Direct Democracy

[Blixa]

What do you think about it? Remove congress and let the people vote about everything (for example on the internet). And please disregard the technical possibilities.

[Honorius]

No, people are too stupid to be in charge.

[Forgin]

No. Even if this was possible, it would be a bad idea. I much prefer the idea of elected representatives. We just need better systems to keep them in check.

[Blixa]

well, you could still have representatives making the bills, just the people have to approve of it. I think this would prevent the politicians promising bullshit during elections and doing the exact opposite thing later on.

No, people are too stupid to be in charge.

That's more like an argument against democracy in general. If people are that stupid, I think they're even more too stupid to choose the right governments, because they mostly don't know what bills exactly they're voting for.

[Falokis]

Someone still counts the votes.

[StainlessSteelRat]

No, people are too stupid to be in charge.

A little bit of this and a lot of waaaaaaaay too inefficient.

A representative democracy is the way to go. I think we just need to use term limits to ensure that our politicians do represent us and not their careers.

[Honorius]

I personally think Theocracy is the way to go. It would fix the economic and moral crisis.

[Milo Hobgoblin]

Eliminate the whole lobbyist concept.

Criminalize political parties.

[Villageninja]

What do you think about it? Remove congress and let the people vote about everything (for example on the internet). And please disregard the technical possibilities.

I think that would be a huge failure, specifiically in the US. There are far more stupid people than there are smart people, therefore it would end up like Idiocracy.

[Villageninja]

even more too stupid

Proof

[Strangia]

Proof

Okay grammer natzee

[Aleucard]

Eliminate the whole lobbyist concept.

Criminalize political parties.
Both of those aren't inherently bad, it's just they've been abused the shit out of by American politics. In their original forms, they serve two distinct purposes; lobbyists are essentially a way for a large amount of people to be heard without all the chaos that would ensue from a direct approach, and political parties provide a centralized grouping mechanism for people with similar views to be able to more efficiently influence policy. As can be seen from American politics, both of these have been corrupted heavily by greed and (to some extent) malice. We just need to fine-tune the rules governing them until those two are brought down to reasonable levels.

[Patrician]

Bad idea. Most people wouldn't bother to gather background info on what they vote for/against.

[StrawberryClock]

If the government is reduced significantly, and foreign policy becomes non-interventionist then it might work. However, it is still bulky and inefficient to pass bills.

[Villageninja]

Okay grammer natzee

Normally I don't give a hoot, you know that much... but in a conversation about intelligence? Blech.

[Villageninja]

political parties provide a centralized grouping mechanism for people with similar views to be able to more efficiently influence policy.

I think that's bullshit. I'm in no position to comment on lobbying but I think the two party system is complete and total bullshit. You take one republican off the street, then grab another republican off the street... and I would bet you cash that those two people would have largely different views over numerous issues.

The simple fact is that this is no longer the country that was founded by our "founding fathers" and the same old system fits like a glove two sizes too large. It gets the job done but it's incredibly sloppy and there's plenty of room for improvement. Parties should be abolished altogether. When that happens people would actually have to figure out what people REALLY stand for instead of pulling things out of their asses like "OH... well he's a democrat... he must be for gun control". If there were no parties to speak of people would vote on issues not because of their parties but the actual issues.

[Jedicake]

I personally think Theocracy is the way to go. It would fix the economic and moral crisis.

You're kidding right, I can't tell

[Zimmix]

first of all most people are too stupid, secondly who the fuck is gonna read hundreds of pages of boring shit each week so they can make an informed decision? Almost no one.

[Jedicake]

first of all most people are too stupid, secondly who the fuck is gonna read hundreds of pages of boring shit each week so they can make an informed decision? Almost no one.

They already don't read it every week :lmao::bang:

[StainlessSteelRat]

Both of those aren't inherently bad, it's just they've been abused the shit out of by American politics. In their original forms, they serve two distinct purposes; lobbyists are essentially a way for a large amount of people to be heard without all the chaos that would ensue from a direct approach, and political parties provide a centralized grouping mechanism for people with similar views to be able to more efficiently influence policy. As can be seen from American politics, both of these have been corrupted heavily by greed and (to some extent) malice. We just need to fine-tune the rules governing them until those two are brought down to reasonable levels.

Uh, yes they are. Not political parties in absolute, but our 2-party system. And lobbying has nothing to do w/ 'large amount of people to be heard without all the chaos that would ensue from a direct approach'; they are all about money buying influence. And it's not just greed, it's power. Many lobbying groups aren't about money and greed but political influence/power. All lobbying does is give a greater voice to special interests over the voice of Joe Schmoe.

Reasonable level would be complete ban on lobbying and term limits on all political seats.

[Carnagel]

A Limited Elective Assembly, sitting for 12 months, is the only acceptable form of Government

Limited to protection of individual rights to life (against murder, assault, rape, war), liberty (against slavery, war, coercion) and property (against theft, invasion of privacy)

Anything more is tyranny

[Honorius]

You're kidding right, I can't tell

Dude I just finished trolling the creationist thread.

[Elemancer]

A Limited Elective Assembly, sitting for 12 months, is the only acceptable form of Government

Limited to protection of individual rights to life (against murder, assault, rape, war), liberty (against slavery, war, coercion) and property (against theft, invasion of privacy)

Anything more is tyranny

Most people are missing the point in that our current system of government was not meant for massive scale that we're currently seeing. Even the most stalwart federalist never imagined that a central government could essentially do anything it wanted under the banner of "Consent of the governed" while being in power over the equivalent of a decade. Think about it, instant communication was infeasible, flight was a pipe dream, guilds were still the centers of production, and most food had a limited shelf life....the list could continue.

The idea that people are 'too stupid to have a democracy' is the most attrocious and idiotic argument (perhaps a self-fullfilling prophecy eh?) against a direct democracy. There's two parts that everyone needs to understand:

1. The power endowment mechanism
2. The limits on the power

The problem I see right now is the limits on power is only on what the power endowment allows, which is the EXACT problem that was debated centuries ago. The two concepts must be completely seperated for any government to not become abused.

Considering my argument above you would have to beg the question: Would it be better to simply have a limited random selection oligarchy?

I'm starting to muse this idea now...sort of like a draft or jury duty.

[GFH_Spike]

Direct democracy can be considered tyranny of the majority. Assuming everything is up for a vote, expect poorly regarded minority groups to be exterminated or have their rights severely curtailed. The only form of government that I can think of which would be worse is a psychotic dictatorship, but at least the regime would soon be destroyed.

[Elemancer]

Direct democracy can be considered tyranny of the majority. Assuming everything is up for a vote, expect poorly regarded minority groups to be exterminated or have their rights severely curtailed. The only form of government that I can think of which would be worse is a psychotic dictatorship, but at least the regime would soon be destroyed.

I never understood this jump in logic...how do representatives that are elected by a majority and supposed to be a representative same of the population as a whole not curtail minority groups...????

Further still, what do you mean by minority groups? Druggies certainly have their rights curtailed.

[Carnagel]

Direct democracy can be considered tyranny of the majority. Assuming everything is up for a vote, expect poorly regarded minority groups to be exterminated or have their rights severely curtailed. The only form of government that I can think of which would be worse is a psychotic dictatorship, but at least the regime would soon be destroyed.

