laklak wrote:Gods no, I'm not trusting major decisions to any idiot with the price of a DSL line. Government by meme and cute Kittehs? Judging from some of the threads here there would be pitchfork and torch mobs in every city on a daily basis. What? That person said something nasty about gay people? KILL THE FUCKERS!!!!!! And this from a "rational" forum. Take a wander through reddit or 4chan some time, and tell me you want these people making decisions about your life.

EDIT if you really want a good scare, look at A+, Answersingenesis and Stormfront.

Some of those people vote and serve on juries you know.

You can't (and hopefully do not really want) a world with only people like you in it.

A larger sample of the population could dilute the extremes.

Thanks for your replies.

With the potential system I was suggesting, everything would still potentially be the same, i.e the judges, the firemen, the people working for the council. Its just instead of having a set of people who are literally in charge of making up laws and saying what we can and cant do, we would be in control of it.

I understand there would be fears of that mob mentality sort of thing but its not a mob I'm talking about, its us, everyone as a collective. You could still have a set of the best qualified people in charge of making sure the system works, but basically if we as a collective decide that they are not doing a good job, then they are out..

In a so called democracy, you vote for who you want to tell you what your allowed to do. In this system we just collectively appoint people do help manage us but they are part us and can go at any moment if that's what we want and then we essentially vote of the major decisions such as laws, etc that need deciding.

its like if you watch the people in Egypt for example fighting over who they want to rule them. It seems completely backwards to me. why don't they just rule themselves, its their "country" or its our world.

It would have been hard 100 years ago, but now with modern technologies and the one main thing that has connected the whole planet together: the internet.. I think not only is it possible but it will happen and has to happen if we want to move forward to a type one civilization.

I think in reality in order for this system to work you would first have to get rid of the monetary system. Basically as long as their is money there will be greed and as long as there is greed there will be corruption. if we want to become a civilized planet and get rid of most if not all war, famine, most diseases, corruption, mind control in the form of advertising and brain washing, bad education, environmental damage, drug abuse and a lot of the violence, we would have to get rid of the monetary system. We would have to use are incredible joint intelligence to work out the ways we could do this, but not only is it possible, it is probably essential if we want to survive as a species.

I don't think a one world government is the answer, in fact as long as we are living in a monetary system, that is the worst thing that could ever happen. It just isolates the potential for greed and corruption on a ridiculously dangerous scale.

Why replace politicians, who have a full time job of educating themselves to make an informed vote on each issue with everyday citizens who simply don't have the time, will or motivation to do that?

I'm not saying politicians do a good job. The discussion so far is entirely in principle.

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:Why replace politicians, who have a full time job of educating themselves to make an informed vote on each issue with everyday citizens who simply don't have the time, will or motivation to do that?

I'm not saying politicians do a good job. The discussion so far is entirely in principle.

I don't see this as bashing politicians.

Politicians can't be highly educated on every issue they have to consider. Their task, of governance, is to collectively consider many angles by reviewing analyses by specialists. Their other key task is maintaining a public profile that will keep them in office.

It seems to me both a strength and a weakness to have the same faces in post, and tied to particular geographical constituencies.

The nature of party politics has some major problems.

Does your MP really represent your views, even if you got the MP you voted for?

Not really. I just vote for someone who's judgement I can trust, I understand they have more information/time than me to base decisions on.

I think the problem with professional political parties is that they are inherently anti democracy. The end goal for them is a one party state, that's why they drift so far from reflecting views that reflect the best interest of their constitutes.

Well, it's a problem in the sense that it defeats the purpose they were elected for, some would argue they get things done quicker as a result though.

I'm in favor of a new approach that removes the power of self interested political parties, but I still think representative democracy is a better system than any of this "power to the people" stuff. In my eyes that idea would be inefficient.

Political parties exist to get MPs elected. It's rare that individual candidates can make a big enough impression on electors to win a vote.

Perhaps the internet could work to connect voters to candidates more fairly and effectively, so that people really are voting for people who represent them, but the constituency system inevitably must leave the majority under represented on most issues.

Representative democracy is still the least worst option, but I would like to think it is possible to devise a better system.

