|
 Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
 Re: Open Democracy  [Re: GazzBut]
#2915865 - 07/22/04 12:09 PM (19 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
GazzBut writes:
Why would a majority vote in such a law?
Because the majority typically don't understand the law of unintended consequences.
But lets get down to it shall we, you are talking about welfare right?
Nope. Read what I wrote. Farm subsidies, foreign aid, tariffs, welfare, minimum wage. Add to that "free" healthcare, "free" public education, etc. All of these are laws which benefit a minority, allowing them to make some good money etc, but have no benefit to the majority of people and may even effect some people negatively.
Well perhaps a majority would vote to benefit a minority with no benefit to themselves simply because they feel its the right thing to do?
Feelings are not tools of cognition. For example, the majority of Americans feel drugs should be illegal. Poll after poll after poll has shown this. For them, keeping drugs illegal is "the right thing to do".
At various points in history, (actually for virtually all of recorded history) the majority felt slavery was an acceptable (more -- an indispensable) institution.
pinky
--------------------
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
|
Re: Open Democracy [Re: Phred]
#2915922 - 07/22/04 12:24 PM (19 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Because the majority typically don't understand the law of unintended consequences.
I often get the sense that the brand of libertarianism espoused by you and your chums on here smacks of elitism and statements like that do little to persuade me otherwise!
Personally, I think you have too low an opinion of "the majority". 100 years ago you would have argued with equal vigour against allowing women the vote I should imagine.
Quote:
Feelings are not tools of cognition.
Is this an attempt to belittle the value of feelings in the human thought process?! Do you think feelings have no place in deciding how, we as a society, interact with each other?
Quote:
the majority of Americans feel drugs should be illegal. Poll after poll after poll has shown this. For them, keeping drugs illegal is "the right thing to do".
Thanks for pointing that out. I think what we have here is a viscous circle. Where do most Americans get this "feeling" towards drugs? Thats right, from the government. If the government were to do a U-turn on this issue and push for legalisation it would probabaly be a big vote loser, making it hard for them to back down, even if they wanted to.
Under open democracy there would not be the pressure to win votes every four years which I think would provide much needed space for more sensible debate in many of the issues we face today.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
 silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: Open Democracy [Re: GazzBut]
#2915925 - 07/22/04 12:26 PM (19 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Personally, I think you have too low an opinion of "the majority". 100 years ago you would have argued with equal vigour against allowing women the vote I should imagine.
What makes you think that? Anyway, I'd like to remind you that slavery, witch hunts, and gladiator fights are all things which were once supported by a majority.
--------------------
 
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
|
|
Quote:
What makes you think that?
I just feel that it is the same sense of elitism that led men to believe women could not be trusted with the vote which now leads people to think that we can only be trusted to pick people to make decisions for us.
Quote:
Anyway, I'd like to remind you that slavery, witch hunts, and gladiator fights are all things which were once supported by a majority
Yes, which is why I think it is only now that humans have reached a point in societal evolution where we could be trusted with open democracy.
And by the way, if best arguement against open democracy you can come up with is gladiators and witches perhaps you need to have a little think about why you really oppose it?!
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: Open Democracy [Re: GazzBut]
#2915984 - 07/22/04 12:41 PM (19 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I just feel that it is the same sense of elitism that led men to believe women could not be trusted with the vote which now leads people to think that we can only be trusted to pick people to make decisions for us.
It is not elitism, but simple observation of human behavior. People are flawed. ALL people. To assume that someone who doesn't trust people in general would distrust only one particular gender is foolish.
Quote:
Yes, which is why I think it is only now that humans have reached a point in societal evolution where we could be trusted with open democracy.
A foolhardy assumption. The majority will always support some unjust causes. The majority of Americans, for example, are against gay marriage and drug legalization.
Quote:
And by the way, if best arguement against open democracy you can come up with is gladiators and witches perhaps you need to have a little think about why you really oppose it?!
Could you please explain how these examples are flawed?
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Open Democracy [Re: GazzBut]
#2916160 - 07/22/04 01:23 PM (19 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
GazzBut writes:
I just feel that it is the same sense of elitism that led men to believe women could not be trusted with the vote which now leads people to think that we can only be trusted to pick people to make decisions for us.
You are being deliberately obtuse. You, better than almost any other poster in this forum, understand quite clearly my position on others making decisions "for us". No one has the right to make those decisions. Not an elected representative, and certainly not the mob. As long as I go about my business peacefully, I get to make my own decisions. As soon as I initiate force against anyone, then -- and only then -- does anyone else get to make a decision.
pinky
--------------------
|
Crobih
rap-cord
Registered: 11/03/98
Posts: 2,015
Loc: cave
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
|
Re: Open Democracy [Re: ]
#2916285 - 07/22/04 01:55 PM (19 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mushmaster said:
We are talking about two different things. I am talking about concept of selfgoverning people, you are talking about some aproximation where 50%+1 decides about everything...
you've got it in reverse.
No. Democracy is actually philosophical concept. As you may notice, I do not consider this system be democracy, as this system is not working for the benefit of humanity, but for the benefit of its power centers that are the product of this pseudodemocratical system. As it was Democratic Republic of Germany aka eastern Germany.
