(2): UK 'post mortem', 2nd discussion between Steve and Fred Gohlke
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 3:18 AM, Gervase Lam gervase@madasafish.com wrote:
Alex,
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 small
personal businesses, a good example being sole market sellers. Is this
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 accountant.
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...
Thanks,
Gervase.
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 looking
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 peers.
For another, it is not available to those who need their resources to
feed their families; those who "work for cheap under horrible
conditions".
You say, "The FAKE BULLSHIT (you describe) has to disolve.", but you
don't explain its failings. I've seen many such assertions, but never
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 communications
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, even
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 control
the government. Other countries claim to be 'more democratic' because
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 parties
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 leadership
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 their
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
--
DISCLAIMER:
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
Germany
Germany
*[skype] *alexander.praetorius
*[mail] *citizen@serapath.de alexander.praetorius@serapath.de
*[web] *http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/Benutzer:Serapath
Alexander,
I do not know if you would find it real democracy, but SPPA is what I
have to offer best...
http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/9/9/3/9/p199397_index.html
http://votebook.ca/pdf/SPPAforMPSA13042007.pdf
Dr Rouillon.
Le 2015-07-18 16:41, Alexander Praetorius a écrit :
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 3:18 AM, Gervase Lam <gervase@madasafish.com
mailto:gervase@madasafish.com> wrote:
Alex,
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
small
personal businesses, a good example being sole market sellers. Is
this
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
accountant.
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...
Thanks,
Gervase.
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
looking
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
peers.
For another, it is not available to those who need their
resources to
feed their families; those who "work for cheap under horrible
conditions".
You say, "The FAKE BULLSHIT (you describe) has to disolve.", but you
don't explain its failings. I've seen many such assertions, but
never
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
communications
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,
even
America has turned into an oligarchy.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/21/americas-oligarchy-not-democracy-or-republic-unive/#ixzz3ftXIhT7n
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
control
the government. Other countries claim to be 'more democratic'
because
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
parties
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
leadership
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
their
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
--
/DISCLAIMER:/
/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
Germany
Germany
*[skype] *alexander.praetorius
*[mail] *citizen@serapath.de mailto:alexander.praetorius@serapath.de
*[web] *http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/Benutzer:Serapath
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Thinking about this, this list has previously discussed a lot a voting
method that is very similar to this "one person business" method:
Delegable Proxy[1] (basically proxy voting where each proxy can vote for
another person or proxy) but with the reasoning behind but not the
actual execution of Clarke Tax voting[2] mixed in.
So, instead of votes going around a Delegable Proxy network, a utility
score (in the form of money) would go around an economic network.
[1] http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Delegable_proxy
[2] http://rangevoting.org/CTT.html
On Sat, 2015-07-18 at 22:41 +0200, Alexander Praetorius wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 3:18 AM, Gervase Lam gervase@madasafish.com
wrote:
Alex,
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.