Direct Democracy in Canada

An interesting approach, one I find more palatable to basic Direct Democracy. Perhaps I've missed it somewhere above, but what does NGO stand for? Certainly more involvement in matters of government by the electorate is a good thing. I only get nervous when everyone with a two-bit opinion votes on important issues, mainly because they'll more likely vote to serve their own personal interests rather than the greater good.

[QUOTE BY= polygong] ...but what does NGO stand for? Certainly more involvement in matters of government by the electorate is a good thing. I only get nervous when everyone with a two-bit opinion votes on important issues, mainly because they'll more likely vote to serve their own personal interests rather than the greater good.[/QUOTE] Sorry for being acronymious without expansion: Non Governmental Organisation; don't forget using Google anyhow. People that care enough should probably have more of a say than people that do not care. If it means looking after "own" interest, I am prepared to make that compromise. NGOs often end up fighting big business and generally have a good record at looking at the collective good. A noteworthy tech sector trend south of the border is Big Business funding bogus NGOs (disguised as public relations firm) as an illusion of a group looking at the collective good.

I did a quick google for a definition of democracy. There are many. I selected the following for the sake of brevity: [QUOTE]a form of government in which political control is exercised by all the people, either directly or indirectly through their elected representatives[/QUOTE] Interestingly enough, most definitions at government related sites specifically refer to the 'election of representatives'. Don't get me wrong. I realize that walking through the downtown area of any city or listening to some of the comments after the previous election could make anyone despair vis-a-vis the apparent ability of most voters to make an informed decision. But, involvement of all the people is what democracy is all about. Realistically, you can't have a democratic system where people are told that everyone gets to pay taxes but only some get to decide how the money is spent. And the truth is that the concerns expressed about direct democracy are at least equally valid for representational democracy. The same uninformed group of people who could vote on issues in direct democracy have the right to select representatives to day. Not all of these representatives are up to speed on every issue, in fact most will vote according to the party line without any real understanding of the issue. The primary purpose of a political party is to become the government and maintain that position, which may not always align to what is 'best' for the nation at large. In some cases this results in parties 'overstating' what they'll be able to do in office, later leaving the electorate with a party that doesn't govern in the manner it pledged and as such isn't the government the electorate thought it was selecting. I agree with gaulois that implementation of direct democracy would need to be done in 'baby steps' and could result in much rethinking as to the role of 'government' itself. Polygon, could you give us some examples of the issues you'd be concerned about having citizens decide? Thanks. I'll be back later with some more comments.

Calumny wrote: [QUOTE]I may be wrong however, I believe that for many people the ability to actually participate in the process will encourage them to become more knowledgable. [/QUOTE] I wish I had your faith Calumny but I do not. Unfortunately, the willful ignorant or sheeple prefer to utter their opinions as undeniable fact, not realizing they are making judgment calls based on fantasy. To hope for a majority of citizens to form anykind of structured analysis and then act on it without pertinent knowledge and data to support it is dangerous. Mix it with prejudice, propaganda one-liners and we will find ourselves with a citizenry making decisions for all of us without any kind of perspective on the issues. The Canadian electorate is not sophisticated or levelheaded enough yet for direct democracy. Democracy is not free and must be earned. Maybe we should take example on Ecuador and have voting made compulsory to begin with. It would be a step in the right direction. More info here: <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0714-13.htm">Lessons on Democracy from a Banana Republic</a>

Hi, michou. I added a bit to the previous post (actually submitted it by accident before completing). Your comment re: 'faith' is kind of funny because truth be told I'm more of an elitist, e.g., meritocracy mentioned by gaulois, type of person. However, I also recognize that the 'best and the brightest' concept hasn't always worked to well either here or in the U.S., primarily, I think, because people who are very bright in some ways can also be extremely stupid in other ways, or live in a world of ideals that does not always translate well into the real world occupied by most citizens. I think the key is education and promoting the sense of responsibility, duty and the importance of citizens in the process mentioned in the Ecuador article. It's not so much that I believe direct democracy will solve all the ills we find in our current democratic dictatorship. It's more that I can't see any of them being resolved in the current system because I think the representative models both here and in the US just end up corrupting those who enter into the inner sanctum (as discovered by Jimmy Stewart years ago when Mr. Smith went to Washington). I'd prefer that if stupid decisions are made, as they have been for many years in Canada and the US, that these at least be made by the citizens,who then assume accountability, rather than those purported to represent them. I should also mention that my concept of direct democracy in Canada would see a federal government that concerns itself only with what should be federal responsibilities, e.g., national defense and security, national infrastructure, foreign policy, partnership with provinces re: some educational standards, etc., rather than the finger in every pie model we have today. Thanks for the Ecuador article. It was very informative.

