Dan Fabulich wrote:
> >Once the direct voting democracy have made a decision, it havn't to force
> >its operations on the minority who disapprove because the minority are
> >able to leave and to split the community.
>
> Care to tell that to all those who support the American Confederacy? You
> can only "leave and split the community" (aka secede) if the voting
> majority hasn't forbidden it.
If there is "new land" you can move away legal or just illegal.
>
> *I* don't agree with most of Congress's laws, but it's still illegal for me
> to sit in my house and secede from the USG. Try it yourself.
Yes, thats true in our time. But there are people in this world who work
to make this split legal....
Think a little about your American history and "the West" and the
diffrents between the settlements on the "new land".... And be avare about
the fact that this splitting of communities was an acepted rule in indian
societies for several hundred years.
>
> >Once the direct delegation democracy have made a decision, it havn't to
> >force its operations on the minority who disapprove. The decision represen-
> >ted a consensus/compromise among direct delegates (no consensus = no deci-
> >sion). Each delegate had forwarded only the orginaly words of a group of
> >humans.
>
> And if my delegate misrepresents me? See above.
Than all decisions are illegal because the groups have to acept voluntary
the decisions of all delegates. If one or more groups cannot acepted the
consensus among their delegates because one or more delegates have misre-
presented their group(s) than the delegates have to meet again to come to
another consensus.
Anarcho-Syndicalist Unions like the CNT, the SAC and FAU work with this
democratic principle(s).
>
> >Once the direct consensus democracy have made a decision, it havn't to
> >force its operations on the minority who disapprove because if there is a
> >disapproving minority than there isn't a consensus among all members and
> >therefore no decision.
>
> I agree completely. Now, imagine direct consensus democracy happening on a
> very small scale, even between just two people at a time, all over the
> country.
You speak about the USA, isn't it? I'm working here in Europe in a federa-
tion of anarchistic groups of all kinds of anarchistic trends and we
making decisions with the consensus principle since 10 years. And I'm
working on a-infos internet project too making most decisions with the
consensus principle too.
> Plus, since both participants agree on the "vote" beforehand,
> they will almost never need to be forced to agree with themselves (except
> when they change their minds after voting). Now imagine people calling
> these votes "contracts" and calling this system "the free market."
Okay, but I think there is a diffrent between a contract and a consensus
decision. A consensus decision ends if the participant in this consensus
cannot longer agree with this consensus. But a contract is a peace of pa-
per who can force you to agree with yourself and your old decision if you
have mutual agreed in a time sequence where you are obligated by the
contract.
>
> >Have you ever notices the "military" decision making procedures inside the
> >industrial companies? --
>
> So they are competetive. Fortunately, in the case of companies, they're
> competing to see who can perform the services which are worth the most to
> the most people... note that each and every buyer co-operates voluntarily
> when they buy goods, and that the company which performs services which are
> not worth enough to enough buyers eventually goes out of business.
I see, you havn't had thought about it. I havn't told from competetion. I
have asked if you noticed the inner structure of industrial companies to
make decisions and not their relationship to buyers/customers.
>
> The military, on the other hand, competes in the arena of force. It
> requires no one's consent, and in no way competes in a way that maximizes
> co-operation. The essential differences between these organizations,
> therefore, is vast, even if they are both competing.
See above. Therefore this statement is wrong. Workers and their managment
inside the industrial world are forced to co-operate: the managment have
to co-operate with their workers because they cannot produce without wor-
kers and the workers have to co-operate with the managment, because they
need their wages to survive and therefore they have to acept that the ma-
nagment have command of their work.
The structure of the military is as well hirarchically as the structure of
the industry. Both have structures where competence and responsibility are
split from the top to the bottom; the people on the top make the decisions
and have a high responsibillity whereas the people at the bottom carry out
orders with a low responsibillity; only the managment -- the industrial ge-
neral staff -- could change the production and the structure of the firm
and have command of this structure of working.
>
> >Once the managment have made a decision, it have to force its operations
> >on the majority of workers.
>
> This is completely wrong. Under capitalism, corporations can't (legally)
> force their employees to do anything. All of the employees volunteer to
> work in a corporation. All those who don't volunteer to do what the CEO
> wants don't have to work there at all. How is this force?
Because workers and human beings like Bill Gates or Rockefeller are *not*
on the same level. Rich people have enough money to build up a firm; there-
fore for them are to work for wage or to work for their own firms a real
alternativ; but if you have to work for wage and must spend most of your
wage for your survive you are not able to earn enough money to build up
your own firm. Therefore you are forces to earn wage your hole life.
Every costs of interests of all firms who produce, transport or sell a
product are part of the price of this product. Every buyer of a product
have to pay the price -- and all costs of interests inside. Rich people
could invest there money and could earn this costs of interests back which
they have to pay inside the prices -- or they earn more. But poor people
who cann't invest their money because they need this money to survive can-
not earn cost of interests back. Therefore they are not on the same level
with the firm- and capital-owners. And therefore they cannot co-operate
voluntary on the same level.
>
> >Therefore capitalism in its dayly reality
> >isn't much closer to "spontaneous order" than democracy.
Sincerely,
Nico
## CrossPoint v3.11 ##