Direct Democracy

[bush_cheney2004]

Hatcheries are not a good thing for wild fish....

...in addition to commercial fishing being one of the most destructive industries on the planet.

[The_Squid]

...in addition to commercial fishing being one of the most destructive industries on the planet.

Commercial salmon fishing is? How so?

"commercial fishing" is not a single industry. Commercial fishing ranges from very destructive groundfish and shrimp trawl fisheries in 3rd world countries that have no rules and are unsustainable to fiheries that have no negative impacts and are very sustainable.

To spout such a blanket statement shows a lack of understanding about the subject.

[William Ashley]

We have the technology to allow everyone to have the opportunity vote on every piece of legislation, so why are we still electing people to make our decisions for us? Why not have a referendum on every issue? We no longer need to elect anyone to make decisions just to implement them.

I use to think this way about 15 or so years ago - and I am still very libertarian, but in realizing how the world works I've found a new mechanism to do so.

1. Establish a stronger public central bank - one that has a number of connected functions. One of these is a "pay for proposal function" where individuals or the government can propose a spending item - and the public can freely choose to donate to it. Under this model personal income taxes would be removed. Corporate income taxes would be dropped by 1% per year for around 15 years until they were removed. This may also be a positive economic step in crafting Canada as a tax haven, encouraging investment not only in the public bank but also the private banking industry - offsetting any losses due to sole sourced accounts of individuals who no longer require personal bank accounts aside from the governments. During this time a number of mechanisms for residual government income for essential processes would be put in place, such as a strategic reserve for trading within Canada - as a way to insure a stable commodities market - for all commodities - and other products. Other crown corporations not only through a revised penal system that would turn penal colonies into crown corporations with profit share - but like all other crown corporations still taxed - this would also reduce monopolization and givng a competitive advantage to private market competition. Likewise all "government services" would be turned into taxed crown corporations - all these taxed crown services would go about funding the public safety infrastructure -that would be the only major direct government expenditure, aside from the treasury. A secondary protection would be in monetary creation that could be done by credit creation rather than printing - as far as the reserve allowance continued to allow spending money (cash) to move freely. The point here is after establishing the bank and having a sound economic system the pay for and funding requests - would allow the public through the bank to pay for their own programs, either as donations or subscriptions. Many people may not seek this. The public debt meanwhile would be divested to "public debt accounts of all citizens" These accounts would need to be paid for citizenship to be allowed - visa restrictions would be removed and a FSIN / SIN card (national card) would be put inplace - this card would have biometric data and be used as a "bank card" also. People from other countries would have a FSIN card, - everyone would have to get one to enter Canada, but with it they would get their own bank account. Likewise they could purchase services or donate through the bank, such as health insurance or other service offerings. Corporations likewise would have accounts and do their payroll direct through the bank, corporate taxes could be filed directly with the bank. Bank employees would actually be the public service after some training, and branch locations would be any government space already used - with ATM's and interact available as a payment outlet. Or cashiers cheques etc.. that could be cashed at private banks.

This would remove the requirement for federal social programs and let the public directly decide on funding. It would remove taxation of the people also, and require only government funded programs - or those that increased the money supply. However my system has a sound method of raising capital through service provision and trade controls as well as public service offerings to have the government raise capital through direct service provision, and enterprise. The mechanisms safeguad the private and public sectors in aspects such as antitrust and monopolization, while liberalizing the economy while having safeguards in place to insure productivity and efficiency. Even though the system does infringe a bit on the financial markets - it provides for competition and enhances capital flows, as well as resource availability. So in the end it will do never little damage to the financial system if anything it will actually make it more efficient - without effecting employment, it may actually increase employment, in part through investment attraction through tax haven status - especially from America.

Now how does this equal direct democracy - well most of what government politicians do is move money around and talk about stuff.

In addition to this I also believe in creating a house of deputies of sorts - a house of lords of sort for Canada this body would be able to propose legislation through petitions as well as add pay for items - it would be popularly elected from all of Canada - for the top vote getting for the seats --- and all votes would aslo count even those who didn't have seats - that would mean every vote always counted.

