|
 iglou
enthusiast
Registered: 03/08/02
Posts: 295
|
 Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible?  [Re: iglou]
#1727750 - 07/18/03 01:35 PM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Now, what if Lenny, Carl, and Homer only have a limited amount of money (and the decisions effect them all)?
That's where compromise and reasonable debate come into play. But never will anyone be coerced to eat what they do not want to eat.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: iglou]
#1727751 - 07/18/03 01:37 PM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
there's no 'democracy' about it... it doesn't matter who says what and what the will of the majority is and isn't... people just do their own thing anyway... i'm in support of this system here, but it's not democracy, it's freedom.
what it doesn't address are situations that call for a decision that affects everyone that can't be opted out of... what if they can only go to eat at one place?
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: DoctorJ]
#1727756 - 07/18/03 01:40 PM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
only because they havent been given an opportunity to learn.
who's keeping them from learning? is anyone forcing people to watch hours of TV a day and only finish a book every 3 or 4 years? people have every opportunity to learn almost anything they'd like.
this is why qwe used to have state's rights. that way, if you didn't like the laws in your area, you could move to an area with different laws and still enjoy the benifits of American citizenship. Now we've got feds walking all over state pot decrim laws... this needs to stop.
they're doing it with welfare and gun laws too.
|
 DoctorJ
Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 2 years, 2 months
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: ]
#1727768 - 07/18/03 01:49 PM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
"who's keeping them from learning?"
I'm just saying that when people are powerless to change their circumstances they aren't going to be good at managing their affairs. the only reason most people arent very civic minded is because they don't have to be... they think that they have politicians to think for them. with resbonsibility comes knowledge and self-betterment. sometimes its best to learn by doing.
|
wingnutx
Registered: 09/24/00
Posts: 2,287
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: ]
#1727776 - 07/18/03 01:54 PM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
pure democracy is not a good thing. pure democracy is mob rule. it is tyranny by the majority. our nation's founders understood this, and this is why we are not a democracy, but a constitutional republic. i think america is currently much more of a democracy than was ever intended.
Bingo.
|
iglou
enthusiast
Registered: 03/08/02
Posts: 295
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: ]
#1730053 - 07/19/03 12:41 PM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
i'm in support of this system here, but it's not democracy, it's freedom.
Yes, it is freedom. It is also the absense of authority and heriarchy. It is the activiation of free-association and rudimentary democratic principles ("rule by people").
what it doesn't address are situations that call for a decision that affects everyone that can't be opted out of... what if they can only go to eat at one place?
Well, what would you do in a similar situation?
Again, that is where debate, compromise, and free-assocation come into play. Never should coercion take place. As long as principles are enacted, they'll figure out what is best to do. I say self-governing and self-responsible individuals are creative enough to figure their lives out.
|
iglou
enthusiast
Registered: 03/08/02
Posts: 295
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: wingnutx]
#1730066 - 07/19/03 12:45 PM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Bingo.
yeah please, let's have some bureacrat thousands of miles away tell us what is best for our lives - someone who has never met us, nor will ever met us, void out our own decision-making and self-responsiblity. No wonder most of us are practically wearing diapers well into our adult years.
Representative democracy? No thanks.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: iglou]
#1730144 - 07/19/03 01:25 PM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
in this system you're describing, why have a vote at all? seriously man... what you're talking about is NOT democracy. one cannot 'opt out' of democracy. in democracy, one is bound to the decisions of the majority.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: iglou]
#1730172 - 07/19/03 01:41 PM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
let's say you've got a bunch of people and you've got a baseball feild and a soccer field... it makes sense that those who want to play baseball will play baseball, those who want to play soccer will play soccer, and those who want to do something entirely different will do that. there's no reason for a vote. there's no reason for debate. everyone can do what they want, and it doesn't matter what the majority does.
now, a different situation... you, me, and this other guy are out canoeing... we're out on this island on a river, and aren't sure whether we want to go to a different island upstream, or downstream, or stay where we are. this would be a situation that might call for a vote. we could all get a chance to say why we thought our choice was the best, but in the end, it would come to a vote, and the minority would just have to go along with what the other two said. they couldn't 'opt out' unless they wanted to live on an island. if we were kayaking instead of canoeing, and we each had our own kayak, we could do what we each wanted, and there'd be no need for voting or debate.
the second situation would be an example of democratic decision making. the first one wouldn't be.
|
Strumpling
Neuronaut
Registered: 10/11/02
Posts: 7,571
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 13 years, 7 months
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: DoctorJ]
#1730210 - 07/19/03 02:01 PM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
we're not in a democracy anymore..
