liberte@uiucdcs.UUCP (04/27/84)
#R:pyuxa:-71200:uiucdcs:29200135:000:2178 uiucdcs!liberte Apr 27 03:48:00 1984 > /**** uiucdcs:net.politics / pyuxa!wetcw / 6:26 pm Apr 25, 1984 ****/ > I am forever amazed at the submissions of some of our netters. > Today, we are treated to a plea to change our style of government > to what Mr. LaLiberte and Mr. DiNardo call "participative democracy". > I really wonder where these gentlemen have been all of their lives? > This is exactly what we now have. What more do they want? To clarify my position, there is an important difference between what is called participative democracy and representative democracy. We have a representative democracy in which we elect representatives to make decisions for us. The only decisions we make are who to support for election. In participative democracy, the people are much more directly involved in policy decision making because people vote on the issues, not the candidates. Various combinations of the two are possible. Occasionally, the people are given the opportunity to vote on an issue, but it is usually non-binding. > Standing around on the outside of the government and not doing > anything to bring about change is the problem, not that the > government is an oligarchy. Who's fault is it that Congress > and every other branch of government is filled to the brim with > THEM? It is the fault of 80% of the people who, because they > are too busy moaning and groaning, do not participate. The form of government makes a great deal of difference in how easy it is to effect change. Change is possible with most any governmental structure. The question is, which structures will facillitate beneficial change? Seems to me that what has happened in this country is that people have become disillusioned with a system in which their primary input to the government is to vote for or against someone they saw in a TV commercial. The process has become self defeating. The reason participatory democracy is an attractive idea is that becoming involved with making policy decisions is very addicting. The more you learn, the more you want to learn more. Positive. Daniel LaLiberte, U of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Computer Science {moderation in all things - including moderation}
berman@ihuxm.UUCP (The Keyboard of Reason) (04/30/84)
"Paricipative Democracy"...now that's a great idea!
I seem to remember a call for it, by a student group in the
year 1963, a small group just emerging from the duldrums of the 1950's
beginning to feel the stirings of civil rights and anti-war activism
that characterized the decade that followed. The published a call
for "Participatory Democracy" after a national conference, in a
manifesto called "The Port Huron Statement." If popular demand
reqests it, I'll dig out my dusty dogged eared copy and post
the sections describing what was meant by participatory democracy.
The organization? It was a small group of university students
that called itself "Students for a Democratic Society".
The rest is history.
Andy Bermantac@teldata.UUCP (05/01/84)
, (sop to the blank line eaters--consider it a religious sacrifice) >> From: liberte@uiucdcs.UUCP >> >> To clarify my position, there is an important difference between >> what is called participative democracy and representative democracy. >> We have a representative democracy in which we elect representatives >> to make decisions for us. The only decisions we make are who to >> support for election. In participative democracy, the people are >> much more directly involved in policy decision making because people >> vote on the issues, not the candidates. Various combinations of >> the two are possible. Occasionally, the people are given the >> opportunity to vote on an issue, but it is usually non-binding. The ideas presented in your view are not new to discussions of how the government in this nation should be run. They were discussed and discarded in the 1770's and 80's for very good reasons. Participative Democracy *REQUIRES* all people to be constantly and completely informed on all facets of not just government, but law and history as well, so as not to perform some act without legal basis or which will lead to large trans- gressions in the power usage by the government. They (the framers of our Constitution) that not all people had this interest or would be willing to make the commitment. The percentage of Americans who register to vote prove them right. Mob rule is what you are advocating, and it works fine when everyone knows everyone and they all have the same interests at heart. The diversity of population densities, climates, geologies and weather paterns which encompass this nation have precluded this. What grows down south will not grow up north, neither are there as many people per square mile in Oregon as there are in Maine. These areas are so different that the people of one should not be making rules for the people of the others to live by. [Incidentally, a good case could be made that the Soviet Union is a Participative Democracy. All of the people get to vote on not only the Politbureau (SP?) members, but on many important issues--of