Leaders - Page 3

Conciseness will count in DD like in anything else. An other huge difference in between the municipal and provincial/federal level types of DD is the greater role of that the Internet will play at the larger levels. I do not see much of a roadmap from the municipal scene. My best guess is that one party (&its leader) will see DD as a real differentiator to get them elected. Our NDP spokespeople have so far been fairly quiet on this. Our single liberal spokesperson sounded extremely sceptical about DD IMHO. Did not hear much on DD from the Bloc or the PQ as far as their political platform goes. Have got some doubts that Duceppe and Landry can see through DD.

I doubt you'll see any major political party pick up this flag, political parties are much like those 'archaic institutions' that one poster mentioned before who have outgrown their usefulness but hang on to power simply to promote that power. Political unions, when they exist at all, should 'revolve' around new specific issues- 'pro water privatization', 'anti water privatization', etc. All current parties exist due to specific donors who want to see parties for a reason. During the last election we heard 'vague' promises about 'direction', but even the NDP were somewhat recalcitrant in bringing up specifics. A new party, or even a coaltion of independants would be my recommendation, with a drafted 'constitution' which would mean that once elected they would 'have' to follow through. This is easier than with most promises since citizens initiative cost the government very little and one cannot give the bad reason of 'oh, I didn't know how much financial trouble we were in'. This is necessary because as we've seen with the PQ and the alliance party, that once individuals 'gain that power' they quickly divulge with the grassroots and maintain it. While I agree that municipally there are far different structures, I think it is the perfect place to 'set up the paradigm'. There must be a system in place, using the internet (which I believe is essential, although not exclusive) and ensuring people have easy access to information, a cost effective and transparant means of voting and checking one's vote, as well as tallying them. Once it is shown that a community can operate successfully in this manner, there should be means of 'getting the message' out to other communities. Some communities, because they operate almost as managers, have very high support because they manage efficiently, however others, such as the one I live in, are known for their consecutive bungling. So the democratic setup of media utilization, democratic infrastructure, information transmission, and voting would be identical at the three levels of government. What is different is the problems at each level of implementation. If I ever one at the municipal level (and honestly, I actually fear winning somewhat due to the responsibilities and work involved), I think I'd use the meager council salary to rent store space and set up a 'democracy store' within the community as a central point where people can find information and use as a 'home base'. Ideally this would be funded by the government, but during an election you can't promise that. As I mentioned before, I received a fair bit of scepticism even at this level, and one other councillor, who when he said this thought he was going to easily win (but didn't), said that "I don't think that will work here". I really want to develop some balls so that I can walk up to all the candidates and hopefully get similar quotes and use that in my literature. Sort of like, 'look who thinks you're dumber than americans or swiss'. I want to apologize about my 'long windedness', better to take it out here than subject my wife to it<img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> I am not too interested in the specifics, while I am not a complete idealist I do trust canadians to make good decisions, and that is where my focus lies. I put a lot of thought into these responses, but put even more into reading the thoughts of others posted here.

marcarc: would you be able to tell us of a ***very specific*** case where DD could be used to improve what we called Canadian Sovereignty on Vive?

