MG wrote:
> "-M: It seems that we have: > 1. direct democracy (L-DD) > 2. representitive democracy > -a. popular RD (L-RD) > -b. accumulative/augmented RD (SD2, and maybe Parlement/EC-D) > 3. participatory democracy (PD) (This seems to be the common ground of > all of us – our mutually intended GOAL. AD seems to attempt this.)
[…] > -M: People can use PD to organize their: > 1. businesses > 2. volunteer activities > 3. political endevors
-M: To add: ‘volunteer activities’ also means nonprofit, and ‘political endevors’ doesn’t mean that the political system in its entirety would be PD – simply having one or more major parties organized as PDs would suffice.
> Isn’t it conceivable that a society could have 90% of the people > organized with PD in atleast one of these categories? Maybe 70% > organized with two of these categories? 50% with all three?
> MG: +1, Mark! ;-)
-M: OK, Karl, I made you happy and I am glad. :-)
I seems my breakthrough is in communicating a common ground, not
actually in newly forming a common ground.
Wasn’t it obvious that SD2 creates generative conditions for PD?
Wasn’t it obvious that SD2-Smartocracy is PD?
What now, Karl?
I say that AD with an SD2 umbrella is a superior form of PD than
SD2 with an AD umbrella. With my system, all participants could
recieve a generalist political rank – and the top ranked would be the
organizers of the specialists.
It seems that with your system, the top generalists would be largely unknown, and the top administrators would be chosen merely for their ability to administer.
I see this as abuse prone because the top administrators may have different agendas than the top generalists, and may want to skew the andminitration of law in their favor.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1