--------------------
Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me.
In addition: SHPONGLE
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: Strumpling]
#1730237 - 07/19/03 02:12 PM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
we were never supposed to be...
the problem is that we ARE a democracy. we've got politicians voting in laws because they'll be popular with their constituencies, not because the laws are right.
|
iglou
enthusiast
Registered: 03/08/02
Posts: 295
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: ]
#1732176 - 07/20/03 11:47 AM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
in this system you're describing, why have a vote at all?
There is no "voting" as you know it - certainly no voting booths and ballot counters, and rarely (if ever) majority-rules etc. Such is the ghost of representative democracy. What I am trying to explain is direct democracy.
in democracy, one is bound to the decisions of the majority.
Correction: in representative democracy, one is boud to the decisions of the majority.
Are you familiar with spokecouncil meetings? That is pretty much direct democracy theory in practice.
spokescouncil 101:
1) a group of individuals of similiar interests/agendas/concerns/motivations come together on a need-basis with other groups of individuals (or sole individuals). These individuals may or may not be rotating delegates of non-present individuals.
2) the groups and individuals gather in a circle, in clusters. At the center is a volunteer/nominated individual who facilitates the meeting (no authority - simply keeps the meeting on track and facilitates the discussion/topics at hand). There is never a permanent or semi-permanent faciliator position - facilitators volunteer at the begining of the meeting. It is a temporary and spontaneous position.
3)Discussion of a topic is brought up. Each group of individuals/delegates put forth their opinions one at a time.
4)Debate of the opinions starts when each opinion is heard. Arguements and counter-arguments are "stacked" - meaning there is an order to the debate. Everyone gets their turn.
5)Debate continues until all opinions are heard and everyone is satisfied that everything has been said. Otherwise, the debate continues.
6) Proposals are gathered and voted on one group at a time.
8) Concensus is the optimal outcome (100% in favor/against). If there is no consensus, the debate continues another round if the groups decide that it is necessary.
9) If another round is deemed unnecessary, decision is deemed unconsensusal.
10) All groups/individual maintain their own autonomy in regards to the final decision. Groups/individuals can decide upon their own will if they would like to act in favor/against the topic at hand. Meaning: everyone is free to do as they wish so as long the soverignty/autonomy of the other groups/individuals are respected.
11) If the soverignty/autonomy is not respected and coercion is occurs, that is when disassociation and self-defense become an option.
12) If consensus if reached, the groups/individuals work in favor/against the decision at hand.
13) At no time is the decision binding; dissocation is a full-time option for all.
There is no majority-rules - just as there is no minority-rules.
|
iglou
enthusiast
Registered: 03/08/02
Posts: 295
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: ]
#1732206 - 07/20/03 12:04 PM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
you, me, and this other guy are out canoeing...this would be a situation that might call for a vote. we could all get a chance to say why we thought our choice was the best, but in the end, it would come to a vote, and the minority would just have to go along with what the other two said. they couldn't 'opt out' unless they wanted to live on an island.
The minority is free to do as they wish. However, if the only option is "to live on the island" (be stranded), then his/her life is in jeopardy. That is when self-defense is an option.
Obviously, if the choice is between life and death, then there is more discussing to do (if there is time to do so, of course).
If there is no time and decisions need to be immediate (emergency situations), then, in my opinion, that is one of the few times that authority can be justified.
If a child darts into a busy street, then I believe, grabbing the child and holding him/her back is justified. However, such use of authority must be accountable and be able to maintain the crux of scruntiny.