Personally, I think we need more 'long-winded' members. A number of very interesting points have been raised. I was intrigued by Marcarc's comment re: [QUOTE]and honestly, I actually fear winning somewhat due to the responsibilities and work involved[/QUOTE]. People often ask why we don't have more 'quality' politicians. The answer could be a combination of the 'party' system itself, and the lack of enthusiasm many competent, ethical people will have towards being embroiled in the games involved therein and the fact that many competent, ethical people have no desire for power for power's sake, and in fact may have misgivings about their ability to handle the responsibilities of power. However, in my view people who are leery of or undesirous of power are generally more desirable as 'leaders' than those who consciously actively seek to 'lead', as the former are more likely to question the 'rightness' of their views and consequently less likely to abuse power or become power 'addicts'. However, it is exactly those people who are needed in the effort to achieve a direct democracy. As has been discussed, the only realistic way to achieve some form of direct democracy is to first work within the representative system to forward the construction of the direct democracy system. The people required in this effort must be those who are willing to accept responsibility for the necessary time but whose primary goal is to pass power to the broader group ASAP, as opposed to hoarding it for themselves (and their party/interests) as in the representative democracy system. In this, the focus (place power in the hands of the citizen.) of the players in a direct democracy system is diametrically opposed to that of the representative democracy (obtain and retain power for the party to enable forwarding of the party agenda.). This being the case, I think it unlikely that direct democracy would be forwarded by a mainstream political party. I think Marcarc's examples support my contention in earlier threads that given the opportunity citizens will in large numbers be quite willing to take on a more active role in the decision making process of their nation, particularly if civic responsibility in this regard is emphasized in the educational system and beyond. Another interesting point is the oftimes seen failure of people to differentiate between the person and the person's ideass, in that an individual can have 'great' or 'visionary' ideas and yet not be a great leader, or for that matter, person. People should attach their confidence to the idea, not the person. Similarly, charismatic types can get many on board with some pretty awful ideas. Again, if people analyzed the value of the idea, rather than being mesmerized by the person, we'd all encounter a lot less grief. As usual, I'll probably have more to say later. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'>

That seems very true. In fact my suspicion is that the 'leadership' phase will be short indeed. Sometimes you can find it in what are called 'neighbourhood associations' or even some environmental or other 'cause' organizations. Although people take over leadership roles, I have noticed in my volunteer work that this is usually because it is difficult nowadays to find volunteers. I have usually been given as much power as I desire over the format of what needs to get done. This is why I have been stepping up my volunteer efforts since the organizational aspect seems to be most important. The fact is, if people think everything is fine then they won't vote for it and those of 'like mind' can move onto something else. In the states a group of libertarians, approximately 20,000 of them moved en masse to New Hampshire because it was decided that this was the most conducive place to their ideas and had the best chance of implementing them. Before we try to round up all of like mind and head to PEI we should find out if EVERYBODY is of like mind (or at least a healthy majority).

Sorry about adding more but there was a post which asked me a specific question. Thanks for thinking me capable enough to answer but honestly, your average swiss or american citizen could answer better (but there are probably not many around). Yet, I'd have to understand better what you are referring to. I don't know if you mean there is some issue on this website that needs resolving, or whether you just mean using DD tools in a sovereigntist argument. There is, of course, no such thing as Canadian Sovereignty. Our government does lots of things that it doesn't specifically ask British permission for, but that is mostly because we pretty much keep in step. You will note that after our federal election the two minority parties went to the governor general to ask her not to call an election if they vote against the budget. In essence, they asked the queen. In the 80's Mulroney went to Britain to ask permission for more senators, I could continue. Every governmental rule has it's origin in British law and requires us to change them before we can consider ourselves 'sovereign'. For example, by these laws a cabinet member cannot disagree with government policy, if they do they must relinquish their seat or else an election is called. The 'system' therefore has a built in mechanism for maintaining control. At least in the states 'in theory' the individual had primacy over the government and the government had to justify it's actions and prove they were 'reasonable' to a jury. No such thing has ever existed here. I was surprised that many people I had talked to thought we had 'moranda' rights like in the states and thought criminals were 'getting off' because of mistakes in 'reading them their rights'. No such thing has ever existed here, and it is up to the individual to prove that the government has acted 'unreasonably'. In Canada, if the individual has to prove something then it is up to the crown whether there is a trial by jury or judge-guess which the crown picks. So essentially the government is the judge of whether it has behaved unreasonably. This is part of the reason why natives have had such a hard time. So sovereignty is a pretty vague notion unless it's attributed to something specific, and I don't understand quite what you mean.

I was hoping that I would not have to deal with radical fundamentalists on DD as well, the verbose ones in particular <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> DD will not solve all our ailments and will have to work with non-DD stuff. Just like the left and the right. Or the Sovereignists and the Leeches (?). What gets me the most excited about DD is the challenges that it puts on the existing political system. I note that DD will not work any better if people are politically as apatic as they are... Perhaps non-DD stuff would work better if people engaged more with their public officials. As a "gaulcon", I am most sceptical about the ability of any monopoly to not lose itself in a square box. No I am not joining a DD colony but will consider more time on icefloes if that can help anyone.