course the ballet just has one box, no yes or no, nor a choice of candidates, but they do get to check that box.] Government should not be done by what is most popular (although our's is more like that than not at this time), but by what is *RIGHT*! The representative government that we were given was based on the idea that while not everyone would know everything, they could at least find a person who's opinion they respected enough to accept in most matters. The framers also felt that no one could be asked to know about all of the officials who would run for an office, and thus proposed the electoral college (who's original purpose has been bastardized in order to make a popular election of the races). Again, history has proved them right by showing an unusual number of politicians about whom some ugly information comes to light AFTER election. The representative system is also based on the idea of government at the lowest level. There is no reason this side of H**L why my tax money should leave Washington State and go to Florida while their tax money leaves Florida and goes to California who's money goes to West Virginia who's money......ad nauseum until the collection and distribution network soaks up most of the money along the way and is so full of bypasses for special interest groups that none gets back anymore. The Constitution does not give this power to the US government, and the crime is that we let them get away with it. A carefull study of Article 1. of the US Constitution is in order. {Anybody out there got a copy of the entire document with ammendments in electronic copy?} I propose that we discuss it article by article and phrase by phrase before scrapping it in favor of some pie-in-the-sky ideas. (How many of you can tell me about the "nine Tyrants of Athens"? That particular piece of history is one of the reasons that we only have ONE president.) >> >> The form of government makes a great deal of difference in how >> easy it is to effect change. Change is possible with most any >> governmental structure. The question is, which structures will >> facillitate beneficial change? Seems to me that what has happened >> in this country is that people have become disillusioned with a >> system in which their primary input to the government is to vote >> for or against someone they saw in a TV commercial. The process >> has become self defeating. >> Now, at the risk of sounding like a stuck record, I will jump right up and say that I don't think that our means, method, form or laws of government should be easy to change. The original form was quite good for what ailed us then (which are the same things ailing us now). If enough of us get tired of voting for the major partys' rubber stamps maybe we can elect some of the off the wall candidates and they will start giving us a choice. >> The reason participatory democracy is an attractive idea is that >> becoming involved with making policy decisions is very addicting. >> The more you learn, the more you want to learn more. Positive. >> >> Daniel LaLiberte, U of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Computer Science >> {moderation in all things - including moderation} >> Just hypothetically, how well educated in their choices do you suppose the poor who only have time to work hard for a living are going to become? I see the result of your proposal as being close to the situation now as far as they are concerned--vote for the best television commercial on the topic. It is always nice to assume that the intelligensia will be the ones making the decisions, but it doesn't ever seem to be that way in the real world. From the Soapbox of Tom Condon {...!uw-beaver!teltone!teldata!tac} A Radical A Day Keeps The Government At Bay. P.S. For those who have asked, in all of my diatribes "we" refers to the people of the United States throughout our history, "they" refers to all of the government bureaucrats and legislators (and some judges) that have participated in our government to get it where it is today, and "you" refers to whomever I am replying to (in this case Daniel LaLiberte).
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (05/01/84)
[]
In response to Tom Condon, who made too many lengthy points to reproduce
here:
Every point you make against participatory democracy (ignorance, selfishness,
tendency to vote self interest, grabbing money from one area to another)
can be made, and in fact has been made, against our present form of
representational government. The contempt which most Americans feel for
the politicians "they" elect belies the notions that representatives are
those whose opinions are respected.
I feel that the lack of participation in government by the people is a
result of the feeling that there's not much that can be done. Every time
I've gotten involved in the governmental process I've left with the feeling
that every way I turn I'm helping some really nasty people. Movements
always seem to get taken over by the ass holes. Reasonable self-help or
help-the-downtrodden efforts get twisted into just another gimme grab.
Democracy without the intervention of "leaders" just can't be any worse
than what we've got.