If we sincerely desire individual liberty, then authority should be avoided as much as humanly possible, and not made to be a regular feature of our lives (as is the case in the contemporary world).
|
iglou
enthusiast
Registered: 03/08/02
Posts: 295
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: ]
#1732216 - 07/20/03 12:12 PM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
the problem is that we ARE a democracy. we've got politicians voting in laws because they'll be popular with their constituencies, not because the laws are right
That is representative democracy at work - a degenerate form of democratic decision-making theory that was born out of classist elitism and theoretical compromise/watered down ideas of the Enlightenment.
|
Rhizoid
carbon unit
Registered: 01/22/00
Posts: 1,739
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 11 months, 2 days
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: iglou]
#1732218 - 07/20/03 12:13 PM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Another interesting thing about democracy is that it is mathematically impossible to collectively make a fair choice between three or more alternatives, where "fair choice" means that a consistent ranking of the alternatives can be made from votes with equal weight.
Kenneth J. Arrow got the Nobel Prize in 1972 for this discovery.
This result is an extremely strong hint that it is much better to let people decide for themselves, each one individually, rather than vote about collective decisions.
|
iglou
enthusiast
Registered: 03/08/02
Posts: 295
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: Rhizoid]
#1732230 - 07/20/03 12:17 PM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
This result is an extremely strong hint that it is much better to let people decide for themselves, each one individually, rather than vote about collective decisions.
Exactly. Automony/free-assocation are much "better" than minority/majority-rules.
|
DoctorJ
Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 2 years, 2 months
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: iglou]
#1732357 - 07/20/03 01:14 PM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
"If we sincerely desire individual liberty, then authority should be avoided as much as humanly possible, and not made to be a regular feature of our lives (as is the case in the contemporary world). "
couldnt have said it better myself.
|
Crobih
rap-cord
Registered: 11/03/98
Posts: 2,015
Loc: cave
Last seen: 12 years, 4 months
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: Rhizoid]
#1735887 - 07/21/03 05:32 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Rhizoid said:
Oh yes, the technology to rid ourselves of politicians is already here. Just look at the electronic stock markets. They handle instant decisions by millions of individuals much faster than what is needed by any legislative institution.
There will still be a niche for political professionals and experts of course, but they will all be advisors, every one of them. Not law makers.
That will happen.
|
Crobih
rap-cord
Registered: 11/03/98
Posts: 2,015
Loc: cave
Last seen: 12 years, 4 months
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: infidelGOD]
#1735897 - 07/21/03 05:35 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
infidelGOD said:
yeah it's technologically feasable but direct democracy would be a complete disaster. do you realize how uninformed the Average American is? as bad as politicians are, we need them to function as a society.
It seems you forget that the same mob choosed this government. Anyway, internet democracy is mainly based on open source politics principle, that offers people desired infos.
Second thing, that is pretty important, in e-democracy you can choose your way, not some opressed way. It is a much higher number of ideas, of politicians and so on, and the fact that info flow is not controled by oligarchy, you can set much betteer system and much better people.
|
Crobih
rap-cord
Registered: 11/03/98
Posts: 2,015
Loc: cave
Last seen: 12 years, 4 months
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: Edame]
#1735906 - 07/21/03 05:39 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Edame said:
Any software used would have to be open-source for me to even think about using it, that way everyone can look at how it works to make sure nothing is rigged. Until that happens I'd rather stick with paper ballots. It's a lot easier to add a few zeroes to an electronic voting database than it is to create the same amount of paper ballots out of thin air.
Yes. It must be open source. Anyway, even if you do not want to choose through e-elections(even that stuff is safer than nowdays stuff!), the idea of central forum in the level of the country, the place with legimacy is the place that will be the central point of opinion making. So, the other media controled by gov. will lose its effect. This is the first step into e-democracy.
BY the way that place to be legitimitate, it has to be based on some other moderating ideas. It has to be everybodies place.
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Red Vein Kratom 
Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
Edit 
Reply 
TheShroomHermit
JameZTheNewbie
God_Killer
1 2 3 all )
havatampa
GazzBut
djfrog
Component