[EM] Small National Assembly. Bottom-Up Government.

[Michael Ossipoff]

On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Fred Gohlke <fredgohlke at verizon.net>
wrote:

> Good Morning, Michael
>
> re: "The formation of a new government will happen spontaneously
>      if & when that realization becomes universal."
>
> How will that happen if people who recognize "that we have no democracy,
> and that the regime has no intention of allowing any democracy" don't write
> about it and talk about it?


I emphasizsed that large-scale, population-wide conversation would be
essential.

The next step would be spontaneous demand for democracy. Boycotting the
phony elections, and spontaneous participation in big pro-democracy
demonstrations. If it eventually becomes clear that, in spite of those
things, democracy still won't be granted, that's when spontaneous formation
of a new government could happen. Not until then.



> To imagine that those who do not write and talk about it are not leaders
> is facile.
>

And the people who _do_ talk about it aren't leaders either. I'm referring
to spontaneous talk on streetcorners, at campuses, family get-togethers,
etc. I've been emphasizing that spontaneity isn't about leaders or
organizers. So I don't agree with you about the need for leaders. Again,
that's just something on which we'll have to agree to disagree.

But we're talking about a stage of events that's a significant number of
big stages away, and may very well never happen. One should accept that. As
I said, there's no reason why anyone should worry about or count on results.

 Remember that a famous person once said:

"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"

That didn't just refer to taxes. It referred to the entire physical world.

Maybe there will never be improvement. That's ok, as long as you aren't
participating in harm to others.

Sure, we'd like to protect people from harm, and that's what the
conversations are about, but in the long run, people who harm are the main
recipients of their harm, and their own main victims.

Though I'm for trying to prevent harm, and it would be nice if improvement
is possible--People who harm are really only a problem to themselves.


>
> re: "... I read that George Washington used more brutal military
>      force to put down the Whisky Rebellion than against the
>      British.  It seems people a little to the west weren't
>      paying their taxes on the whiskey that they were making for
>      themselves.  And didn't George Washington own slaves?"
>
> In what way are either of these two points relevant to the warning
> Washington gave us in his Farewell Address?
>
>
>
Sure, I'm not claiming that the statements were relevant to what you said.

But, relevant to Washngton's criticisms or warnings, wasn't there a saying
about living in a glass house and calling a kettle "black", or something?



> re: "... the above paragraph that you're referring to the
>      Republocrats, not the Greens, etc."
>
> I did not refer to any specific party.  However, if you want party
> references, think of National Socialism in Germany and Communism in
> Russia.  Both had features that attracted broad public support throughout a
> national expanse and both degenerated into forces because their partisans
> gained control of their governments.destructive


I wouldn't equate parties in general to the Nazi party.

No question about it, we all agree that the Nazis were at the extreme of
bad.

But citing one bad party doesn't support a general claim that all parties
are dangerous



>
>
> re: "Not unless you want to make it illegal for parties to form.
>      Because, otherwise, a group of same or similarly believing
>      people can get together and publish the policies that they
>      advocate, and (democratically, with public participation)
>      choose candidates who agree with those policy proposals.
>      How would you stop them, Fred?"
>
> That's silly.  I don't want to stop them, that is precisely the end I
> seek.  I want to encourage people to get together and agree on the issues
> that need to be addressed and the people best able to address them.  I just
> want to be sure non-partisans are part of the process.
>

Absolutely. I doubt that the Greens have advocated that independents not be
allowed to share their platforms and run for office.


> As to how I'd arrange for them to get together, I've described the method
> on EM before.  It's simple, straightforward, and works in any community
> that's unhappy with the status quo.
>

I'll take your word for that, because I didn't notice those discussions.
They might have been when I wasn't here.




>
>
> re: "I wouldn't vote for anyone who refuses to divulge what
>      hir policy proposals are."
>
> Perhaps not, but you might not have a problem making a choice from among
> people who were discussing political issues with you and describing their
> preferred course of action.
>

Of course. Independents might have good ideas too. Nader didn't get his
ideas from a party. I used to vote for him. Neither did Bernie, though he
seems seriously connected to the Democrat party.

Jill supports a party-platform. One advantage of a party platform is that
you know that there are already lots of people who support it and agree
with it. And, for voting purposes, it's desirable for voters to coalesce
and vote together, partly by sharing about what they're advocating.

This country has problems much worse than having parties. The Democrat and
Republican parties are a result, not the cause, of those problems.

I've already said that no party or organization is going to be what gets
people to reject phony democracy, or maybe eventually start an alternative
government.

That's in agreement with what you say.

Michael Ossipoff






>
> Fred Gohlke
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20161126/a12dec88/attachment.htm>