You definitely raise many interesting issues. We live (I think) in a catch-22 society. If on specific issues all the people contacted their representatives and told them which way they'd vote, no doubt you may get a little more response. However, even in such a case so little power rests with representatives that it changes nothing. You have to basically admit that all those people in Ottawa are better equipped to make these decisions than average canadians. However, I would love to have that debate (and you know how I like to debate) that includes any legislation in Canada's history that 'should' have been decided by non-democratic means. That's all hypothetical though, my personal decision is that of either becoming a professional 'letter to the editor', activist, or run as a dd candidate. Of course, I do do both the others as well, but forgive me if I sound too fundamentalist since I have to maintain it to keep my energy at a level that I will actually do something and not just complain. I do admit to that fundamentalism, however, it is specifically relegated to the 'form' of democracy and not the content. I think people should be free to make their own mistakes. You state that you wouldn't join in a such a society. That's fair enough. What if I were running municipally in your riding? If I told you that on my website, in newsletters and at an office you would find access to all the information you need - and to vote all you'd have to do is send an email or make a phone call. Would you vote for me? If I was running provincially or federally under the same terms? Obviously you'd have to see a campaign, etc., and I have a hundred ideas on this but don't want to turn this into more of an encyclopedia than it already is<img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> Hey, at least there are plenty of other threads where you don't see my moniker<img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'>

Allright you get my vote at the municipal level since you are only a mild radical fundamentalist on DD and it will definitely take on to get anything done. The problem is that I do not live in your municipality and this is a Canadian Sovereignty site (and you will have to listen to your electorate). So again, what do you think would be the best specific case for increasing Canadian Sovereignty via DD? If you come up with a good one, you may even get my vote at the federal level if you move to the Burnaby/New Westminster (Vancouver suburbia) riding area where Peter Julian is my current NDP MP. Bonus points if you can point to a *specific* case where DD could help increase sovereingty of Quebec and/or First Nations.

