Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]
Open Democracy
    #2774296 -

havent really mentioned this for a while so I thought it would be interesting to get an idea of what people think about this at the moment....

So what do you think about open democracy? I.e the idea that with the technology at our disposal we should start to move towards a form of govenrment where the people are consulted on as many individual issues as possible rather than simply choosing a personality once every four years?

As many opinions as possible please!


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Open Democracy [Re: GazzBut]
    #2774543 -

I like the idea of small, decentralized communities that use direct democracy to reach decisions. Consensus would be ideal, but majority vote would be the practical plan B.

Friends, family, or special interest groups could form whenever/wherever as an affinity group and attend the council meetings. Their voice would be represented by a delegate that would simply echo the will of their affinity group. The delegate, as a mere representative, would be bound to the decisions of the affinity group and could be recalled at anytime. The delegate is not some elite or expert to make decisions for everyone else - much like in "representative democracy" - rather, the delegate is just that - a delegate.

Individuals may opt of council decisions, but would suffer the loss of some benefits of living with the commmunity. Individuals, if they so desired, could leave and dissociate from the community at will; they would not be restrained by any law other than their own until they re-enter/re-interface with the community (either in person or in vacinity).

Councils would meet up on a regular basis with other coucils and develop networks to manage larger projects that require more capital or resources. The dynamic between council and other councils would be similar to the individual vs the council. Individual to Council to Council Network presents itself as a nice fractal - I think this is because the power of the individual is balanced with the power of the council.

As for the economics of this democracy...it all depends on the individuals involved. If they want to start a business, so be it. If they want to socialize, so be it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Open Democracy [Re: Vvellum]
    #2774552 -

I think a true open democracy via technology has its problems (technology is not reliable nor accurate in the realm of voting). I think delegation and decentralized networks is best way to reach decision.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Open Democracy [Re: GazzBut]
    #2774744 -

I like the idea of the US Constitution being followed again.


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Open Democracy [Re: Ancalagon]
    #2775161 -

:thumbup:


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Open Democracy [Re: GazzBut]
    #2775395 -

with the technology at our disposal we should start to move towards a form of govenrment where the people are consulted on as many individual issues as possible

that i disagree with. majority opinion should not necessarily have control over "as many individual issues as possible".

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Open Democracy [Re: ]
    #2775427 -

I dont think the perils of so-called mob rule outweigh the perils of handing over decision-making power to distant, celebrity-esque elites. The dangers of both methods are real, so why chose one over the other?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Open Democracy [Re: Vvellum]
    #2775454 -

there's a balance. democracy must exist as a limit on the state, and the state must exist as a limit on democracy.

a total lack of democracy is potentially worse than pure democracy, but both can be pretty bad.

i can foresee two sorts of 'perfect' hypothetical governments. the first is a totalitarian dictatorship in which the ruler and his deputies are perfectly just. the second is a pure democracy in which the people are perfectly just. neither of these is workable in real life.

i think that the best system that's actually workable in real life is a limited democracy with a constitution and extensive system of checks and balances. pure democracy is not the solution.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Open Democracy [Re: ]
    #2775468 -

thanks for responding.

what do you think of the system I posted?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Open Democracy [Re: Vvellum]
    #2775794 -

it sounds like unrestrained democracy and it accounts for only legislative action, and not the judiciary or executive aspects of government. the only protection of individual rights in the face of this otherwise unlimited democracy appears to be a legal sanction of an individual's right to exile himself from the community if he doesn't like whatever burdens it may impose upon him.  :thumbdown:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Open Democracy [Re: ]
    #2775855 -

the best government is the one that can, in its own social context, gaurantee the greatest degree of individual liberty and justice. there is no perfect government however; there is no catch-all equation for a perfect system which, once in place, would be a perfect state.

the thing is that any state is only as good as the people who operate it, whether they are a dictator in his office or a voter at the polls. put any sort of system you wish on paper, but it doesn't make a difference if it isn't followed by the guys with the guns and the ones telling them what to do.

perhaps more than anything else, a proposed government must first be practical within the context it will operate.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Open Democracy [Re: ]
    #2776893 -

Quote:
that i disagree with. majority opinion should not necessarily have control over "as many individual issues as possible".




On what level do you disagree? Notice I said we should try and move towards this..not go directly from our current state to a state where all issues are decided through open democracy. As a libertarian I would have thought you would have been in favour of the individual gaining power at the expense of the state.

Quote:
it sounds like unrestrained democracy and it accounts for only legislative action, and not the judiciary or executive aspects of government. the only protection of individual rights in the face of this otherwise unlimited democracy appears to be a legal sanction of an individual's right to exile himself from the community if he doesn't like whatever burdens it may impose upon him.


The way I see it you could pretty much keep the structure of government in place, at least to begin with. It would simply mean that on a large number of issues the people would be consulted. Note that an individual would not be able to propose a motion to be put to the vote, so a government would still be necessary.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Open Democracy [Re: Ancalagon]
    #2777661 -

Which constitution....it's not a very fixed article

'In America the authority exercised by the legislatures is supreme; nothing prevents them from accomplishing their wishes... Almost all the American constitutions have been amended within thirty years; there is therefore not one American state which has not modified the principles of its legislation in that time. As for the laws themselves, a single glance at the archives of the different states of the Union suffices to convince one that in America the activity of the legislator never slackens. Not that the American democracy is naturally less stable than any other, but it is allowed to follow, in the formation of the laws, the natural instability of its desires.'
Alexis de Tocqueville

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Open Democracy [Re: Vvellum]
    #2777667 -

Technology seems pretty acurate and secure when it comes to bank accounts. And I'm not talking about credit cards, I'm talking about encrypted password protected internet access to accounts.

