Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site teldata.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!drutx!houxe!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!teltone!teldata!tac
From: tac@teldata.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: John DiNardo and Participative Democracy
Message-ID: <374@teldata.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 5-Jun-84 11:52:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: teldata.374
Posted: Tue Jun  5 11:52:07 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 6-Jun-84 07:16:33 EDT
Organization: Teltone Corp., Kirkland, WA
Lines: 53

, (sop to the blank line eaters--consider it a religious sacrifice)

>>  From: jad@harpo.UUCP (jad)
>>  Newsgroups: net.politics,net.news.group,net.misc
>>  Subject: participative democracy
>>  
>>         It is extremely important to the welfare of the world that a partici-
>>      pative type of democratic decision-making become well practiced, refined
>>      and popularized. 
>>         Suppose a cardinal issue of world-wide concern, the nuclear threat,
>>      were examined through a forum open to all people of all nations. In this
>>      forum, all varying ideas for dealing with this issue would be welcome.
>>      Then, after a general agreement to terminate the exchange of ideas, 
>>      successive run-off votes would be taken until the numerous proposals
>>      were finally reduced to one. With the endorsement of everyone involved,
>>      that proposition would constitute a forceful appeal to world leaders.
>>         Such a movement, of itself, might engender other movements to deal
>>      with the nuclear threat. Moreover, it would be an experiment in direct
>>      democracy.          
>>                                          John DiNardo
>>  
   John,
Ah, disapointment.  Just when I thought you were showing some high sense
of reason after the last missive you sent, you come up with this!

The obvious solution which will occure from such a vote would be for all
nations to disband all nuclear weapons.  BUT:
   
   1)  Nations low on technology seem to be high on population, therefore
       it benefits them to disband the superior weaponry of the technological
       powers (both from peaceful and aggressive points of view).  With a
       lower technology level war their greater population to use as cannon
       fodder will be of immense benefit.

   2)  History shows us that the best way to prevent a war is to convince
       your potential opponents that you are READY to *WIN* that war.  If
       you can do that they will never attack.

   3)  Would you trust the "votes" coming from totalitarian regimes?  I
       sure would not.  By the very same logic (you always suspect the
       other fellow of doing what you would do) they will not trust our
       votes.  [By saying I would not trust them have I admitted that I
       would do the untrustworthy?]

	    From the Soapbox of
	    Tom Condon     {...!uw-beaver!teltone!teldata!tac}

    "A Page of History is Worth a Volume of Logic", but ONLY if you READ it.

DISCLAIMER:  The opinions expressed herein are those of everyone who
  matters, but not necessarily anyone you know, and most certainly not
  my employers!