gaulois, hope you don't mind if I toss my two cents in re: your question to Marcarc above. I'll turn things around. What greater harm could DD do to the cause of Canadian sovereignty than has been the case with our representative democracy of the past thirty years? I think it's reasonably fair to say there are forces in Canada that would see their interests best served through Canada becoming 'U.S. North' and that these forces are well represented within our mainstream parties. Polls indicate most Canadians do not share these beliefs. As I've mentioned elsewhere, Mel and the gang have been beating the Canadian sovereignty drum for the past thirty-fourty years within our representative democracy environment. I think the concerns expressed by Mel and others are shared by many Canadians however, the situation has worsened rather than improved with the passage of time, primarily because the citizen's well-paid representatives have consistently refused to address these concerns, or for that matter many of the significant concerns of their constituents. So, it seems to me that the only hope for continued Canadian sovereignty rests with a DD system that would enable citizens to better control the path followed by their nation. Now, DD might not serve as the saviour of the Canada most of us seem to desire however, it's hard to see how it could do greater harm than has been the case under the current system. The broader the base of decision making power the less likely the possibility of corruption and the better the chance that decisions will reflect the overall best interests of most citizens rather than those of 'special' interests (read globalization proponents), whose ability to 'influence', or be, the smaller group of decision makers would dissipate. It should be remembered that the less desirable impacts of NAFTA, deep integration etc. have been, and will continue to be, felt by average citizens who generally have no way of influencing the current day decision makers, other than voting the 'black' cats out in favour of the 'white' cats. Rather than leaving the decisions in the cat's paws as to what is best for the mice, the mice need to take personal responsibility for the decisions. To continue on with my thoughts from previous posts, while doing my research in response to the 'how would I save the Roman empire' question of several weeks back I came across a reference to the reason why Rome chose its democratic republican model over the Athenian model. In essence this came down to a fear of 'mob' rule (tyranny of the majority.). In the early republic power remained in the hands of the patrician aristocracy. Given this, it is easy to understand why a tyranny of the majority non-patrician crowd might not be viewed in with favour by the patricians. Through the years, I've often heard reference to the 'tyranny of the majority' and have seen a few here on Vive. So, I asked myself, who would actually fear the 'tyranny of the majority' that is in fact democracy in action? Obviously Roman patricians in their first stab at a republic, or for that matter, any minority. In the Canada of today, lacking an obvious aristocracy, who fears the tyranny of the majority? Well, again the minority. But who is the minority? Well, we have a few. 1) Cultural/racial/linguistic minorities, e.g., Francophones, First Nations, etc. whose interests may not fully align to the majority. 2) 'Special' interest groups, e.g., the wealthy, the 'professionals', etc., whose interests are protected through current legislation and/or policy. 3) Those who know what's best for everyone and what should and should not be allowed/accepted in society, e.g., abortion should be allowed, death penalty should not, and have no difficulty or qualms of conscience in forcing their beliefs on the lesser evolved. 4) The 'majority' rest, as within the 'majority' we'll all be in the majority for some views and the minority for others. Sometimes gaulois will be in the majority and sometimes Calumny in the minority, and vice versa, and sometimes both will be either in the majority or the minority. Of the above, who has the most to fear/lose from a tyranny of the majority? On a national level, any group seeking to forward DD in Canada must in terms of 1) do so on the basis of Canadian realities and the understanding that the best interests of the whole can best be served through in 'new deal' in which First Nations and Francophones can seek, protect and share their own destiny and respective cultures within a symbiotic relationship with the ROC. 2) and 3) deal with more 'elitist' groups, 2) being the group whose interests are self-serving and 3) the group who has the ideas it knows are best for humanity as a whole (regardless of 'humanity's view of the matter.). These are the groups that may see something to fear from DD, in that the majority may not agree that the 'rights' historically enjoyed by 2) are 'inalienable' and may not necessarily be attuned to the higher understanding possessed by 3), e.g., the great unwashed may not have see anything untowards in achieving 'closure' through pulling the switch on the Paul Bernardos. I'll note that my abortion and death penalty examples in no way reflect my own views. I use these only as illustrations of rather sensitive issues that some might, perhaps groundlessly, be fearful of being put to a popular vote. 4) has nothing to fear from DD because everyone would at some point and on some issues be in the majority and on others be the minority. In the end, most would have more say in decisions affecting themselves and their nation than is the case today, which, as Marcarc has indicated, seems generally to be well received. To respond to a comment made by gaulois, the NDP would not be expected to forward DD due to many of their supporters falling into 3) above. Similarly, Liberals and Conservatives would not forward a DD system because most of those calling the shots in their respective parties belong to 2). The founders of the Roman republic favoured democratic tyranny of the minority, which is in fact the situation in most western 'democractic' societies today, wherein all have the belief they have power within a democratic process when in fact that power is held by a select few. Marcarc mentioned: [QUOTE]Most of the reasons I heard for why DD would be too chaotic came from people who only had limited experience with our fractured political system. They had been to one or two 'town meetings' which were basically yell offs between two sides, resolved nothing and the government of the day went ahead and did whatver the hell it wanted anyway. It's 'the appearance' of democracy which is important in those cases. This is why I push for a more individual based, internet and letter forum. Like on here we often bicker away for awhile til we get to the point of specifics and find that there are strong similarities there.[/QUOTE] The bolded area above is of particular importance for DD. People need to be provided with the facts related to a particular proposal and the ability to consider these in a private, as opposed to 'town hall' setting. The individual can then choose, or not, to discuss their thoughts with others. As has been demonstrated in focus testing settings a question posed to a group, rather than individual, can result in skewed 'opinions' being expressed based on dominant members of the group 'imposing' their views on more passive participants. Taking a 'vote' in this type of setting would generally be unproductive, in that the vote of some could be influenced by their favourable/unfavourable views of vocal or dominant individuals rather than an objective review of the facts. Off the topic, the problem with many town hall or phony 'consultative' type sessions is, as Marcarc has indicated, that these are in fact only window dressing for decisions that have already been made and which will not change regardless of the views expressed. Essentially these just set the participants up for disillusionment. These do have the benefit of allowing the organizers the opportunity to trumpet their willingness to 'consult' the public although, if the individual performing the consultation is actually ethical, e.g., Ray Romanow, it can backfire. In terms of Marcarc's above comment, the successful forwarding of DD requires that the government process be demystified for and understood by citizens. The first demystification needs to be in respect of beliefs expressed by some Vive participants that the average citizen does not have the knowledge required to make an informed decision on matters affecting their nation. In the first place, government is not in the business of constantly making 'major' decisions. There are in fact few matters that would need to be put to referendum in any given year. This can be verified by tracking government related news for a a given year. Canada, and other western democracies, have the most highly educated populations seen in human history. There is no reason to believe that given adequate information most citizens could not make informed decisions on any given matter affecing their nation. Given the success Canada has seen in recent years depending on the decisions of representatives guided by 'experts', I find any concern about moving decision making power into the hands of the citizens affected most by these decisions to be somewhat incredible. The reality of our nation is that it is controlled by those whose livliehoods on based on creating a complexity, whether that be in government, law or economics, that guarantees a continuing need for their services. Whether this is by choice or circumstance makes no difference. What does matter is that our nation has never been run on the basis of what is good for the average citizen and that those elected individuals who should in fact be viewed solely as public servants hired to administer the nation on the citizen's behalf occupy more of a pseudo-aristocratic than administrative role. And why should this surprise us? I personally find it somewhat amusing, and disturbing, that in recent times government at all levels has taken to hectoring others as to the need to change, while at the same time not applying the same expectations to itself. As we've discussed before, and has most recently been noted by Marcarc, one of the few areas of society that has not changed substantially in the past four or so centuries are the institutions of our transplanted British representative democracy. Most areas of society have, for good or not, changed substantially during that time. However, institutions that were not originally created by the average joe for the average joe continue to trundle along as some sort of 'perfect' solution that requires little or no enhancement and are beyond question as to the value being delivered. In terms of points raised earlier in the thread, we don't need 'leaders' for the day to day business of our nation, nor do we need 'representatives' in the current understanding of the term. We need competent individuals hired by citizens solely on the basis of their credentials for a particular job to administer the nation (and public service) on behalf of their employers and be (in an immediate day to day sense) accountable for their success in doing so. DD will not resolve all of human problems. In political terms, its potential is limited to allowing citizens the choice of becoming more actively involved in the administration of their nation, cut out the party structure and 'representative' deadwood and move the nation to a more overall structure that better meets the needs of all current and future citizens. Solving the greater issues of humanity problems requires that humanity move to he next level, which will requires humans to examine who they actually are and what is in many cases actually driving their lives and decisions. In accepting personal responsibility for the course of their nation, many may be encouraged to go a few steps further into the realm of self-examination and understanding. Continuing to rely on others to think and decide for us is not likely to forward that process. I guess the bottom line for me is that if I'd wanted my life to be controlled by the choices and decisions of those other than myself, I'd have stayed at home with Mom and Dad. Like most, I chose not to. To me, the illusion of democracy we occupy is no different than moving out of my childhood home to an apartment paid for by Mom and Dad and living on an allowance and by the rules they provided. I could kid myself I was a self-sufficient, functioning adult possessing and exercising free choice. But, in my heart I'd know the truth.