The sections of the population which would impose restrictions on minorities because of racial background, religious beliefs or other reasons are THEMSELVES a minority, so resolutions like these would not pass through a Direct Democracy resolution

One possible negative impact from a Direct Democracy might be a large percentage of the population voting for an isolationist policy - "Let the rest of the world sort out it's own problems, it's not our responsibility that they keep fucking up and we have to keep saving them from themselves", and as shown in WW2 this can cause long term unforeseen problems on a World Wide scale

[DoveAlexa]

what do you think about it? Remove congress and let the people vote about everything (for example on the internet). And please disregard the technical possibilities.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[StainlessSteelRat]

I never understood this jump in logic...how do representatives that are elected by a majority and supposed to be a representative same of the population as a whole not curtail minority groups...????

Further still, what do you mean by minority groups? Druggies certainly have their rights curtailed.

It's not a jump in logic. The Constitution was written to protect the minority from the majority (among other things). It's not just about race, sex, religion etc either.

If you were to vote on everything and base all decisions on majority rule, peoples' rights would get stomped. Look at gay marriage.

The representative democracy we have along w/ the 3 branches of gov't provides checks on such majority rule behavior in our system. The House is proportionate to population geographically. Each district will have its own 'majority'. Senate is by state in order to ensure that all states, no matter how small (and therefore less represented in the House) will have the ability to influence. When you take that whole, it is extremely unlikely that Congress will ever reflect some country-wide majority opinion.

Even the Executive is not pure democracy. We use the electoral to temper that as well. And finally the Judicial which serves for life and if therefore not beholden to public opinion.

Even so, public 'majority' opinion still throws a wrench in the works from time to time.

[Elemancer]

It's not a jump in logic. The Constitution was written to protect the minority from the majority (among other things). It's not just about race, sex, religion etc either.

If you were to vote on everything and base all decisions on majority rule, peoples' rights would get stomped. Look at gay marriage.

The representative democracy we have along w/ the 3 branches of gov't provides checks on such majority rule behavior in our system. The House is proportionate to population geographically. Each district will have its own 'majority'. Senate is by state in order to ensure that all states, no matter how small (and therefore less represented in the House) will have the ability to influence. When you take that whole, it is extremely unlikely that Congress will ever reflect some country-wide majority opinion.

Even the Executive is not pure democracy. We use the electoral to temper that as well. And finally the Judicial which serves for life and if therefore not beholden to public opinion.

Even so, public 'majority' opinion still throws a wrench in the works from time to time.

Again, missing the point...

The constitution is a limiting document. So lets say we have no representatives and simply voted (our legislative branch would basically be replaced with referendums).

The arguement here would be sheer logistics of it all, but the rights of the minority is still upheld.

Constitution aside, how do representatives protect the rights of a minority?? They don't, it's simply logistically more feasible.

[alfaroverall]

well, you could still have representatives making the bills, just the people have to approve of it. I think this would prevent the politicians promising bullshit during elections and doing the exact opposite thing later on.
Or you could just add a system wherein referenda could be put out to pull politicians from office prior to the end of their term. It'd have a similar effect.

Also stupidity and all that, and the two party system sucks whale penis and monkey scrotum.

[PirateGlen]

Alot if historical ironies in this thread. The two party system essentially came about instantly with the country. Not by a slow growing corruption within the system.

To do away with the two party system, the easiest way would require a consitutional amendment. You would need to switch the winner take all system to a proportional representation system. A runoff system would also likely improve elections, but not necessarily do away with the two party system.

The founding fathers hated democracy. They got wet in the pants over republicanism.

[Silverhandorder]

The sections of the population which would impose restrictions on minorities because of racial background, religious beliefs or other reasons are THEMSELVES a minority, so resolutions like these would not pass through a Direct Democracy resolution

One possible negative impact from a Direct Democracy might be a large percentage of the population voting for an isolationist policy - "Let the rest of the world sort out it's own problems, it's not our responsibility that they keep fucking up and we have to keep saving them from themselves", and as shown in WW2 this can cause long term unforeseen problems on a World Wide scale
You mean the WW2 that came of our intervention in WW1? Yeah...

Again, missing the point...

The constitution is a limiting document. So lets say we have no representatives and simply voted (our legislative branch would basically be replaced with referendums).

The arguement here would be sheer logistics of it all, but the rights of the minority is still upheld.

Constitution aside, how do representatives protect the rights of a minority?? They don't, it's simply logistically more feasible.

The idea is that you empower the representatives representing the minority to be able to stop the majority. This is why you can filibuster and have super majority votes on most important issues.

Alot if historical ironies in this thread. The two party system essentially came about instantly with the country. Not by a slow growing corruption within the system.

To do away with the two party system, the easiest way would require a consitutional amendment. You would need to switch the winner take all system to a proportional representation system. A runoff system would also likely improve elections, but not necessarily do away with the two party system.

The founding fathers hated democracy. They got wet in the pants over republicanism.
And for a good reason. They were aristocrats and did not want the country to descend into a welfare state like we have now. They were the minority they were interested in protecting. However we can not fault the men for not going against what was considered conventional thinking of the day. We should celebrate them for the revolutionary steps they took towards equality of all men.

[Apex Vertigo]

An Absolute Dictatorship with the Dictator being a reasonable and uncorruptable leader is the best form of government. Democracy let's the unintelligent control the population and ultimately is controlled by who ever the media decides you want. It is inherently flawed.

[PirateGlen]

And for a good reason. They were aristocrats and did not want the country to descend into a welfare state like we have now. They were the minority they were interested in protecting. However we can not fault the men for not going against what was considered conventional thinking of the day. We should celebrate them for the revolutionary steps they took towards equality of all men.

Yes and no. They were far more philosophical in their reasons than "it's good for me".

[Teth]

Direct democracy? Sure, it might work if we were, say, a city-state in Attica circa a few hundred years before Christ. And the only people who were allowed to vote were the few thousand folks who made up the top 10%ish of the population.

Otherwise lolno.

[Teth]

A Limited Elective Assembly, sitting for 12 months, is the only acceptable form of Government

Limited to protection of individual rights to life (against murder, assault, rape, war), liberty (against slavery, war, coercion) and property (against theft, invasion of privacy)

Anything more is tyranny
Congratulations, by your definition the entire length and breadth of human civilization is either animal savagery...or unending, relentless, uninterrupted tyranny. From the very beginning right up until now, this would mean there has never been anything but the crack of the despot's whip.

If we accept that argument, then you know as much of freedom as a blind man does of colour. After all, how the hell are you supposed to recognize or conceptualize something you have never experienced ever?

And if civilization really is just the rape-spawn of dictatorship...it has dragged us up from scraping in the mud with our nails and bashing out the brains of rabbits with stones. What the fuck is wrong with it then? Rape-spawn or no, what we've got sounds infinitely preferable to the alternatives. Hobbes got it in one.

Fucking hell, and people think Marxists are the lunatic dreamers.

[dinkfall]

Nationwide democracy doesn't work, not representative or direct.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5ufXVhRkgs

[Jezrith]

No, people are too stupid to be in charge.

Then why do we have people in charge?

[Teth]

Then why do we have people in charge?
Even fucking monkeys and dogs have pack leaders. It goes with the territory of sentience, no matter how limited.