--
Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD
UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward
BELL: 303-497-1252
USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307shad@teldata.UUCP (Warren N. Shadwick) (05/01/84)
* There has been a discussion started about democracies and their comparative value. Such concepts were well known by the men who wrote our present Constitution. In fact there are records of Thomas Jefferson, who was in Europe at the time and therefore could not participate, sending volumes of material on comparative forms of government to the men who were to sit through the long hot summer of 1787 drafting the Constitution. Don't think for one minute that the form of government that was chosen was done for light and transient reasons. I have a friend whose opinion I somewhat endorse that the form of government that was finally selected (limited, representative republic) was the confirmation of the principle that no one really trusts anyone else and the best way to preserve the freedoms and rights given to us by "Nature and Nature's God (see Declaration of Independence) was to severely limit the government. As Thomas Jefferson aptly remarked, "Tie them down with the chains of the Constitution so they can do no mischief." Somehow are government has loosed these bonds (I think it is truly because the rightful soveriegns, the People, have been negligent in holding the government to the contract). Participative democracies are only a way to force the will of a few people (or even a majority) on the rest of the people. Another term for democracy is 'mobocracy': the rule of the mob. James Madison noted quite acurately in the "Federalist Papers" that democracies have been as short in their lives as they are violent in their deaths. If anyone should doubt this, there is plenty of evidence in history. The best most recent examples of this are the several French revolutions. A most lucid argument against democracies is presented in the book "The Law" by Fredrick Bastiat. Yours always in freedom, Warren N. Shadwick
tac@teldata.UUCP (05/02/84)
, (sop to the blank line eaters--consider it a religious sacrifice) >> From: berman@ihuxm.UUCP (The Keyboard of Reason) >> >> "Paricipative Democracy"...now that's a great idea! >> >> I seem to remember a call for it, by a student group in the >> year 1963, a small group just emerging from the duldrums of the 1950's >> beginning to feel the stirings of civil rights and anti-war activism >> that characterized the decade that followed. The published a call >> for "Participatory Democracy" after a national conference, in a >> manifesto called "The Port Huron Statement." If popular demand >> reqests it, I'll dig out my dusty dogged eared copy and post >> the sections describing what was meant by participatory democracy. >> >> The organization? It was a small group of university students >> that called itself "Students for a Democratic Society". >> >> The rest is history. >> >> Andy Berman >> Andy, Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't that same group (SDS) get involved in some protests that lead to the bombing of a research lab (supposedly empty, but occupied by a grad student at the time) at Kent State which resulted in the presence of the National Guard while more protests and demonstrations were going on which resulted in some young men--who were out doing what they thought was defending their country--responding to provocation by firing their rifles and killing nine students? If my memory serves me correctly, those very demonstrations were organized by the SDS. The SDS didn't strike me as all that smart then, and I have never had any reason to reverse that decision--now you have given me reenforcement for it. I just don't believe in the intelligence of people who advocate throwing bottles and bricks (I will ignore any arguments about first gunfire) at armed soldiers and are then suprised when they get shot at! Additionally, what is in a name? The Peoples Democratic Republic of Wherever is a very popular name for Communist countries. I can't tell by your article whether you are in favor of the Particapative Democracy or not, or whether you even support(ed) the SDS. I do find it interesting that they called for such a thing in the '60s. From the Soapbox of Tom Condon {...!uw-beaver!teltone!teldata!tac} A Radical A Day Keeps The Government At Bay.
myers@uwvax.ARPA (05/03/84)
Re: SDS
The bombing referred to in a previous article was not at Kent State
(that was where Governor Rhodes of Ohio sent in the National Guard, resulting
in the deaths of four students ("four dead in Ohio").
It was, in fact, at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The building was
the Army Math Research Center, now moved and renamed as simply the
Math Research Center. A graduate student was killed in the explosion.