It would be a "petitioning" and "redress" organization - rights that Canadians already have. Although it is doubtful partisanship wouldn't engrain there would be no PM or anything, only a person appointed by total votes (through whoever represents them) and any other "self managing house issues" that is they could propose self governing procedural rules. Likewise people could go to the bank and change their assigned representative or if they had one or more vote, vote through the bank. Accounts would be protected through biometrics.

My federal system is not the same as my provincial system though - my view of the federal government is to secure the constitution such as liberty and security of persons. My provincial system is to provide for local business and civil/social function.

Direct democracy at the provincial level I am currently in beleif is best done by lobbying and organzations, and open public forums. Likewise the house of deputies model can also be used.

PS by no PM or anything I don't suggest removing the old system - just having another mechanism for governance - although I do have a number of proposed electoral changes proposed at the electoral reform link on my werbiste. http://williamashley.info/SOCIAL/SP/SP.htm

Directly seen at: http://williamashley.info/SOCIAL/SP/electoral_reform.htm

Edited October 21, 2010 by William Ashley

[eyeball]

So, you really believe that the entire country must create and implement an entirely new system of government just to benefit your fishing community? Do you have a proper sense of scale?

Fish are not some one-off resource like a copper deposit and they have sustained human communities ever since there were humans, until recently.

I'm certainly not the first to suggest that fish and communities that depend on them are important indicators, like canaries in a coal mine, that can tell you a lot about the health of the environment, the economy and how these things are being managed.

My sense of scale tells me that as these go so too will the country, it's environment and the communities that depend on them. I believe the entire country must create and implement an entirely new system of government to save itself.

[eyeball]

Hatcheries are not a good thing for wild fish....

Not in the long run, but they might have bridged a gap and allowed us to restore salmon habitat and eventually the salmon runs that used to populate them. Hatcheries are certainly better for wild fish than the fish farms the powers that be opted for.

2Like someone else said, communities that rely on resource extraction are often boom/bust...

Communities around here have been relying on salmon for thousands of years.

I don't quite get what you are advocating... you think communities should have quotas of fish?

Perhaps in some cases, community quotas have been around for some time now, but I meant communities up and down the coast of BC should have and in the not so distant past would have fished these sockeye as they swam past the coast.

The fact we didn't catch a single one indicates just how successfully Ottawa was at dispossessing us of our heritage and opportunity. That could happen to anyone anywhere in this country.

Edited October 21, 2010 by eyeball

[The_Squid]

....communities up and down the coast of BC should have and in the not so distant past would have fished these sockeye as they swam past the coast.

Who in communities harvested sockeye, other than commercial fishermen?

Commercial fishermen still harvest them. They had openings.

The fact we didn't catch a single one indicates just how successfully Ottawa was at dispossessing us of our heritage and opportunity.

Who is "we"? The commercial sockeye fishery was enormous this year!

[G.P. Lehmann]

People only have to vote once every four years and the voter turnout is ~60%; It would bottom out if citizens were expected to vote on every piece of legislation. This would put even more power in the hands of lobbyists and special interest groups. Furthermore this would exemplify what is what is primarily wrong with democracy; having the uneducated public making public policy based on opinion rather than fact.

[Michael Hardner]

Furthermore this would exemplify what is what is primarily wrong with democracy; having the uneducated public making public policy based on opinion rather than fact.

I would like to include informed members of the public too, but I concur with what you say. I also hold a special distaste for online voting that would have our civic duty competing with voting for favourite Dancing Millionaire on reality TV or whether Banana-Monkeybreath should be the ice cream flavour this month.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The longer we leave this little piece of work to do, reforming the system, the worst it will be. We need to get on this now and slay the dragon before it eats us alive. The current system is degrading rapidly into a contest of financial support during a beauty contest, it ain't right folks. Our elected representatives are partisan hacks for the most part, the "party" calls the shots, not the electorate. That is wrong, period.