Way back when, in the dark and murky ages of evolutionary development, at some point some creature figured out, in its own primitive & wildly underdeveloped way, that 2 is better than 1. Thus followed 3 is better than 2, and 4 is better than 3. After all, a group working together can pull in an amount of resources greater than the sum of its parts, and this is of benefit to everyone.

The movement towards "packs work better when there is an alpha wolf in charge" probably followed very soon after as a matter of practical experience & self-selective positive development - the groups anchored around a dominating individual probably performed better - and we've been following that trend for God only knows how many millions of years ever since.

Sure, we've changed the goalposts on how alphas are chosen, but the underlying desirable traits and purpose of the role remain almost perfectly intact.

[Jezrith]

Even fucking monkeys and dogs have pack leaders. It goes with the territory of sentience, no matter how limited.


I think you missed the point of the question. If people are stupid, then why elect leaders that are obviously going to be stupid? Since you know, people are stupid. That said, I don't think dogs and monkeys are a good barometer of how the human race should be developing.

[Teth]

I think you missed the point of the question. If people are stupid, then why elect leaders that are obviously going to be stupid? Since you know, people are stupid. That said, I don't think dogs and monkeys are a good barometer of how the human race should be developing.
I know, you were responding against the guy asking the question in the first place. I was more going off what you had said than screaming "omg u r RONG".

And hey, humans are still animals when you get down to brass tacks, and our delightfully convoluted evolutionary history continues to shape the psychological & physiological characteristics of the species to this day. Those old scars still run deep; deeper than any gilding & veneer that has been varnished on in the last ten thousand years.

[Sqarak]

That said, I don't think dogs and monkeys are a good barometer of how the human race should be developing.

It doesn't show how the human race should develop, but how all species that display social and group behaviour already have developed.

[Fro]

Cant we just have anarchy?

[Teth]

Cant we just have anarchy?
Depends. What are your feelings on suicide?

[Jezrith]

I know, you were responding against the guy asking the question in the first place. I was more going off what you had said than going "omg u r RONG".


I just wanted to be sure that I was clear...


And hey, humans are still animals when you get down to brass tacks, and our evolutionary history as animals continues to shape our psychological & physical traits to this day. Those old scars still run deep; deeper than any gilding & veneer that has been varnished on in the last ten thousand years.

I know the whole hairless-ape thing is all the rage these days, but to say we are still animals (in the classical sense of an animal) is like saying a car is still raw ore.

It doesn't show how the human race should develop, but how all species that display social and group behaviour already have developed.

What we should do, and what have we done are two complete different questions that more often than not require different answers.

[Fro]

Depends. What are your feelings on suicide?

I'm indifferent on sucicide to be honest.

[Teth]

...is like saying a car is the same thing as raw ore.
Put it in the proper stressful situations, and yeah, elementally, it basically is just an amalgam of unrefined metals. Same goes for people.

The only odd exception seems to be self-sacrifice, which is continued to be regarded as something of a thorny & hard-to-justify problem to evolutionary behavioural psychologists to this day.

Lolirony: the idea that a man can consciously deny himself clear benefits & advantages - perhaps even actively sacrifice extant ones - for the benefit of the group is one of the few behavioural traits that cannot be cleanly traced back to animal psychology. After all, it makes absolutely no sense from the maximum-reproductive-benefit motivation perspective. In short: the underlying principle behind socialism is one of the few unique traits of human psychology.

[Teth]

I'm indifferent on sucicide to be honest.
Then you are indifferent to anarchy! Congratulations.

[Sqarak]

What should we do, and what have we done are two complete different questions that more often than not require different answers.

Not quite sure what that has to do with my remark of group based social interacting species including humans already having developed traits where certain individuals will display a tendency towards leading and other more towards following.

Behaviour is also not just a case of what we should or shouldn't. Behaviour consists of both conscious and subconscious actions. Some of these actions are hereditary while others are learned and cultural dependant.
A lot of people scream "We want to be free and able to make our own decisions", most are however quite incapable of doing this on a continuing basis.

[Jezrith]

Put it in the proper stressful situations, and yeah, elementally, it basically is just an amalgam of unrefined metals. Same goes for people.


Yeah, but I don't think I'm going to be driving a pile of iron ore to work anytime soon. I mean, if you want to keep going down that thought-hole everything is just the same thing since its all just an amalgam of electrons and neutrons.


The only odd exception seems to be self-sacrifice, which is continued to be regarded as something of a thorny & hard-to-justify problem to evolutionary behavioural psychologists to this day.


Art happens to be another one of those problems that appears to be a solely human trait as well. I don't know of any other species that would support one of it's pack members to sit around and draw pretty pictures, or string together new vocalization patterns all day.


Lolirony: the idea that a man can consciously deny himself clear benefits & advantages for the benefit of the group is one of the few behavioural traits that cannot be cleanly traced back to animal psychology. After all, it makes absolutely no sense from the maximum-reproductive-benefit motivation perspective. In short: the underlying principle behind socialism is one of the few unique traits of human psychology.


Socialism doesn't have a monopoly on self sacrifice, the whole free will thing kind of fucks that up. After all, if you are forced to do it it's not really self-sacrifice, it's coercion.

[Jezrith]

Not quite sure what that has to do with my remark of group based social interacting species including humans already having developed traits where certain individuals will display a tendency towards leading and other more towards following.

Behaviour is also not just a case of what we should or shouldn't. Behaviour consists of both conscious and subconscious actions. Some of these actions are hereditary while others are learned and cultural dependant.
A lot of people scream "We want to be free and able to make our own decisions", most are however quite incapable of doing this on a continuing basis.

I think maybe you need to read the whole thread. The context of the conversation is "should we be a direct democracy". EG: What should we do in the future, as opposed to what have we done in the past. Granted its hard to know where you are going if you don't know where you have been, but the context of the thread is about the future not the past.

[Kusghuul]

Don't the Swiss have some sort of direct democracy malarky?

[Teth]

I think maybe you need to read the whole thread. The context of the conversation is "should we be a direct democracy".
A succinct answer: it doesn't matter. Your opinion still won't count unless you are one of the well-connected demagogues, and you'll still get fucked over in the end for somebody's pet project. The peasantry never has counted and never will count except as another token in the power plays of the holders of the keys.

Freedom as the eagle-saluting survivalist sorts envision is, well, to put it in the words of my favourite musician:
Nostalgic for something intangible;
A time that never was.

[Jezrith]

Freedom as the eagle-saluting survivalist sorts envision is, well, to put it in the words of my favourite musician:

That's actually not true. The time has existed especially when most of this country was frontier. It still exists to some extent these days as well, for all things banished there is a black market, you just have to know how to avoid the Lidless Unblinking Eye. ;)

[Carnagel]

Congratulations, by your definition the entire length and breadth of human civilization is either animal savagery...or unending, relentless, uninterrupted tyranny. From the very beginning right up until now, this would mean there has never been anything but the crack of the despot's whip.

If we accept that argument, then you know as much of freedom as a blind man does of colour. After all, how the hell are you supposed to recognize or conceptualize something you have never experienced ever?

And if civilization really is just the rape-spawn of dictatorship...it has dragged us up from scraping in the mud with our nails and bashing out the brains of rabbits with stones. What the fuck is wrong with it then? Rape-spawn or no, what we've got sounds infinitely preferable to the alternatives. Hobbes got it in one.

Fucking hell, and people think Marxists are the lunatic dreamers.

