[MD] Democracy

[Ian Glendinning]

Hi David,

Nested representation is a great start - the first issue to be
addressed (pragmatically) is how the grouping is managed, the
"constituency" problem.

Self-selection, social groups, interest groups, geographical groups,
(cough) specialist / expert groups, etc. But with nested
representation seeded in some way, the process should evolve in the
right direction .... but then the issue is time ... periods between
selections / rules on re-elections, and the "mean time between
failure" - war, revolution, natural disasters, loss-of-nerve /
patience, with temporary inequities, etc.

And the freeloaders / non-participants /  problem remains. eg Saw
"Swing Voter" last night - cheesey comedy, far-fetched and US-centric
I know, but some complex issues, including the participation problem
... ie if someone doesn't take the trouble (or - cough,cough - have
the capacity) to understand the issues, is it "dangerous" if they vote
? Of course with the Hollywood treatment people all learn this lesson
in one voting cycle - the candidate(s), the campaign manager(s), the
journalist and the voter conveniently all see sense inside 90 minutes
- but real-life ain't Hollywood, even if US elections give that
impression.

Beyond the representation aspect, is the question of rights,
responsibilities and "power" - which institutions have what rights ?
ie representation doesn't give your group the right to wipe out the
neighbouring group if you disagree with them. One group of 25 can't
decide to call itself "the supreme court" etc. Good on the
representation side, but not so good on defining the institutions
pragmatism will demand.

Seriously though, nested representation is a good concept to start
with - tolerant and self-correcting.
Ian

On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:02 PM, David M <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi Ian
>
> I like the idea of nested representation for a democracy.
> Where we form groups of 25 and from that pick one
> representative who then form another 25 at the next level
> and pick another single representative. With eight levels
> you can form a UK parliament and have immediate recall
> and change of the representatives if the lower levels make
> the call. And by picking a rep you may improve the
> quality.
>
> DM
>
>
>> Chris, most of what you say is pragmatic / common-sense, so I won't be
>> disagreeing - though you'll have to come back further on the "Nordic
>> model".
>>
>> The pragmatic problem I have is that you cannot say simply that "the
>> first step" is to lift the masses. I mean, you're not suggesting we
>> put democratic freedoms on hold until we (someone) considers the
>> masses have been lifted are you ? This is my point about (cough)
>> "intellectual elite". To put it bluntly - who decides when the
>> opinions of the masses are intellectual enough to be given the freedom
>> of more opportunity to choose / decide ?
>>
>> "Broad support" is a nice euphemism for "I / we'll decide" - and you
>> don't mean  one individual / one vote democracy on every individual
>> decision.
>>
>> Education, education, education - someone once said - so no argument
>> about education as the priority. So education has to be an important
>> "part of the system".
>>
>> The question is what system ?
>> Clue - the answer is not "no system" nor is it "place the world on
>> hold until we have the perfect system". Choosing what makes for a
>> better system, not simply choosing between least-worst existing
>> systems, I say. What is good ? someone asked.
>>
>> Sorry to jump on you Chris - but this is THE debate I want to have.
>> (All others are subsidiary to this one.)
>> Ian
>>
>> On 7/30/08, Christoffer Ivarsson <IvarssonChristoffer at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Grateful for your input Ian, and I see and agree with your points.
>>>
>>>
>>> I believe the answer lies in education, and generally raising the
>>> standard
>>> of living of the population in general. I mean, if a democracy is to work
>>> properly (the way we want it to work =) we need to make sure that people
>>> are
>>> generally more guided by the intellectual level. I believe that is step
>>> one.
>>>
>>> Moreover, I believe in the potential of the Nordic Model to regain it's
>>> former strength and continue to serve Quality. Because the most important
>>> aspect of that is that you have a general movement towards giving people
>>> equal opportunities  - and it had, and still has really - a broad
>>> support,
>>> it is built for the people by the people.
>>> So if the leaders of this movement can regain their strength (or really
>>> be
>>> replaced) and get the whole thing going again I think we are on the road
>>> to
>>> a Quality serving society.
>>>
>>> So, the first step is to "lift the masses" so to speak, and create a more
>>> equal and more educated society,  and this is being done.
>>>
>>> This was a short answer, I think I'll have to return again to clarify,
>>> but
>>> have to go now, but you could give me a general input if you whish
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>> > Gad you started this thread Chris,
>>> >
>>> > I've tried many times before. I start from the position "Democracy is
>>> > the worst from of governance, except for all the others." So our
>>> > (worthwhile) task is to see what "kind of" free-democracy would be an
>>> > improvement (from a MoQist perspective).
>>> >
>>> > The debate always founders on the social / intellectual "confusion".
>>> >
>>> > The general points in your thread with Bo, are clearly true - social
>>> > patterns must accept some dominance by intellectual paterns , whilst
>>> > intellectual patterns must recognise that they are supported by social
>>> > patterns.
>>> >
>>> > To be provocative, this boils down to what intellectual (elite)
>>> > arrangements are valid to control / limit the freedoms of social
>>> > arrangements. Practically, the answer cannot simply be one individual
>>> > one vote on every decision that affects every individual - for that
>>> > case read anarchy instead democracy. Even if social and intellectual
>>> > patterns are intermixed in one "cultural" level - as I see it - it's
>>> > the same question of which more-intellectual patterns may limit the
>>> > freedoms of which more-social patterns. If the answer is "any" - that
>>> > is all intellectual patterns dominate and control all social patterns,
>>> > then a VERY clear distinction between social and intellectual patterns
>>> > becomes essential. Otherwise Platt might pass for intellectual ;-)
>>> >
>>> > If the answer is that pragmatically some social institutions must
>>> > agree and enforce intellctually-based limits, the questions become
>>> > practical ones of which and how ? And how do we avoid such
>>> > institutions becoming some embodiment of the Giant ?
>>> >
>>> > Not found a better answer yet than a pragmatic cultural & teleological
>>> > mythology answer so far - but I'm still looking. Freedom is a
>>> > fundamental part of the answer, but totally unlimited freedom is not
>>> > the whole answer.
>>> > Ian
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>>> Archives:
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>>>
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>