Currently the citizen has no place in the political process short of participation in a general election. Those are manipulated to suit the needs of the government of the day when issues can be controlled and steered in the direction chosen by some partisan effort. Once elected they remain in place doing whatever they please until another general election is called. That is wrong.

That is why there are citizens looking into alternatives. Direct Democracy is a functional alternative, all we need do is design it in a manner to suit our needs. Look folks we currently have three competing systems of government all funded from the same source, that lowlife tax paying citizens. This country is large, and our bureaucracy proves it, we need to scale things back more than a simple notch or two we need a complete renovation of delivery services for starters. Just how many ministries of education and boards of education do we really need? Can we not see the folly of the current system? Our government is a shining example of a paradigm and we seem incapable of seeing past that little piece of reality.

Does anyone else think that its time for a little innovation in our politics?

[eyeball]

Who in communities harvested sockeye, other than commercial fishermen?

Commercial fishermen still harvest them. They had openings.

Who is "we"? The commercial sockeye fishery was enormous this year!

It was non-existent to anyone outside of Georgia Straight and the Fraser River. In the not so distant past the entire outer coast of BC would have been allowed an opportunity to benefit from Fraser River sockeye as they swim past. Given the economic activity an abundance like this can generate it should be fairly obvious that fishermen are not the only one's that benefit from having a fishery on their doorstep.

The process that resulted in disenfranchising the outer coast from the biggest sockeye run in history was quite undemocratic. I'm certainly not aware of any referendum in which Canadians were asked if we should be excluded.

Edited October 25, 2010 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

That is why there are citizens looking into alternatives. Direct Democracy is a functional alternative, all we need do is design it in a manner to suit our needs. Look folks we currently have three competing systems of government all funded from the same source, that lowlife tax paying citizens. This country is large, and our bureaucracy proves it, we need to scale things back more than a simple notch or two we need a complete renovation of delivery services for starters. Just how many ministries of education and boards of education do we really need? Can we not see the folly of the current system? Our government is a shining example of a paradigm and we seem incapable of seeing past that little piece of reality.

Does anyone else think that its time for a little innovation in our politics?

I do too, and reading your note it strikes me that you're really talking about a complete overhaul. How are we going to climb that mountain ? Maybe we should take one level of government and one department at a time.

One of the finest papers I read on this topic was from Don Lenihan of the public policy form. It's More Than Talk. He discusses way to use technology and to really engage with the public.

The changes he propose are small, but if adopted could put a new skin on how government works without having to blow it up and start over.

[Wilber]

We have the technology to allow everyone to have the opportunity vote on every piece of legislation, so why are we still electing people to make our decisions for us? Why not have a referendum on every issue? We no longer need to elect anyone to make decisions just to implement them.

Haven't read this whole topic but has anyone else asked the obvious question? Without elected representatives who would come up with the legislation for you to vote on?

[ToadBrother]

Haven't read this whole topic but has anyone else asked the obvious question? Without elected representatives who would come up with the legislation for you to vote on?

I know! We'll have a committee of citizens who... um... well... geez, kinda looks like a legislature.

[eyeball]

Does anyone else think that its time for a little innovation in our politics?

Not as much as I think we need a lot more transparency, in lieu of that however I'm game for trying anything that might shake things up, from getting rid of the Monarchy to establishing an independent Vancouver Island.

Change just for the sake of change would be a refreshing change. I'm sick to death of suffocating under a layer of such unchanging mendacious mediocrity.

[ToadBrother]

Not as much as I think we need a lot more transparency, in lieu of that however I'm game for trying anything that might shake things up, from getting rid of the Monarchy to establishing an independent Vancouver Island.

In other words, providing it's impossible, you want it.

Change just for the sake of change would be a refreshing change. I'm sick to death of suffocating under a layer of such unchanging mendacious mediocrity.

I can't think of any worse notion than change for change's sake.

[eyeball]

It's More Than Talk.

