|
 DoctorJ
Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
|
 Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? 
#1727464 - 07/18/03 11:38 AM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
200 hundred years ago, some very wise men got together and formed a new state- America- which was to be as close to a democracy as possible, giving what was possible at the time. They settled on a representative democracy because direct democracy would have been infeasible at the time.
My question is, does anyone here feel that representative democracy is obsolete? It seems that most of our problems come from the egos of politicians we don't need. Couldn't some kind of highly secure internet forum be set up for ordinary people to propose and vote on laws? This would be more just, closer to an actual democracy, and it would eliminate a lot of expensive salaries. It would also speed up the legislative process quite a bit. Note that I would still support an executive and judiciary branch in the name of checks and balances...
what are your thoughts?
|
Rhizoid
carbon unit
Registered: 01/22/00
Posts: 1,739
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 2 months, 5 days
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: DoctorJ]
#1727574 - 07/18/03 12:24 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
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.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: DoctorJ]
#1727588 - 07/18/03 12:29 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
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.
"We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship."
--Alexander Hamilton
"...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
--James Madison, Federalist No. 10 (arguing in favor of a constitutional republic)
"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
-- John Adams, 1814
"The adoption of Democracy as a form of Government by all European nations is fatal to good Government, to liberty, to law and order, to respect for authority, and to religion, and must eventually produce a state of chaos from which a new world tyranny will arise."
-- Duke of Northumberland, 1931
"Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."
-- John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
"I have long been convinced that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty or civilization, or both."
-- Thomas Babington Macaulay
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury."
-- Alexander Tytler
"Democracy is a form of worship. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses."
-- H.L. Mencken
"It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."
-- Alexander Hamilton
"Democracy is the art of running the circus from the monkey cage."
-- H.L. Mencken
"Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people."
-- Oscar Wilde
"Any political party that includes the word 'democratic' in its name, isn't."
-- Patrick Murray
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance."
-- H.L. Mencken
"If we advert to the nature of republican government, we shall find that the censorial power is in the people over the government, and not in the government over the people."
-- James Madison
"The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections."
-- Lord Acton
"Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few."
-- George Bernard Shaw
"All the civilizations we know have been created and directed by small intellectual aristocracies, never by people in the mass. The power of crowds is only to destroy."
-- Jean de la Fontaine, Fables (1668)
"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
-- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859)
"It is bad to be oppressed by a minority, but it is worse to be oppressed by a majority...from the absolute will of an entire people there is no appeal, no redemption, no refuge but treason."
-- Lord Acton
"The people as a body cannot deliberate. Nevertheless, they will feel an irresistible impulse to act, and their resolutions will be dictated to them by their demagogues... and the violent men, who are the most forward to gratify those passions, will be their favorites. What is called the government of the people is in fact too often the arbitrary power of such men. Here, then, we have the faithful portrait of democracy."
-- Fisher Ames, The Dangers of American Liberty (1805)
"The tendencies of democracies are, in all things, to mediocrity, since the tastes, knowledge, and principles of the majority form the tribunal of appeal."
-- James Fenimore Cooper, The American Democrat (1838)
|
 infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: DoctorJ]
#1727594 - 07/18/03 12:32 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
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.
|
Edame
gone
Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: DoctorJ]
#1727599 - 07/18/03 12:33 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I like the idea in theory, but at the moment I can't see it working. Just look at the whole fiasco with electronic voting in the US (I made a post on it here).
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.
--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.
And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.
"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.
|
iglou
enthusiast
Registered: 03/08/02
Posts: 295
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: DoctorJ]
#1727616 - 07/18/03 12:40 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
They settled on a representative democracy because direct democracy would have been infeasible at the time.
If you examine the Constitutional Convention debates, it was clearly stated that democracy was not preferred by "the founding fathers" because they believed anyone who wasnt of European decent, male, and a wealthy land-owner were incapable of decision-making. It wasnt so much logistically infeasible as it was they only wanted "democracy" for themselves.
My question is, does anyone here feel that representative democracy is obsolete?
Yes. I believe representative democracy to be root of many of our contemporary problems. Any system in which power and decision-making is plucked from individuals and their respective communities and placed in the hand of some distant "wise one," is incredibly problematic. The only people who know what is best for us and our communities is ourselves, not someone who we have never met (nor will ever meet) who we are supposed to have faith in to do the "right" thing. All the while, power goes further and further away from us.
I believe that most forms of representation are at best problematic. The removal of decision-making power from the individual/community into the hands of someone else makes us spectators in our own lives. We because apathetic and irresponsible and ignorant. We become the society of the spectacle that Guy Debord wrote about.