Ok, I think I get your general drift about sovereignty. There are several tools in a direct democracy. To be most explicit here I'll use that of a citizen's initiative. This is where if a certain percentage of the population signs a petition it is put to a referendum vote. I'm going to use two examples, one in the sovereignty vein, the other in a way I think would be most useful. One sovereignty issue I believe is marijuana. I won't get into the specifics of it, the fact is that it is clear that government policy is being driven from Washington. If you don't believe that, we can debate that somewhere else, but clearly access to medical marijuana is highly favoured by canadians in virtually every poll. A citizens initiative would enforce the government to make this available to patients. That, I believe is a sovereignty issue, though there are many others which I can go into if you like. Health care is even more a sovereign issue, I think it appalling that in an advanced industrial economy there were eleven men who were deciding the fate of our health. For first nations it is far more tricky. First nations have no sovereignty, and even in cases of self government there are means which the government can use to overrule natives. The tricky part here is that native governments have been forced to adopt our form of government rather than the more directly democratic form they had before. There are really two issues here, there is THEIR native sovereignty, and there is our sovereign government which governs them. Clearly our government has a responsibility. If facts are laid out I'm not sure canadians are as racist as we seem. For one thing, we taxpayers are paying $10,000 of the salary of every labourer in the forest industry (it's $15,000 for the mining industry). First nations have much more egalitarian and labour intensive means of forestry management. Would you rather have our forests clear cut and decimated for hardly any jobs, or would you rather see more native access which provides far more jobs and a far more ecological approach to forestry? Add into that the fact that virtually none of that profit goes into your pocket and I think many canadians would lean heavily towards more native management, thereby reducing the 'welfare' of natives and the drain on your wallet. This leaves more control in the hands of natives, less to corporations, thus adding to our sovereignty. As far as Quebec sovereignty goes, I think more detail needs to be given on what 'distinct society' means exactly. I think our collective sovereignty is gained by mutual consideration-namely, I won't intrude on your decisions if you don't intrude on mine. This is where I disagree with the sovereign line where you have a central government which dictates rules to the rest of the country. I think this is fundamentally wrong and if you don't live in a community then I don't think you should be allowed to make decisions for it. Obviously there are no hard and fast rules here, and that is an issue which needs far more discussion.