I like the idea of each peron voting on all the bills, federal, provincial and municipal. I don't think a lack of knowledge is a reason to exclude anyones right to vote. Trial and error is how we learn. Could we possibly do worse than the corruption riddled rituals we presently use? If we provide the correct information in such a way as to make it readily utilizable by our fellow 'dummies' then informed voting would result. Provide everyone with internet connections and all the infrastructure necessary to use them, ie. food, shelter, education, computers etc. Calumny has done a good job of presenting the whole issue. Now all we have to do is provide the answers, so that when the questions are finally asked, the inquisitive will be rewarded with a commonwealth of knowledge rather than 9,000,000 google hits. I think proportional representation is the first step we have to achieve, this will bring a lot of the people who don't vote back into the game. It is becoming more and more apparent that politicians and corporations don't care about the common folk, we need to keep exposing their actions. Calumny, good topic. Whats with your name, are you being witty or what? <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'>

[QUOTE BY= Calumny] Polygon, could you give us some examples of the issues you'd be concerned about having citizens decide? Thanks. [/QUOTE] Well, take environmental issues for example. While there is still debate on the validity of global warming, there can be very little doubt that human pollution is having a detrimental effects on human health, in the form of smog a ozone depletion. So when it comes to forming environmental regulations, will people vote for better regualtion or will they think about how such regulations may affect them personally, eg their choice of vehicle, or will it threaten their job? Can you rely on most voters to decide what is or isn't necessary when most don't even understand environmental science?

Hi, Milton and polygon. I find calumny to be a handy nickname because few use it and so I can sign up at most sites first time through, so I don't have to be bob20225, or whatever. Also, in my disturbed way, I find it sort of amusing. You've chosen a good example, polygon, because it's an issue all people need to be, and should already have been, considering very seriously, assuming we're actually interested in having a future for our descendants. I think if you put suggested approaches and the consequences associated to the people and the consequences associated with, for example, continued use of SUVs was that our grandchildren would all be wearing smog masks or doing the morlock thing in underground sanctuaries, most people would decide we could do without SUVs. Similarly, if the cost of certain goods would rise as a result of the controls required to limit ozone depleting by-products and the consequence of not doing so were the same as above, I think most would accept the additional costs. But, outside of public tv, the people are never offered the necessary information or the power to choose. In electing representatives most assume these individuals will be looking out for the nation's best interests, both current and future, and trust them to make the informed and responsible decisions based on the available facts and the best interests of their constituents and the nation. That hasn't proven always the case here and certainly isn't the case in Washington. Of course, when you have a situation where a representative's constituency is largely composed of automobile industry employees, the only future most are likely to consider is that of the next election. As I previously indicated, it's safe to assume that many, if not most representatives voting on an environmental bill also won't have the expertise you speak of and even if this is not the case, may still vote the party line even if that opposes a bill that is in fact critical. Most senior management decisions in the public sector are by management based on an executive summary prepared by the subordinates who have researched the issue for them and perhaps discussions with these subordinates. MPs will similarly be informed by these senior managers. It doesn't stretch the imagination much to see how this and 'executive summary' outlining the issue, alternatives, pros/cons and perhaps the course reccomended by the experts involved could be provided in plain language, multi-lingual format to citizens for their consideration, with the in-depth report available for those who wish to research it. The issues themselves, e.g., environmental concern could be raised by the citizenry themselves, say a David Suzuki type. The complex part may be what to do with those workers who could be affected by the legislation. However, if for example we were discussing the automobile industry, we'd just be speeding up the inevitable anyway as eventually there won't be oil to run the vehicles and those folks would be changing careers anyway. I don't mean to seem callous or trite, but as this is inevitable anyway, it would be better to happen sooner than later so as to reduce the otherwise occurring environmental deterioration. gaulois, I still have some comments re: the public service that I'll post tomorrow.

