Martin William Smith wrote:

[...]

>"What do you want it to be?"
>
>That's what I asked you.  I have been saying what I think are some of
>the requirements.  Chomsky said the burden of proof ought to be on an
>authority to demonstrate its necessity.  How can that be implemented
>without enforcement by a governmental structure?

Enforcement by popular action.

> You answered by
>saying everything would come out in the wash if we just had pure
>democracy.  We can propose a model for implementing a pure democracy,
>and I agree that is a requirement, but suppose the people then vote to
>break up a Microsoft-esque structure, and the Gates-ian leader of that
>organization refuses.  Then what?

*economic* democracy is the aim, not a better form of *political*
democracy. But in answer to your question, under economic action Gates
would get a vote along with the *other* people working at and running
Microsoft. If he doesn't accept the vote he could just leave.

That's what we mean by economic democracy you see Martin, economic
equality, removing the absolute power that a tiny minority of capitalists
currently have to over-rule the vast majority.

You don't need to the state to enforce economic democracy, because bu
definition the great majority of people have endorsed it. You only need the
state to enforce things when one man, Bill Gates for example, is trying to
stand against the interests of thousands of people. That one man is going
to need the state to protect his interests, but when the interests of the
vast majority are being opposed by one man (without an army to enforce his
will) *we* will have no need for the state.
>
>You have to propose a model.  Just an outline will do.  I'll be more
>than willing to help fill in the blanks.

I think its *what* you will fill any spaces with that worries him. ;-) But
I've answered your questions anyhow. Let me know if there's anything you
don't follow so far Martin.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell tas.