"we must dismantle all forms of domination."
This indeed a big part of the problem. We humans have a tendency to dominate others, especially if we are stronger than they. This instinct has to be broken.
I believe the TDG is the mechanism to sideline dominance and power accumulation.
Domination is hidden in the long term. It's interesting to deconstruct, following the invitations of #Foucault, #Derrida, and #Agemben, to question the naturalness of the state, and also to look at what so-called primitive peoples are doing who are fighting against the centralization of knowledge and power (#Clastres). They aren't "primitive" because they don't have state: They don't have state because they are fighting against centralization and specialization.
1/2
I also had a comment to make regarding the TDG, among other things: it's not possible to impose a "morality" through a new democratic system. I remember you telling me that voters in the TDG should vote on the value of the individual and no longer on a program. It's a mixture of morality and "populism" (without a program), which I must tell you I don't like very much. 2/2
As far as "program" voting goes, I would say most voters are unable to digest the various pieces of governance to put those pieces together very well. They may not have the academic background; they may not have interest to spend the time to cast a "wise" vote in this direction.
But with the "good character" and "capacity" vote, average citizens can indeed cast a wise vote.
In essence, the TDG is about finding trustworthy people to govern us.
2/2
In your wordpress group, someone mentioned only 20% of citizens participated in the Swiss cantons (at best). This leaves 80% not participating.
I would consider this arrangement as a "self selected" assembly, where anyone who want to be there can be there. Or just another minority running the show.
Eventually, self-selected assemblies are likely to turn in "stacking sessions" where proponents of one side or the other find friends to show up and vote a certain way.
More people in TDG governance (and who want to be there) is a social relief valve. Such people are much less likely to revolt later.
And if the TDG produces better decisions to give us extra free time, other citizens will spend more time with music, children, games, ecology, etc. Not all of us need (or want) to be in politics.
But most of us need and want to have a say. The periodic elections of western democracy allow for that say. The TDG will enhance that say.
2/2
I've had some discussion with a libertarian fellow. In theory, this system should work. But humans are too often not rational enough to make libertarianism work.
I see the TDG as a possible stepping stone to reaching a libertarian utopia. Maybe the same goes for direct democracy.
2/2
The TDG will succeed because (1) its early builders created the right culture and (2) the current representatives are making decisions many citizens find acceptable.
No mandate, constitution, or theory can reach this level of acceptance. The TDG will rise or fall on its own merits.
I predict that the TDG will eventually marry the municipal, provincial, and national levels of government into one unitary system. But this future is at least 10 years away.
The difficult decisions will not go away after TDG governance is implemented. There will always be some citizens not liking TDG decisions.
But the TDG decisions will not have the cloud of the needs of the political party.
So citizens would be assured that the decision was not influenced by nefarious actors or motives.
As well, the TDG will handle corruption more quickly and adeptly. So the decision will not be clouded with influence of corruption.
My take is that parties provide a way for second-rate politicians to win elections.
I anticipate that each TDG representative will hold one or two "town hall" meetings every year. In these meetings, citizens can bring their concerns to the representatives. If enough citizens in enough town halls bring the same concerns, those concerns will move up the tiers.
There are no parties to censor or artificially advance concerns in the TDG.
While you seem to be critical of unitary governance, the dynamics of the TDG are much different than the dynamics of western democracy. Consider:
1) the electoral units are much smaller
2) no political parties
3) voting is character/capacity based, not self interest
4) power accumulation is drastically reduced.
So the TDG unitarian system will find a better balance for responsibility and authority between the three levels of government.
2/2
It sounds like you are describing the TDG.
The TDG will accomplish your objective more by culture than by bans. For example, aspiring representatives uniting themselves in a party, slate, or faction won't get enough votes.
As I have mentioned previously, a good TDG representative should hold one or two town meetings a year. Citizens can voice their concerns. Deliberations with different perspectives and possible solutions can be conducted.
These meetings can be made more frequent---if the political energy is there.
@davevolek Rather than being optional, direct deliberations between citizens are at the heart of the democratic process, centered around constructive dissensus, which themselves represent irreducible plurality. Dissensus and its dialectic are the embodiment of popular sovereignty and its inherent legitimacy. In other words, you make a central, fundamental element a regular option.
But what if very few people show up at these meetings?
If the citizens are not willing to participate in direct democracy to the extent you think they should participate, then what is the point?
@davevolek Then we will head towards an inevitable crash.
Unfortunately, a crash is plausible in these times. If so, the crash cannot be blamed on direct democracy or the TDG.
But when the world returns to some kind of sanity, it is most likely to re-create a system that got us into this mess. The political scientists do not want to investigate new ways.
(2/6)
There is also technical domination, as harshly criticized by #Virilio and #Rosa (society of speed/acceleration). The legitimacy of this domination is both conceptual—based on the myth of linear “progress”—and material: what I call “comfortism.” We accept domination in exchange for comfort, rarely questioning its cost.
(4/6)
The legitimacy of the market as a divinity to which sacrifices must be made is now quite well undermined: #Polanyi, #Benjamin, #Dardot, #Laval, #Brown, #Galluzzo have all shown this. When frenetic consumption ceases, the market will also collapse by itself—its legitimacy is already deeply shaken.
(5/6)
What remains is domination by mode of production/biopolitics (#Marx, #Foucault). This last form, though more complex and diffuse, could be the one that triggers the reversal of all others. That’s the wager of Marx, Dardot, Laval, #Negri, #Hardt, #Federici, #Ostrom, and those at the forefront: #Vercellone, #Giuliani, #Brancaccio.
(6/6)
If we want to avoid endlessly repeating the same cycles after a crash, we must address all these forms of domination—political, technical, market, and productive. Only then can we hope for a true transformation, not just a return to the old order.
Sidelining our domination tendencies is key to the transformation. Western democracy has conquered this to some degree, but it has reached its limit. We need to go further.
I believe the TDG is the vehicle. If an elected TDG representative gets too domineering, the TDG voters will vote for someone else.
In this way, the elected TDG representatives are motivated by a spirit of service to their society, not by a desire to acquire status, influence, and power.
Dave Volek
Thomas Barrio