Re: an alternative to Lundemocracy
with both the lottery and this proposal you are basically suggesting that the power should be wrangled from the hands of those now, representing the interests of capitalists/multinationals. I thought someone need to spell it out for you... Good luck, I am with you all the way! Eva I like Thomas' suggestion for governance by a parliament comprised of citizens chosen by lottery. It certainly eliminates a lot of distortions in the system such as political parties, campaign donations by corporations, etc. I frankly don't think it has a hope in hell of ever being realized. In the same spirit I will offer a proposal that I have long championed. Somewhere American social historian Studs Terkel tells the story of a university president who wondered what it was like to be really poor. When he got a sabbatical, he put his money in escrow and lived on the streets, sometimes sleeping on grates. He found, for instance, that it was none too easy for a homeless person without references to get even casual work as a dishwasher. Inspired by this story, I have proposed the Moccasin Rule for government. Walk a mile in the other person's moccasins. Before the government introduces any law, the minister responsible should live under the conditions it would impose on citizens. Before Ontario Social Services Minister Janet Ecker lowered the allowance to the homeless, she should have lived on the streets for six months on $180 a month. Before Canadian Finance Minister Paul Martin and his predecessor Michael Wilson tampered with unemployment insurance benefits, they should have lived for six months on the median benefit paid out to the unemployed. If our Minister of Labour contemplates changes to labour law, I would be only to happy to show him the ropes in the factory where I work. Live long and prosper Victor Milne Pat Gottlieb FIGHT THE BASTARDS! An anti-neoconservative website at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/pat-vic/ LONESOME ACRES RIDING STABLE at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: an alternative to Lundemocracy
- Original Message - From: Victor Milne [EMAIL PROTECTED] I like Thomas' suggestion for governance by a parliament comprised of citizens chosen by lottery. It certainly eliminates a lot of distortions in Inspired by this story, I have proposed the Moccasin Rule for government. These are both really good ideas that should be incorporated into any new social system. Jay
an alternative to Lundemocracy
I like Thomas' suggestion for governance by a parliament comprised of citizens chosen by lottery. It certainly eliminates a lot of distortions in the system such as political parties, campaign donations by corporations, etc. I frankly don't think it has a hope in hell of ever being realized. In the same spirit I will offer a proposal that I have long championed. Somewhere American social historian Studs Terkel tells the story of a university president who wondered what it was like to be really poor. When he got a sabbatical, he put his money in escrow and lived on the streets, sometimes sleeping on grates. He found, for instance, that it was none too easy for a homeless person without references to get even casual work as a dishwasher. Inspired by this story, I have proposed the Moccasin Rule for government. Walk a mile in the other person's moccasins. Before the government introduces any law, the minister responsible should live under the conditions it would impose on citizens. Before Ontario Social Services Minister Janet Ecker lowered the allowance to the homeless, she should have lived on the streets for six months on $180 a month. Before Canadian Finance Minister Paul Martin and his predecessor Michael Wilson tampered with unemployment insurance benefits, they should have lived for six months on the median benefit paid out to the unemployed. If our Minister of Labour contemplates changes to labour law, I would be only to happy to show him the ropes in the factory where I work. Live long and prosper Victor Milne Pat Gottlieb FIGHT THE BASTARDS! An anti-neoconservative website at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/pat-vic/ LONESOME ACRES RIDING STABLE at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/
Re: Lundemocracy
A LUNDEMOCRACY. I like Thomas's idea. A significant improvement over currently operative models of democracy. But I would make these modifications. (1) that citizen education for parliamentary participation be compulsory, IF participation is to be compulsory, OR: (2) that participation in parliament not be mandatory, but the right to participate be conditional on attainment of certain communicative and other competencies, ie, on a 'driving' licence. (3) that a person's participation be limited to two or three main decision-making domains. Few, if any, people have the capacity to absorb the theory and info. in all areas in order to make reasonable decisions. Better that people choose those areas in which they have a genuine interest. The rule: don't participate in a decision if you don't have have time to properly deliberate on the information and have not well considered the underlying theoretical assumptions. (4) that full right to effect decisions in the chosen domain be bestowed only after a 'learning' period - say a year or two, during which time one serves as an observer/commentator. (5) that one has the right to choose to continue to serve as a parliamentarian in an honorary capacity for an extended period say up to 30 years (subject to confidence maintaining procedures). (6) that such a democracy be glocal (ie, local and global), using the Internet as the 'Virtual Parliament'. Such a democracy would render national politics redundant. THE POSSIBILITY TO DESIGN AND TRIAL SUCH A PARLIAMENT NOW EXISTS. THE EXPERIMENT DOES NOT NEED THE SANCTION OF THE CURRENT INTERNATIONAL ORDER. BETTER THAT IT BE TRIALED, DEVELOPED BY AND IMPLEMENTED AMONG THOSE INTERESTED RATHER THAN IT BE UNDEMOCRATICALLY FOISTED ON AN UNWARY PUBLIC. Thomas Lunde wrote: I have long puzzled over this question of democracy and I would like to propose the Democratic Lottery. For it to work, there is only one assumption that needs to be made and that every citizen is capable of making decisions. Whether you are a hooker, housewife, drunk, tradesman, businessman, genius or over trained academic, we all are capable of having opinions and making decisions. I suggest that every citizen over 18 have their name put into a National Electoral Lottery. I suggest "draws" every two years at which time 1/3 of the Parliment is selected. Each member chosen will serve one six year term. The first two years are the equivalent of a backbencher in which the individual learns how parliment works and can vote on all legislation. The second two years, the member serves on various committees that are required by parliment. The third and final term is one from which the parliment as whole