RE: [wg-review] 11. IDNH Vote now - all those in favor

["Cindy Merry" <tomerrys@inter-linc.net>]

(Cindy Merry writes):  Ok, Brett now we're talking.  I have taken the
liberty to remove most of the prior conversation and focus on these snips
from your last message.

<snip>

(Brett said):   I simply did (and still do) not really understand it all.
        <and snip>
(Brett continues):  If Joanna accepts this, then, I change my vote, from
no, to yes, on the question .... with the reservation that I believe that
the DNSO should not include any constituencies; that each person should
have an equal say, devoid of factions, as I believe that
the existence of such factions defeats any democratic processes, and, the
existence of such factions, without any apparent restriction on the number
of such factions to which a person may belong, and, therefore, how many
votes a person may have, is anti-democratic, and, creates a system of
representation, based on, and, proportional to, wealth.

(Cindy Merry says):  Yes each person should have an equal say.  Yes being
allowed to be a voting member within multiple factions creates an
unbalance.  (However when I am a member of many organizations or a
shareholder in a corporation I get to vote on those policies that are than
lobbied for and then as an individual I get to vote for the guy who is
carrying forward those policies my corporation or organization has lobbied
for...etc.)

Now let's take the hard part.  Let's try this example and see if it makes
sense.
XYZ Corporation cannot vote for its employees.  They have a huge interest
of course in policies that govern their business and they contribute huge
amounts of money to different politicians who may represent them and their
viewpoints in legislation.  They can lobby people to vote for those
politicians.  Brilliant marketers get to create wonderful spin campaigns to
convince the voter why XYZ Corporation's view and their politicians are the
best.  Within all of this XYZ Corporation and their politicians never
clearly explain what it is they are really doing.  Meantime
Anti-Organization doesn't like XYZ Corporation's goals and wants to change
the world (to fit their viewpoint).  So they do all of the above based on
how much money they have.

So in my thoughts this scenario spins and spins around to come back to
money.  It really didn't matter that the system was a 'one person-one vote'
process.  In the end 'wealth' counted again.

Although I believe that most people want to do good, I think they don't
spend lots of time thinking about and researching every issue.  So
sometimes XYZ Corporation gets their way and sometimes Anti-Organization
gets their way depending on who has the most in your face message.  And
sending that in your face message takes money.  Sometimes the message
doesn't even have to be true - just emotional enough and spun enough to
sway the voter.

So I'd like these folks in here, from whatever background they come from,
whatever hidden desires they have, to reach higher than simply applying the
same structures that have been applied in other attempts to create
self-governing types of organizations (governments, corporations, chambers,
etc).  I know that we still have to contend with the very nature of being
human to overcome our natural drive for winning...and making money.  But
perhaps the challenge becomes to find some type of balance between true
democracy and reasoned 'counselors' who guide in an unbiased process.

The Internet is the freshest, most unique, most cost-effective, most timely
method ever found for people to communicate.  Why should we allow someone
to control the flow of information?  Why should money be the end all of the
process?  Perhaps we need to decide if the Internet is a business or a
tool?

PS:  Can anyone tell me who owns the Internet?

Thanks,  Cindy





--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html