As someone else stated in this thread, using our own uneducated primitive history as a basis of what type of Government works for us NOW is inherently flawed. Modern society (western) is more educated, more politically aware, and basically just overall better prepared to accept more personal political participation than at any point during human evolution

Modern democracy is based off the Governments of ancient Greek and Roman civilizations, and does not take into account any of the modern advancements in science and technology, longevity and quality of life we have available today. Historical precedents may have worked to get us out of the mud - but to keep grasping to them simply because we have never experienced anything different is not a valid argument whatsoever

Under the current system in the US for one example, it costs 2/3rd's of a dollar to collect 1 dollar in taxes, the wastage in that single fact alone is simply appalling, imagine if that money was being spent on medical, science and other research projects instead, or was being utilized towards space travel research to allow us to gather the trillion of tons of available critically needed resources in the near earth asteroids - with a single elected assembly, or a direct democracy in a fully stripped down format, those kinds of changes are not only possible but extremely probable

The current 2 party preferred system in most western democracies is simply not a viable long term option. There is no actual input into how the country is run under the current system by the vast majority of the population, making them the equal of the Plebs in ancient Rome BEFORE they stood up for themselves and demanded an equal say in how the Government is run. The problem is most people just don't realize how little input they have in the running of their own country - "I can vote" under a 2 party preferred system is very misleading and ultimately meaningless

[PirateGlen]

As someone else stated in this thread, using our own uneducated primitive history as a basis of what type of Government works for us NOW is inherently flawed. Modern society (western) is more educated, more politically aware, and basically just overall better prepared to accept more personal political participation than at any point during human evolution

Modern democracy is based off the Governments of ancient Greek and Roman civilizations, and does not take into account any of the modern advancements in science and technology, longevity and quality of life we have available today. Historical precedents may have worked to get us out of the mud - but to keep grasping to them simply because we have never experienced anything different is not a valid argument whatsoever

Under the current system in the US for one example, it costs 2/3rd's of a dollar to collect 1 dollar in taxes, the wastage in that single fact alone is simply appalling, imagine if that money was being spent on medical, science and other research projects instead, or was being utilized towards space travel research to allow us to gather the trillion of tons of available critically needed resources in the near earth asteroids - with a single elected assembly, or a direct democracy in a fully stripped down format, those kinds of changes are not only possible but extremely probable

The current 2 party preferred system in most western democracies is simply not a viable long term option. There is no actual input into how the country is run under the current system by the vast majority of the population, making them the equal of the Plebs in ancient Rome BEFORE they stood up for themselves and demanded an equal say in how the Government is run. The problem is most people just don't realize how little input they have in the running of their own country - "I can vote" under a 2 party preferred system is very misleading and ultimately meaningless

You're a shining example of why direct democracy is a bad idea: you are an ignorant caveman.

The truth is most western democracies are not a two party system. Most have a proportional representation system (the system that tends to avoid two superparties).

The IRS budget in 2006 was ~10.5 billion. I'll bump it to 11 billion just for kicks. They collected 2.2 trillion. So for every dollar spent on the IRS, 200 dollars were collected. Can also be interpreted as half of one percent of the federal budget, not 66 cents to collect a dollar.

These are just two of the incorrect things your blabbering has contained. But you, yourself, are among the best reasons why your idea of direct democracy is a bad idea.

[Blixa]

To clarify: Direct Democracy doesn't mean that you can vote away anything you want to; there could still be a constitution to protect minorities and keep civil rights. The Switzerland for example (correct me if I'm wrong) has some direct democracy as in if that there are votes on issues that need the constitution to change. You would of course need "unchangeable" amendments that protect minorities and the democracy.

The problem with representative democracy I see is that what the parties say before and after elections are often very different. And if we had a direct democracy, before every important bill that stands is about to be voted for, you would have giant media coverage, etc. Basically I see is as in representative democracy, the people vote for a "bill-package" they have no real overview over. It requires much less intelligence to decide from bill to bill and you'd have opportunity to inform yourself before every vote.

[88Chaz88]

Would you give the likes of Silverhandorder some say, no matter how small, in how to run your country?

[Blixa]

Would you give the likes of Silverhandorder some say, no matter how small, in how to run your country?

Everyone already has a very small say in how run run their country, by voting for parties. What's your point, do you want to abolish democracy?

[88Chaz88]

Everyone already has a very small say in how run run their country, by voting for parties. What's your point, do you want to abolish democracy?

My post was purely for comic effect, I refuse to get involved in your agument.

[StainlessSteelRat]

Again, missing the point...

The constitution is a limiting document. So lets say we have no representatives and simply voted (our legislative branch would basically be replaced with referendums).

The arguement here would be sheer logistics of it all, but the rights of the minority is still upheld.

Constitution aside, how do representatives protect the rights of a minority?? They don't, it's simply logistically more feasible.

The majority can easily ignore the Constitution or amend it.

Reps protect it as I already stated in conjunction w/ the other two branches.

[StainlessSteelRat]

Put it in the proper stressful situations, and yeah, elementally, it basically is just an amalgam of unrefined metals. Same goes for people.

The only odd exception seems to be self-sacrifice, which is continued to be regarded as something of a thorny & hard-to-justify problem to evolutionary behavioural psychologists to this day.

Lolirony: the idea that a man can consciously deny himself clear benefits & advantages - perhaps even actively sacrifice extant ones - for the benefit of the group is one of the few behavioural traits that cannot be cleanly traced back to animal psychology. After all, it makes absolutely no sense from the maximum-reproductive-benefit motivation perspective. In short: the underlying principle behind socialism is one of the few unique traits of human psychology.

How the hell did you get from self-sacrifice to socialism? The former is an individual choice. The latter is gov't mandated 'sharing'. Self-sacrifice is not an underlying principle of socialism.

[alfaroverall]

Yeah, but I don't think I'm going to be driving a pile of iron ore to work anytime soon. I mean, if you want to keep going down that thought-hole everything is just the same thing since its all just an amalgam of electrons and neutrons.
Particle physics fail: 1. There's protons, and 2. if you went far enough down that thought hole you'd arrive at energy.



Art happens to be another one of those problems that appears to be a solely human trait as well. I don't know of any other species that would support one of it's pack members to sit around and draw pretty pictures, or string together new vocalization patterns all day.
Art has been argued occasionally, iirc, to be made for the purpose of getting sex.
How the hell did you get from self-sacrifice to socialism? The former is an individual choice. The latter is gov't mandated 'sharing'. Self-sacrifice is not an underlying principle of socialism.
Large numbers of the wealthy practice self-sacrifice for the "group"'s sake->socialism. Later, everyone practices self-sacrifice for the group, which is communism. Voila, Marxist-Leninism in two sentences. Not a great summary but still, it's two sentences.

[Aacevedo]

A "Corporate Democracy" Is the way to go IMO.
Run the country as it were a Corporation,
The president is eleced by normal elections
The "board of directors" also elected by normal means.
Balanced scorecard for the all the aspects of the country and avaible to the public. The country in order to change Mission, vission and core values and for that matter change the balanced scorecard, must have a large mayority to approve the change.
The presidencial candidate in order to be aviable for election must present a development program which is approved by the board, that program must be directly linked with the balanced scorecard and the goverment plan must be measurable.
When the president is in office, the board of directors must check if the goverment plan is beign acheived and if the results are below the expected progress, The board can warn the president and has the ability to call for new elections.
Ministers are "managers" of their respective areas and can be audited too by "The board" or the President.