Quote:
... could you please answer my question clearly?
i'm all about self-governorship. however, democracy is NOT about people governing themselves. it is about a majority governing a minority.
You are wrong.
Quote:
you are not talking about a situation in which decisions are made by more than 50% of voters? how then are decisions made in a democracy?
As they are legitimated by the people, it is. In the same manner as political decisions of majority are legitimated by the people as whole, not as majority. That is the reason you might not vote for Bush, but you accept him for your president.
Quote:
here's how this works. in a democracy, people vote on public policy decisions. the policy with the largest number of supporters becomes law. simple as that. there are very few public policies which gain (or lose) legitimacy based on the number of supporters. this is the flaw of democracy, and is why democracy is not a political end in and of itself, but only a means to an end.
No. This is a pseudodemocracy you are talking about. As if those people in Eastern Germany talked about democracy considering their totalitarian marionetic system was that. This focus disables one to move on.
Quote:
Lets be concrete. Write down one policy that violates minority. Lets look at it closely. From your point of view. OK?
here's 4:
drug prohibition
slavery
did i really need to tell you that?
No. I do not want general concepts, but precise ONE policy. This is what I want from you to follow the stream of changes that are being carried by this one policy.
Quote:
your position is that as long as such policies are democratically supported (whatever that means at the moment), they are legitimate. you've attempted to dodge the issue thus far by saying that people wouldn't be so "ignorant" as to enact such policies, that the "golden rule" would save us from the problem, or that this isn't what democracy really means. it doesn't work that way. pure democracy is not a legitimate political goal. democracy has its place, but it is not the role of the state to make majority opinion on every issue law.
I am not talking about majority here. Get it in the head. I am talking about the fact that decisions legitimated by the people as whole are decisions that count. Bill of Rights you are looking for is just an empty word if that word was not supported by the same people you are trying to limit by your own dogma.
All in all.
To sum this all up. I am talking about major rules that lead us to the state of well being. Major rules that say dogma is fucking off and people as the true governor, formalised by the true democracy are the future and these same people can not be limited by anything. Not because I say so, but because major powar principle that leads this world says so. And off course, we do not have to worry about it, all we need is to participate by giving 2 cents from our side.
|
Crobih
rap-cord
Registered: 11/03/98
Posts: 2,015
Loc: cave
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
|
Re: Open Democracy [Re: GazzBut]
#2916298 - 07/22/04 01:59 PM (19 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
GazzBut said:
The rest of the post is the same old paranoia that we will suddenly decide to socially unevolve and bring back slavery...hardly likely. But as I have already said the people would not neccesarily be able to propose issues as this would be chaotic. Instead you would still elect a government whose proposals would then be put to the people. Its fairly simple really. Forget about unlimited democracy and turn your attention to an open democracy where the people are consulted on issues rather than being allowed to propose issues.
Who does consult these people? And who does put these on that place? Arent people as whole those about whom you are talking?
Quote:
Even if the votes didnt go in my favour at least I would know that this is what most people voted for and not just the tiniest minority of the population.
Absolutelly. In that way these decisions are much more valid than these ones. And what is more important you can not blame others for being what you are. That is the starting point for any progress.
|
Crobih
rap-cord
Registered: 11/03/98
Posts: 2,015
Loc: cave
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
|
Re: Open Democracy [Re: GazzBut]
#2916313 - 07/22/04 02:03 PM (19 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
GazzBut said:
Why would a majority vote in such a law? But lets get down to it shall we, you are talking about welfare right? Well perhaps a majority would vote to benefit a minority with no benefit to themselves simply because they feel its the right thing to do?
But hey perhaps you'd get your way and open democracy would bring an end to all forms of state welfare..wow Id sure have egg on my lefty face then wouldnt i?  But at least the decision would have been made by the people rather than by a bunch of politicians who would then cream off the savings!
To be honest, we may not be ready for open democracy yet because for it to function successfully I think we need a higher level of social awareness but I do think thats the way we are evolving at the moment.
Actually GuzzBut, how do you see open democracy works? And one more thing. What is the difference to Internet democracy?
I am asking this because in last time I can notice everybody wants to put some other name to the same thing which does not make sense.
Edited by Crobih (07/22/04 02:04 PM)
|
Crobih
rap-cord
Registered: 11/03/98
Posts: 2,015
Loc: cave
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
|
Re: Open Democracy [Re: Phred]
#2916329 - 07/22/04 02:07 PM (19 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
pinksharkmark said:
GazzBut writes:
I just feel that it is the same sense of elitism that led men to believe women could not be trusted with the vote which now leads people to think that we can only be trusted to pick people to make decisions for us.
You are being deliberately obtuse. You, better than almost any other poster in this forum, understand quite clearly my position on others making decisions "for us". No one has the right to make those decisions. Not an elected representative, and certainly not the mob. As long as I go about my business peacefully, I get to make my own decisions. As soon as I initiate force against anyone, then -- and only then -- does anyone else get to make a decision.
pinky
You are denying to undestand that mob rule is not sort of government, but democracy is. One more thing. If you let people self govern themselves, as you can see in isolated villages etc, you will notice there is no mob rule out there.