Couldn't some kind of highly secure internet forum be set up for ordinary people to propose and vote on laws? This would be more just, closer to an actual democracy, and it would eliminate a lot of expensive salaries. It would also speed up the legislative process quite a bit.
A common misconception of direct democracy is that it requires a nation-state. No, direct democracy works best locally and among your friends, family, and community. Therefore, there is no need for internet voting. All democracy requires is people meeting in person on a needed basis in order to argue and reason and debate and reach some sort of near-consensus under the important principle of free-association.
|
Edame
gone
Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: iglou]
#1727621 - 07/18/03 12:42 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I think that it should just be noted that there are different 'flavours' of democracy. In the US and UK we have representational democracy.
--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.
And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.
"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.
Edited by Edame (07/18/03 12:44 PM)
|
iglou
enthusiast
Registered: 03/08/02
Posts: 295
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: Edame]
#1727624 - 07/18/03 12:44 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Yes, there is a huge difference between representative democracy and direct democracy. There is also a difference between "mob rule" and direct democracy - principles and framework being the difference.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: iglou]
#1727629 - 07/18/03 12:46 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
does anyone really think that pure, unchecked democracy is a good thing?
|
iglou
enthusiast
Registered: 03/08/02
Posts: 295
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: ]
#1727651 - 07/18/03 12:52 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
does anyone really think that pure, unchecked democracy is a good thing?
Depends on what you mean by "pure, unchecked democracy."
If you mean something similar to Somalia where there is no principled framework of free-association nor democratic decision-making/debate, then, that should be avoided. That is a "bad thing"; that is mob rule.
If you mean a situation in which people come together on a needed basis in order to work out problems and maintain the principle of free-association, then yes (in my opinion) that is a "good thing"; that is direct democracy.
I support myself and my community deciding what is best for ourselves, not someone else who we are supposed to have faith in. Fuck faith.
|
iglou
enthusiast
Registered: 03/08/02
Posts: 295
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: iglou]
#1727665 - 07/18/03 12:58 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
It is also important to note that no system, political or economic, will ever be perfect.
We must balance out the negatives and positive aspects/effects of the said system.
I say representative democracy has some good aspects, but they are far outweighed by the negative. The problems that are found in direct democracy theory/practice are outweighed by the positive aspects (individual responsiblity, active decision-making and participation in our own lives, no spectacle, doing what is best for ourselves and our community).
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: iglou]
#1727683 - 07/18/03 01:03 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
what i'm asking is, do you think that the will of the majority should become public, enforced, official policy, whatever it may be?
our constitution (especially the bill of rights) was created not to foster democracy, but to LIMIT it....
what if the majority of the people wish to establish a state religion and persecute those who don't comply?
what if the majority wish to make political protest illegal?
what if the majority wish to reinstitute slavery?
what if the majority wants to ban certain plants and incarcerate anyone found in possession of such plants?
what if the majority wants to ban certain consensual sexual acts between adults?
just because more than half the population thinks something is a good idea doesn't mean that it is... i like this quote:
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance."
-H.L. Mencken
|
DoctorJ
Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: ]
#1727686 - 07/18/03 01:05 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
"does anyone really think that pure, unchecked democracy is a good thing?"
not what I was refering to in my origional post. obviously if there is still a court system in place it will hold the same weight in declaring laws unconstitutional if they are.
also, we need a commander in cheif for times of crisis when democracy takes too long
|
Rhizoid
carbon unit
Registered: 01/22/00
Posts: 1,739
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 2 months, 5 days
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: ]
#1727687 - 07/18/03 01:05 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
does anyone really think that pure, unchecked democracy is a good thing?
No, there should be checks and balances, and some system that makes sure there is a division of power and a hard limit on government spending.
But I think the idea that selected educated gentlemen should be the ones who selflessly manage the common interest of the public is totally obsolete. Get rid of the worthless political middle-men.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: DoctorJ]
#1727699 - 07/18/03 01:11 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
yes... i think that democracy can be a good thing. any government should derive its authority from the will of the people... the individual decisions it makes should not be completely guided by the will of the majority though.
so many people are bigoted and ignorant. so many have no regard for freedom. this isn't made any easier by mass media. remember... the majority of the people are of only average intelligence or lower...
we've got to have a constitution in place, a system of government that places checks on the majority. if something is wrong, its support by more than half of the population doesn't make it right. people are idiots.
|
iglou
enthusiast
Registered: 03/08/02
Posts: 295
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: ]
#1727714 - 07/18/03 01:17 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
what if the majority of the people wish to establish a state religion and persecute those who don't comply? what if the majority wish to make political protest illegal? what if the majority wish to reinstitute slavery? what if the majority wants to ban certain plants and incarcerate anyone found in possession of such plants? what if the majority wants to ban certain consensual sexual acts between adults?
