security, but Maslow's hierarchy indicates that most people want more than that. I would contend that most people want a whole range of achievements that may be lumped into the over-simplification of "transformation" >People continually >vote for more security, medicare, unemployment insurance, pensions and other >supports. Elected governments continually promise security. True -- but the general population has heretofore had no opportunity to set the agenda -- only to choose between A or B, where A and B are both political party leaders who often lie. DD promises to bring an issues-based political system where people will be able to choose, and choose, and choose, etc, and thus to compel their politicians, over time, to behave in like manner -- to choose between issues again and again, rather than merely choose between dictators once every 3-5 years And then - yes >you guessed it, the ideology of laissez-faire capitalism subverts the >politicians into other directions from which they received a mandate to act. >We then turf the buggers out because the next group convincingly sings the >theme song of security only to be subverted once again. The real question >is which ideology should be dominant - democracy or capitalism. Agreed >The people >continually, whether marxists, socialists or capitalists, at their human >individual level, continually opt for more security. But they can only choose between limited offerings -- like Adlerian psychology offers kids in a classroom the option -- "choose to sit down and shut up, or go see the Principal" -- or as Sergeant Hugh (Pepper) Stewart offers the option "take down your 'Free Speech' sign or I will arrest you" !!! >The problem to me >seems less in h
Re: Created Unequal by James Galbraith
To me the essence of this excellent Review is in the Summary paragraph While the problem is clearly stated; the potential remedy of Direct Democracy is unstated Colin Stark "Behind the battering rams, behind the decisions to use them in this way, behind the creation of the situations in which they could be used in such a way, were political figures and policy decisions-decisions, for example, to tolerate unemployment. The economy is a managed beast. It was managed in such a way that this was the result. It could have been done differently. It was not inevitable even given the progress of technology and the growth of trade. It was, in sense, done deliberately. That is the real evil of the time." * At 01:11 PM 5/30/99 +, you wrote: >A lengthy book review by Thomas Lunde > >Lower taxes scream the headlines of the business press in Canada. We are >not competitive shout the neo-cons and their corporate masters. These and >similar mantras have been bombarding us with relentless waves of media >support. In fact whole political party platforms such as Reform have made >this their guiding light. snip >Behind the battering rams, behind the decisions to use them in this way, >behind the creation of the situations in which they could be used in such a >way, were political figures and policy decisions-decisions, for example, to >tolerate unememplyemnt. The economy is a managed beast. It was managed in >such a way that this was the result. It could have been done differently. >It was not inevitable even given the progress of technology and the growth >of trade. It was, in sense, done delibertately. That is the real evil of >the time.
The Scottish Green Party etc -- election results
At 08:25 AM 5/10/99 -0400, Steve Kurtz wrote: > >BBC Friday, May 7, 1999 Published at 17:32 GMT 18:32 UK > >Historic Green victory >The Scottish Green Party is celebrating a political landmark ** Since I lived in Scotland till I was 21 (1960); am a Green Party member in Canada; and am an advocate of citizen-initiated referenda and proportional representation (PR); I followed the Scottish Election with interest The other interesting phenomenon about the election results was that, due to the PR system, Labour has a minority government, and looks like forming a coalition with Liberal Democrats. As the following results clearly show, under the old FPTP (first-past-the-post) system, which predominates in Canada, and, I believe in the US, Labour would have had an overwhelming majority government ** BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/vote_99/default.htm State of the parties After 73 of 73 constituency seats declared After 8 of 8 regions declared ConstituencyRegion Total % FPTP %Total (FPTP) (Top Up)Seats Seats Lab 53 3 56 72.6% 43.4% SNP 7 28 35 9.6%27.1% Con 0 18 18 0.0%14.0% LibD12 5 17 16.4% 13.2% Others 1 2 3 1.4%2.3% Totals 73 56 129 100.0% 100.0% Voter Turnout 58% * So is this a FAIR result, and one to be applauded? Or will it just gum up the works, make decisions difficult, result in compromises, etc. Or will politics just continue regardless? Colin Stark
Re: Democracy & sociocybernetics
>Steve Kurtz wrote: > >> I argue...that hierarchies...have always existed and will most likely >> continue to do so despite any structural changes invented & applied. Methinks thou dost overgeneralize and art over-bold in thy predictions Koestler, Wilber, Raven, and Hock all talk of more organic "chaordic or holarchical " structures which are more applicable to the natural kingdom than the "hierarchical" systems which humans have developed from regal and military models, and which arguably exist only in the "Kingdom of the Human Experience" References: Personal and social transformation -- Ken Wilber's books are featured at: http://www.shambhala.com/wilber John Raven's "A New Wealth of Nations" at http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/nwn.htm points at the more general solutions to governance problems. Chaordic or holarchical (Wilber/Koestler) management systems http://www.cascadepolicy.org/dee_hock http://www.funderstanding.com/mailing1.htm ** Colin Stark
STOP!!!-The Taliban's War on Women
PLEASE STOP AND READ *** At 09:49 AM 1/29/99 -0800, you wrote: >Please sign and pass on if you feel comfortable doing so: > >-Forwarded Message- > >Subject: Please sign and pass on. > > The Taliban's War on Women: SNIP ** Wed 27 Jan 99 Hi All, Last week I received this same chain letter from another source. Being curious about why there was no authority referenced in the above noted e-mail, no information as to the petition's disposition, nor about the ambiguous instructions provided with it, I sent a message to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asking: "Where, when, and to whom will this petition be presented?" The reply follows: Doug ** Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 15:43:21 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The Taliban War on Women X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: sarabande address disabled <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Please read this message carefully, especially the next two sentences. Do not reply to this email. Do not forward this email to anyone else. Anyone who needs a copy, already has one. Do not make things worse. Do not "help" by forwarding this message to everyone who has corresponded with you on this subject. Due to a flood of hundreds of thousands of messages in response to an unauthorized chain letter, all mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] is being deleted unread. It will never be a valid email address again. If you have a personal message for the previous owner of that address, you will need to find some other means to communicate. The text of the chain letter was originally Copyright 1997 Feminist Majority Foundation. [EMAIL PROTECTED] was not an organization, but a person who was totally unprepared for the inevitable consequences of telling thousands of people to tell fifty of their friends to tell fifty of their friends to send her email. It is our sincere hope that the hundreds of thousands of people who continue to attempt to reply will find a more productive outlet for their concerns. There are several excellent organizations and individuals doing real work on the issues raised. Some of them were mentioned in sarabande's letter. None of them authorized her actions. We suggest that you contact them through non-virtual channels to help. They all have web sites with information and contact points. Unlike sarabande, they can channel your energy in useful directions. Do not let this incident discourage you. Please do not forward unverified chain letters, no matter how compelling they might seem. Propagating chain letters is specifically prohibited by the terms of service of most Internet service providers; you could lose your account. Please also read: http://athos.rutgers.edu/~watrous/pbs-funding-chain-letter-petition.html http://www.wish.org/craig.htm http://www.nbi.dk/~dickow/stop-chain-letter.txt http://www.cancer.org/chain.html http://urbanlegends.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa021198.htm http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-run-adverts-00.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-run-spew-07.txt http://ciac.llnl.gov/ciac/CIACChainLetters.html Any replies to this message will be deleted unread. The issue is closed. Please read this message carefully, especially the next two sentences. Do not reply to this email. Do not forward this email to anyone else. Anyone who needs a copy, already has one. Do not make things worse. Do not "help" by forwarding this message to everyone who has corresponded with you on this subject. > > Please sign at the bottom to support, and include your town. > > Then copy and e-mail to as many people as possible. If you receive > this list with more than 50 names on it, please e-mail a copy of it > to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > snip
COKE in SCHOOLS
This example of Business/Governance corruption is so incredible I have to forward it Colin Stark ] >Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:26:54 -0800 >From: Gil Yaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >X-Accept-Language: en >To: CCCI Mailing List Member > >> Harper's Magazine February 1999 >> >> DISTRICT 11'S COKE PROBLEM >> >> >From a September 23, 1998, letter sent to the principals of School >> District 11 in Colorado Springs, Colorado, by John Bushey, the >> district's executive director of "school leadership." In September 1997, >> the district signed an $8 million exclusive vending contract with >> Coca-Cola. >> >> Dear Principal: >> >> Here we are in year two of the great Coke, contract. I hope your first >> weeks were successful and that pretty much everything is in place >> (except staffing, technology, planning time, and telephones). >> First, the good news: This year's installment from Coke is "in the >> house," and checks will be cut for you to pick up in my office this >> week. Your share will be the same as last year. >> >> Elementary school $3,000 >> Middle School $15,000 >> High School $25,000 >> >> Now the not-so-good news: we must sell 70,000 cases of product >> (including juices, sodas, waters, etc.) at least once during the first three >> years of the contract. If we reach this goal, your school allotments will >> be guaranteed for the next seven years. >> >> The math on how to achieve this is really quite simple. Last year we >> had 32,439 students, 3,000 employees, and 176 days in the school year. >> If 35,439 staff and students buy one Coke product every other day for >> a school year, we will double the required quota. >> >> Here is how we can do it: >> >> 1. Allow students to purchase and consume vended products >> throughout the day. If sodas are not allowed in classes, consider >> allowing juices, teas, and waters. >> >> 2. Locate machines where they are accessible to the students all day. >> Research shows that vender purchases are closely linked to availability. >> Location, location, location is the key. >> >> You may have as many machines as you can handle. Pueblo Central >> High tripled its volume of sales by placing vending machines on all >> three levels of the school. The Coke people surveyed the middle and >> high schools this summer and have suggestions on where to place >> additional machines. >> >> 3. A list of Coke products is enclosed to allow you to select from the >> entire menu of beverages. Let me know which products you want, and >> we will get them in. Please let me know if you need electrical outlets. >> >> 4. A calendar of promotional events is enclosed to help you advertise >> Coke products. >> >> I know this is "just one more thing from downtown," but the long-term >> benefits are worth it. >> >> Thanks for all your help, >> >> John Bushey >> The Coke Dude ***
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
At 08:07 AM 1/28/99 -1000, you wrote: >- 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 Dear Jay Thank you for a wonderfully concise example of: 1 unsupported assertion 2 generalization from a single example 3 overgeneralization Colin Stark
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: Prop Rep in New Zealand
Forwarded with permission from Paul Isaacs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
***
On 14-Jan-99, Colin Stark wrote:
{ snip }
>1Would you rather have dictatorship, or "indecisiveness"
>2If three parties have, say, 42%, 35%, and 23% of the popular vote (or
>make up your own numbers), which is more fair:
>athat one party have a virtual dictatorship?