[QUOTE BY= Calumny] The complex part may be what to do with those workers who could be affected by the legislation. However, if for example we were discussing the automobile industry, we'd just be speeding up the inevitable anyway as eventually there won't be oil to run the vehicles and those folks would be changing careers anyway. I don't mean to seem callous or trite, but as this is inevitable anyway, it would be better to happen sooner than later so as to reduce the otherwise occurring environmental deterioration. [/QUOTE] Hi Calumny, I would say that when drastic changes in the econmy as suggested above are inevitable, and well forseen, we should adjust our use of manpower accordingly. Wherever a job is rendered obsolete, a new one (and often several new ones) is/are created. Of course, there is training required, though many workers will have a significant amount transferable skills. The idea is to set up the new jobs in the locations where the jobs becoming obselete are located. Even with the end of oil as an energy source, the growth in the use of plastics will keep the demand for oil somewhat high, though of course not as high as it is now, but it doesn't mean the crashing of the oil industry.

I think one of those baby steps referred to previously towards a true democracy, is to start teaching Canadian history and political science in schools. Most people including myself don't know the many intricate areas of how our government is run. I am learning however it is a slow process,because most information is very general and of course the standard information doesn't speak of influence by corporations or lobby groups.

This is an interesting discussion and I'm glad we're having it. It's challenging and I'm open to everyone's thoughts because mine are not set in stone. Hope you'll forgive my wandering thoughts as I consider everything that has been said. [QUOTE]One thing I've noticed in some of the threads is that many don't seem to have a lot of confidence in the knowledge and ability of the citizenry in general. While that may be based on fact, it seems a bit at odds with a site which supports the grassroots democracy concept. Either you have faith that citizens will if given a real opportunity try to the best of their ability to participate, or you might as well flush democracy down the tubes or start enfranchising people on the basis of their having an IQ over 100 or so. However, truth told the contributions of 'the best and the brightest' haven't always left countries better or brighter.[/QUOTE] I want to respond to this comment since it's been touched on in a few posts since too. Obviously I do have faith in Canadians to learn and to grow and to become aware, hence the creation of this site. I never said some people deserve to represent everyone else because they're smarter or better (although if we are to have representatives rather than DD, there is certainly an argument to be made that it's better to have someone with a hard-earned degree and a brain running things than someone like say, a Ralph Klein or a George Bush); but I did point out that many people are shockingly ignorant of our current system. My point was not that citizens don't deserve a say, but rather that the problem of a generally uneducated and uninterested citizenry, which I don't think anyone disagrees we have, probably won't be solved simply by changing the system to direct democracy, and that to have an effective democracy we need an informed citizenry whatever form the democracy takes. DD may help with this problem, but advocates of PR say the same thing, which makes it difficult to know who's right and to what extent. My personal feeling is that while change may help to SOME extent neither system will likely eliminate that problem entirely. To play devil's advocate Calumny, although you say that given the opportunity to participate more people will take it, that may not be true. It could be argued that people have the opportunity to vote right now, flawed system or no. But they don't, even in a very close election like we just had. We need to ask why not and seriously examine whether changing systems can fully address this or whether that's being overly optimistic and utopian. One theory of mine is this. I have worked for a long time in non-profits and as an activist and I can tell you it can be very difficult to motivate people to take responsibility--ie, to do the work. Learning is work. Thinking is work. Showing up is work. Many people just can't be bothered, even otherwise dedicated hardworking people (in their case they're often already too busy), whether it's just voting or whether it's something more involved like volunteering to run in an election (or volunteering to be on the board of directors of a web-based organization hint hint). And telling people they now have to make decisions not just on one representative/government, but on MANY issues, may seem like MORE work, not less, to Canadians. I'm not saying this is for sure, but I'm just saying it's something that needs to be considered. Remember Rick Mercer mocking the Alliance party's ideas about having frequent referendums? Also, I do think that in many cases people are simply much too busy surviving to invest the time in learning and participating in decisions on a number of different issues and bills. Plus many people may have blocks to learning and/or doing, like being functionally illiterate etc, not having a car, being ill or disabled, etc etc etc, and these issues may be tied to social station and income in many ways. Overall I think what I'm trying to say is that any moves towards a better democracy have to take into account potential challenges, and we must also fight the war on more than one front rather than expecting to find a magic bullet that fixes it all. For instance, I do advocate a better voting system, plus I agree that we need more education in schools about personal involvement in politics and civics. But I also feel that we need to focus on democratizing our media at the same time. Our media is currently owned by only a handful of companies and has become very corporate-driven. We need that diversity of opinion and voices again before we can even have a real national discussion on this issue, and arguably any issue of real importance, since so many people still form their opinions based on the major "official" media. As a side note on the discussion about whether some things may not best be left in the hands of citizens, in many cases people may make decisions based on the "not in my backyard" feeling. Those decisions may not be the best for everyone. And does direct democracy contain a mechanism to protect us from the "tyranny of the majority"--ie, people blocking the rights of GBLT Canadians for example (say, by blocking gay marriage)? And haven't some advancements in rights for black people for example been made AGAINST general public opinion? Again, playing devil's advocate to take a look at some of the challenges and try to figure out how to conquer them. Lastly, it seems that any time we discuss the problem of people not voting etc someone brings up mandatory voting. I say, why not use the carrot instead of the stick? Provide incentives of some kind, rather than forcing people to do it, which risks turning them off even more, and seems well, kind of fascist? Still waiting for any suggestions on how to use direct democracy through Vive. Currently we have a governing board that makes decisions, and an advisory board that advises the governing board.