The principles that are required for direct democracy are free-association (non-binding decisions and the ability of the individual to not participate) and self-defense as well as near-consensual decisions.
Basically, decisions are made by those who are most effected by the outcomes of the decisions. Decisions must be made in consensus (or majority vote as a necessary last resort). If someone does not agree with a decision made by majority vote, that can opt out. Decisions are not binding (especially for the minority).
However if such a decision is coercive and the democracy has devolved to point of coercion, that is where self-defense comes into play.
|
iglou
enthusiast
Registered: 03/08/02
Posts: 295
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: ]
#1727733 - 07/18/03 01:25 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
any government should derive its authority from the will of the people
Does state power ever work in the interest of the individual/community? And how exact would an individual grant authority to a government to rule over them - what would be the process of such authority grants?
the individual decisions it makes should not be completely guided by the will of the majority though.
Nor should decisions be made by the will-of-the-minority (those wise ones who "know best").
so many people are bigoted and ignorant. so many have no regard for freedom. this isn't made any easier by mass media. remember... the majority of the people are of only average intelligence or lower...
I'd argue that most people are in such a condition because they are disempowered and hold little responsibility over their own lives. Individual decision-making power makes the individual grow and learn and become strong. But decision-making power is currently in the hands of the weathly elite who supposedly know best.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: iglou]
#1727736 - 07/18/03 01:25 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
so if someone doesn't agree with the majority (they're in the minority) they can 'opt out' of the decision?
i'm not exactly clear on how this works... there's some jargon you're using that i'm not familiar with. can you explain this?
|
iglou
enthusiast
Registered: 03/08/02
Posts: 295
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: ]
#1727744 - 07/18/03 01:33 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Sure. Here's an example of everyday direct democracy theory at work.
Lenny, Carl, and Homer are at home watching television. All are hungry. Lenny and Carl want to order a pizza, but Homer wants to go to the Chinese food buffet. They argue and work out what they want to eat. Lenny and Carl still want pizza, and Homer still wants Chinese.
Do Lenny and Carl force pizza slices down Homer's throat? Of course not. Lenny and Carl decide to eat pizza; Homer eats Chinese. Now, if they do force pizza down Homer's throat, Homer must kick their asses. Quite simple.
Now identify the principles at work (free-assocation, consensual agreement, self-defense) and apply in other situations.
|
DoctorJ
Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: ]
#1727745 - 07/18/03 01:33 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
"people are idiots. "
only because they havent been given an opportunity to learn. have a little faith. people will get better if you give them a chance. you cant learn how to ride a bike if you dont eventually take off the training wheels.
"so if someone doesn't agree with the majority (they're in the minority) they can 'opt out' of the decision?"
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. but thats all part of the "macrobiotic governbment" theory that igloo was talking about earlier.
Edited by DoctorJ (07/18/03 01:34 PM)
|
iglou
enthusiast
Registered: 03/08/02
Posts: 295
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: iglou]
#1727750 - 07/18/03 01:35 PM (20 years, 8 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 (20 years, 8 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 (20 years, 8 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: 1 year, 5 months
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: ]
#1727768 - 07/18/03 01:49 PM (20 years, 8 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 (20 years, 8 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 (20 years, 8 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 (20 years, 8 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 (20 years, 8 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 (20 years, 8 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: 12 years, 10 months
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: DoctorJ]
#1730210 - 07/19/03 02:01 PM (20 years, 8 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 (20 years, 8 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 (20 years, 8 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 (20 years, 8 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 (20 years, 8 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: 2 months, 5 days
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: iglou]
#1732218 - 07/20/03 12:13 PM (20 years, 8 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 (20 years, 8 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: 1 year, 5 months
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: iglou]
#1732357 - 07/20/03 01:14 PM (20 years, 8 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: 11 years, 7 months
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: Rhizoid]
#1735887 - 07/21/03 05:32 PM (20 years, 8 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: 11 years, 7 months
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: infidelGOD]
#1735897 - 07/21/03 05:35 PM (20 years, 8 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: 11 years, 7 months
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: Edame]
#1735906 - 07/21/03 05:39 PM (20 years, 8 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.
|
Crobih
rap-cord
Registered: 11/03/98
Posts: 2,015
Loc: cave
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: ]
#1735914 - 07/21/03 05:41 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mushmaster said:
does anyone really think that pure, unchecked democracy is a good thing?