>bthat the 42% party should form a coalition with the party of its choice,
>and govern in some kind of a compromise?
>cother (I personally prefer "other", which would include Direct Democracy,
>but will reserve further comment till I hear from others)
>What do YOU think??
So much talk about political parties and representation and fairness. But:
- what political party is democratic internally?
- what political party would not sell its soul, and its principles such as
they may be, to win "power"?
- what political party is not beholden to its big time monetary contributors?
- what political party exists for any purpose beyond winning election?
- what political party will take a vote losing stand on any issue or
principle?
Which leads to:
- who would want a political party representing them?
- who would propose entrenching such shallow and profoundly corrupt
institutions at the heart of the democratic process - the vote?
I personally do not believe that fairness, representation, democracy, civility
or the objective of good government would be served by having representatives
chosen on the basis of political party.
If one is to promote the concept of Direct Democracy, the case against
political party represenation becomes even stronger because one is asserting
that individual citizens are sufficiently cognizant of governmental issues to
have their say directly. They do not need a political party of any form to
represent their views.
Political parties are very unintelligent and opportunistic animals. If we have
any sense, we will recognize them for the anachronism that they are and
dispose of them post haste.
Political parties are a detriment to civil society. THAT'S what I think.
Paul Isaacs
Prop Rep in New Zealand
I caught a 5 minute interview of N.Z. Prime Minister Jennie Shipley on CBC Newsworld Part of that time was on Proportional Representation While my knowledge of Proportional Representation in NZ comes mainly from the opinions expressed on CDD Listserv by a New Zealander, I was very much unimpressed by the views expressed by PM Shipley, egged on by CBC Interviewer Don Newman Her major opinions (prejudices in my opinion) are: 1 that N.Zealanders are unhappy with the "indecisiveness" of Proportional Representation compared with the former FPTP (first-past-the-post) system; 2 that Proportional Representation gives undue influence to smaller parties "a smaller party, in proportional terms, carries a greater degree of influence of power than the large party (sic) in fact that is an inequity in itself . . . we have a minority leading a majority . . .", she says Seldom have I heard two people manipulate the truth as blatantly as Shipley and Newman Think about it!! 1 Would you rather have dictatorship, or "indecisiveness" 2 If three parties have, say, 42%, 35%, and 23% of the popular vote (or make up your own numbers), which is morefair: a that one party have a virtual dictatorship? b that the 42% party should form a coalition with the party of its choice, and govern in some kind of a compromise? c other (I personally prefer "other", which would include Direct Democracy, but will reserve further comment till I hearfrom others) What do YOU think?? Colin Stark
Interview with Ken Wilber
Forwarded by Colin Stark Here is an interview Ken Wolber did recently with the Shambhala Sun magazine regarding his new book: One Taste. A few Extracts: "Shambhala: Okay, well stop here. One Taste, it seems, is at least three things: an introduction to the worlds great wisdom traditions, a summary of your own work, and a diary of a year in the life " "In fact, I think One Taste is probably the best short introduction to my work now available. But additionally, there are many entries that break new ground entirely, and point to future directions not only in my work, but in integral and spiritual studies in general. This book is basically a series of entries, covering one year, of various new ideas as they were entered in the journals." "Shambhala: Speaking of The Marriage of Sense and Soul, what do you make of the fact that President Clinton and Vice- President Al Gore have both read the book and publicly called attention to it? In the New Yorker magazine, Gore called it one of my favorite new books. At the same time, Jeb Bushs people are using "Brief History". Why all this recent political interest in your work?" "And in this case, personal journals call for some of that. In particular, since I have written extensively about interior life, meditation, and spiritual practice, it seemed entirely appropriate for me to be extremely explicit about my own interior life, and so I was." = Interview with Ken Wilber: The Publication of One TasteThe Journals of Ken Wilber Shambhala: You have a new book coming out. Ken Wilber: Yes, it seems so. Shambhala: Your journals. Are they real journals? Like a diary? Ken Wilber: Well, yes, real journals I guess. Shambhala: Personal journals? Disgusting, private, sordid stuff? Ken Wilber: Definitely. Shambhala: Really? Ken Wilber: Well . I started keeping these journals as a type of experiment. They are definitely personal journals, like a diarythey contain personal incidences, meditation experiences, accounts of events in my daily life, and so on. But they also contain entries that are short essaysanywhere from one to ten pageson topics that are of concern to me and my writing, and I hope are of concern to others. Shambhala: Okay, were not letting you off the hook about the disgusting personal stuff. But for now, topics such as? Ken Wilber: Transpersonal and spiritual philosophy; integral transformative practice; the culture wars, feminism, ecology, politics, the meaning of postmodernism; holistic medicine, art, music, integral culture, and so on. Often a days entry is simply a short essay dealing with one of those topicsperhaps how to interpret art, or ways to integrate liberal and conservative politics, or why integral feminism is an exciting new development, or the importance and limitations of ecopsychology, or the new and powerful types of spiritual transformation known as integral practice. Shambhala: Anything new in these entries, or are they summaries of positions you have stated elsewhere? Ken Wilber: Both. That is, I often needed to briefly summarize some of my already published work, so I did. In fact, I think One Taste is probably the best short introduction to my work now available. But additionally, there are many entries that break new ground entirely, and point to future directions not only in my work, but in integral and spiritual studies in general. This book is basically a series of entries, covering one year, of various new ideas as they were entered in the journals. Shambhala: A few examples? Ken Wilber: What is the actual nature of the integral culture that is said to be emerging in America at this time? I discuss the idea that integral culture is simply a new form of civil religion, which I call Person-Centered Civil Religion, a type of spirituality that focuses on autonomous individuals as they consciously choose communities of other autonomous individuals. I do not believe it is quite as transformative as some of its advocates maintain, but it is definitely a new form of legitimate or translative spirituality, and it is having a profound impact on almost every aspect of American life. Including publishing! Baby boomers are now returning to God and Goddess, and publishers are falling all over themselves trying to figure out how to market God. And, of course, agents have decided they want 15% of God, so its gotten very crazy around town! This has actually helped Shambhala, Im glad to say, because ShambhalaSam [Bercholz, founder of Shambhala] gets embarrassed when I say thisbut Shambhala is correctly perceived to have been publishing quality spiritual books for three decades, and not merely to be doing so in order to get in on the gold rush to the God market. Its very funny, dont you think?