SDS was very active here at Wisconsin, where their theoretical journal,
*Radical America* was published. However, the bombing was not an organized
effort by SDS; there were many splits in the organization over tactics in
fighting the US war drive.
An excellent documentary was done here during those years, called
*The War at Home*, which describes the events over a period of years here
in Madison. I'll never forget a close friend of mine's descriptions of
National Guardsmen on every corner with riot helmets, and her stories of
seeing students dragged out of the library for questioning by the police.
--
Jeff Myers
ARPA: myers@wisc-rsch.arpa
uucp: ..{seismo, ihnp4}!wisc-rsch!myersken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (05/04/84)
-- >> Andy, >> Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't that same group (SDS) get involved >> in some protests that lead to the bombing of a research lab (supposedly >> empty, but occupied by a grad student at the time) at Kent State which >> resulted in the presence of the National Guard while more protests and >> demonstrations were going on which resulted in some young men--who were >> out doing what they thought was defending their country--responding to >> provocation by firing their rifles and killing nine students? If my >> memory serves me correctly, those very demonstrations were organized >> by the SDS... AAARRRGGGH! Boy, are you wrong! You are confusing the Aug. 20, 1970 bombing of the Army Math Research Center at the University of Wisconsin, *NOT* perpetrated by SDS, with the May 4, 1970 killing of four students at Kent State University by the National Guard, also *NOT* perpetrated by SDS. Let me elucidate... On Aug 20, 1970 (might have been the 24th, come to think of it), an explosion outside Sterling Hall on the UW campus extensively damaged this home to both the Physics Dept and the AMRC. Robert Fassnacht, a physics researcher, was killed in the 3 AM explosion. Responsibility for the act was claimed by the "New Year's Gang", four men who had claimed involvement in previous acts of sabotage. Three of these guys were eventually caught, and I believe all 3 have served whatever time they had to and are now free. The fourth was never apprehended. These guys had nothing to do with SDS, which was essentially inactive at the time. I know because I was there, in SDS, at the time. On May 4, 1970 (14th anniversary now) a squad of Ohio National Guardsmen openned fire on a crowd of agitated but unarmed students at Kent State. Four died, none of whom were members of SDS, nor any leftist group. The crowd was protesting the invasion of Cambodia by US forces in Vietnam. Nixon referred to the action as a "limited incursion." SDS members were probably involved in the protest, but it was one of those "coalition" things, an ad hoc event which attracted many people who were not especially dogmatic. SDS did not organize it. The event everybody forgets is the killing of over a dozen students at Jackson State University in Mississippi by State police about two weeks after Kent State. All the protesters at Jackson State, and thus all the dead, were Black. As to SDS, yeah, we were sure naive. The SDS of the early 60's degenerated into worship of Mao and Ho Chi Minh, and splintered into the Yippies and the Progressive Labor Party (which is still around). We saw all issues as black and white, and the revolution was just around the corner. It was an exciting time, and we were going to deal with it--to make history, stop a war. Somehow the atmosphere was always one of optimism. SDS's ends and means are, now, certainly impeachable. But if you or a loved one never had to cope with the war in Vietnam on a personal level, you'll never understand why SDS was appropriate, nay, *RIGHT* for its time. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 03 May 84 [14 Floreal An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
jad@harpo.UUCP (jad) (05/07/84)
All those who have access to The Net comprise a community of
citizens. The Net constitutes a meeting place where ideas can inter-
mingle and react with one another. It provides a forum for an experi-
mental participative democracy --- a forum far better than any Town Hall.
It can accomodate many citizens and serves widely separate locations for
issues of national and international concern, while still serving various
localities and their community-related issues.
I believe a society that is self-governed, self-directed can cultivate
a noble life-situation for its people. The Net can be a testing ground
on which to model a direct democracy.