Every society tends to be structurized. So, all in all, mob rule is just a cheap argument for apologysing the corrupted elite, which is going to be obsolete pretty soon.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Open Democracy [Re: Crobih]
#2916617 - 07/22/04 03:29 PM (19 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
what limits, if any, do you think should be placed in the way of democratic power?
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
|
Re: Open Democracy [Re: Phred]
#2919229 - 07/23/04 02:26 AM (19 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
You are being deliberately obtuse.
I promise you Im not! Maybe Im having a slow day
Quote:
You, better than almost any other poster in this forum, understand quite clearly my position on others making decisions "for us".
To some exctent I think we agree here. I think government and its laws should be as unobtrusive as possible and I think most governments today fall a long way from that ideal. That said, we cant get around the fact that decisions do need to be made that concern all of us. In the modern world that is unavoidable and it is these decision I would prefer to see put to the people rather than left in the hands of politicians. I think thats perfectly reasonable really.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Open Democracy [Re: GazzBut]
#2920186 - 07/23/04 11:25 AM (19 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
That said, we cant get around the fact that decisions do need to be made that concern all of us.
absolutely. all enforced decisions have the potential to affect all of us. that doesn't mean that they should always be decided by vote. for example, whether or not the state should throw marijuana users in jail is a decision that affects all americans, but majority support or no, throwing people in jail for smoking a plant because other people don't like the idea of it is wrong.
Edited by mushmaster (07/23/04 11:49 AM)
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
|
Re: Open Democracy [Re: Crobih]
#2925664 - 07/25/04 10:34 AM (19 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Who does consult these people? And who does put these on that place? Arent people as whole those about whom you are talking?
The way I would see Open democracy working initially would be to work fairly closely within the current political framework. I dont think we would need political parties however. In England for example, each constituency would still pick a member of parliament but the member of parliament would be a non-affiliated individual whose task would be to go to parliament and then relay back to his/her constituents what issues the administration is discussing and voting on. These issues would then be put to the vote in each constituency to decide whether a motion gets passed or not. Obviously this is a rough idea of how it could work and would need to be refined and improved by greater minds than mine!!
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
|
Re: Open Democracy [Re: ]
#2925666 - 07/25/04 10:36 AM (19 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
but majority support or no, throwing people in jail for smoking a plant because other people don't like the idea of it is wrong.
Rights and wrongs are relative. Is it wrong to prevent someone smoking dope when they are susceptible to its effects and end up schizophrenic?
Anyway, in England smoking dope is pretty much accepted and I think a majority might well vote to legalise it. Perhaps the US just isnt ready for open democracy yet!
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Open Democracy [Re: GazzBut]
#2925890 - 07/25/04 12:21 PM (19 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
if the only limit placed on the state's sphere of authority is that it must have the support of a majority in what it does, it is barely limited at all.
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
|
Re: Open Democracy [Re: ]
#2925993 - 07/25/04 01:05 PM (19 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Why couldnt we have a system where similar limits are placed upon any administrators as are now. The only difference would be that when they wanted to do certain things, say introduce a patriot act or start unjust wars, they could only do so if the majority of the people they served apporved of such actions?
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Open Democracy [Re: GazzBut]
#2926272 - 07/25/04 03:07 PM (19 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
The only difference would be that when they wanted to do certain things, say introduce a patriot act or start unjust wars, they could only do so if the majority of the people they served apporved of such actions?
the problem with that is that few people today vote. even for the presidential election, less than half the electorate turns out to vote. if you put each and every issue on the ballot, you would have special interests voting in their pet projects routinely while everyone else was too busy to vote. you can probably think of many programs that would provide a great benefit to a relatively small number at the small expense of a very large number of people.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
|
Re: Open Democracy [Re: GazzBut]
#2926391 - 07/25/04 03:48 PM (19 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
If you object to the Patriot Act and the Iraq War the last thing you would want would be a direct vote by the people. The Patriot Act would be a lot more restrictive than it is now and the answer on Iraq would have been overwhelming as well. The people are an emotional lot. If we had this kind of system we would probably right now be waiting for the radiation to die down over the entire mid-east from the bombs of Dec 2001
--------------------
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
|
Re: Open Democracy [Re: ]
#2926615 - 07/25/04 04:52 PM (19 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
the problem with that is that few people today vote. even for the presidential election, less than half the electorate turns out to vote.
Exactly. And I believe the reason for that is people are disenfrachised with the current system. Do you really think voter turnout would remain so low if people were asked to give their views on issues rather than simply choosing someone to make all their decisions for them?
Quote:
you would have special interests voting in their pet projects routinely while everyone else was too busy to vote.
At least then people would have nobody to blame but themselves for legislation that they didnt like. And perhaps once a few bills got passed that they didnt like but which they had decided not to vote on the pattern may change as they learnt the lesson.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder 
Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale 
CBD Topicals 
Red Vein Kratom
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 all )
Moonshoe
Northernsoul
Vvellum
Crobih
havatampa
trendal
DoctorJ