Adbuster's Petition
Here is an opportunity for Electronic Democracy!! Adbusters is a well-known Vancouver Magazine which sponsors, amongst many other projects, "Buy-Nothing Day" Colin Stark *** Adbusters Petition titled: "THE TWO-MINUTE MEDIA REVOLUTION", addressed to the FCC and the CRTC.: Dear Chairpersons William Kennard (FCC) and Francoise Bertrand (CRTC) We the people want access! It is our unwavering conviction that the public interest will best be served if the television licences you grant contain the two-minute media provision. We want broadcasters to set aside two minutes of airtime every hour for citizen-produced advocacy messages in exchange for a renewed lease on the public airwaves. We, the undersigned, put it to you, regulators of our airways, to set up a system of direct public access, or to let us know why you are unable to do so in a free and democratic society. Name Address Signature Find out more and sign the cyberpetition at <http://www.adbusters.org>) >From Adbusters website: How to contact Adbusters: The Media Foundation is based in Vancouver, B.C. If you live in the neighborhood, you're always welcome to drop by, sample our coffee and savour the state of disarray and subdued panic that happens around deadline time. Our address is: 1243 West 7th Avenue Vancouver, BC V6H 1B7 Canada Phone: (604) 736-9401 Toll-free Phone (USA & Canada only) : 1-800-663-1243 Fax: (604) 737-6021 Send us an e-mail to whichever address is most appropriate to you: General Inquiries : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Editorial : [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** "Everyone has the right...to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers." - Article 19, Universal Declaration of Human Rights * Thanks to John Grogan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for bringing this to my attention --- Colin Stark *
Re: Tobin Tax Canada Feb 1999 (fwd)
At 09:00 AM 12/22/98 -0500, Neva Goodwin wrote: >A comment on the Tobin tax, which I have always thought was a >great idea, and I hope it still is -- but I was recently at a >talk by George Soros in which someone asked him about this. >He replied that he had intended to push it in his new book, but >that, after looking into it, he concluded that it was no longer >workable, because there are many novel forms of currency >trading and international transactions -- I am no expert in finance (though I do have an MBA) But I totally support the Tobin tax and have done for several years. I recently saw a one-hour program on CBC Anne Petrie where several experts including Tobin suppported the feasibility and justice and effectiveness of the Tobin Tax. It is the responsibility of the People to make these decisions (currently vested in so-called Representatives), not the Experts, be they called Tobin or Soros, who have individually got vested interests. All that is currently proposed is a debate in Parliament. I have circulated the postings to my networks with my support. through new instruments >that have just been invented in the last few years -- and many of >these cannot be monitored or controlled by governments. A Tobin >tax, he said, would just create a perverse tax-avoidence incentive >for people to do their transacting through these instruments. > I don't know enough about financial markets to be able to >assess this conclusion (I don't even know the names of many of >these new instruments!) -- I'd be interested in reactions from >those who are more up on this. I fear that Soros opinion is one >that has to be taken pretty seriously; he's had more experience >in these areas than almost anyone, and, though he certainly has >mixed motives (the desire for profits continues to burn strong >in him), I believe that his wish to contribute to a world of >sanity and freedom is also strong. What is missing is not the ingenuity, but the WILL of the legislatures, particularly in the US, Canada, and the rest of the G 7 Colin Stark
Re: FW: Re Chaordic change and the Story
As often happens, I totally agree with you, Eva. I had better be careful, or people will think that I am a COMMUNIST, God (if there is a god) forbid :-) Colin At 08:31 AM 11/26/98 +, Eva Durant wrote: >Half of the population is above average intelligence, >and that half is better at communication... >The point is, that without active and conscious >participation you cannot affect any change; >so we have no choice but to go for democracy. >Every option has risks, this one has the >most chance. Cooperation was always the main >survivor feature of humans, more and >more wide-ranging and integrated over >the centuries, with tyranny and chauvinism >the periodical backswing. >Global conscious collectivity >seems to be the next logical progression - >hopefully, this time leaving no chance >(uninformed, left-out mass base) for >medieval reaction. > >Contempt for humanity have never worked, >for sure. > >Eva
Re: FW: Re Chaordic change and the Story
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
Re: "chaordic structures"
At 07:13 AM 11/21/98 -1000, Jay Hanson wrote: >http://www.cascadepolicy.org/dee_hock > >"By Chaord, I mean any self-organizing, adaptive, nonlinear, complex >community or system, whether physical, biological or social, the behavior of >which exhibits characteristics of both order and chaos. Or, more simply >stated, a Chaord is any chaotically ordered complex." > >Hock seems to be saying that Chaord is nature's way of organizing. > Do list members agree? yes > >>>What problem do they solve? >> >>hierarchy/dictatorship problems > >If there is no hierarchy, how can chaordic structures limit the scale of the >aggregate human enterprise? > >If there is no hierarchy, how can chaordic structures allocate resources >under conditions of "absolute scarcity"? I personally prefer Wilber's angle: the human being is the highest order holon (whole/part) in a world that is holons "all the way up" to the transcendent, and "all the way down" to the smallest whatever Looking at the human being, composed (as we are wont to speculate) of mind, body, spirit, soul, etc., how is it that when the arsehole (that most vulgar part of the body) is in urgent need of exercise, even the brightest mind cedes control to it?? I do not know the answer, but I have often observed the fact. I speculate that one of our most pressing tasks as beings, is to develop an organizational system for groups of beings (as parts) that is modeled on that of ourselves as "wholes". I was talking to a friend this morning who tells me that her highest experience of human group organization is working, as a skilled volunteer, in a team at a hospice. Doctors, nurses, volunteers, family, meet in a non-hierarchical group, pooling their wisdom for the benefit of the patient. As I have oft stated in this list, I believe that Co-operative management like Mondragon in business, and Direct Democracy in political and non-profit arenas are two of the PRACTICAL avenues to develop healthy organizational structures see http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/ especially http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/current-3.htm -- Draft Report #6 of the North Vancouver Task Force on Direct Democracy Colin Stark >Jay
Re: Theobald's Latest Message
At 04:56 PM 11/20/98 -1000, Jay Hanson wrote: >- Original Message - >From: Caspar Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>The other question is whether the upswing in energy around Y2K and >>funddamental change will lead to attempts of various >>people/organizations to centralize energy flows or whether we shall be >>wise enough to set up decentralized/chaordic structures. > >What's "decentralized/chaordic structures"? I presume they refer to Dee Hock's non-hierarchical "management-by-a-group-of-equals" structure (chaos/order) see http://www.cascadepolicy.org/dee_hock http://www.funderstanding.com/mailing1.htm Similar structure is proposed by Wilber/Koestler as "holarchical", being the "management structure" that the "most complex holon", the human being, runs by -- see "Brief History of Everything" etc: http://www.shambhala.com/wilber They have similar effect, in my opinion, to the Co-operative structure of Mondragon, and the Direct Democracy structure brought about by "citizen-initiated binding referendum" >What problem do they solve? hierarchy/dictatorship problems Colin Stark >Jay
Re: Third system "needs legal definition" (fwd)
Thank you, Tom, for another gem for my archives Colin Stark At 08:28 PM 10/18/98 -0700, Tom Walker wrote: snip >It's too bad that these kinds of discussions continue to ignore the clear >and very useful definitions given by Andre Gorz in his book "Critique of >Economic Reason". snip >It is not that Gorz is demeaning such activities, rather he is saying that >the the current emphasis on economic rationality will inevitably demean the >activities and those who perform them (for want of a 'proper' job). In other >words, it is futile to look for labour market solutions from the so-called >third sector on the presumption that the first and second sectors can be >left pretty much as they are. Otherwise, the third sector jobs would be >better described as second class jobs and those who are forced to hold them >as second class citizens. One need look no further than the implementation >of "workfare" schemes in Ontario and New York City and the readiness of >governments to deny rights of union organizing to see where fuzzy, >pseudo-economic thinking about the third sector leads. > > >Regards, > >Tom Walker
Re: modularizing the economy (fwd)