Don Lenihan, 04/16/2008

This is the final report of the Public Engagement Initiative. This report is inspired by one basic idea: that none of us can achieve the big goals we set for ourselves without the help of others. Working together effectively is critical to success.

Ottawa's HRDC/DFO and BC's Fishery and Forestry Renewal programs funded a number of these sorts of initiatives when they dismantled our forestry and fishery industries. Instead of simply dealing with local initiatives that people who live here started, distant governments parachuted in fellows like Don Lenihan to try and generate a consensus. They had no intention whatsoever with working meaningfully together with anyone local.

Just as soon as any awareness Canadians might have had that there was trouble brewing on Canada's west coast started to fade, these folks rolled up their tent shows and one trick ponies and pulled out. I guess their funding dried up.

[eyeball]

In other words, providing it's impossible, you want it.

If transparent governance is that impossible then there's no point to it because it's doomed to fail.

I can't think of any worse notion than change for change's sake.

That's probably because you lack any imagination whatsoever.

[ToadBrother]

If transparent governance is that impossible then there's no point to it because it's doomed to fail.

At this point, all I can think is by "transparent government" you mean "government that does what I want."

That's probably because you lack any imagination whatsoever.

Or it's possibly because constitutional changes should be done soberly, and not just because one is cranky.

[eyeball]

At this point, all I can think is by "transparent government" you mean "government that does what I want."

I'm not surprised in the least that's as far as you can think.

Or it's possibly because constitutional changes should be done soberly, and not just because one is cranky.

You'd rather we wait until everyone is cranky? Okay. You might want to be careful what you wish for.

[Michael Hardner]

Ottawa's HRDC/DFO and BC's Fishery and Forestry Renewal programs funded a number of these sorts of initiatives when they dismantled our forestry and fishery industries. Instead of simply dealing with local initiatives that people who live here started, distant governments parachuted in fellows like Don Lenihan to try and generate a consensus. They had no intention whatsoever with working meaningfully together with anyone local.

Just as soon as any awareness Canadians might have had that there was trouble brewing on Canada's west coast started to fade, these folks rolled up their tent shows and one trick ponies and pulled out. I guess their funding dried up.

Did you read the report ? It's about setting up ways to engage people into the process - which is exactly what you're talking about.

[eyeball]

Did you read the report ? It's about setting up ways to engage people into the process - which is exactly what you're talking about.

Yes I did and yes I know.

Did you miss the part I mentioned about the government ignoring the opportunity to engage us in a process that local people set up all on their own? I mean a serious process that included representatives from town councils, Chamber's of Commerce, native bands and an entire network of coastal communities.

Edited October 25, 2010 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

Yes I did and yes I know.

Did you miss the part I mentioned about the government ignoring the opportunity to engage us in a process that local people set up all on their own?

No - but what it has to do with a new process that is set up properly from the outset, I don't know.

I mean a serious process that included representatives from town councils, Chamber's of Commerce, native bands and an entire network of coastal communities.

Any self-respecting project manager would make use of such a thing, and again it has nothing in conflict with what happens when you're starting anew with a new process.

[eyeball]

No - but what it has to do with a new process that is set up properly from the outset, I don't know.

The government couldn't control the local process so it tried to replace it with one that it could.

Any self-respecting project manager would make use of such a thing, and again it has nothing in conflict with what happens when you're starting anew with a new process.

Yes but, don't forget we're talking about DFO managers under direction from Ottawa here.

[Michael Hardner]

The government couldn't control the local process so it tried to replace it with one that it could.

Ok... well, you're coming at the issue with the belief that they had hidden motives. Maybe so, but there's really no point in talking about improving a system where you don't trust the people at all. You can't build an organization with the assumption that the managers are just liars and thieves. If that's the case, then I don't know what you need to do - fire everyone and start over or not even try.

[The_Squid]

It was non-existent to anyone outside of Georgia Straight and the Fraser River.

You are being rather vague...

Are you talking about the west coast of Vancouver Island? WHO specifically should have been allowed to fish that wasn't allowed?