[EM] Real Democracy
stephane.rouillon at sympatico.ca
Sat Jul 18 20:09:04 PDT 2015
I do not know if you would find it real democracy, but SPPA is what I
have to offer best...
Le 2015-07-18 16:41, Alexander Praetorius a écrit :
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 3:18 AM, Gervase Lam <gervase at madasafish.com
> <mailto:gervase at madasafish.com>> wrote:
> I've been loosely following this thread and had a few questions.
> As one
> thing that Fred mentions near the start of his reply below relates to
> one of my questions, I thought I would ask:-
> (1) Do you expect individuals like those who are both deaf and blind,
> itinerant gypsies, prisoners, those with dementia or other mental
> disability, or a family member who is caring 24 hours a day for a
> relative with such illnesses, to set up as their own business so that
> they are self employed, which would enable them to have their say?
> "REAL DEMOCRACY"
> => Has people who do stuff (SELLING Products/Services)
> => Has people who decide what people should do (BUYING Products/Services)
> If you want to empower people who cannot get elected by earning an
> income through SELLING, then give them votes for free (e.g.
> unconditional basic income or something else)
> The lines above i mention not as a "perfect suggestion", but as one
> example of how to discuss problems in the currently existing "REAL
> DEMOCRACY" and how we could brainstorm about how to solve them -
> instead of staying in "FAIRYTALE DEMOCRACY" and brainstorming about
> nonsense that barely affects reality anyway.
> (2) From what I can tell, a large proportion of China consists of
> personal businesses, a good example being sole market sellers. Is
> a better start for a democracy than what several European countries
> have, who are more dependent on big businesses?
> I don't know. Maybe.
> "Real Democracy" is complex and nothing is black and white here.
> I have too little information to say if it's better or not or if it's
> better in certain aspects but worse in others...
> (3) Every business in the UK needs an external accountant to audit the
> business. Each business must pay for such a compulsory "service". Do
> you expect each self employed individual, whose main aim is to have a
> voice in society, to pay for such a "service"?
> I have opened a UK Ltd. company myself and currently pay for an
> It is ok to do the work yourself and the government website guides you
> through the process.
> If you are a very small business, rules are a lot simpler and the
> audit is not required.
> Once you grow large/successful enough for an audit, you are able to
> pay for it.
> => IN GENERAL: If people would wake up and start thinking about the
> rules that govern "REAL DEMOCRACY" (as opposed to "FAIRYTALE
> DEMOCRACY"), we could brainstorm how to simplify bureaucracy and make
> it more affordable for people to become self employed and to grow a
> healthy ecosystem...
> On Thu, 2015-07-16 at 14:40 -0400, Fred Gohlke wrote:
> > Good Afternoon, Alexander
> > We know our views differ. These comments are a different way of
> > at some of the topics you raised.
> > To the best of my knowledge, in the so-called 'democracies' that
> > presently exist, votes are cast by human individuals. I know of no
> > instance where votes are cast by money. We know that money can
> be used
> > to buy votes but that does not move us closer to democracy than
> we are
> > at present. Quite the reverse.
> > Using money to buy hula hoops is certainly one way of voting
> with money,
> > but it has drawbacks. For one, it tends to lead to 'conspicuous
> > consumption' by those who exploit the system better than their
> > For another, it is not available to those who need their
> resources to
> > feed their families; those who "work for cheap under horrible
> > You say, "The FAKE BULLSHIT (you describe) has to disolve.", but you
> > don't explain its failings. I've seen many such assertions, but
> > one that provided an explanation of what is wrong with the
> system or why
> > it failed. Without knowing and understanding why it failed, it is
> > impossible to improve upon it.
> > Existing pseudo-democratic political systems fail because they
> treat the
> > people like children whose Mommy gives them a choice between
> Corn Flakes
> > or Wheaties for breakfast. Political parties, acting like
> Mommies, tell
> > the people what political choices they can make.
> > Over the past one hundred years, the explosion of mass
> > and the application of behavioral science have given party
> politics a
> > stranglehold on the people. They have robbed the people of
> their right
> > to govern themselves. Instead, as many have known for years and
> > researchers at Princeton and Northwestern are starting to learn,
> > America has turned into an oligarchy.
> > The oligarchs who control the psuedo-democracies maintain their
> power by
> > the most basic rule of success: Divide and Conquer. In the United
> > States, they use two political parties to divide the people and
> > the government. Other countries claim to be 'more democratic'
> > they introduce more parties. They're not.
> > Political parties are divisive by definition. They do not seek
> to serve
> > the common interest; they seek to assert the interests of a
> select few.
> > They do not improve democracy, they empower a relatively radical
> > portion of the electorate at the expense of the common interest.
> > Any system that lets small groups of people decide who can be a
> > candidate for public office and raise immense amounts of money
> to peddle
> > their candidate to the public is flawed. The only product the
> > have have to sell is the laws their candidates enact and that
> creates a
> > conflict of interest that has tragic consequences for the people.
> > It need not be so. There is no shortage of people among us with
> the wit
> > and wisdom to resolve adversarial issues in the public
> interest. What
> > we lack is a means of identifying them and raising them to
> > positions.
> > It is unfortunate that the many bright and thoughtful people who
> post on
> > this site do not think it worthwhile to help the Frome Town
> Council find
> > a way for every member of the community to help decide which of
> > peers are the most attuned to the needs of the community and
> have the
> > qualities required to advocate the common good.
> > Fred Gohlke
> > ----
> > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
> list info
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
> list info
> /Everything I have written above is my personal experience/opinion on
> things, no matter what kinds of words i did use
> (e.g. "always", "never", "impossible", "waste of time", ....).
> /Such extreme words only do indicate, that my experience/opinion on
> something is very strong and i currently cannot imagine that there are
> other possibilities until new arguments/insights/whatever open my eyes
> that there are alternative perspectives too :-)
> *Please do not feel discouraged to challenge my opinion if you have a
> different one.*/
> *Best Regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen*
> Alexander Praetorius
> Bornemannstrasse 17
> D - 60599 Frankfurt am Main
> *[skype] *alexander.praetorius
> *[mail] *citizen at serapath.de <mailto:alexander.praetorius at serapath.de>
> *[web] *http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/Benutzer:Serapath
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Election-Methods