I believe the Allende government in Chile made substantial efforts to "design" its economy, with the aid of British computer seer Stafford Beer At 01:59 PM 10/2/98 +0100, Eva wrote: >I wasn't aware that the present - or indeed >any economic system before, besides >the autocratically planned USSR style >ones, were "designed". >It is all a chaotic mess, and it should >be quite clear now that it cannot be controlled >or manipulated to provide all what human kind needs for >a sustainable and universally satisfactory survival. > >Eva Some people are using the words "Chaordic or holarchical" Chaordic from chaos/order Holon being the concept of Koestler that models nature: EVERYTHING being composed of holons (wholes/parts) like atoms/molecules/cells -- everything all the way up (to God?) and all the way down to the minutest sub-particle that man has yet to discover Some web pointers to this subject, which I believe will develop quickly in the next few decades: John Raven's "A New Wealth of Nations" at http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/nwn.htm points at more general solutions to governance problems. Chaordic or holarchical (Wilber/Koestler) management systems: http://www.cascadepolicy.org/dee_hock http://www.funderstanding.com/mailing1.htm Ken Wilber's books are featured at: http://www.shambhala.com/wilber Colin Stark
Re: The X Files ("deus ex machina" excuses)
At 11:28 PM 8/26/98 GMT, you wrote: >So what's wrong with going the whole hog to have >a proper direct democracy? Absolutely nothing wrong with a proper Direct Democracy. You will always get my support on this one, Eva For those who have yet to grapple with Direct Democracy, see http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/ Colin Stark Canadians for Direct Democracy Vancouver, B.C. http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ( Listserv) If you leave capitalism intact, >power stays with those who own the economy. >How can you ensure an independent executive power? >Why are obvious questions such as these ignored in favour >of some really old-fashioned and tried and failed ideas? > >Eva (perplexed) (as always) > > >> Thomas: >> >> This does seem to be the crux of all systems of government. How to ensure >> that those in charge remain "virtuous to its stated goals". It would seem >> to me that an agency like a "supreme court" - though not legal, I'm fishing >> here, an agency that had the power to delve into every aspect of the >> governing individuals at every level, I guess sort of like our Ombudsman in >> Canada, would provide the necessary transparency or monitoring. This agency >> would have to be totally independant and also be allowed a far amount of >> personnel to be effective. Of course, what if they become corrupted, then >> perhaps and agency to monitor the agency. Well, it's pretty fuzzy thinking >> here but, Jay, I think you have identified the right criteria. >> >> What happens is that over time, those who govern lose their perspective and >> start to see the worlds problems from the view of the continuance in power. >> This leads to the two levels of government you alluded to, the backroom and >> the front room. If we could have complete transparency and an incorruptible >> watchdog function and perhaps a totally unbaised press, ie not owned by >> anyone who stands to profit individually or corporately we would go a long >> way to improving the art of governing. >> >> I would be interested in more thoughts in this area. >> >> Respectfully, >> >> Thomas Lunde >> > >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: FW: Democracy and Megacorporations Don't Mix -- Robert Reich
At 01:27 PM 6/5/98 -0400, Cordell, Arthur: DPP wrote: > > -- >From: Sid Shniad >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Democracy and Megacorporations Don't Mix -- Robert Reich >Date: Thursday, June 04, 1998 5:05PM > >The Los Angeles Times Wednesday, May 13, 1998 > >Democracy and Megacorporations May Be Mutually Exclusive > >A century ago, the trustbusters battled big business as an >economic problem. Today, the real danger is political. > > By Robert B. Reich > >The era of big government may be over, as the president says, but the >era >of corporate giantism seems only to have just begun. snip I respect Reich's views Predictions are always shaky at best. The corporations are aware of "equal power" structures -- e.g. they use them in the organization of Visa with the major financial institutions as partners more-or-less equal in power See Dee Hock's work on chaordic (chaos/order) organizations at http://www.cascadepolicy.org/dee_hock http://www.funderstanding.com/mailing1.htm Our government/ bureaucratic structures are still organized as hierarchies, accountable to no-one, and therefore available to the highest bidder -- in whatever currency is desired on the particular occasion Until our governments realise that they will be more powerful when they are accountable to the people by a SYSTEM such as that proposed by Canadians for Direct Democracy: "to improve the democratic process in Canada through a SYSTEM of citizen-initiated binding referendums whereby voters can directly amend, introduce and remove policies and laws" (from http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/) business will dominate government (I predict) >The greatest threat to democracy is the deepening cynicism among so many >people who are convinced that the political game is rigged in favor of >the big guys. The problem is, they're often right. The trend toward corporate >giantism may mean they're right even more of the time. >Robert B. Reich, the former secretary of Labor, is professor of economic >and social policy at Brandeis University One of the biggest problems is simplistic statements like the above, that offer no path to a solution. There are several (but less than an infinite number) paths that show promise: Direct Democracy; Money system reform (LETS and extensions of community $ systems -- see www.gmlets/u-net.com/go/); A child-rearing and educational system that truly nurtures children; Personal and societal transformation -- (see Ken Wilber's www.shambhala.com/wilber); etc Colin Stark
Re: Self-realization in work
At 05:11 AM 5/30/98 +0100, Robert Needham wrote: snip > > I'm searching for recent empirically based literature that >examines freedoms and constraints on fulfilling the need for >self-realization (or self-actualization) in waged work (and perhaps >unwaged domestic work), This statement MAY be an oxymoron. >and the impact that these freedoms and constraints >have upon human well-being. By self-realization, I basically mean the >development of human capacities in the course of achieving life plans. > > Does anyone have any suggestions? If not, can you think of the >names and locations of people who might be able to suggest something? >There must be some sociologists/psychologist out there who might know of >work on this topic. snip IMHO Dr Frithjof Bergmann of U of Michigan has done significant work in the area you are investigating. He describes his vision as "New Work" Some glimpses of his ideas may be had from the website http://www.vcn.bc.ca/newwork Colin Stark
"Cult of Impotence"-McQuaig
"The Cult of Impotence" - by Linda McQuaig, is another of her serious exposés that reads like a thriller. "The popular belief is that we [the Canadian government and the Canadian people] can't have [jobs, social programs ... ] because of factors beyond our control -- because globalization and technology have left us powerless to achieve them. ... in fact the international community has the tools to regulate the world financial system in a way that would harness its enormous energy to our collective advantage. This was done before - for three prosperous decades after the Second World War- and can be done again. ... " I particularly like the way that McQuaig demystifies usually heavy subjects like: Keynes' and Friedman's opposing views on Economic theory; the unnecessary choice between unemployment and inflation; the parts played by the Bank of Canada Governors, particularly Coyne, Crow and Thiessen; the parts played by the "black hats" like Martin, Chretien and chief Finance bureaucrat David Dodge; the parts played by the "white hats" like William Vickery, Douglas Peters, and Rodney Schmidt, whose advocacy of the Tobin tax on short-term financial transactions Martin chooses to ignore. My only criticism is that, like most Canadians, she fails to recognise the key part that Direct Democracy can play in making government accountable to the people: " through a SYSTEM of citizen-initiated binding referendums whereby voters can directly amend, introduce and remove policies and laws." A great read!! Colin Stark Vice-President Canadians for Direct Democracy Vancouver, B.C. http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (listserv)
Re: uk-policy Welfare State Reform: Soul-Craft and Small Differences
At 12:29 PM 3/26/98 -0500, peter stoyko wrote: > >Greetings ... > >Thank you for your interest in my uk-policy posting. I am only a member >of the futurework moderated list, so I am not privy to all comments made >about my contribution. Let me take this opportunity, then, to comment on >your thoughtful response. > >On Wed, 25 Mar 1998, Tom Walker wrote: > >> Peter, >> >> ... As you no doubt are aware, polarization in hours >> of work is an important dimension in income polarization, as has been >> documented in several statscan studies. etc Thank you both for an erudite, yet practical disussion of these key factors. As a former manufacturing manager, now pressing for Direct Democracy locally (and ultimately globally) to politics and all organizations, may I interject a whimsical comment I heard on Radio Australia (broadcast to Canada; like Tom, I am in Vancouver -- we listened to Rifkin and our Premier Clark together -- note that we got little chance to speak, Tom): "A woman remarked -- its great that the (Aussie) government have created a million jobs -- its a pity that I need three of them to make a living!" As most of us are aware, the inequities exist because of huge power imbalances between gov't, business, labour, 3rd Sector, and all the poor sods who are left out of all of these categories. It is time the poor sods had a VOTE (and I mean a REAL vote, with a money system, an electoral sytem, a governance system, an educational system ... that are not wildly tilted in favour of the elite). Even most of our MPs are "poor sods" in that they have ZERO influence on decisions. sincerely Colin Stark