John DiNardo liberte@uiucdcs.UUCP (05/10/84)
#R:teldata:-32600:uiucdcs:29200138:000:4558 uiucdcs!liberte May 10 15:57:00 1984 Since I started it ... A few more things on the applicability of participative democracy in response to the responses. /**** uiucdcs:net.politics / teldata!tac / 6:32 pm May 1, 1984 ****/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... Participative Democracy *REQUIRES* all people to be constantly and completely informed on all facets of not just government, but law and history as well, so as not to perform some act without legal basis or which will lead to large trans- gressions in the power usage by the government. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< I agree that in order for participative democracy to work, all people should be informed on the issues. But for our representative republic (as several people have corrected), it is also best if all people are informed on the issues so that they may choose the best people to represent them. Granted, the people need not know as much, but then they are putting their trust in their representatives. (But if they do know as much, then why have representatives?) The trust has been abused, and the system has degenerated to perpetuate the abuse. The question is why and how can we fix it? My previous notes expressed what I feel would be the ideal, of having an informed populace making policy decisions in a participative democracy. I did NOT say that PD should or could be applied to the US today. In fact, I DO now say that PD should not and could not be applied to the US today. Sorry to disappoint anyone who feels I am betraying the cause. So how to get to the ideal? It is possible, and I believe preferrable to have a working PD. The trick is to get past a certain threshold, a critical mass of informed populace that will propel the rest of us less informed toward the goal of everyone being informed. Why not have everyone informed? How can that be a detriment to society? I am not suggesting that everyone must know everything about everything. Only enough about general policy matters to make informed decisions. One route to this ideal is from the grassroots up. Within your neighborhood, where people are concerned about what happens there, have meetings, discussions and usually consensus decisions. Build upon this involvement to the town level or city level until there is a sense of community, of people acting together rather than being acted on by "those guys". I have experienced this to a small degree in Duluth, Minnesota where a long standing controversy got a large portion of the city involved and learning about the issue. However, there was not nearly enough learning and I feel the wrong decision was made. Besides that, the state seems to be deciding for the city anyway. This kind of local participation must go on across the country (and the world for that matter) before higher levels of participation will work. Another factor that must come in is an incredible amount of communication. The issues must be discussed to a disgusting death. That is, all the different perspectives and possible alternatives must be laid out and carefully beat to a pulp until understanding presents itself. This is how consensus is arrived at. If a time-pressured decision must be made, at least the better choice can be made by an informed populace. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, at the risk of sounding like a stuck record, I will jump right up and say that I don't think that our means, method, form or laws of government should be easy to change. The original form was quite good for what ailed us then (which are the same things ailing us now). If enough of us get tired of voting for the major partys' rubber stamps maybe we can elect some of the off the wall candidates and they will start giving us a choice. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< I agree that government or the laws enacted should not be easy to change in any fliterous way. In fact, participative democracy ought to be more difficult and time consuming. But at the same time, PD can make more radical changes as they are needed because there arent several levels of lethargy to slow it down. Finally, our representative republic form of government is (or was) quite good for what ailed us then and now. It has been, for the most part, fair and protective of our rights. It has been a part of the tremendous growth of our country, though there are a lot of negative aspects to that. So I was wrong to criticize the US without giving credit where it is due. But dont be blinded by its virtues to avoid seeing its faults. Daniel LaLiberte, U of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Computer Science {moderation in all things - including moderation}
jad@harpo.UUCP (jad) (05/21/84)
Virtually all peoples of all nations have always been dominated by
individuals or cliques which obtained power and wealth because they were
obsessed with obtaining power and wealth. This power actually is the
aggregation of the freedom they usurped from each member of the society.
This wealth actually is the sum of the earnings they stole from each
member of the society.
The people of The United States have always been the subjects of an
oligarchy (a government controlled by a few people). If they were per-
mitted a genuine democracy, the malignant cancer that afflicts our society
would fade in the wake of a sweeping transformation bringing real hope
and exhilarating possibilities for our people and for the peoples of
the world.
