Hi Kieth, There's a lot of stuff you threw out there. To address it all would take a heck of a lot of time -- suffice to say that I agree with most of it. Switzerland: If part of it's government was based on the US constitution, you wouldn't know it. It gained it's Independence over 700 years ago and I think they had it pretty much nailed down before Jefferson put pen to paper. I visited my grandmother two weeks ago as I've done almost every year since I was an infant. Her 700+ year old house is a testament to their cautious attitude toward "progress" (I'm alluding to housing development). You are right about voting. Before my Aunt could build her new house, it had to be approved by those in her neighborhood. She, in fact, had to build a stick frame of the house to show its size and shape and offer a visual aid for all who would approve it (or not). "Presidents": They have seven of them, representing all of the regions of the confederation. Since Switzerland has four national languages, They are usually fluent in two or three of them (German French Italian and Rhetto-Romanish). This makes me wonder about the whole one nation, one language thing. I don't want to go on too long -- especially since I think you already did a great job covering much of this. I just wanted to offer some perspective as a witness to quite another interpretation of democracy. I sometimes see my relatives and the country they live in with envy. This is a country that hasn't experienced war within its borders since the crossbow was the weapon of choice. They have a well organized, cohesive government where you don't have to own a car and you would be hard-pressed to find a hungry child -- all of this while the language (and sometimes culture) can change within a thirty minute walk. Mike
Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello Michael, Hakan and all >Hakan, > >Thank you for spending the time to point toward better examples of >democracies than the US. As a dual citizen, I think that Switzerland >is an especially good choice. Are you really? That must make for some interesting comparisons. I posted this before, but I think I'll post it again, seems pertinent right now. >What difference does "one person one vote" make when non-person >corporations that are inimical to democracy and the public interest >can buy off the entire political apparatus? It's just a meaningless >formula now, it obscures the reality as much as reveals it. How many >of those increasingly meaningless votes even get cast? - or how few >rather? You think that's what "democracy" means? You have to abandon >these formulas and look at what really happens in people's lives. >How about a rich country that didn't allow its women to vote until >13 years ago? Probably some backward oil sheikhdom in the Gulf or >something, eh? Switzerland, actually. I think it's the oldest >democracy in the world, going back to the 13th century, and much >admired, though certainly not without its flaws. Everywhere you look >you find exceptions to these simplistic formulas, both better and >worse. I don't want to interpret what Hakan said, but I believe he >was talking about realities, not just empty forms. > >Switzerland, by the way, modelled its current federal constitution >on the US, in 1848. Government there is a very local business, >strictly bottom-up, the federal government is tiny and hardly seems >to matter. There's no clear division between the governing party and >the opposition. The Swiss don't just vote once in four years, they >seem to be voting most of the time - in fact they vote whenever they >feel like it, it's a citizens' right to organize a referendum on >just about anything. Interest and turnouts are high. Not so easy to >recognise today's US in that mirror image, is it? > >Who's the president of Switzerland? The name doesn't spring >immediately to mind, does it? Or maybe, does Switzerland have a >president or a prime minister, or a chancellor, or what? Don't know? >Neither do I. Sounds good to me. > >It would seem the leaders, if that's quite the word (I think it >isn't quite the word), don't have much choice but to abide by the >consitution, and anyway nobody seems to take very much notice of >them. At the time James had got a lot of Americans all upset with his talk of teledemocracy, which they saw as Direct Democracy, in other words "mob rule". I said this to one of them: >Anyway, you see teledemocracy = Direct Democracy = Mob Rule, the >preferred alternative being the Rule of Law, and, what, the status >quo? Somehow I don't think you're that happy with either of those. >The bit above ending with the Patriot Act ["Now the Homeland >Security Bill basically suspends our Constitution under Color of >Law, on top of the Patriot Act"] is either the Rule of Law at work >or shows that it's a weakling, easily purloined. It also looks more >than somewhat like what you have now is Mob Rule. Law and justice >are not the same. That allegedly virginal and unraped lady in the >white dress has a set of scales and a sword, usually a two-edged one >that seems to cut a lot more with one edge than the other, and no >wonder, since she's blindfold. Blind justice? I think what they >meant, or should have meant, was impartial justice. Now how much of >that do you find in the Rule of Law? And how does all this have a >bearing on what's going on and not going on in your local forest? If >not, why not? It's deadlocked. How to break the deadlock? What's >befallen your own project looks to me like a good example of Mob >Rule and the Rule of Law being available to the highest bidder. You >might succeed in tipping those scales your way (not that the blind >lady will even notice), but it shouldn't be happening in the first >place. So much for business-as-usual when it comes to democracy. >What democracy? What's better, to go on and on flogging a dead >horse, or try something new? > > If the country is a democratic monarchy or democratic republic, >it does not matter, they are > > both democracies. > >"Democracies" throughout the world vary wildly with how each country >defines it. But who exactly defines it in these countries? Is the defining of it itself ever a truly democratic process? What was I saying about Churchill? "... what I tend to think of as Churchill's critical threshold level, when he mouthed that nonsense that you can fool some of the people all of the time and you can fool all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time - while knowing very well that there's absolutely no need to fool all of them all of the time just as long as you can fool enough of them enough of the time. Which all our governments succeed in doing." "The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." -- Australian social scientist Alex Carey >From yet another previous message: >I don't think the system in the US is a good reflection of who you >are as a people, you're much better than your system, and I think >most people sense that in differentiating between Americans and >Washington. I think this is what they want from you: > >"U.S. remains biggest terrorist nation in the world. We're the >largest arms exporter. We're funding the next generation of Saddams >in places like Pakistan and Uzbekistan. We ignore international >treaties and laws whenever we like. No combination of world powers >has been able or willing to hold this rogue state accountable for >its transgressions. The only force that can is the American public >itself. In 2004, we'll have the chance. The essential first steps: >Educating ourselves, seeking out multiple alternative news sources, >and making up our own minds. The essential next steps: Use that >knowledge, spread that knowledge, and get busy!" -- 2003 Media Follies! by Geov Parrish, WorkingForChange.com, January 4, 2004 http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17475 Sad, eh? But all is not lost, not by a very long way. Regards Keith >So, I believe that it certainly does matter. We can agree to disagree. > >Mike > > > >Hakan Falk wrote: > >Mike, > >I have gone though this with direct democracies and representative >democracies on the list and in detail before. If the country is a >democratic monarchy or democratic republic, it does not matter, they are >both democracies. The maybe only and closest to direct democracy today, is >Switzerland, but they still have a heavy mix between direct and >representative. A true direct democracy have not existed since Athens >around 2,500 years ago, so it is the only I have studied. Indirect >democracies are many and each with its own small variations, at least those >I have studied. > >I have heard Bush, all other presidents and almost all involved in public >representation, express the opinion that US is the greatest democracy in >the world. To this I might add 80% of the Americans that I encountered. I >lived in US for a year and visited around 60 times. > >When did I say that children necessarily are cute? Most of the children did >however not have time to develop their intellect, sense of responsibility >and logic reasoning. Among Americans there are probably more exceptions >than among children. > >Yes, it scares me that they are in charge of the most powerful military of >today. Unfortunately we do not have any global licensing and permits for >countries to have a military force. > >Hakan > _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