FW-PBS to air FEAR AND FAVOR IN THE NEWSROOM on March 24th
FORWARDED by Colin Stark >From: "Victoria Hogan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: FW: KCTS to air FEAR AND FAVOR IN THE NEWSROOM on March 24th >Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 11:09:54 -0800 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >Importance: Normal >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 >-Original Message- >From: mark achbar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 11:31 PM >To: Victoria Hogan >Subject: KCTS) to air FEAR AND FAVOR IN THE NEWSROOM on March 24th > > >Hi there. This film is worth watching. > >Mark Achbar > [Mark is co-director/producer of the renowned Canadian film documentary "Manufacturing Consent", on the work of Noam Chomsky] KCTS [PBS -- Cable 27 in Vancouver] to air FEAR AND FAVOR IN THE NEWSROOM, a documentary on self-censorship within the American press narrated by Studs Terkel, Tuesday March 24th at 10:00p.m. and Saturday March 28th at 2:00a.m. In the public's eye, reporters will do anything for a story. But FEAR AND FAVOR IN THE NEWSROOM goes behind the scenes to shatter this myth with an insiders' critique of journalistic censorship and self-censorship. Top media executives including the president of NBC News and the vice chairman of The New York Times claim their editorial decisions are made "without fear or favor" of the owners. But some of the nation's most distinguished journalists - including four Pulitzer winners - reveal the hidden wreckage of spiked stories, demotions and firings. In convincing case studies, they prove that journalists quickly learn to muzzle themselves rather than pursue stories contrary to the interests of their corporate employers. Respected executive editor Bill Kovach resigned from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution after its owners, Cox Enterprises, objected to aggressive reporting on issues such as racist bank lending practices and an alleged bribery scheme involving Atlanta-based Coca Cola. >- Pulitzer winner Sydney Schanberg resigned when The New York Times canceled his column for chastising the press for ignoring a major scandal involving real estate developers. > - NBC News president Michael Gartner killed footage of civilian carnage in Iraq during the Gulf War which challenged U.S. military claims of surgical strikes, then fired the reporter who shot it, six-time Emmy winner, Jon Alpert. > - The New York Times spiked Polk Award winner Frances Cerra's expose of billion dollar cost-overruns at the Shoreham nuclear power plant and pulled her off her beat. > >After seeing FEAR AND FAVOR IN THE NEWSROOM, no one will ever read a paper or watch TV news without wondering what news the media magnates deemed unfit to print. As Frances Cerra puts it in the film, "I came to understand that freedom of the press is only guaranteed when you own the press. This is something I learned from The New York Times." > > >SAN FRANCISCO BAY GUARDIAN: "Landmark documentary." > >VILLAGE VOICE: "Tough, gutsy...a vital and nicely structured work of televised media criticism, which is rare and difficult to do." > >SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE: "Muckraking, cage-rattling." > >QUILL, Society of Professional Journalists: "Describes a fabric of entrenched news control that severely limits what Americans learn about controversial issues..." > >NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER: "Powerful documentary." > >"A marvelously revealing show & tell about how media censorship really works in America...a fine, fierce documentary." >Mark Hertsgaard, author On Bended Knee > >"This documentary shines a bright light on media outlets and monied interests that suppress the news, and their victims: not just the muzzled journalists, but the millions of Americans who don't get the full story." Jeff Cohen, founder of FAIR > >"A lucid, compelling examination of some of the principal sources of the corruption of American journalism. James W. Carey Professor of Journalism, Columbia University > >"This is the story the corporate media won't report, which is why it is so important that FEAR AND FAVOR IN THE NEWSROOM get the airing it deserves." Susan Faludi Pultizer prize winner former Wall Street Journal reporter > * * * > Producer/Director: Beth Sanders, (206) 325-3744. Co-Producer/Writer: Randy Baker. Produced in association with KTEH, San Jose Public Television. For VHS copies of the program, contact California Newsreel at 1-800-621-6196. Mark Achbar, Invisible Hand Productions Incorporated Vancouver, BC Canada
Re: TOC
Thank you,Eva, for another shaft of sunlight piercing the fog Colin Stark At 12:14 AM 3/9/98 GMT, Durant wrote: >I just pick one of the many fuzzyness and what gives >the impression of a tedious pseudo-scientific bla-bla. > >> Private property is inextricably part of our commons because it >> is part of our life support and social systems. Owners affect us >> all when they alter the emergent properties of our life support >> and social systems (alter their land) to "make a profit" -- cover >> land with corn or with concrete. >> > >The longest period of human sapiens still the >period when private property did not exist (50k+ years) >All this time they were having ever growing populations >eventually all over the globe. > >If you say social laws are like physical laws, than if you are >consistant, if humans may use the knowledge of the first >to manipulate the physical reality, why shouldn't they >be able to do the same with social reality? > >It seems obscene to seek out this catastrophic vision >and sit back saying this is our fate. You totally ignore >the ability to plan and to cooperate. >There is no "innate capitalism", however ignorant >you make me out, it couldn't have "evolved" >in a few hundred years. > >People already made some effort to overthrow >capitalism, after a much shorter rule, than feudalism. >Given the right initial conditions it could have >already worked. >The more consciously is done, the more chance for >a genuin - not bourgois - democracy to emerge. > >I cannot see the point of your dark fatalism, except a good reason to >call everybody else stupid, and have a good excuse to sit >back and do buggerall in comfort.. > >Eva > > > > > > > > > > >> Neighborhoods, cities and states are commons in the sense that >> no one is denied entry. Anyone may enter and lay claim to the >> common resources. One can compare profits to Hardin's "grass" >> when any corporation -- from anywhere in the world -- can drive >> down profits by competing with local businesses for customers. >> >> One can see wages as "grass" when any number of workers -- from >> anywhere in the world -- can enter our community and drive down >> wages by competing with local workers for jobs. Everywhere >> one looks, one sees the Tragedy of the Commons. There is no >> technological solution, but governments can act to limit access >> to the commons, at which time they are no longer commons. >> >> In the private-money-based political system we have in America, >> everything (including people) becomes the commons because money >> is political power, and all political decisions are reduced to >> economic ones. In other words, we have no true political system, >> only an economic system -- everything is for sale. Thus, America >> is one large commons that will be exploited until it is >> destroyed. >> >> [ This is from my latest newsletter. For more -- including >> references -- see www.dieoff.org ] >> >> Jay >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: FW - some hard questions about a Basic Income 1 - Tom
At 08:43 AM 2/21/98 -0800, Tom Walker wrote: >We have the reasons, well documented. The hard question is do we have the will? I believe that we need not only the WILL but the MEANS. At the risk of repeating myself, I believe that the MEANS may well be Direct Democracy: "a system of citizen-initiated binding referendums whereby voters can directly amend, introduce and remove policies and laws. " See www.npsnet.com/cdd/ for more details Colin Stark
Re: FW - some hard questions about a Basic Income 1 - Tom
At 01:29 PM 2/20/98 -1000, Jim Dator wrote: >The last series of interchanges have been the main reason I joined (and >have remained lurking) on Futurework. > >I just don't see that there are now enough needed jobs at sufficiently >high wages to give everyone (at least in the post-industrial world) a >living income. Many, perhaps most, people are currently kept employed not >for their labor, mental or manual, but for their purchasing power. But >easy and extensive consumer credit, with no expectation (or need) for pay >back is still necessary, but not enough. Maybe not, although since the world is more productive than it has ever been, my guess is that such a large proportion is going to the rich, the speculators, the drug dealers ... that may be the major reason for the phenomenon. The population increase certainly does not help and urgently needs attention, but the world's elite continue to press on regardless. >In my view, this is bad now, but will get much worse, and worldwide. I agree > >Separating "work" entirely from access to goods and services, and >permitting/enabling people to live meaningful, satisfied lives without >"working" seems one of the biggest challenges of the present, and >foreseable future. yes, at least in part >Trying to create more jobs is futile and degrading. yes -- and worse -- the more "jobs" we create the faster we degrade the earth's resources I muse that if all humans on earth were to "do nothing", simultaneously, for just 5 minutes, the earth would have a maximum chance to recover (all humans would die of asphyxiation). So perhaps, although we are literally incapable of "doing nothing", the optimum solution could yet lie in that direction ? Comments?? > >Is that what many of you have been saying in these last exchanges? Or >not? yes Colin Stark