I am appealing to those who are already convinced that our Earth
and it's populations are in grave trouble --- to those who are already
convinced that a direct, true democracy would replace the corrupt
politicians' greed with the people's interests in conducting the affairs
of a nation belonging to it's people; the affairs of a world belonging
to everyone. Please offer suggestions about how to initiate an experi-
mental participative democracy on The Net.
John DiNardo
heahd@tellab1.UUCP (Dan Wood) (05/22/84)
It strikes me that the net is already an experiment in participative democracy: Users are free to participate or not as they see fit; new news groups are added according to the votes of interested partys; we have no legislative bodies, executive branch, or judiciary; and the only restraints placed on net users are those self-inflicted ones of discreation and restraint. What more do you want? (I know some of you out there are thinking "What about the case of Tim X who apparently lost his position at NCU for speaking too freely"? Well, I didn't get involved in that contorversey until rather late in the game -I've only been on the net for a couple of weeks- so I'm not aware of the facts of the incident. But, from what I have been able to gather, Mr. X over stepped the self-inflicted bounds I listed above. As anyone can see by reading the other articles I've posted on the net I'm no friend of the christians [see, I don't even capitalize the word], but I see no reason to get personally abusive about it either. I try to make my point with logic and reason, not by name calling.)
jad@harpo.UUCP (jad) (06/04/84)
It is extremely important to the welfare of the world that a partici-
pative type of democratic decision-making become well practiced, refined
and popularized.
Suppose a cardinal issue of world-wide concern, the nuclear threat,
were examined through a forum open to all people of all nations. In this
forum, all varying ideas for dealing with this issue would be welcome.
Then, after a general agreement to terminate the exchange of ideas,
successive run-off votes would be taken until the numerous proposals
were finally reduced to one. With the endorsement of everyone involved,
that proposition would constitute a forceful appeal to world leaders.
Such a movement, of itself, might engender other movements to deal
with the nuclear threat. Moreover, it would be an experiment in direct
democracy.
John DiNardo
piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (06/06/84)
<..>
The numerous proposals of all countries reduced to one?
There's only one place where that can happen: Utopia!
--
Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam
...{decvax,philabs}!mcvax!pietmwm@ea.UUCP (06/08/84)
#R:harpo:-255300:ea:10100048:000:316 ea!mwm Jun 8 12:42:00 1984 If we could actually have the vote of everyone in the world counted and follow that action, there would be no more nuclear threat. The nuclear threat is posed by opposing groups who want to run the world. Since the world is now run as a large democracy, you've solved the problem without bothering to vote. <mike
lmaher@uokvax.UUCP (06/09/84)
#R:harpo:-255300:uokvax:5000089:000:1292
uokvax!lmaher Jun 8 21:34:00 1984
This is a point made by Schell in _The Fate of the Earth_, who
claims that Sovereignty, not Nuclear Weapons, is the chief
component of nuclear terror (It does no good to get rid of
Nuclear Weapons, because it's easy to build more; you must get
rid of the nation state system.)
In my class on International Relations Simulations we discussed
three main systems: The Balance of Power (more properly speaking,
the Distribution of Power), Collective Security (e.g. a U.N. with
a monopoly on armed force), and World Government. The last two
are exceedingly impractical - I can give details if there's
enough interest for me to dig out my notes.
By the way, as part of the class we split up into numerous
countries, with 3-5 people per country acting as Decision Makers
(including a Moral Decision Maker to represent the conscience of
the populace), and conducted trade, foreign policy, etc. for 6
weeks.
Or so was the plan. Details of what actually occurred, on
request. Likewise Rules summary (very simple, so that details
would not obscure the points of concern).
Carl (formerly uok!crigney)
allegra!{nbires convex ut-ngp}\
>!ctvax!uokvax!lmaher
ihnp4!{ut-sally convex ut-ngp}/
OR {allegra ihnp4}!duke!uok!uokvax!lmaher