[StainlessSteelRat]

Large numbers of the wealthy practice self-sacrifice for the "group"'s sake->socialism. Later, everyone practices self-sacrifice for the group, which is communism. Voila, Marxist-Leninism in two sentences. Not a great summary but still, it's two sentences.

It's not self-sacrifice when it's mandated by gov't. There is no choice and self-sacrifice is an individual's choice.

@Aacevedo- w00t Rollerball!!

[Fro]

Then you are indifferent to anarchy! Congratulations.

No, they're not the same thing.

[Skyborn]

Forumfall's understanding of political principles and ideologies is mind numbingly painful to experience.

Though, that holds true for most any topic as the majority of OT'ers can't even properly use the English language.



For reference I like the idea of Direct Democracy but it is impractical on a large scale. Also self sacrifice is not socialism/communism.

Dipshits.

[Sqarak]

Forumfall's understanding of political principles and ideologies is mind numbingly painful to experience.
.

Just think of it as a form of SM. Knowing the right codewords you'll be fine.

[88Chaz88]

Forumfall's understanding of political principles and ideologies is mind numbingly painful to experience.

Though, that holds true for most any topic as the majority of OT'ers can't even properly use the English language.



For reference I like the idea of Direct Democracy but it is impractical on a large scale. Also self sacrifice is not socialism/communism.

Dipshits.

Oh leave them to their bickerings, it's this, useless religious vs athiest arguments, or Badem-esque spam threads.

[Jezrith]

Particle physics fail: 1. There's protons, and 2. if you went far enough down that thought hole you'd arrive at energy.


Sure I left out protons, still doesn't negate the point. Things are in fact different, and humans are vastly different then the rest of the animal kingdom.


Art has been argued occasionally, iirc, to be made for the purpose of getting sex.


I could see that, but even still it appears to be a wholy human trait.

[alfaroverall]

It's not self-sacrifice when it's mandated by gov't. There is no choice and self-sacrifice is an individual's choice.

@Aacevedo- w00t Rollerball!!
In a system that is even vaguely democratic, "a government mandate isn't an individual's choice" is a contradiction. The fact that this doesn't hold in the US is very sad indeed.

[Silverhandorder]

In a system that is even vaguely democratic, "a government mandate isn't an individual's choice" is a contradiction. The fact that this doesn't hold in the US is very sad indeed.

Are you stupid? Democracy does not mean people still do not get screwed. If democracy protected the opposition by allowing it not to follow the retarded rules that the majority sets then it would work. Otherwise whether the mandate comes from elected representatives or the majority of the population you still get screwed if it is like forced self sacrifice(coercion).

[alfaroverall]

Are you stupid? Democracy does not mean people still do not get screwed. If democracy protected the opposition by allowing it not to follow the retarded rules that the majority sets then it would work. Otherwise whether the mandate comes from elected representatives or the majority of the population you still get screwed if it is like forced self sacrifice(coercion).
Didn't say that people didn't get screwed. What I was saying (or trying to say, anyhow; my phrasing wasn't wonderful) was that in a democratic or remotely-close-to-democratic system (hereafter just "a democratic system"), on some level (a level which may, potentially, be quite far from the actual policies that we see in effect) any government mandate comes down to "an individual's choice." The point that I was disagreeing with was "there is no choice." There is a choice, it's just that in a democratic system it isn't entirely yours. In the US, there isn't really a choice at all; attitudes towards third parties, general political apathy (outside presidential elections especially), and the absurd similarities between the dominant parties now make it so that the government will basically be what it is regardless of anyone's vote, period.

[Epicurious]

Democracy is 12 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what is going to be for dinner.

Democracy only works when people are highly educated and free from moral corruption, which means that it doesn't really work.

The idea that all people are equal is great, but it really only means that all people are equal under the law, not that every person's opinion is equally valid.

I don't know of any actual democracies anywhere on the planet, please feel free to tell me where there is one if you know.

The United States is a constitutional republic, not a democracy...

[Blixa]

Democracy is 12 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what is going to be for dinner.

Democracy only works when people are highly educated and free from moral corruption, which means that it doesn't really work.

The idea that all people are equal is great, but it really only means that all people are equal under the law, not that every person's opinion is equally valid.

I don't know of any actual democracies anywhere on the planet, please feel free to tell me where there is one if you know.

The United States is a constitutional republic, not a democracy...

Switzerland for example. It huge changes have to be voted on by the public to make them possible and I hear it works great.

[Silverhandorder]

Didn't say that people didn't get screwed. What I was saying (or trying to say, anyhow; my phrasing wasn't wonderful) was that in a democratic or remotely-close-to-democratic system (hereafter just "a democratic system"), on some level (a level which may, potentially, be quite far from the actual policies that we see in effect) any government mandate comes down to "an individual's choice." The point that I was disagreeing with was "there is no choice." There is a choice, it's just that in a democratic system it isn't entirely yours. In the US, there isn't really a choice at all; attitudes towards third parties, general political apathy (outside presidential elections especially), and the absurd similarities between the dominant parties now make it so that the government will basically be what it is regardless of anyone's vote, period.

I agree for government to work it needs to be completely voluntary. Otherwise it is a mafia. There is absolutely no safeguards against bad government and it will always come as long as a group of individuals can over power a smaller group.

So yes we got no choice either way :(.

[Jezrith]

In a system that is even vaguely democratic, "a government mandate isn't an individual's choice" is a contradiction. The fact that this doesn't hold in the US is very sad indeed.

Government mandate is just another name for tyranny of the majority...

I agree for government to work it needs to be completely voluntary.


Now that is something that can never be. Government by its very nature is not voluntary...

[PirateGlen]

Didn't say that people didn't get screwed. What I was saying (or trying to say, anyhow; my phrasing wasn't wonderful) was that in a democratic or remotely-close-to-democratic system (hereafter just "a democratic system"), on some level (a level which may, potentially, be quite far from the actual policies that we see in effect) any government mandate comes down to "an individual's choice." The point that I was disagreeing with was "there is no choice." There is a choice, it's just that in a democratic system it isn't entirely yours. In the US, there isn't really a choice at all; attitudes towards third parties, general political apathy (outside presidential elections especially), and the absurd similarities between the dominant parties now make it so that the government will basically be what it is regardless of anyone's vote, period.

It often seems suggested that there is a huge demand for something different, but little in terms of numbers to support it. If the similarities of the two parties was so far out of bounds of what the people wanted, it seems like it would be fairly easy to start up a party more aligned with this theoretical "true" position of the country.

[PirateGlen]

Government mandate is just another name for tyranny of the majority...

Now that is something that can never be. Government by its very nature is not voluntary...

Are all laws that are not voluntarily agreed to tyranical?

[Carnagel]

Are all laws that are not voluntarily agreed to tyranical?

All laws not voluntarily agreed to by a Majority of the population are tyranical, yes.

For example laws regarding having to wear seatbelt when driving should be based directly upon a majority vote. If the majority of the population believes the cost to society is too high from not wearing a seatbelt, then it is the Majority of the population who should decide, not a Government imposing this rule regardless - that is pure tyranny

Legalization of common drugs, legal age of drinking, police powers and surveillance laws - all of these and many more could be overturned / changed under a Direct Democracy if the majority of the population believed it was viable to do so

[Sqarak]

All laws not voluntarily agreed to by a Majority of the population are tyranical, yes.