To me the problem is - who manages the technology?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Open Democracy [Re: ]
    #2777699 -

Doesn't sound like your fears equate to a situation much different from now, except it would be a true tyranny of the majority, instead of the tyranny of someone elected by the majority.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Open Democracy [Re: ]
    #2828205 -

mushmaster said:
there's a balance. democracy must exist as a limit on the state, and the state must exist as a limit on democracy.


It seems to me you are lacking in the fact that state by itslef is just an mepty word. It is the people, that mob that is the essence of state.

Quote:
i can foresee two sorts of 'perfect' hypothetical governments. the first is a totalitarian dictatorship in which the ruler and his deputies are perfectly just. the second is a pure democracy in which the people are perfectly just. neither of these is workable in real life.


One more thing you have to face. We are looking for things that are workable. I do not find this system be the best system these people can create. To big corrupting power being concentrated, not good.

Quote:
i think that the best system that's actually workable in real life is a limited democracy with a constitution and extensive system of checks and balances. pure democracy is not the solution.


It seems to me you are missing the point when trying to visualise pure democracy and where does it lead. I would notice, it leads to true responsibility of the memebers of this society. which is not the case ifor this fuck up hypocritic system.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Open Democracy [Re: Crobih]
    #2828251 -

crobih, i think you are mistaken about the essence of democracy. democracy is not a political end in itself. it exists to serve a purpose.

the state does not exist to make law the will of the majority.

i have a very simply question i would like for you to honestly answer:

do you think it would be a good thing if the will of the majority was, without exception, always made public policy?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Open Democracy [Re: ]
    #2828502 -

mushmaster said:
crobih, i think you are mistaken about the essence of democracy. democracy is not a political end in itself. it exists to serve a purpose.


Democracy is actually just acceptance of the fact that the power is in the people, not some gods eminency or other BS.

Quote:
the state does not exist to make law the will of the majority.


People mix majority and democracy too often. Democracy is the rule of the people, not the rule of the majority. Though, having people ruling it seems to be more easily to set legitimacy on the decision that will be the will of the majority, than it would be if thewill of minoritywould be looking for hte same minority.

Quote:
i have a very simply question i would like for you to honestly answer:

do you think it would be a good thing if the will of the majority was, without exception, always made public policy?


I think that the only good thing would be if the every single public policy would be passed due to my recomendation. But, it is not possible. So, I have to obey to the will of those who have the power. It is the people. Anyway, you might not know that true interest of the people is acutally sustainability. That is the reason this sick civilisation lasts even having that corrupted political elite that is screwd up in the game of power seeking for keeping its alive.

Yet, people, being a social beings are actually much more turned to the interest of the society, we could ever imagine. It gets obvious only after looking the wider context of all of what is happening right now.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Open Democracy [Re: Crobih]
    #2828557 -

Democracy is actually just acceptance of the fact that the power is in the people

power to do what?

Democracy is the rule of the people, not the rule of the majority.

you're playing with words now.

what people if not the majority?

would passing a peice of legislation or electing a politician without majority support be an example of democracy?

Though, having people ruling it seems to be more easily to set legitimacy on the decision that will be the will of the majority, than it would be if thewill of minoritywould be looking for hte same minority.

a policy gains no legitimacy because a majority support it.

I think that the only good thing would be if the every single public policy would be passed due to my recomendation.

if the majority wishes to persecute a minority group, this is to become official state policy?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Open Democracy [Re: ]
    #2828647 -

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat...;o=&fpart=1

my beef.


--------------------
"You cannot trust in law, unless you can trust in people. If you can trust in people, you don't need law." -J. Mumma

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* democracy is dead, and politics are a waste of time
( 1 2 all )		 Moonshoe 3,395 33 04/06/22 06:36 AM
by how.psilly.of.me
* Democracy's Weakness List (Please contribute your own) Northernsoul 1,427 13 08/15/04 08:43 PM
by Divided_Sky
* How E-Voting Threatens Democracy Vvellum 854 13 06/25/04 01:20 PM
by Crobih
* Pathway to the internet democracy Crobih 1,271 10 03/12/04 11:02 AM
by Crobih
* Democracy is an illusion and the media is NOT LIBERAL.
( 1 2 3 all )		 havatampa 4,969 49 04/06/22 06:34 AM
by how.psilly.of.me
* The United States is NOT Capitalist...
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )		 trendalM 17,629 133 09/28/09 11:34 AM
by Phred
* Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible?
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 DoctorJ 4,347 61 07/22/03 09:22 PM
by Crobih
* Republic or democracy God_Killer 1,561 11 03/05/02 06:10 PM
by Agent Cooper

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
5,234 topic views. 2 members, 469 guests and 41 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.026 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 18 queries.