I'm really appreciative of the time and thought thread participants have put into their posts. Sharing thoughts and ideas this way with other Canadians spread across the country really emphasizes to me what a valuable tool the web could be. I apologise if my previous comment re: lack of faith in ability of general public, came across as criticism. It wasn't intended that way. I realize that the lack of knowledge and interest shown by many Canadians towards the political process of this nation is a concern, both now and in any future system we may have. Having identified this is a problem, both now and for the future, we need to identify a solution. Basically the choices are the education mentioned by most participants or exclusion of some from the process. Obviously the former is the most desirable because the latter is a move away from democracy. As we're all aware, no form of government is inately superior to any other. A system wherein the nation is ruled by an enlightened, benevolent dictator could be infinitely preferable to a democracy run by an uneducated, small-minded citizenry. However, I think history has proven that democracy is the least risky proposition for most citizens, in that spreading the power between many citizens lessens the chance of the corruption and abuse of power that is likely to occur if akk the cards are held by a single person, family or group, particularly if the cards are retained indefinitely by that person, family or group. However, democracy will in fact always be, as it should, a tyranny of the masses. The basic premise is that the majority, however that is defined, make the decision. This is not to say the majority will always make the right decision or the decision that is palatable to the minority. The obvious alternative is a tyranny of the minority, where a smaller group makes the decisions it believes are right for everyone or furthers the cause of bettering humanity. However, tyranny of the minority doesn't in the long run work because it leaves a bad taste in the majority's mouth, eventually resulting in a Mike Harris style government gaining power. If you don't have buy-in from most, it doesn't matter how 'right' or 'fair-minded' a policy is, because people just don't appreciate having stuff forced down their throats, particularly is implementation of the policy is poorly handled. If the majority makes bad decisions that work to the detriment of the country, e.g., decisions that result in the loss of talented individuals, the country will bear the brunt and this will, hopefully, eventually cause the majority to rethink their previous decision. If at the same time you have people working to demonstrate whu the decision was against the long-term interests of the whole, the decision may be rethought more quickly than would otherwise be the case. The fact is that any democracy can result in a lot of bad decision. Most Canadians might not have a problem being US citizens, most may not choose to understand the risks posed to future generations through destruction of the environment, most may choose to ignore how prejudice, lack of tolerance, etc. will eventually harm their society as a whole. These types of risks affect every democratic system and can only be countered by education. My experience has been that most people try to do the right or fair thing. This being the case and given Canada's demographics, i.e., mostly cosmopolitan, I think that if the gay (civic) marriage question was put to Canadians today and the choices were 'yes', 'no', 'don't care', we'd have civic gay marriages next week. In our current system, this might take years yet because many 'representatives' of bible belt Canada will be pretty shaky or outright opposed for this issue. In terms of 'NIMBE', yes, it does exist. However. my experiences on the group home committee of the comunity we lived in a few years back convinced me that most are fair in this regard. Prior to a group home opening, it was necessary to have a town hall meeting to discuss the issue with residents. As could be expected, there was always a good turn-out, particularly for young offender type residences. And there were a few dead set against the idea, always due to safety of their children, property values (which I think was for the most part the actual concern), etc. But, most were there just to obtain information and with the hope that their concerns would be assuaged. These meetings weren't to determine whether the group home would be allowed, as provincial legislation did not allow a municipality to turn down an application so long as statutory requirements were met (which stuck in the craws of some). I found most residents to be accepting of the group homes once they'd received the information. I think the progress Canada has made over the past forty or so years in tolerance and live and let live attitudes is truly amazing, and indicative of the fact that while people's views don't change as quickly as some may like, they do change if activists, etc., keep working away. I think some of the problems we've encountered re: intolerance, bitterness, etc., are solely due to the fact that there's a world we'd all like and a world we live in and at times some in government have tried to move towards the world we'd all like more quickly than many are comfortable with, or is in fact realistic. As I'd mentioned in a previous post, I found michou's comment re: my faith kind of funny because truth be told I have difficulty with that faith. I've lived in most parts of Canada west of Quebec, visited every province at one time or another and have had many conversations with Canadians of extremely diverse background, culture and economic circumstances. So, I can fully appreciate the concerns that have been raised. I'm the type of person who analyses situations considerably making a decision and in group situations would by nature prefer to run things on a 'this is what I've decided' basis rather than consultative. But, I've come to realize that everyone has a contribution to make and that obtaining that contribution results in a better product. So, I try hard to fight that cut and dried 'dictatorial' side of my personality. Hasn't been easy and is still a battle, patience wise, sometimes but I have realized that getting buy-in from all (or most) is absolutely critical to the success of any project. Also, I've often found that for all my thinking, analysis etc., I've missed some key stuff or been off the mark on many occasions, and would have missed this were it not for the involvement and contributions of others whose knowledge, understanding and experience with the subject of the overall project was in fact far less than my own. I just mention this so no one will get the idea I'm some wide eyed idealist who thinks all would be wonderful in the world if only power were given to the people. I think most of us who have worked in large organizations have realized there's more than a bit of truth to the old chestnut of '20% of the people doing 80% of the work'. I've noticed that a minority of people are internally driven re: work, e.g., they'll work hard whether it's recognized or not and even when they're cheesed off at their employer. Most however, seem satisfied to do enough to get by or meet expectations, and there's nothing wrong with this. A lot just figure 'somebody else will do it', or don't want to be involved with the 'grunge' jobs that form the foundation of the organisation. As far as the political process is concerned, I do believe many just think, as indicated in many threads, that politicians are 'all the same'...crooks, corrupt, etc., so why bother? In terms of activism, etc., people like to see results or some validation of their efforts. Many understand that change may take generations however most want to see results a bit more quickly and, after fighting their way upstream for a number of years without apparent results may become a bit unmotivated or just give up. Personally, I thank God for 'devil's advocates' (am often one myself) because it keeps people thinking and questioning and helps prevent the possibility of following a dead end path. Everyone in the thread has pretty much indicated that education and involvement, i.e., getting people to understand their contribution is required and critical, is key to any improved democratic process. Now, we just have to figure out how to do this. Maybe we need to start by demonstrating how all the things that people do that detracts from the time they have to be involved in their nation will eventually mean nought if their society and environment aren't first protected, e.g., it won't mean a hill of beans that I have a nice house, car and bank account if society goes down the tubes, and none of this will mean anything to my children, grand-children etc. if they have to wear survival suits to go outside. It's just a matter of getting people's priorities more aligned to reality (gosh, I make that sound simple). How do we do this? The carott always works better than the stick, i.e., making it really easy for people to participate is likely to generate better results than trying to force them to do so. The reward for most will be the sense of satisfaction from feeling they have a critical roll in the process and their participation is meaningful (geez, there I go sounding all 'idealistic' again...I need to work on that).