I don't think any elobaration need be made on Calumny's remarks, ones that pretty much mirror my own. What I'd like to discuss here (is anybody still reading this thread?<img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> is the beneficial aspects to the 'road to direct democracy'. One of the chief problems in our society is simply not being able to access information on what the government is doing. Here in Waterloo a new recreational building was developed with the price tag of 150 million. Well, it turned out after the fact that the price was close to double that because nobody had even read the contract through. The CAO had taken the salesman's word, the councillors had taken the CAO's word. In a 'rational' society when a community recreation centre is being built the community would take part in it's creation and funding. Those arguing against certain aspects of the project, or the project itself would, in their search for 'ammunition', have quickly discovered how much was actually being charged. This is a 'relatively' simple change-the opening up of government. This is especially obvious at the federal level where the 'ethics commissioner' met with Paul Martin and decided everything with CSL was kosher, but refused to divulge any information to a population that's supposed to be informed on the person they are electing (or not).

To get back to the theory of leadership I was reading a book on the roman general who killed Hannibal (then leader of the Carthaginians). At the time Hannibal was thwarting the romans he had retired and was a full time farmer. When the senate tried to get him to lead the army he refused, saying that he had fulfilled his 'social contract'. The senators did not accept this and set the sc was always binding because he was priveleged to live there, but they made him a deal, if he thwarted the Carthaginians then they would guarantee he would have to serve no more administrative functions in the empire. This is what got his 'leadership', the deal to leave him the hell alone! I support that theory, but in case you didn't read that part of history the man was as big a mass murderer as any other roman general. While it is unknown whether he was responsible for the murder of all Carthaginians and the salting of the soil so that it would never rise again, he was responsible for wiping out Hannibal's army (I wonder how that will play in the upcoming movie<img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> In Switzerland it should be noted that there isn't that much higher turnout in general elections. DD is not a tool to make more voters, but to make better government. The swiss know that which politician is in office is not nearly so important as here because the citizens have the final say on legislation. This keeps their politicians in line. Keep in mind that during all those 'united nations' polls which determined the 'best places to live', Switzerland was not included because it was only recently that the swiss voted and agreed to join the United Nations. Although they do considerable trade with other European countries they also are not a member of the European Union. I think this bears directly on the sovereignty issue. Here in Canada we talk about the problems of NAFTA, however, we know that with the MAI there are plenty more 'trade agreements' coming down the pike.