|Subject:||Re: [socialcredit] Re: [chdouglas] Re: I await your answers tomyquestions (was: Re: Public-spirited Banking (was: Re: The AbolitionofInterest on Loans))|
|Date:||Friday, March 28, 2008 21:05:33 (+0100)|
|From:||Per Almgren <almgren_per @.....com>
|In reply to:||Message 5323 (written by Joe Thomson)|
I would like to comment a little about decisionmaking in the society. We
often think that we have a
fairly good democratic system, but once elected, the representatives
quite often decides about things
in a way that their voters doesn't want. I have, for some yars ago, done
some work about how to take
decisions and elect representatives which I think could be interesting
for some of you to read. In the end
of the paper, a method that actually prevents the representatives to
decide against the opinion of their
voters, is described.
Joe Thomson skrev:
> Hi Bill (McGunnigle),
> Thanks for your two replies, Bill. And for the information on some of the
> effects of the recent and continuing financial policy followed by NZ. In
> many ways, it seems to me your country is 'leading' where the current regime
> here in BC seems determined to follow. To our everlasting detriment too, in
> my opinion.
> But, while many in the Official Opposition here, and even a few in the
> governing Party's rank and file "talk" of the need for a somewhat different
> course, when push comes to shove they ALL fall into line as if there were NO
> alternatives. Such is the power of mere 'figures' over 'things', (and
> 'people'), I suppose.
> We can, of course, continue in our efforts to try to change minds, but it's
> neither an easy nor a very certain process. Kind of like being stuck in
> quicksand, I think. We're going to struggle to get out, but the more we
> struggle the deeper we sink. And we can quickly get over our head, if we go
> at it too hard, and then we're done for.
> I gather from comments expressed over some time now that many of us are
> giving considerable thought to 'strategy'. Whether there should be some
> better way of moving things along a little faster, or, at least trying to
> stem the descent into the kind of world those who'd 'lead' us seem to be
> determined to take us. Before we arrive where we clearly don't want to go.
> To continue with the 'quicksand' analogy, the problem right now seems to be
> how we could provide a 'lifeline' ~ something we can hang onto, to keep us
> from sinking out of sight and able to continue the struggle to get out of
> the morass we seem to be stuck in.
> We all make our individual efforts, some very valuable ones in some cases,
> to further SC thinking. Some, like many of you in NZ, try to advance
> through some form of 'organization', either primarily for 'study', or for
> more direct political 'Party' action.
> While others try to initiate interest in the possibilities that might ensue
> from greater citizen participation in the democratic process. Through
> binding CIRs, and a "Voter's veto", and a "Union of Electors", and things
> like that.
> There's even a possibility that if SC could be explained in a way
> understandable by those in academia, who, we suppose, are better trained to
> 'think' than the rest of us, that the possibilities might be more thoroughly
> examined by those who are believed to influence 'policy'. And subsequently
> by those we think we've elected to make it.
> And we continue, or at least some do, to try to attach ourselves to some
> existing organization. And influence from within. Whether it be another
> political Party, or a religion, or an environmental awareness body, or
> whatever. So far, there's not been a great deal to show for these efforts,
> though it's still my belief that 'something' is always better than
> But the 'breakthrough' we need continues to elude us. Despite our best
> efforts, the descent continues, and that 'lifeline' hasn't yet been thrown
> where we can reach it. Or hasn't yet even been made.
[MIME component not shown: QUALITY5.DOC (application/msword)