Re: FW - some hard questions about a Basic Income 1 - Tom
At 03:34 PM 2/20/98 -0500, Thomas Lunde wrote: >Tom Walker answered: > >If I can try and paraphrase your answer, it would be that we should change because "a wage system is no longer appropriate to the way that a modern economy works." And because of this, the cost of providing a worker is borne by society as a whole and when business becomes more efficient and produces more with less labour the costs to society increase. Therefore the current system has an imbalance in the redistribution of income. Thank you for boiling it down > >I think many would agree with you but the question I would ask is what philosophical reason would justify introducing a Basic Income in answer to the unspoken question of those who are benefiting from the current system? Because! Because IT IS OBVIOUS! Just do it! Who cares about philosphical, hypothetical, theorizing? There are 3 answers -- plus a hypothetical question! Colin Stark
Re: Prosperity and Justice
At 06:13 AM 1/18/98 -0500, you wrote: >Colin Stark wrote: >> >> At 03:40 PM 1/17/98 -1000, Jay Hanson wrote: >> >From: Christoph Reuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > >> > >> >>What's the use of Direct Democracy if the people is brainwashed by >> >>corporate media and misinformed to take the wrong decisions ? >> >>How can ecological revolution succeed democratically with a majority of >> >>polluting egoists and "No Future" idiots ? >> > >> > >> >Good question! IMHO, democracy is an idea whose time has past. >> >> If it has passed, then it has passed without my noticing that it ever existed >> >> I believe that Direct Democracy might be worth trying while we await your >> gloomy predictions (whether or not they come about) > >I believee another word for direct democracy is syndicalism (AKA >anarchism). >Most every time persons have tried to try this, they have been attacked >by >the heavy hand of the marketplace (AKA police / army). Remember >Joe Hill, Rosa Luxemborg(sp?), Emma Goldman(sp?), et al! With this statement you are shifting ground to a historical/national perspective. To start there is probably not the best place, and I do not wish to follow you there. As I said to someone from one of the Gulf Islands (between Vancouver and Vancouver Island) yesterday: "the islands strike me as one of the IDEAL places on the globe to plant DD -- for a variety of reasons -- the islands have a lot going for them that other places do not have -- isolation from provincial influence, community, educated people, often out of the main stream, ... Much of our written material is on our website (http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/): I would suggest that you "follow the red dots", download it, print it out, and study it. Much of it is professionally written, or carefully written and edited. But much can only be absorbed by engaging with people -- the best people I know to engage with do so (partly) through our Listserv: send an e-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- with the word SUBSCRIBE in the subject line" (end of quote) >I cannot speak for "blue collar" workers, for my only work experience >is as a computer programmer in large commercial "DP shops" (from >insurance >to government contracting to "research"...). There is a book >published about 1978 which is *well* worth reading, both for what it >says about the organization of this kind or work, and also about one >researcher's [pro-worker] research methodoology: _Programmers and >Managers: >The Routinization of Programming in America_, by Philip Kraft. At the >time it was published, it earned a *scathing denunciation* by one ot the >then Big Names in theorizing about the organization of computer work >(at least Kraft didn't get hung for his treason to the tenured >class...). > >"All" (Ah, but what a big little thing it apparently is!) programmers >and managers need to do to implement direct democracy (like all that is >needed for Christ to appear in their midst when two or three are >gathered together...) is for them to distance themselves from knee-jerk >hierarchical obedience to "upper mgmt" and discuss together what they >should be doing ahd how they should be doing it *in their current >situation*. They need, as Joseph Weizenbaum so eloquently pleaded, >to think about what they are doing, whatever it, so that those who >come after them will not wish they had not done it. It is simply >irresponsible to blindly obey orders rather than for a work group >to self-critically (sociology of knowledge, industrial sociology, >ethics of engineering, etc.) evaluate what is being asked of them >and respond with their best judgment (and efforts). Sometimes the >best implementation of a cdomputer system (as of many other things... >is to *not* implement it...) > >\brad mccormick Again, I feel you are shifting ground -- this time to the workplace. I spent 30 years as an industrial engineer/manager/consultant; I have not "had a regular job" in 7 years. I would not at this time take DD into the workplace -- I tried "participative management" in new factories in the 70s and it got corrupted into higher profits -- the business climate now seems more coercive than it was in the 70s -- but the day may come ... In summary I believe that the best places to look for fertile ground for DD is at the grassroots -- community organisations, local governments, NGOs, etc -- although we communicate with business, Provincial and Federal people as appropriate. Colin Stark
Re: Prosperity and Justice
At 03:40 PM 1/17/98 -1000, Jay Hanson wrote: >From: Christoph Reuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>What's the use of Direct Democracy if the people is brainwashed by >>corporate media and misinformed to take the wrong decisions ? >>How can ecological revolution succeed democratically with a majority of >>polluting egoists and "No Future" idiots ? > > >Good question! IMHO, democracy is an idea whose time has past. If it has passed, then it has passed without my noticing that it ever existed I believe that Direct Democracy might be worth trying while we await your gloomy predictions (whether or not they come about) Colin Stark
Re: Prosperity and Justice
At 01:52 AM 1/18/98 +0100, Christoph Reuss wrote: >On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 20:14:09 GMT, Colin Stark wrote: >> I am convinced that we can make progress here at the grass-roots level - and >> that DD could make a SIGNIFICANT difference, over time, in the direction of >> REAL progress, which to my mind is: >> >> -- stabilization at a sustainable level of "population X energy >> consumption/capita (probably way below current levels) >[snip] >> -- and, of course, some form of Direct Democracy, where ALL levels >> (including GLOBAL, which may be with us soon through MAI) of government are >> ACCOUNTABLE to the people through some (Swiss-like) system like that >> proposed by Canadians for Direct Democracy -- this seems to be the most >> easily-achievable of the five aims. >> >> There may well be more "necessary and sufficient conditions", but these will >> do for now > >What's the use of Direct Democracy if the people is brainwashed by >corporate media and misinformed to take the wrong decisions ? Is it not likely that "the people" are less brainwashed than those who are doing the brainwashing? 'Cos it is the lattter who are the elite who currently make the decisions. >How can ecological revolution succeed democratically with a majority of >polluting egoists and "No Future" idiots ? S;owly, and with great difficulty, and it will probably get worse before it gets better. Do you have any better paths to follow? Colin Stark
Re: Prosperity and Justice
At 11:25 PM 1/17/98 GMT, Durant wrote: > > I am convinced that we can make progress here at the grass-roots level - and >> that DD could make a SIGNIFICANT difference, over time, in the direction of >> REAL progress, which to my mind is: >> >sounds good. > >> -- establishing a non-exploitative money system, possibly along the lines of >> LETS >> > >We have just started one here in Rochdale, the birthplace of >the Cooperative movement! (It's still in the tentative first stages, >when everyone waits for someone else to call.) The one >in Manchester is lively though it has a bit too much >new-age-ish mysticism for my liking, but so what. > Many of the LETS sytems are idiosyncratic -- the originator, Michael Linton, is a Scot who lives near Vancouver, and has pursued this dream for 15+ years -- two major (1-2 million $) projects of a "community LETS" sytem are well-advanced in Vancouver >> -- establishing a non-indoctrinating, non-abusive, child-rearing and >> educational system >> > >please.. > > >> -- continuing to move towards personal and societal transformation as per >> Ken Wilber >> The following is extracted from the CDD website at http://www.npsnet.com/bibliogr.htm Wilber, Ken. The Eye of the Spirit. An Integral Vision for a World Gone Slightly Mad. Shambhala,1997. What would a truly integral culture look like, a culture that included body, mind, soul, and spirit? Shambhala's "Ken Wilber Forum" at http://www.shambhala.com/wilber We recommend the books of Ken Wilber because they outline a context in which everything can be held. Wilber, Ken. Sex, Ecology, and Spirituality. Shambhala, 1995. An extraordinary work bringing the history of the evolution of mankind and his/er consciousness within the reach of the ordinary reader - with a little perseverance. Wilber, Ken. A Brief History of Everything. Shambhala, 1996. "It brings the debate about consciousness, evolution, and our capacity for transformation to an entirely new level. More practically, it will save you many missteps and wrong turns on whatever wisdom path you choose to take." Questions and answers based on "Sex, Ecology, and Spirituality". Wilber, Ken. Grace and Grit. Shambhala, 1993. If "Brief History" is too difficult, "Grace" may be too human - the story of Ken Wilber's 5 year partnership with his new wife Treya, dying from cancer. > >I have no information about this. > >Eva > Colin Stark