Let me be the "Devil's Advocate" too for a moment. IMHO Direct Democracy is best realized globally without being overly focused on national or cultural identities from yesteryears. I realize that this strong thought may be considered treason to our canadian identity and surrendering to globalisation trends. But read on. The examples that are the most fascinating to follow are related to the areas where the problems to solve have been the most daunting. Environment clearly comes to mind (e.g. Greenpeace, Sierra Club). Consumer protection and Media Watch orgs too. And more recently Trade as exemplified at the recent summits. Addbuster is an other interesting example to follow. I considered these efforts most representative of "Direct Democracy" having yielded substantial progress in their respective areas. I note and brag that Vancouver holds some creative juice in this area. Perhaps the coexistence of tremendous wealth next to hardship in lotusland has something to do with this. The attributes of these new NGOs are as follows: - they ***do not*** involve everyone other than the concerned citizens that have realized that certain issues cannot be effectively proxied to their state representatives; as corps are moving out of the control of the states, these NGOs are the most effective way to deal with them - issues that cannot be entrusted to state representatives are often the same ones independently of the national and cultural identities, hence certain approaches used in the past are now quite irrelevant - they involve more collaboration across national or cultural identities; the Internet "culture" certainly facilitates this - they involve these concerned citizens taking greater interest and control in their media where battles are fought for mindshare and "consensus" - governments have often surrendered in these areas as too complex for them to touch; being broke and this outsourcing ideology has likely helped these NGOs What does this all mean at a local DD level? 1) Similarly to us saying to Québécois to also entrust the larger "trusted network" of Canada, I think Canadians need to entrust solutions with a broader base. Having been on both sides of the Québec issue, having great friends in Quebec in ROC and in the USA, it strikes me to hear the derogatory tone toward the "Americans" just like they all belong to the same class of morons that we often would rather simplify the world with. If you know where to look for, you will seen a burgeoning Direct Democracy movement in the USA mainly in response to the blatant abuses of power by their governments. I would in fact argue because they have more severe problems than we have, that we should in fact be a whole lot more aware of the DD solutions in the making. 2) This was not to say that Canada does not have significant problems just as well. Our complacency as one of the "best place in the world to live" is probably our biggest handicap: social peace, clean air/water, land, resources, good perception of the Canada "brand", etc... The pace at which we move is another big problem. Canadian based bureaucracy is IMHO a problem that we have to fix ourself and looking at solutions south of the border will likely not help. Hence my previously posted idea of an NGO focused on doing "Bureaucracy under watch" (similar to environmental watch). 3) Vive being primarly an internet media tool used by a canadian constituency, the tool would be best applied in better targeted areas. Vive is somewhat used all over the map now and would benefit from better focus. Coming up with the consensus for a "top-10" list of problems that are worth addressing would represent significant DD progress. I regrettably note that the highest traffic I have witnessed since singig up to Vive appeared highly inspired from Jerry Springer's approach to democracy or the wort case scenario of the "tyranny of masses". I think we can do far better than this.