Yes. It is the fact based on organisation principles. e-democracy is far more effective political system than this. Cause you can decentralise power and in the same time you do not loose the effectivnes of the system.
|
Crobih
rap-cord
Registered: 11/03/98
Posts: 2,015
Loc: cave
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: iglou]
#1735920 - 07/21/03 05:44 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
iglou said:
It is also important to note that no system, political or economic, will ever be perfect.
We must balance out the negatives and positive aspects/effects of the said system.
I say representative democracy has some good aspects, but they are far outweighed by the negative. The problems that are found in direct democracy theory/practice are outweighed by the positive aspects (individual responsiblity, active decision-making and participation in our own lives, no spectacle, doing what is best for ourselves and our community).
Hm. The new system is superior to this system. In every single context. Next, I have to point out, that internet offers optimal political system! Even though, the first e-democracy wont be so optimal for sure.
|
Crobih
rap-cord
Registered: 11/03/98
Posts: 2,015
Loc: cave
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: iglou]
#1735923 - 07/21/03 05:45 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
iglou said:
what if the majority of the people wish to establish a state religion and persecute those who don't comply? what if the majority wish to make political protest illegal? what if the majority wish to reinstitute slavery? what if the majority wants to ban certain plants and incarcerate anyone found in possession of such plants? what if the majority wants to ban certain consensual sexual acts between adults?
The principles that are required for direct democracy are free-association (non-binding decisions and the ability of the individual to not participate) and self-defense as well as near-consensual decisions.
Basically, decisions are made by those who are most effected by the outcomes of the decisions. Decisions must be made in consensus (or majority vote as a necessary last resort). If someone does not agree with a decision made by majority vote, that can opt out. Decisions are not binding (especially for the minority).
However if such a decision is coercive and the democracy has devolved to point of coercion, that is where self-defense comes into play.
There is one important fact in this constatation. Freedom of speech!
|
Crobih
rap-cord
Registered: 11/03/98
Posts: 2,015
Loc: cave
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: iglou]
#1735933 - 07/21/03 05:48 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
iglou said:
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.
People come down  . You are talking about anarchy. But, first things first. The first thing is e-democracy, the system that will move the people to start thinking by their own head. That is the first step to the new era.
|
Crobih
rap-cord
Registered: 11/03/98
Posts: 2,015
Loc: cave
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: Strumpling]
#1735957 - 07/21/03 05:55 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
DoctorJ, iglu. Are you political activists? I mean, I work on this idea for a while. If you are involved in this e-movement, we could make a good contact .
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: Crobih]
#1736005 - 07/21/03 06:11 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
totally unhindered, pure democracy? any public policy supported by a majority becomes law, no matter what it is?
|
Crobih
rap-cord
Registered: 11/03/98
Posts: 2,015
Loc: cave
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: ]
#1736025 - 07/21/03 06:19 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mushmaster said:
totally unhindered, pure democracy? any public policy supported by a majority becomes law, no matter what it is?
We have stuff that is so called democratic puffer. Second thing, though the e-democracy is not instealled yet, it has to pass the testing period. To make some basic postulates such as freedom of speech, and other stuff made by concensus.
Main principles + constition will control mob effect. Though, nowdays, oligarchy uses this mob effect against the mob. Now, when poeple will really deciede, it is not their interest to act ahainst themselves.
Though, testing period is necessary. And it is happening right now .
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: Crobih]
#1736075 - 07/21/03 06:39 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
are there certain gaurantees of individual liberty and certain restrictions on government that cannot be overturned, even by a majority vote?
|
Crobih
rap-cord
Registered: 11/03/98
Posts: 2,015
Loc: cave
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: ]
#1736099 - 07/21/03 06:48 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Freedom of speech is something that must not be overturned. Off course, any possible restrictions of this stuff must be very carefully set.
Though, constitution can be changed. Not by majority, but by 4/5th. There are some basic policies that can be overturned, but very hardly, and some less basic and important policies that need simple majority.