For example laws regarding having to wear seatbelt when driving should be based directly upon a majority vote. If the majority of the population believes the cost to society is too high from not wearing a seatbelt, then it is the Majority of the population who should decide, not a Government imposing this rule regardless - that is pure tyranny

Legalization of common drugs, legal age of drinking, police powers and surveillance laws - all of these and many more could be overturned / changed under a Direct Democracy if the majority of the population believed it was viable to do so

What is the difference between 14000 or 56 people making decisions that might influence me. For example, if the majority would decide that beer should be prohibited globally, then it would still feel as much like a tyranny as if the government should decide it, as my opinion did not make any difference at all.

[alfaroverall]

It often seems suggested that there is a huge demand for something different, but little in terms of numbers to support it. If the similarities of the two parties was so far out of bounds of what the people wanted, it seems like it would be fairly easy to start up a party more aligned with this theoretical "true" position of the country.
The reason is actually not that so much as two other reasons. The first is not complicated, and proportional representation would have a huge influence on it if people actually gave a fuck about Congress. Here's the idea:
You are voting for President. You have 3 choices: a Democrat, a Republican, and a third party (given this forum's audience let's call it the Libertarian party). The third party best fits your ideas, but you "know", based on past experience, polling on the news, and other things that they will not win. Therefore voting for them, to you, gets you nothing; the effect is more or less the same as if you didn't vote. On the other hand, if you voted for the Republican (we're assuming here that Republicans actually ARE fiscally conservative, and therefore coincide marginally better with the libertarian ideal than the Democrats), you'd be getting the "lesser of the two evils" that "have a chance at winning."

The issue here isn't hard to see: we conclude that a third party has no chance because others conclude that a third party has no chance...who are in turn doing it because we're doing it. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Now, in a presidential election this is pretty hard to address, because you can't have a multi-party President, really, so this reason isn't going anywhere unless a third party actually becomes truly comparable in power to the other two (which probably won't happen within this century).

The second reason is apathy with respect to Congress. Far less than half, possibly even less than a quarter of the population votes in congressional elections. This is the place where a third party actually does have a chance to sink their teeth in right now; until they've sunk their teeth into Congress a few times, they're never going to get popular enough to win a presidential election. The cause of the apathy towards Congress is more complicated than I understand (or would want to go into if I did understand), but I can say that proportional representation would at least get the third party supporters to vote for their preferred representatives more, since they'd actually get something out of their vote. 10-15% nationwide votes in a proportional representation is several dozen representatives between the two Houses; 10-15% nationwide in a winner-take-all system gets a small handful.

Sorry that this turned into a somewhat incoherent rant....

[Silverhandorder]

Now that is something that can never be. Government by its very nature is not voluntary...

It can never be if you take a minarchist stance on it. I won't fight that since I will be satisfied with minarchism my self. However on intellectual level it is very possible and will most likely happen in our lifetime.

Are all laws that are not voluntarily agreed to tyranical?
Depends from what perspective. From a minarchist perspective no. If you disagree with a law against murder you are still transgressing on people's rights. So by initiating force your self you give up the rights you have. Even if you think people have no rights it makes sense. Kill some one and you lose any moral ground sorta thing.

From an anarchist point of view yes all laws are tyrannical. There is a thing called Dispute Resolution Organizations (DRO). Two private companies come together on the side of the opposing parties. Then they talk things out. DROs can have different specialties. So in the worst case scenario, murder, you would have a DRO that will go out and capture the person who committed murder. There is various reasons why they would be interested in the capture. There are also mechanisms that the person can use to defend himself against unwarranted aggression by DROs. If you would like I will expand on that.


All laws not voluntarily agreed to by a Majority of the population are tyranical, yes.

For example laws regarding having to wear seatbelt when driving should be based directly upon a majority vote. If the majority of the population believes the cost to society is too high from not wearing a seatbelt, then it is the Majority of the population who should decide, not a Government imposing this rule regardless - that is pure tyranny

Legalization of common drugs, legal age of drinking, police powers and surveillance laws - all of these and many more could be overturned / changed under a Direct Democracy if the majority of the population believed it was viable to do so

You don't realize the way it works now is that a big majority does not care and those that do are influenced by the media. I saw a thing called myth of a rational voter a while back. It said that people without knowledge in politics vote consistently the same positions. Meaning that the more that don't care the worse the government becomes. The "rational voters" would always vote diametrically opposite the uninformed population. The problem is that they are only like 10%.

[Carnagel]

What is the difference between 14000 or 56 people making decisions that might influence me. For example, if the majority would decide that beer should be prohibited globally, then it would still feel as much like a tyranny as if the government should decide it, as my opinion did not make any difference at all.

The main difference is it will be based upon what MOST people actually want. If most people wanted to prohibit beer - (I doubt it,they would probably vote to lower the alcohol tax to make it cheaper;) ) - then yes it might be considered a majority tyranical decision if you are a minority beer drinker, but at least it would be a majority opinion, not just a committee or sub committee consisting of the privileged 1% deciding it all for you


You don't realize the way it works now is that a big majority does not care and those that do are influenced by the media. I saw a thing called myth of a rational voter a while back. It said that people without knowledge in politics vote consistently the same positions. Meaning that the more that don't care the worse the government becomes. The "rational voters" would always vote diametrically opposite the uninformed population. The problem is that they are only like 10%.

The reason most people don't care is because they are quite aware whatever they do has no real impact on what actually happens in regards to decisions and laws. If each person had an actual 1:1 input into passing laws and making Nation Wide choices, this would certainly change. I know it would for me

The 'rational voters' would need to step up and let everyone else know why it would be better to vote for a certain a certain decision based on long term impact, or whatever the case may be. They would have no choice really, and that would benefit everyone

[StainlessSteelRat]

The main difference is it will be based upon what MOST people actually want. If most people wanted to prohibit beer - (I doubt it,they would probably vote to lower the alcohol tax to make it cheaper;) ) - then yes it might be considered a majority tyranical decision if you are a minority beer drinker, but at least it would be a majority opinion, not just a committee or sub committee consisting of the privileged 1% deciding it all for you

The end result is the same; how you arrive there is largely irrelevant.

Mob rule and elite rule are just two sides of the same tyrannical coin.

[Teth]

The end result is the same; how you arrive there is largely irrelevant.

Mob rule and elite rule are just two sides of the same tyrannical coin.
Yep. Right now we're run by a tiny subsection of the population who has been chosen by the population to represent us and instead has usurped all power for their own ends, acting only upon their own interests and those of the groups that bankroll them.

Roll direct democracy style and, as it was in Athens, we'll instead be ruled by the best-connected demagogues who are able to whip the most people into seeing things their way, either through oratory, threats, or straight-up graft.

In the end, the average individual never matters. They never did, and they probably never will.

[StainlessSteelRat]

Yep. Right now we're run by a tiny subsection of the population who has been chosen by the population to represent us and instead has usurped all power for their own ends, acting only upon their own interests and those of the groups that bankroll them.

Roll direct democracy style and, as it was in Athens, we'll instead be ruled by the best-connected demagogues who are able to whip the most people into seeing things their way, either through oratory, threats, or straight-up graft.

In the end, the average individual never matters. They never did, and they probably never will.