[QUOTE BY= whelan costen] I think one of those baby steps referred to previously towards a true democracy, is to start teaching Canadian history and political science in schools. [/QUOTE] I couldn't agree more. For democracy of any form to work, the electorate must keep themselves abreast of the issues. One thing I hate about our society is that politics is such a taboo conversation topic. What better place to start getting Canadians involved than while they are in school. Kids should be encouraged to have discussions on issues of the day, and be taught the art and ettiquette of debating.

Some very sound ideas, indeed. I think the NGO concept would in DD be at least one, if not the main source, of new policy, national direction, etc., issues raised for national vote. I think to some extent the rise of the NGO is attributable to one of the flaws in the current representational set-up. In the past voters, particularly in the US, have given their government great trust, believing that these governments would do pretty much the job they were elected to do, i.e., serve the short and long term interests of the citizenry and nation. This trust has in many instances been abused. It should be the job of government to protect the environment, economy, etc. for both current and future citizens. However, governments have for many reasons abdicated some these responsibilities. This is partly due to the conflict between serving the public good and serving the good of those who provide funds to the party or occupy political office themselves. Obviously it is to the overall short and long-term public good that waters not be rendered toxic through the release of chemicals directly into rivers. However, it might be good for the bottom line of a corporation to do just that, and if that corporation is a significant contributor to a party or if you or your friends are shareholders or if many of your constituents are employed by that corporation, your view may not be focussed on the overall public good. The primary goal of any political party is to obtain and retain power. If the achievement of that goal could be hampered by 'hot button' issues like the environment, etc., the temptation will be to push the issue aside and focus more on the 'candy floss' issues that can curry favour with the public. In DD, most people would probably support environmental controls. This could result in some companies closong up shop. I tend to believe in a truly free market that someone will find a way to make a buck while still adhering to the rules. However, as polygon indicated, one of the challenges in DD will be to ensure allowance is made for those impacted by this type of decision, e.g., retraining, re-education, etc. I think gaulois has a pretty good handle on where we'd need to go re: DD. Citizens throughout this country and others can share much. Great discussion.