Anyway, the system is very flexible and people who are going to work on it are experts. Plus testing period that has to take its time. This stuff, plus basic principle that is abolutly positive makes me no doubt about the new system.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: Crobih]
#1736109 - 07/21/03 06:51 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
my ideal government would be so small, it's role so limited, that there would barely be a need for voting at all.
|
Crobih
rap-cord
Registered: 11/03/98
Posts: 2,015
Loc: cave
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: ]
#1736114 - 07/21/03 06:53 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
My ideal government is no government  .
|
DoctorJ
Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: Crobih]
#1737950 - 07/22/03 10:57 AM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
"The best type of government is one of whose existence the people are barely aware
Next comes the government they praise and cherish
Next comes the government they fear and despise
The worst type of government is one that people hate and openly defy."
- Lao Tzu, "Tao Teh Ching"
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: Crobih]
#1738129 - 07/22/03 12:07 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
do you support welfare? public schools? how do you feel about gun control? medicare?
|
Azmodeus
Seeker
Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 3,392
Loc: Lotus Land!! B.C.
Last seen: 19 years, 3 months
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: ]
#1738141 - 07/22/03 12:10 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
That shit shouldn't be from the government! 
--------------------
"Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source.
Lest we forget. "
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: Azmodeus]
#1738145 - 07/22/03 12:12 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
i'm asking crobih, who says his ideal government would be no government. i ask because i seem to recall him being in favor of a few rather large, intrusive governmental programs.
|
Azmodeus
Seeker
Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 3,392
Loc: Lotus Land!! B.C.
Last seen: 19 years, 3 months
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: ]
#1738149 - 07/22/03 12:13 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Thats cool, i was just voicing my opinion.... 
--------------------
"Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source.
Lest we forget. "
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: DoctorJ]
#1738163 - 07/22/03 12:16 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
just curious... where in the tao te ching does Lao-tzu say that?
|
Rhizoid
carbon unit
Registered: 01/22/00
Posts: 1,739
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 2 months, 5 days
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: Crobih]
#1738298 - 07/22/03 01:06 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Though, constitution can be changed. Not by majority, but by 4/5th.
I think a staggered set could be useful:
51% majority required to decide what to do with tax money.
61% majority required to make meaningless administrative changes.
71% majority required to alter or create an ordinary law.
81% majority required to raise taxes.
91% majority required to change the constitution.
But in the end, no system will guarantee that freedom prevails. The best thing we can do is to teach our children about the principles involved, and the worst thing we can do (when everything else has failed) is to fight and kill those who work against individual freedom.
|
DoctorJ
Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: Rhizoid]
#1738576 - 07/22/03 02:51 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
"where in the tao te ching does Lao-tzu say that?"
its in there. one of my favorite verses, though I don't know where in the book it is offhand. I dont think that book is organized in any specific way anyway.
it only takes a half hour to read the whole book. you can find it if you look.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: DoctorJ]
#1739108 - 07/22/03 06:00 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
i've read it several times (and in different translations) and i don't remember it saying that... that's why i ask. i like it though... sounds like something old lao-tzu would say...
|
Crobih
rap-cord
Registered: 11/03/98
Posts: 2,015
Loc: cave
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: ]
#1739760 - 07/22/03 09:15 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mushmaster said:
do you support welfare? public schools? how do you feel about gun control? medicare?
My opinion has nothing to do with this stuff. Nevertheless, I support maximum liberties, including gun stuff. What is welfare? War stuff? I do not support it. Public schools? Sure. Same as madicare. Neverthless, it is easy to say, everything is cool. But the state managment needs much more informations I do not posses.
BTW, I believe this system is going to make social Tao stuff. The great thing for every single individual. New era.
|
Crobih
rap-cord
Registered: 11/03/98
Posts: 2,015
Loc: cave
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
|
Re: Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible? [Re: ]
#1739784 - 07/22/03 09:22 PM (20 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mushmaster said:
i'm asking crobih, who says his ideal government would be no government. i ask because i seem to recall him being in favor of a few rather large, intrusive governmental programs.
You remember good. So, the new government is going to retrieve desired legimacy in a much greater level. That means that now seemingly oposed sides are going to accept Tao politics stuff (sorry I make a paralel with Tao, but it has been mentioned , and its philosophy is integrated with my vision of the new era). Nevertheless, the strong government with the full legimacy that is going to democratise politics in a maner of waking the sheep up, is going to be needed step toward no government system, anarachy (that is not CHAOS!). Cause government is going to be obsolete. Off course, this is my vision that is going to happen in a hundred years or something, but meybe never. I hope that moment will come, the moment of government to be obsolete.
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Red Vein Kratom 
Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder 
Bulk Cannabis Seeds 
North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies
Edit 
Reply 
TheShroomHermit
JameZTheNewbie
God_Killer
1 2 3 all )
havatampa
GazzBut
djfrog
Component