1. Smaller gov't.
2. Term limits.
3. No lobbying.
4. Profit

[Lancaster]

What do you think about it? Remove congress and let the people vote about everything (for example on the internet). And please disregard the technical possibilities.

Well I don't know about the U.S. of A. because americans don't even gave popular vote.

They regurgitate "freedom" as if they are the only free country in the world. Or as if the world is constantly trying to take it away (it is all propaganda).

It's just fucking amusing how alienated people are.

Then again, what do you expect from a nation whose population has no idea about anything that goes on around the world?

Not to mention that besides not having popular vote, the people are far from being well represented by having only 2 major political parties.

You throw the lobbyists on top of that and you have a fucking capitalistic political system.

Learn to crawl then we'll talk about walking.

[Skyborn]

Yep. Right now we're run by a tiny subsection of the population who has been chosen by the population to represent us and instead has usurped all power for their own ends, acting only upon their own interests and those of the groups that bankroll them.

Roll direct democracy style and, as it was in Athens, we'll instead be ruled by the best-connected demagogues who are able to whip the most people into seeing things their way, either through oratory, threats, or straight-up graft.

In the end, the average individual never matters. They never did, and they probably never will.

You should write and illustrate children's books.

[Jezrith]

It can never be if you take a minarchist stance on it. I won't fight that since I will be satisfied with minarchism my self. However on intellectual level it is very possible and will most likely happen in our lifetime.


It's not a matter of perspective in the slightest. Every government policy and edict is backed up by men with guns willing to kill you if you don't play ball. Perspective only comes into play when you start talking about what those policies and edicts should be.

Are all laws that are not voluntarily agreed to tyranical?

Not necessarily. Laws can protect you from tyranny, but due to the nature of those who want power over other people, laws usually inflict more tyranny than they protect you from.

[StainlessSteelRat]

Well I don't know about the U.S. of A. because americans don't even gave popular vote.

They regurgitate "freedom" as if they are the only free country in the world. Or as if the world is constantly trying to take it away (it is all propaganda).

It's just fucking amusing how alienated people are.

Then again, what do you expect from a nation whose population has no idea about anything that goes on around the world?

Not to mention that besides not having popular vote, the people are far from being well represented by having only 2 major political parties.

You throw the lobbyists on top of that and you have a fucking capitalistic political system.

For someone that 'doesn't know about the US of A', you sure to pretend to. How many countries in the world use popular vote to determine elections? And which elections? Mr. World Citizen.

Learn to crawl then we'll talk about walking.

We should remember that the next time Germany sticks its foot in your collective asses. But no, I'm sure when you come QQing some dipshits from our 2-party system being bribed by lobbyists will bail you out again.

[Lancaster]

For someone that 'doesn't know about the US of A', you sure to pretend to. How many countries in the world use popular vote to determine elections? And which elections? Mr. World Citizen.


I meant the US would be far from any "direct democracy"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_by_country

Checkout the "head of state" column and QQ about your democracy.

We should remember that the next time Germany sticks its foot in your collective asses. But no, I'm sure when you come QQing some dipshits from our 2-party system being bribed by lobbyists will bail you out again.

That would be awesome, but I doubt the US could thrive without having a military presence in other countries for capital gains.

So much for democracy and freedom. I'm sure the world longs for the American version of it.

[PirateGlen]

All laws not voluntarily agreed to by a Majority of the population are tyranical, yes.

For example laws regarding having to wear seatbelt when driving should be based directly upon a majority vote. If the majority of the population believes the cost to society is too high from not wearing a seatbelt, then it is the Majority of the population who should decide, not a Government imposing this rule regardless - that is pure tyranny

Legalization of common drugs, legal age of drinking, police powers and surveillance laws - all of these and many more could be overturned / changed under a Direct Democracy if the majority of the population believed it was viable to do so

Are you still talking? If, so... why?

[PirateGlen]

The reason is actually not that so much as two other reasons. The first is not complicated, and proportional representation would have a huge influence on it if people actually gave a fuck about Congress. Here's the idea:
You are voting for President. You have 3 choices: a Democrat, a Republican, and a third party (given this forum's audience let's call it the Libertarian party). The third party best fits your ideas, but you "know", based on past experience, polling on the news, and other things that they will not win. Therefore voting for them, to you, gets you nothing; the effect is more or less the same as if you didn't vote. On the other hand, if you voted for the Republican (we're assuming here that Republicans actually ARE fiscally conservative, and therefore coincide marginally better with the libertarian ideal than the Democrats), you'd be getting the "lesser of the two evils" that "have a chance at winning."

The issue here isn't hard to see: we conclude that a third party has no chance because others conclude that a third party has no chance...who are in turn doing it because we're doing it. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Now, in a presidential election this is pretty hard to address, because you can't have a multi-party President, really, so this reason isn't going anywhere unless a third party actually becomes truly comparable in power to the other two (which probably won't happen within this century).

The second reason is apathy with respect to Congress. Far less than half, possibly even less than a quarter of the population votes in congressional elections. This is the place where a third party actually does have a chance to sink their teeth in right now; until they've sunk their teeth into Congress a few times, they're never going to get popular enough to win a presidential election. The cause of the apathy towards Congress is more complicated than I understand (or would want to go into if I did understand), but I can say that proportional representation would at least get the third party supporters to vote for their preferred representatives more, since they'd actually get something out of their vote. 10-15% nationwide votes in a proportional representation is several dozen representatives between the two Houses; 10-15% nationwide in a winner-take-all system gets a small handful.

Sorry that this turned into a somewhat incoherent rant....

I would certainly agree that 3rd parties are underreprsented in congress because of the winner take all system (combined with districts designed to win congressional seats), but that's a different assertion from the more common idea that government is significantly out of alignment in terms of what people want.

[PirateGlen]

Depends from what perspective. From a minarchist perspective no. If you disagree with a law against murder you are still transgressing on people's rights. So by initiating force your self you give up the rights you have. Even if you think people have no rights it makes sense. Kill some one and you lose any moral ground sorta thing.

From an anarchist point of view yes all laws are tyrannical. There is a thing called Dispute Resolution Organizations (DRO). Two private companies come together on the side of the opposing parties. Then they talk things out. DROs can have different specialties. So in the worst case scenario, murder, you would have a DRO that will go out and capture the person who committed murder. There is various reasons why they would be interested in the capture. There are also mechanisms that the person can use to defend himself against unwarranted aggression by DROs. If you would like I will expand on that.

How would a DRO that captures people be different from government?

[PirateGlen]

Not necessarily. Laws can protect you from tyranny, but due to the nature of those who want power over other people, laws usually inflict more tyranny than they protect you from.

How can/should a government functionally decide what laws are tyrannical?

[Teth]

You should write and illustrate children's books.
"And then little Suzy realized that all her dreams would end up shattered like so much crystal upon the rocks, and that the only way to achieve happiness was by strangling any hopes she had in their cradles before they could get their poisonous little talons into her."

[StainlessSteelRat]

I meant the US would be far from any "direct democracy"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_by_country

Checkout the "head of state" column and QQ about your democracy.

I don't need to QQ. I'm not in favor of popular vote bullshit. And your wiki is flawed. France does not have 'direct election' in its pure sense. They do run-offs which basically results in people having to settle with voting for 1 of 2 candidates....oh wait, that's kinda like what we have to settle for in the US.

