> "Democratic" doesn't sound that attractive to me; if I and my brother
>vote to share your money, against your lonely voice, would that be
>democratic? Fair? Useful for stimulating further creative efforts?
And here are the anwers:
yes
no
no
Democracy is about protecting the strong (majority) from the weak
(minority). See also previous emails. People seem to mix up fairness with
democracy. A true democracy is simply counting votes and acting upon it.
Probably, the confusion is caused by the fact that most democratic
countries are in the western world and like to think of themselves they are
fair, developped, have human rights etcetera. But this does not justify the
conclusion that democracy equals and/or encompasses all these elements.
E.g., a few years back in Algerie the muslim extremist party FIS won for
the first time the elections. In a true democracy this party would have
taken over the government since they had won. But no, the old establishment
who lost the elections decided that the FIS was not able to govern due to
their extremistic points of view (Algerie should become a total muslim
state, just like Iran). For sure, this was a fair thing to do with respect
to human rights (see Amnesty International reports on Iran), but was it
democratic? Probably not. But since the FIS did not have enough power they
were the weak and the strong could protect themselves by banning the FIS.
> In your case, did people living and working in the city center have
>the same voting power as people who visit it once a year to have fun?
snip
It was a local referendum so only habitants of the city were allowed to
vote. You are right about the fact that a referendum does not allow for
different voting power. One habitant, one vote. The votes of people living
in the suburbs who visit the city center once a year are treated equally as
votes of people who live or work in the city center day in day out. In
Holland, a referendum is used when the politicians have debated a subject
without results and the subject is important to society. Then, after a
while, the subject is presented to the society as a yes/no question. No
more discussions, just a simple yes or no, since all possible aspects of
the subject have already been discussed.
As we all know, Switzerland is the leading country when it comes to
referenda. Interesting enough, this weekend (March, 10), the Swiss are not
helding one, but five referenda. Combining saves money. In random order the
objects of the so-called Volksabstimmung are:
1. Should Raetero-romans be an official language? This is a language spoken
by some swiss people who are living in the south east part of the country
near Graubunden (look it up if you care :-);
2. Should the government stop building parking lots nearby train stations?
Since 1986 the swiss government has stimulated the use of public transport
by building these parking lots. They feel they have sort of accomplished
this task so in order to save money the swiss are asked this question
(savings approx. 20 milion swiss franc);
3. In Switzerland all men must enter the army for a short period. After
this period they should remain available for the army in case of war (i
believe/guess this is called the National Garde of Reservists in the US).
The equipment of the reservists is determined on a national level, but all
the provinces, called cantons, buy them individually. The referendum
question is: should goverment buy the equipment on a national level? This
way the government can negotiate price cuts because they place far larger
orders then all the individual cantons seperately;
4. Switzerland is famous for their strong liquors, thing i.g. of the
Saint-Bernardus dog carrying a flask of brandy. In order to limit the
destructive effects of alcoholism, the government decided 60 years ago to
oblige herself to buy all breweries if they stopped their business. The
question is: should the government be obliged to continue to buy the
breweries? By stop buying, they save about 500.000 swiss franc (approx.
$350.000);
5. The last question also concerns brandy. The government has decided some
decades ago to determine a minimum price for brandy. Would the market price
drop below the minimum price, then the government would buy the brandy at
the minimum price and thus preventing that the brandy would become so cheap
that all swiss would get drunk :-). However, the GATT-treaty is in favour
of free markets without governmental interference. Also, the strong liqours
are losing their popularity to low and non alcoholic beverages. So the
question is: should government stop buying brandy at the minimum price?
Hopefully this gives you an idea what sort of questions are dealt with in a
referendum. It probably does not enlarge your enthousiastic support for
referenda :-)
> Of course, social issues are more complex than a half-page solution;
>all legal systems are written in lots of volumes, rely on experience of
>lots of people in their interpretation, and are still imperfect; I did
>not want to present an Ultimate Legal Cure or anything like that - just
>to make a few remarks.
I ABSOLUTELY agree!
More and more i am beginning to wonder whether email is the right medium
for discussion. Not only social issues but all issues are more complex than
a half-page solution. Yet people expect from others that they give a
complete solutions in one (maybe two :-) emails. And if you don't then
people flame you for being incomplete. So on behalf of all people who take
part in email discussion lists i would like to say to everyone:
Realize what medium you are dealing with. Take into account the limitations
of email correspondence and take advantage of the pros.
>>maybe i don't understand it correctly. Do you mean that people only pay
>>taxes etc. for things they want from government? I'd stop wanting anything
>>from government if that would reduce the tax bill.
>
> So you view the government as a mere parasite. Fine, do not pay taxes,
>and do not collect benefits. Or at least do not pay the taxes that cover
>the benefits you do not need.
No, of course not. I was under the impression that you were thinking this
so i expanded your thoughts a bit further. I would not be in favor of
letting people decide what they want to pay taxes for. Government should
take care of things which are not possible to realize by profit
organizations. So, turning the non-profit government into a profit
organization is most likely not a good idea.
>I would be happy to organize theoretical and experimental
>work here that would bring historically significant results at a fraction
>of the cost of collecting superfluous votes for another silly referendum.
>Could you please pass this proposal to your authorities?
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>Alexander Chislenko <sasha1@netcom.com>
>Home: http://www.lucifer.com/~sasha/home.html
>-------------------------------------------------------------
I have forwarded a copy of your mail to the prime minister :-).
Riemer Brouwer
riebro@eh1.mey.nl