July 2012 - P2P-Foundation - lists.ourproject.org

Fw: Modern Direct Democracy for Scotland Q and A
by robert searle 02 Jul '12

02 Jul '12

----- Forwarded Message ----- From: I&Rgb <info(a)iniref.org> To: press(a)iniref.org Sent: Monday, 2 July 2012, 13:59 Subject: Modern Direct Democracy for Scotland Q and A Questions and answers from public discussion launched by INIREF / I&R~ GB Modern Direct Democracy for Scotland "... expressing our political sovereignty, we the people could intervene on important issues which we choose to select" CIR = citizens' initiative and referendum, DD = direct democracy, SNP = Scottish National Party, Dave and Nick = UK prime minister and deputy question iniref says the Direct Democracy provisions would apply in the period between elections but I'm intrigued as to why under such a system as Direct Democracy it is even necessary to have elections or elected representatives. Surely the will of the people could be heard and enacted by professional civil servants and legislators and elections themselves become unnecessary? (even oversight could be done by judges or appointed commissioners) > reply We are not suggesting a sudden, drastic change and ask you all to consider the case of Scotland. We propose to integrate a few methods of direct democracy with our existing system of political parties and parliament. These can be introduced in a step-wise manner so that the people, the civil service and politicians can learn to deal with the innovations in hopefully constructive ways. This model is well known, tried and tested in a number of other countries.The use of direct democratic tools, such as the citizens' law-proposal or the veto-referendum, once they have been formally introduced, we envisage as being optional. So, if a government "forgets" some manifesto promise, or proposes some action which nobody wants, or there are unforeseen events, then an "initiative" which could lead to binding referendum could be launched. An agreed, large number of voter-endorsements would be needed to kick-start this process. Again, most law-making and day-to-day governing would be done by parliament and government as before. But, in addition, expressing our political sovereignty, we the people could intervene on important issues which we choose to select. It would be unwise to abolish "elections or elected representatives" in the near future. A fully direct democracy would (arguably, should) take many years to develop, even if the people wanted it. Direct democracy cannot be reduced to "referendum" any more than indirect, "representative" democracy can be reduced to a single vote in parliament. In both there is long and complex deliberation before a proposal is put forward, plus debate and examination of evidence before a decision is taken. The culture of political life is changed. question Of course D... has argued the case, and i agree with him, that Direct Democracy would simply delay the introduction of an independence referendum, > reply You mean that the independence referendum would be delayed beyond 2014? Would the introduction of optional direct democracy, as we describe it, cause such delay? If so, how? The SNP has stated that they are in favour. They could introduce elements of DD while they are in power. They may not get another chance to make this vital reform, which would guarantee their place in the history of democracy: from ancient Athens to Edinburgh! question however, perhaps the bigger question is whether independence would either be necessary or desirable if such a system of democracy were reality, or had the prospect of becoming a reality. >reply For the UK, direct democracy is not in sight. All three "major" parties are likely to resist. Independence of Scotland is IMO a matter for the Scots. Direct democracy would improve our quality of life, our politics and (there is evidence) our economic prosperity. question iniref, do you see Direct Democracy ( if enacted UK wide) as an alternative to devolution and/or independence and .... > reply Again, we are talking about direct democracy for Scotland here. It's extremely unlikely that Dave and Nick will offer UK-national direct democracy (although in 2009 Dave did promise to introduce it). Even if they did, then it would be up to the Scots people to decide about independence. question .... if so what checks, balances and safe-guards are necessary within such a system to control any possible abuse? >reply The changes which are to be expected with "more" democracy are mainly positive: Better representation of electoral will would give greater weight to well-being of the people, provide creative input from a much wider range of citizens, better checks on government e.g. the veto referendum and on politicians and e.g. the recall (impeachment) initiative. Modern direct democracy has been analysed and there are optimal models. These concern such things as hurdles – number of endorsements to be collect for a proposal, period allowed for collecting signatures, methods of collection (e.g. in public places, via electronic communication), involvement of council or parliament say by taking a vote on a citizens' proposal or presenting an alternative proposal to be put to referendum. question On the matter of Direct Democracy, one of my concerns would be the trigger point at which parliament would be required to introduce legislation. There is also the constituency from which that trigger point would be calculated. I'm assuming that for Uk only/reserved matters that would be the Uk as as whole, and that for devolved matters that would be from those registered to vote in the devolved countries. For the purposes of securing legislation on Scottish independence, or indeed a variation on the extent of devolved powers, that would require the participation of voters from all over the UK. > reply A citizens' proposition would become law after achieving a majority in plebiscite. We propose to introduce CIR at all levels of governance from local communities and unitary authorities to Scottish central. You ask about some details, which could be sorted out quite easily. A citizen-initiated proposal could address matters of national independence and devolution but this might well face obstruction by the UK. Nevertheless, such a proposal, stemming from a country with strong democracy based on citizen-sovereignty, would send a powerful message to both the Scottish and the UK governments and thus influence the outcome of the independence debate. question Clearly matters like the Sewel convention would become obsolete and so it follows, as i see it, that devolution as it currently exists for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would become meaningless and unworkable. >reply Just introducing CIR in Scotland would not change existing structures or agreements. ----------------------------------------------------- More information via http://www.iniref.org/ BALLOT FOR DIRECT DEMOCRACY Proposal for comparison: maybe we need a version for Scotland! http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dd-gb/