Re: Prosperity and Justice
At 01:20 AM 1/17/98 GMT, eva.durant wrote: snip >to mention the foreign invasions, wars, isolation etc. >At no point have I called it a "small mistake", it is a major >point of the tragedy; deformation was the only possible outcome >based on such insufficient initial conditions. > >Most of these conditions do not exist presently >1. we have more experience of some democracy worldwide, >2. we have factors more capacity for the production of >all necessities that now include more than the bare basics, >for all the present and projected population if it >manages to level out in 50 years.. >3. We have technology that could enable direct democracy, >based on all freely available information to function. > snip Let me restate that part of Eva's missive with which I particularly agree: >2. we have factors more capacity for the production of >all necessities that now include more than the bare basics, >for all the present and projected population if it >manages to level out in 50 years.. >3. We have technology that could enable direct democracy, >based on all freely available information to function. We (Canadians for Direct Democracy) had a very successful public meeting last night -- three speakers made presentations about the recently-appointed Task Force on Direct Democracy for the District of North Vancouver (a suburb of Vancouver of about 80,00) -- the Mayor, 2 councillors, 2 staff, and 40-50 interested citizens attended. I am convinced that we can make progress here at the grass-roots level - and that DD could make a SIGNIFICANT difference, over time, in the direction of REAL progress, which to my mind is: -- stabilization at a sustainable level of "population X energy consumption/capita (probably way below current levels) -- establishing a non-exploitative money system, possibly along the lines of LETS -- establishing a non-indoctrinating, non-abusive, child-rearing and educational system -- continuing to move towards personal and societal transformation as per Ken Wilber -- and, of course, some form of Direct Democracy, where ALL levels (including GLOBAL, which may be with us soon through MAI) of government are ACCOUNTABLE to the people through some (Swiss-like) system like that proposed by Canadians for Direct Democracy -- this seems to be the most easily-achievable of the five aims. There may well be more "necessary and sufficient conditions", but these will do for now And to the extent that Futurework discussions talk to any or all of the above, I will participate Colin Stark Vice-President Canadians for Direct Democracy Vancouver, B.C. http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (listserv)
Re: Why jumbo shrimp is a variable cost
At 04:41 PM 1/6/98 -0800, Tom Walker wrote: > As I was going up the stair > I met a man who wasn't there. > He wasn't there again today. > I wish, I wish he'd stay away. > - Hughes Mearns(?) Great poem, Tom! But for 50 years I have heard it attributed to the mythic Scottish rhymer of nonsense verse, McGonigle: As I was walkin' doon the road, I saw a coo, a bull begoad! As I was walkin'up the stair I saw a man that wiznae there. He wiznae there again the-day. I wish tae hell he'd go away. Colin Stark
Happy New Year
I have been celebrating the transition from 1997 to 1998 from 12 p.m. GMT till now (after 12pm local time) So, being absolutely sober and steadfast, as native Scots always are at this important transition time, I wish to wish my community of ...(fill in the blank)... a Guid New Year, and mony o' them -- lang may yer lum reek (wi' ither peoples' coal); here's tae us, wha's like us, damn't few an' they're a' deid ... Wishing you all a wonderful, green, democratic, work-filled 1998, Sincerely and soberly, Colin Stark
FW--Treaty Bludgeoned (fwd)]
Black humour -- but I think one of the few appropriate comments I have seen on Kyoto Colin Stark ** (some lines stripped out) >Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 14:35:02 + >Received: from rm-rstar.sfu.ca [142.58.120.21] > by cottage with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #1) > id 0xmmPV-00029t-00; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 13:07:41 -0800 >Received: from fraser.sfu.ca (fraser.sfu.ca [192.168.0.101]) > by rm-rstar.sfu.ca (8.8.7/8.8.7/SFU-4.0H) with SMTP id MAA25890; > Mon, 29 Dec 1997 12:56:38 -0800 (PST) >From: Sid Shniad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (LABOR-L), >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Progressive Economists' Network) > >> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 10:02:39 EST >> Subject: anti-bludgeoning treaty >> >> SENATE COOL TO BLUDGEONING TREATY >> >> Liverpool, England -- Diplomats from more than 160 nations approved >> the world's most comprehensive anti-bludgeoning treaty, which requires >> participating nations to bring about reductions in the bludgeoning >> deaths of children and elderly, starting in the year 2008. >> >> In the waning hours of the conference, delegates wrestled over the >> final details before reaching an accord. Under it, the European Union >> would reduce fatal and crippling bludgeoning by 8% below 1990 levels, >> the U.S. by 7%, and Japan by 6%. Many U.S. businessmen feel betrayed. >> Their understanding had been that bludgeoning need not fall below >> the 1990 level. They were not assuaged by the fact that anti-mayhem >> legislation would not begin to be enforced until 2008. >> >> Negotiators fell short of a second major U.S. goal -- vouchers. >> Most U.S. senators have said they are unlikely to approve a treaty that >> doesn't allow the United States to purchase trauma vouchers from nations >> who have overfulfilled their quotas. Without the credits, a coalition >> of blunt-instrument makers, led by Louisville Slugger, will bring >> terrific pressure to bear on the Senate to just say no. Other lawmakers >> said they would vote the treaty down because some less industrialized >> nations were not required to reduce bludgeoning. "We have to reduce, >> but China doesn't?" said an angry Newt Gingrich. "How fair is that?" >> >> Milton Friedman and other nobel prize winning economists are on record >> as saying that attempts to interfere with bludgeoning will slow sales >> of two by fours and ball peen hammers, likely send the economy into a >> tailspin, and raise bludgeoning costs through the roof. > >
Re: Freedom of Information Consultation (fwd)
I read the "UKCOD" message with interest, particularly since I lived in Scotland till I was 21. I have scanned the site, and will put a link up on our "Canadians for Direct Democracy " website and post this to the CDD Listserv. However I must say that I have GRAVE DOUBTS about : "Our (UKCOD) Objectives are: To develop opportunities for wider public participation in the democratic process using online electronic communication" We at CDD believe that anything short of our aim of: "to improve the democratic process in Canada through citizen-initiated binding referendums whereby voters can directly amend, introduce and remove policies and laws" is "seriously sub-optimal" -- to say it politely -- (BS is the less politeÿ term) Until governments world-wide are accountable to the PEOPLE -- (we suggest a Swiss-like system of binding referendums) -- we have a Governance system dominated by elites who do what elites (Cabinet, top bureaucrats, TNC lobbyists, ) want to do, and spend just a little of their energy fobbing off "Democracy Groups" with useless consultative and information services -- which they almost totally ignore. As Chomsky has said (about sports) -- it keeps the masses from thinking about important issues. Colin Stark Vice-President Canadians for Direct Democracy Vancouver, B.C. http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (listserv) * At 06:16 PM 12/12/97 -0400, Michael Gurstein wrote: > >-- Forwarded message -- >Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 17:15:49 GMT >From: "G.S. Aikens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Freedom of Information Consultation > >This should be a very interesting experiment. > >G.S. Aikens > >Have Your Say to the Government! See - http://foi.democracy.org.uk >=ÿ == > >UK Citizens' Online Democracy (UKCOD) is delighted to announce that for >the first time in Britain the general public can participate in the >preparation of a law by interacting directly with a Government Minister >via the internet. > >An independent, non-partisan web site supported by the Cabinet Office >has been set up by UK Citizens' Online Democracy (UKCOD) to enable the >public to provide the Government with feedback on its proposals for >Britain's first Freedom of Information Act and to pose questions directly >to Dr David Clark, the Minister responsible for the Freedom of Information >proposals. > >You can have your say to the Government and the Minister NOW at:- > >http://foi.democracy.org.uk/ > >Dr Clark said, "Before we produce the draft Freedom of Information >Bill, I am keen to hear people's views on our proposals. The UKCOD >website will be a quick and convenient route for people to provide >this feedback. I look forward to taking part in the online discussion >planned for the New Year." > >So don't be shy, help make history! Have Your Say to the Government at:- > >http://foi.democracy.org.uk/ > >And a big thank you to our sponsors - AOL, the Joseph Rowntree Charitable >Trust, Sun Microsystems and GX Networks. > >Irving Rappaport >UK Citizens' Online Democracy > > > > > > >
FW-Where are we being taken?
