Milutin writes:
> >     "Only when all mature and normal citizens are economic *haves* as
> well as political *haves*, with some *haves* having more and some
> *haves* having less according to their contribution to the economy,
> will we have a working approximation to the ideal of a socialist
> democracy.
>
> political haves means what?  Can you explain what you think it
> means?

According to Adler again, a political "have" is a person who has
political liberty.  Political liberty is one of the four major
modalities of freedom.  "A people have political liberty under
favorable circumstances when they are governed with their own consent
and with a voice in their government."

A voice in your government means you get to vote.  But I think it
means more than just vote.  I think it means the people can force a
referendum on a particular law when they choose.  I don't think it
means *every* law has to be passed by referendum, because most people
just don't have time to be involved in government to that extent.

> >     "This news will shock the many who think that the democratic
> ideal made its appearance in ancient Greece.  In his funeral oration,
> Pericles praises Athens for intituting democracy at a time when, in an
> Athenian population of 120,000, only 30,000 were citizens and the rest
> were disfranchised women, artisans, and slaves.
>
> Only 25 percent of the population exluded?  That's the way I like
> it!

No.  INcluded.  25% of the polulation were INcluded.

> >     "There are four main forms of government: tyrannical despotism,
> >benevolent despotism, constitutional oligarchy, and constitutional
> >democracy.  According to the principles of justice, it can be argued
> >that only the last of these is the best form of government, because
> >only it embodies all the principles of political justice.
>
> Can the best form of government produce the best form of society?  Well,
> they tell you that government is needed, but they won't allow you to try it
> for yourself?
>
> Either they really care about your needs and don't want to see you
> fail, or they fear that you will be right and your need for them to
> rule over you will be no more.

Or they already know what you are proposing won't work.  It will
slowly transfrom itself into a combination of the four forms Adler
describes.  In the early stages, the single "org" will split
voluntarily into multiple separate orgs.  These will be at cold war
with each other.  Some of the cold wars will become shooting wars.
In these wars, winning orgs will take over losing orgs by force.  Some
of these winning orgs will become tyrannical despotisms.  Others will
become benevolent despotisms.  Over the long term, orgs will gradually
topple the despots and move to constitutional oligarchies, which is
pretty much where we have been for much of this century.  Gradually,
those oligarchies will switch to constituional democracies, social
democracies of the type Adler describes. At least I hope that is what
is happening.

> I suspect the latter, that just my nature.

Your best shot is to go up north to that new Inuit state in Canada and
convince them to make it an anarchy.  The old tribal systems of the
North American Indians are probably the closest thing you'll find to
what you want.  If you can't convince them to do it your way now, then
I think you better develop a new five year plan.

> >     "When finally in the twentieth century truly universal suffrage
> was established, we saw at last a from of government that is
> demonstrably democratic and completely just.  If any injustice remains
> for the future to abolish, it is the economic justice of the socialist
> ideal."
>
> When universal suffrage was established in the great America, we see
> a trend in voters not even bothering to vote.

So what makes you think they'll do the work it takes to make an anrchy
run?  Please don't say it will run itself.

> "the fifteen countries of the European Union (EU) voted together with an
> enthusiasm heretofore witnessed mostly in the United States: 51% stayed out.
> Five years earlier, the abstention rate ran at 43.2%. This was considered
> much too high then; in 1989, the rate had been 42%; in 1994, 39%; in 1979,
> 37%..." - Serge Halimi
>
> Europe, or great Europe, has experienced the same phenomena, but to Adler
> and others, this is because "it is soooo great, people trust that whoever
> might be in power, they will do a good job".
>
> Good?
> Trust?

Lazy?
Stupid?

You want these people in your org?  Or do you think they will become
model citizens when you tell them they have to make their own shoes.
They'll be real pleased when you tell them doctors don't have to go to
medical school anymore.  That'll go over real big.

> Funny enough -- but constitutional democracy has more factors
> affecting it and if we ignore those factors and their ability to
> decide what voters(who bother) vote, then we are already stuck in
> the hell hole which Martin aspires to.

No, universal suffrage means universal.  If it isn't universal, it
isn't a constitutional democracy.  What part of universal don't you
understand?

martin

Martin Smith                    Email: [log in to unmask]
P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet       Tel. : +47 330 35700
N-3194 HORTEN, Norway           Fax. : +47 330 35701