choses a leader for two years and also appoints new heads to all the standing committees. This does away with the professional politician, political parties, and the dictatorship of party leadership of the ruling party and it's specific cabinet. It ensures a learning curve for each prospective parlimentarian and allows in the final term the emergence of the best leader as judged by all of parliment. Every parlimentarian knows that he will be removed from office at the end of the sixth year. We could extend this to the Senate in which parlimentarians who have served for the full six years could participate in a Lottery to select Senate members who would hold office for a period of 12 years. This would give us a wise council of experienced elders to guide parliment and because the Senate could only take a small increase of new members every two years, only the most respected members of parliment would be voted by parlimentarians into a Senate position. This would eliminate political parties - it would eliminate the need for re-election, it would eliminate campaign financing and all the chicannery that goes with money. It would provide a broad representation of gender, ethnic groupings, regional groupings, age spread and abilities - and though some may question abilities, the prepronderance of lawyers in government has not proven to be superior. If the idea of a representative democracy is for citizens to represent citizens, then a choice by lottery is surely the fairest and has the least possibility of corruption, greed or the seeking of power to satisfy a particular agenda. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -Original Message- From: Colin Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: January 27, 1999 4:42 PM Subject: Re: real-life example At 11:50 AM 1/26/99 -1000, Jay Hanson wrote: - Original Message - From: Edward Weick [EMAIL PROTECTED] and social complexity grew. While hunting and gathering societies needed only transitory hierarchies, more complex societies needed permanent ones. However, there is no reason on earth why these couldn't be democratic, allowing a particular leadership limited powers and only a limit
Re: Lundemocracy
Sounds good to me... However, I think we can only give an approximate framework, with a few stopchecks, the system will stear itself to the most efficient way. Eva A LUNDEMOCRACY. I like Thomas's idea. A significant improvement over currently operative models of democracy. But I would make these modifications. (1) that citizen education for parliamentary participation be compulsory, IF participation is to be compulsory, OR: (2) that participation in parliament not be mandatory, but the right to participate be conditional on attainment of certain communicative and other competencies, ie, on a 'driving' licence. (3) that a person's participation be limited to two or three main decision-making domains. Few, if any, people have the capacity to absorb the theory and info. in all areas in order to make reasonable decisions. Better that people choose those areas in which they have a genuine interest. The rule: don't participate in a decision if you don't have have time to properly deliberate on the information and have not well considered the underlying theoretical assumptions. (4) that full right to effect decisions in the chosen domain be bestowed only after a 'learning' period - say a year or two, during which time one serves as an observer/commentator. (5) that one has the right to choose to continue to serve as a parliamentarian in an honorary capacity for an extended period say up to 30 years (subject to confidence maintaining procedures). (6) that such a democracy be glocal (ie, local and global), using the Internet as the 'Virtual Parliament'. Such a democracy would render national politics redundant. THE POSSIBILITY TO DESIGN AND TRIAL SUCH A PARLIAMENT NOW EXISTS. THE EXPERIMENT DOES NOT NEED THE SANCTION OF THE CURRENT INTERNATIONAL ORDER. BETTER THAT IT BE TRIALED, DEVELOPED BY AND IMPLEMENTED AMONG THOSE INTERESTED RATHER THAN IT BE UNDEMOCRATICALLY FOISTED ON AN UNWARY PUBLIC. Thomas Lunde wrote: I have long puzzled over this question of democracy and I would like to propose the Democratic Lottery. For it to work, there is only one assumption that needs to be made and that every citizen is capable of making decisions. Whether you are a hooker, housewife, drunk, tradesman, businessman, genius or over trained academic, we all are capable of having opinions and making decisions. I suggest that every citizen over 18 have their name put into a National Electoral Lottery. I suggest "draws" every two years at which time 1/3 of the Parliment is selected. Each member chosen will serve one six year term. The first two years are the equivalent of a backbencher in which the individual learns how parliment works and can vote on all legislation. The second two years, the member serves on various committees that are required by parliment. The third and final term is one from which the parliment as whole choses a leader for two years and also appoints new heads to all the standing committees. This does away with the professional politician, political parties, and the dictatorship of party leadership of the ruling party and it's specific cabinet. It ensures a learning curve for each prospective parlimentarian and allows in the final term the emergence of the best leader as judged by all of parliment. Every parlimentarian knows that he will be removed from office at the end of the sixth year. We could extend this to the Senate in which parlimentarians who have served for the full six years could participate in a Lottery to select Senate members who would hold office for a period of 12 years. This would give us a wise council of experienced elders to guide parliment and because the Senate could only take a small increase of new members every two years, only the most respected members of parliment would be voted by parlimentarians into a Senate position. This would eliminate political parties - it would eliminate the need for re-election, it would eliminate campaign financing and all the chicannery that goes with money. It would provide a broad representation of gender, ethnic groupings, regional groupings, age spread and abilities - and though some may question abilities, the prepronderance of lawyers in government has not proven to be superior. If the idea of a representative democracy is for citizens to represent citizens, then a choice by lottery is surely the fairest and has the least possibility of corruption, greed or the seeking of power to satisfy a particular agenda. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -Original Message- From: Colin Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: January 27, 1999 4:42 PM Subject: Re: real-life example At 11:50 AM 1/26/99 -1000, Jay Hanson wrote: - Original Message - From: Edward Weick [EMAIL PROTECTED] and social complexity grew. Whi