Tom I found your post to be a gem amongst the coal-dust I have lurked for a couple of years in FW and continue to do so despite the high "noise/gems" ratio My own take is that most of what is posted is intellectual ramblings that I can do little with When I post "practical stuff that has the potential to change the world" which I am focussed on through Candians for Direct Democracy, few people respond, thus my meat may be poison to some of you, and of little interest to others Nevertheless, despite my analysis that there is little of value for me in FW, a gem like Tom's makes it worthwhile for another month Colin Stark Vice-President Canadians for Direct Democracy http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (listserv) At 11:13 PM 12/9/97 -0800, Tom Walker wrote: >Ed Weick wondered (in part): > >> Am I alone in wondering where we are going? > >And Michael Spencer replied (in part), > >>I, for one, don't think the answer is "off into blue sky" or "around in >>circles". . . > >And . . . to judge the listserv by the conversation on the list is missing a >large part of the show. I've collaborated with people from the Futurework >list and from other lists on several research/writing projects. For example, >a paper that Michael Spencer helped me to revise has recently been >circulated to the Canadian Labour Congress's Ad Hoc Working Group on Work >Time, accompanied by a commendation from the CLC's senior economist (Thanks >again, Michael!). snip >A thought occurred to me in response to Ed's question: a listserv isn't >"Twelve Angry Men". What I meant by that is, unlike a courtroom drama, the >discussion isn't guided by a coherent, underlying narrative. As is my habit >whenever a cultural reference pops into my head, I did a web search on >"Twelve Angry Men" and found a course outline from the University of >Michigan that included a blurb on "twelve lessons from twelve angry men". >The course in question was Organizational Behaviour 501 and it also included >a unit on . . . yup, "the future of work". etc
Re: "evolutionary politics"
At 07:27 AM 12/9/97 -1000, you wrote: > >>> >#2. That participants are willing to put everything on the table -- are >>> >willing to abandon any "belief" in the face of contrary scientific >evidence. >>> >This would include the "belief" that the right economic theories can >save >>> >us. >> >>Yes, everything should be on the table, but the table is finite. Success >>requires all the items on the list of necessary items. That includes > > >Apologies to all. I realized my comment was unclear when I subsequently >mentioned it to my wife and SHE didn't understand what I meant. > >It's phrase used when negotiating. "Everything on the table" means that >people are willing to abandon all previously held positions in favor of >more compelling ones. But we would use science instead of money to move >people. > >I agree with Barry that we have to cut the baloney with Occam's Razor. > >I liked Alan's comment about evolutionary economics. The ecol-econ crowd >has it half right by trying to account for the ecosystem, but they haven't >incorporated the new model of Homo. > >Rather than work on evolutionary economics, I think we should start work >on "evolutionary politics". It's clear to me that the solution must be >found in non-money-based politics (coercion). I tend to agree and work with CDD Canadians for Direct Democracy to that end http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (listserv) > >(Anyone on this list know anything about evolution? ) Not much, but Ken Wilber has written great stuff on the subject- http://www.shambhala.com/wilber > >Jay > > >
Re: FW [is] Governance [of Cyberspace]
At 07:17 AM 11/8/97 -1000, Jay Hanson wrote: >At 09:27 AM 11/7/97 -0500, "Thomas Lunde" wrote: > snip >I believe that honesty and objectively of the kind needed >to govern for the common good is beyond individual human >capability. > >If civil society has any chance at all to survive the >coming century (damned unlikely), it involves setting >aside fairy tales left over from the 18th century >Enlightenment -- it involves understanding the true >nature of humans and learning to govern for the common >good. Thus, the key to our collective survival lies in >the new discipline of Evolutionary Psychology. > >See "Evolutionary Psychology: A Primer" at: >http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.htm snip We at Canadians for Direct Democracy (CDD) have a different, and, we think, more practical viewpoint. A vast amount of the abuse of our governments/governance systems stems from lack of accountability to ANYONE The Swiss have had government accountable to the people for 130 years; Rossland B.C. for 7 years; Pitt Meadows B.C. for a few months; and on Nov 3/97 N. Vancouver, B.C. set up a Task Force to study Direct Democracy (DD). DD is basically a SYSTEM of popular initiative and veto, binding referendums, double majority and spending limits (see Appendices and website - some U.S. states, mainly the westcoast ones, have a hodgepodge of referendums that are up for the highest bidder) Rossland and Swiss experience indicates that in less than 5 years of an adjustment period, government changes drastically for the better Only after a basic adjustment such as this has been made, do I think that more advanced governance systems are practical - the work of Wilber and Raven (see website) would tend to suggest that "holarchic" or "cha-ordic" (chaos/order)(the Internet is one of the few examples of this in practice) systems may be a promising direction. "Canadians for Direct Democracy" is a non-profit group formed recently, inspired by Brian Beedham's 12-page article "Full Democracy" in the Dec 21/96 London Economist (see website). I append a few extracts from the website, which give a brief outline of the principles of CDD Colin Stark Vice-President Canadians for Direct Democracy http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/ * Appendices Mission Statement of CDD Our aim is to improve the democratic process in Canada through citizen-initiated binding referendums whereby voters can directly amend, introduce and remove policies and laws. Principles of Direct Democracy 1.The Popular Veto - when 1% of the voters challenges a law or policy by petitioning government, a binding referendum vote (local, regional, provincial or national) must be held. If it passes, the law is struck down. This process happens about four times a year in Switzerland. 2.The Popular Initiative - when 2% of the voters demands a new law or policy by petitioning government, a binding referendum vote must be held. If it passes, it becomes the law. 3.The Double Majority - this means that a referendum must get more than 50% of the total votes; it must also get more than 50% of the votes in more than half of the designated regions. 4.Strict spending controls - prevent one side from "buying" the vote. Quebec already has such controls in place. 5.Proportional Representation - in its pure form gives each party the number of seats in parliament proportional to the percentage of votes the party receives. Advantages of Direct Democracy Allows the voice of the people to become the Law. Helps people feel that their vote counts, so that they take a keener interest. Makes government pass laws under the threat of a popular veto. Curbs the dictatorial tendencies of party leaders, the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and top bureaucrats. Forces lobbyists to try to influence all the people rather than just the elite who hold power. Makes difficult issues more likely to be faced, since citizens can bring them to referendum. In Canada only government can call referendums. Gives a fair allocation of seats to all parties through proportional representation. Questions about Direct Democracy Will the majority tyrannize weak minorities? No. This has not happened in Switzerland. Will the cost be too high? No. Referendums can be held on voting day at minimal expense, and referendums would cost much less than the non-elected Senate. Will direct democracy weaken the power of governments? Yes. Many Canadians would consider this desirable because our political system lacks accountability. Don't ordinary citizens lack the time, intelligence, and wisdom to make good decisions? If this is true, then democracy of any kind is a poor system. Would referendums solve complex issues? Experts agree that complex issues like sov
