Welcome to the blog of the direct-choice organisation, an initiative by Quintessence. This blog will explore issues related to direct-choice, i.e. choices made directly as opposed to having only indirect influence, through politicians and other representatives.
Have you ever felt like you were given no choice in a matter that concerned you? Quite likely, politicians or a government-backed organisation made all the decisions, without even bothering much to consult you or to give you personally any say in the matter.
The direct-choice organisation supports your right to have a say, not so much by casting a vote every few years, but by making choices directly whenever and wherever something affects you. The direct-choice organisation argues that the right of direct-choice precedes any choice to appoint a politician or anyone else to represent you. If politicians claim that you had chosen to be represented by them, then surely you have the right to withdraw that proxy (if you ever gave it in the first place) and to instead decide for yourself.
Politicians often encourage concentration of power, in the belief that this will give them personally more power. But instead of having a politician decide for a lot of people, all these people could each rightfully decide for themselves, directly making choices - in line with their right of direct-choice.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Direct Choice is a very reasonable procedure. I agree with it.
However, implementation concerns me.
Where does your initiative, question, demand go?
Some people demand much, and may make 5-8 or more Choices a month. Multiply this by a city of a million people and the volume would be prohibitive.
Asking the people to be “reasonable” will solve little. Mechanical “filtering” may delete important matters. How many people would it take to read and process these Direct Choice’s?
If the choices went to the “Omnibus Person’s” office, they could log and forward to the appropriate agency, monitoring if a response was accomplished, and if the matter was settled by requesting a response from the originator. Some of this can be accomplished mechanically but people will have to read and forward each Choice.
How could we implement Direct Choice?
Bruce
Here's an an example of how I envisage more direct-choice to be implemented. Government now runs many large public schools. Split each of them up into several structurally-separated organisations, while ensuring that competetion is fair. Such reform can be assisted by non-transferable vouchers to help poor families afford education for their children, and tax-deductions and rebates to encourage new schools to be set up.
Quintessence
Now, you exemplify "corporate schools". If you did that, your would be giving away your choice as the corporation runs the schools. With "public schools" we can elect school boards (choice) we can write petitions regarding employees conduct. We have a "choice" as long as it is "public". Same with Utilities. UK now is buying our electric utilities. UK can shut off the juice for the USA. With public utilities, the USA controls out "juice" and we have choices.
A modified socialism model could work with "Direct Choice.
eggy WI USA
So, instead of solving how to provide education, we have much difference in opinion before any "choice" is made.
I see direct-choice as something that relates to things close around you, issues that affect you directly. The more we go into large-scale politics, the more we move away from direct-choice, since we'll be making choices for other people, rather than leaving direct-choice into their hands.
Issues like private versus public ownership are part of large-scale politics. Instead, direct-choice goes hand in hand with an approach that starts at a smaller scale, e.g. the physical reality of a large public school.
In theory, any school (whether private, co-op, public or corporate) may welcome input from families as to preferences how the school is run, on staff policies, etc. A large school could theoretically offer a wide diversity of subjects and courses, allowing families to select combinations by means of direct-choice. But if there is only one large school in the area, there is little incentive for the school to offer much choice.
Splitting up such a school into separate schools is more likely to result in more direct choice for families. For starters, families can choose which school they want their children to attend and they can switch to another school if they get second thoughts. Having a number of different schools is more likely to result in educational diversity and pluriformity, allowing families direct-choice, as opposed to the scenario in which there's only one large school.
Dear Quintessence and all,
Yes, in a very small group direct choice can happen. However in a larger group say of 150 parents you have many different opinions, and it can get to be a struggle. If half of these parents sent in their “direct choice” to the school, who would act upon them? If conflicting view points were sent who would decide which to implement or none?
Any school has mandates, correctly from the people themselves. The Administration and other employee must follow these mandates or the people’s control of the school is “0”.
I suggest direct choice is good, but the choices must be considered and a decision must be made which choice will be implemented. Cost is also a consideration. If the people want another school, are they willing to pay the cost?
One person submitting s “choice” should not think it will be automatically adopted. This is a school, and all parents with children in the school have the right to decide for the School Than it goes beyond the school. Often the Community must fund the school. Is the Community willing to build an additional school? I think it is difficult to confine the “choices” to “the school” for this reason. We are linked to other government bodies and they must be considered if we are to accomplish something. Perhaps the State will need to be approached for funding, or bonding must be pursued. Now we are getting a long way from the “school” by necessity.
Perhaps the people of the community could develop a Direct Choice assembly for their community. The assembly could have committees such as health, education, welfare, safety, roads and utilities.
Than, a “choice” could be sent to the appropriate committee, and that committee sorts them and presents them all to the assembly. The assembly (all citizens of the community) decide, (vote) on which to implement now, delay or discard. The assembly could than present this Initiative to the appropriate body for deliberation or referendum.
Now, with the “New School” decision, backed by the members of the assembly, this is presented to the community’s government and asks them to build a school, or present their argument. This “discussion” could bring out other matters needing resolution before the actual construction can begin. A Referendum for a large matter should be mandatory.
This is a form of what some call “Direct Democracy”. Obviously if there were no government, there would need to be some kind of infrastructure (administration of the community) to carry out the wish’s of the community. It is this infrastructure which the people must control. (I believe these people must be elected so the people can recall them if needed.)
Regards, Bruce Eggum
Hi Bruce,
There are three ways in which democracy can be implemented:
1. General Elections: people get a one-time chance to jointly select which politicians or parties are to make the decisions;
2. Referendum or plebiscite: people get a one-time chance to jointly decide for all people on a specific issue;
3. Direct-choice: each person individually decides - as much as possible - anywhere, anytime and on anything that affects that person.
Note that the three above ways are not exclusive. To some extent they can be combined, e.g. general elections can be prescribed in a constitution that can itself only be changed by means of a referendum.
How can we work towards more direct-choice? In the case of school, it makes sense to split up one large school that dominates an area. Where a family previously had no choice at all, the family suddenly does have a choice from the moment there is more than one school to send their children to. You mention cost, Bruce, and you wonder if people who want another school are prepared to pay the price. I suggest that this is up to them, but let me add that I'm convinced that multiple schools not only better respect people's right of direct-choice (compared to a single school), but that this also works out cheaper and increases the quality of education.
Quintessence
Post a Comment