Spain
France
Germany
England
Italy
Austria

How many of the 6 largest Western Euro countries have real direct elections? Maybe Austria.

That would be awesome, but I doubt the US could thrive without having a military presence in other countries for capital gains.

So much for democracy and freedom. I'm sure the world longs for the American version of it.

How does our military presence in other countries represent capital gains? Why are you even mentionning it? It has no bearing on our freedom. And we thrived just fine prior to that presence so your logic is flawed.

[Largion]

Someone still counts the votes.

A Long term follower that i have never seen?!

Well I like your paranoid way of thinking.

[Silverhandorder]

How would a DRO that captures people be different from government?

It does not have jurisdiction a government is allowed. I don't 100% agree with anarchist utopia either. There will still be tyranny and corruption. The argument that anarchist make is that it will be very local and not self sustainable. Unlike the behemoth government that you can not budge even if you wanted.

[Jezrith]

How can/should a government functionally decide what laws are tyrannical?

That's the problem with government, it can't...

[PirateGlen]

That's the problem with government, it can't...

How should anyone decide what is tyrannical?

[Jezrith]

How should anyone decide what is tyrannical?

Violations of the natural rights of men is a good measuring stick.

[Silverhandorder]

How should anyone decide what is tyrannical?

Pirate don't you agree that some one who never saw you, who has no reason to harm and is very angry with what is being done to him a good indicator that something is not right?

Why not let people voluntarily come together to do things. Yes there will be liars, murderers and thieves. However they are in every society. Why not practice rigid discipline and under no circumstances use force to get what you want. I am not talking about pacifists. I am not arguing against pre empting bad things from happening.

[PirateGlen]

Violations of the natural rights of men is a good measuring stick.

How do we decide what these natural rights are?

[PirateGlen]

Pirate don't you agree that some one who never saw you, who has no reason to harm and is very angry with what is being done to him a good indicator that something is not right?

Why not let people voluntarily come together to do things. Yes there will be liars, murderers and thieves. However they are in every society. Why not practice rigid discipline and under no circumstances use force to get what you want. I am not talking about pacifists. I am not arguing against pre empting bad things from happening.

You cannot render justice or preempt "bad things" without force.

[Silverhandorder]

You cannot render justice or preempt "bad things" without force.

I didn't say not using force. I said initiating force.

[PirateGlen]

I didn't say not using force. I said initiating force.

So force is permissable as long as it is reactionary to other force?

[Vanno]

I like the idea, so long as it supplements (not overhauls the whole system). Another layer of balancing could be beneficial, and I don't believe it would be that difficult to implement given the technology we have.

[Jezrith]

How do we decide what these natural rights are?

Well, there are several hundreds of books written over the past three or four hundred years you can use as a starting point.

[PirateGlen]

Well, there are several hundreds of books written over the past three or four hundred years you can use as a starting point.

There's also hundreds of different takes on other's writings of natural rights. Suppose we have different opinions on what these natural rights are, whose measuring stick do we use and who gets to decide that?

[Jezrith]

There's also hundreds of different takes on other's writings of natural rights. Suppose we have different opinions on what these natural rights are, whose measuring stick do we use and who gets to decide that?

And now you have figured out one of the main reasons why it is impossible for government to determine what is and is not tyrannical.

[Silverhandorder]

So force is permissable as long as it is reactionary to other force?

Yes.

[Aleucard]

Yes.
Force should only be used when a person won't listen to anything else. Is this what you're getting at?

[Silverhandorder]

Force should only be used when a person won't listen to anything else. Is this what you're getting at?

No force should only be used when the person is using force against you. Which kinda leaves me without an explanation for trespassing since I consider that fucked up also.

[PirateGlen]

And now you have figured out one of the main reasons why it is impossible for government to determine what is and is not tyrannical.

You've just dodged the question. Let me try to restore context:

Are all laws tyrannical? -> No.
Can government decide what laws are tyrannical? -> No.
How can anyone decide what laws are tyrannical? -> Natural rights.
What are natural rights? -> Government can't decide.

You've dodged the question by giving a nonsequitor answer.

Are natural rights any right the individual has the capacity and desire to assert?

[PirateGlen]

No force should only be used when the person is using force against you. Which kinda leaves me without an explanation for trespassing since I consider that fucked up also.

This begs the question of what qualifies as force and who decides?

[Silverhandorder]

This begs the question of what qualifies as force and who decides?

I honestly don't think about these things. Natural rights is a good enough template for me.

If I had to make an attempt at explaining. On individual basis it is simply don't do what you do not want done to your self. Obviously if you come on to some one's property saying yeah well I think you can walk all over mine too. I dunno. I guess his train of thought is. I'm going to shoot this motherfucker and I would want anyone else to shoot me should I trespass.

[PirateGlen]

I honestly don't think about these things. Natural rights is a good enough template for me.

If I had to make an attempt at explaining. On individual basis it is simply don't do what you do not want done to your self. Obviously if you come on to some one's property saying yeah well I think you can walk all over mine too. I dunno. I guess his train of thought is. I'm going to shoot this motherfucker and I would want anyone else to shoot me should I trespass.

So... natural rights are whatever right a person has the capacity and desire to assert?

[biggunsar]

What do you think about it? Remove congress and let the people vote about everything (for example on the internet). And please disregard the technical possibilities.

Well yes and no. A skeleton congress is needed. To make sure the bill is plausible.

But once it makes the cut. Then the money you save with a bare bones government. You can use to educate the people through pamphletes and through internet and news feeds.

People can then vote monthly through the internet, no differently than purchasing something. Use your SSN as your ID.

Yes, direct government could work.

[Weeking]

What do you think about it? Remove congress and let the people vote about everything (for example on the internet). And please disregard the technical possibilities.

No, It would be better and much easier/cheaper to simply have a lottery with all the citizens eligible to win to determine who gets to hold office. However I prefer a despotic monarchy over democracy/republic.

[Blixa]

No, It would be better and much easier/cheaper to simply have a lottery with all the citizens eligible to win to determine who gets to hold office.

-.-

[Jezrith]

You've just dodged the question. Let me try to restore context:


Actually I answered it, just not in the why you would like.


Are all laws tyrannical? -> No.
Can government decide what laws are tyrannical? -> No.
How can anyone decide what laws are tyrannical? -> Natural rights.
What are natural rights? -> Government can't decide.


EG: The larger the group of people the harder it is for the decision to be made.


You've dodged the question by giving a nonsequitor answer.


I didn't dodge the question, I'm just not playing your reductionist games.


Are natural rights any right the individual has the capacity and desire to assert?

No. It violates the natural rights of another, it cannot be a natural right because a natural right has to be a right that all humans have naturally.

[Bored]

Eliminate the whole lobbyist concept.

Criminalize political parties.
Truth. As long as you are careful with how you define a political party. I like the first part of the wikipedia page "A political party is a political organization that seeks to attain and maintain political power within government". You could create a Non-partisan system and make it illegal to "form coalitions with the purpose of attaining or holding power and/or positions within the government." Gotta make sure there's a clear difference between a political group or organization and a full on political party.

Anyways I'm all for non-partisan!

[Pcheez]

I wouldnt trust the majority of any population with any sort of political sway.

take a loot around, everyone else is retarded.

[PirateGlen]

EG: The larger the group of people the harder it is for the decision to be made.

How can the decision be made ever?