1 0

Fwd: openhere festival Dublin 28/06-01/07
by Kevin Carson 02 Jul '12

02 Jul '12

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rachel O' Dwyer <rachel.odwyer(a)gmail.com> Date: Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 1:53 PM Subject: openhere festival Dublin 28/06-01/07 To: building-a-distributed-decentralized-internet(a)googlegroups.com Hi there, I'm curating openhere, a 4 day festival in Dublin at the end of this month all about the digital commons. *Open*here www.openhere.data.ie will bring together a transdisciplinary community of critical theorists, engineers, artists, designers and industry professionals to expand debates surrounding the digital commons. Key points of discussion will include the conflictive spaces of the digital commons, digital policy, disruptive wireless practices, alternative spectrum ownership models, next-generation networks and the political economy of infrastructure. I'm really hoping you could forward this might be of interest to you and that you might take a moment to forward this information to your respective networks. I'm also attaching a flyer. Kind Regards, Rachel O'Dwyer [image: Inline image 1] OpenHere 28/06-01/07 Where: Science Gallery and CTVR headquarters, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland When: 28th of June – 1st July 2012 Admission: Events are free, but booking is recommended, & essential for workshops with limited capacity. More info: openhere.data.ie What does it mean to be open today? CTVR / The Telecommunications Research Centre, in collaboration with the Dublin Art and Technology Association (D.A.T.A) present Openhere, a free four day festival that addresses social, technological and cultural issues surrounding the notion of the digital commons. If we speak of ‘the commons’ today as a general phenomenon, this has much to do with the modes of production, consumption and distribution that have emerged over the last two decades around information and communication technologies. This period has seen a growing emphasis on the social and juridical implications of sharing in the online domain, where a range of nonmarket and non-proprietary activities such as open source software, remix cultures and commons-based peer-production have lead some to propose the advent of a ‘digital socialism’. However, as sharing and openness become the watchwords of the new corporation - as the commons is increasingly central to capitalism - such positions are no longer straightforward. Open Here will bring together a transdisciplinary community of critical theorists, engineers, artists, designers and industry professionals to expand debates surrounding the digital commons. Key points of discussion will include the conflictive spaces of the digital commons, tactical media, net-art, digital policy, disruptive wireless practices, alternative spectrum ownership models, next-generation networks and the political economy of infrastructure. This festival takes the form of talks, presentations, workshops, discussions and screenings. It will be held in The Science Gallery and in CTVR headquarters in Trinity College from June 28th to July 1st, 2012. Participants include: Amelia Andersdotter (SE), Michel Bauwens (BE), Ralph Borland, (ZA) Sarah Browne (IRL), Alexander Chemeris (RU), Florian Cramer (NE), CTVR (IRL), DATA (IRL), Linda Doyle (IRL), Fairwaves (RU), Jessica Foley (IRL), Tim Forde (IRL), Benjamin Gaulon (FR/IRL), Saoirse Higgins (IRL) Robert Horvitz (US), Dmytri Kleiner (UA/CA), Franco Iacomella (AR), Nicolas Maigret (FR), Rachel O’Dwyer (IRL), Julian Oliver (NZ), Nora O’Murchu (IRL) Jussi Parikka (FI), Tom Rondeau (US), Lourens Rozema (NL), Paul Sutton (IRL), Danja Vasiliev (RU), Martin Weiss (US), Harald Welte (DE), Mick Wilson and Thomas Wilson (IRL). Open Here is curated by Linda Doyle, Benjamin Gaulon and Rachel O’Dwyer and supported by ESOF2012, CTVR, & Science Gallery, Trinity College Dublin. All events are free but booking is recommended, especially for workshops with limited capacity. For more information and to book a place see www.openhere.data.ie. -- www.interferencejournal.com www.data.ie CTVR Dunlop Oriel House Trinity College Dublin 01 8964243 085 7023779 -- Kevin Carson Karl Hess Chair in Social Theory, Research Associate Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org "You have no authority that we are bound to respect" -- John Perry Barlow "We are legion. We never forgive. We never forget. Expect us" -- Anonymous Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com Desktop Regulatory State http://desktopregulatorystate.wordpress.com

2 1

Re: [P2P-F] Freicoin - Bitcoin with Demurage (Kevin Flanagan)
by Poor Richard 02 Jul '12

02 Jul '12

Thanks you, Apostolis. That is a relief. I hate to feel like the only guy in the room who doesn't get the idea. Richard Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 21:04:14 +0300 From: Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis <xekoukou(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: [P2P-F] Freicoin - Bitcoin with Demurage (Kevin Flanagan) To: P2P Foundation mailing list <p2p-foundation(a)lists.ourproject.org> Message-ID: <CAOX4E5Et6FoJro1zi4ong1EcENFig3k5xQxhYd0fCLQnPSFLYQ(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" *I wholeheartedly agree with you Richard. * 2012/6/28 Poor Richard <poor.ricardo(a)gmail.com> > What do I not understand about demurage--how is not equivalent to a flat > tax except that it doesn't go to the public treasury where it might do some > good? Doesn't it discourage workers from saving at the same time it > discourages the rich from hoarding? Doesn't inflation already cause US > dollars to gradually evaporate? I don't see how demurage helps redistribute > wealth downward like a progressive tax does. > > I don't get it. > > Richard

2 1