Veenet wrote:
Can we use this amazing new technology called the internet in order to look after ourselves as a collective opposed to having rulers govern decisions on our behalf that effect the whole planet

That is a wonderful Utopian fantasy you have presented there. But the only places one actually finds Utopia is either in a dictionary or a novel. It tends not to translate too well to reality and reality unfortunately is what you have to deal with. Certainly the internet is a wonderful tool for the mass communication of ideas but like all technology it can be misused.
But the real problem here is not technology but psychology. The fact of the matter is that one can talk about equality and egalitarianism and fairness and justice all day long but homo sapiens are not hardwired to think exclusively in terms of the collective but rather moreso in terms of the individual. Also all major societies since time immemorial have been both patriarchal and pyramid in structure and that in and of itself negates those aforementioned qualities that all us [ lower case ] liberal democrats believe in so much. In other words you will never have a truly equal society. But that should not stop us from striving to have one that is as minimally unequal as possible

Representative democracy is still the least worst option, but I would like to think it is possible to devise a better system

I agree.

homo sapiens are not hardwired to think exclusively in terms of the collective but rather moreso in terms of the individual. Also all major societies since time immemorial have been both patriarchal and pyramid in structure

There is an argument to say that homo sapiens are actually hardwired to think in terms of a collective but the ability has been suppressed. With regard to societies in the past, that's irrelevant because this is the present and i think our planet needs a change if we want to evolve to our true potential.

I'm not suggesting the new way's should be about complete 100% perfect equality because that's impossible, there always has to be a balance in life. If everything was completely equal then the concept of "equal" would not even exist. But the world is completely backwards at the moment. We destroy the planet and use up all its natural resources just because our old systems are designed to make money that way. The technology and the human brain power is there to use renewable energy systems but bringing that change into effect is not in the interest of the people who control the old "backwards thinking" systems all designed to make money instead of making sense.

Any new system had better take account of human psychology. Things like the Miglram experiments suggest that authorising one group to Control another is likely to lead to problems. Removing levels of hierarchy might be a good thing in that regard.

Veenet wrote:
I am not suggesting the new ways should be about complete 100 % perfect balance in equality because thta is impossible, there always has to be a balance in life. If everything was completely equal then the concept of equal would not even exist. But the world is completely backwards at the moment. We destroy the planet and use up all its natural resources just because our old systems are designed to make money that way. The technology and the human brain power is there to use renewable energy systems but bringing that change into effect is not in the interest of the people who control the old backwards thinking systems all designed to make money instead of making sense

All power corrupts and this is true whoever is at the top of the hierarchy or whatever type it is. That is just an undeniable fact of human nature. Even in democracies where there is accountability and transparency that can and does occur. So replacing one system with another does not solve that particular problem. The old backwards thinking of Capitalism has an alternative in Communism which in spite of its ideological resistance to hierarchy is just as much one itself. For even there where all are supposedly equal there is still a pyramid structure in place. Another problem is that those who would arguably make the most appropriate leaders have no desire to actually lead themselves. Anyone who aspires to higher office no matter how well intentioned is at a fundamental level thinking of self advancement. The truly altruistic have no desire to rule over others. The best one can therefore have is more transparent democracy with stringent and regular checks and balances on those in power. And a greater education on those further down the food chain to become more politically aware of what their leaders are actually doing. But this applies also to business where the public may not be so aware. Not for nothing is it said that the real rulers are not governments but corporations. For not only are they more powerful but also less transparent and accountable too

laklak wrote:Gods no, I'm not trusting major decisions to any idiot with the price of a DSL line. Government by meme and cute Kittehs? Judging from some of the threads here there would be pitchfork and torch mobs in every city on a daily basis. What? That person said something nasty about gay people? KILL THE FUCKERS!!!!!! And this from a "rational" forum. Take a wander through reddit or 4chan some time, and tell me you want these people making decisions about your life.

I agree with you, but . . . those people already do make decisions about my life, by casting their vote in elections.

Personally, I don't like either argument. We just do not have a comprehensive enough knowledge of "human nature" to state categorically what it is.

It strikes me as a flawed approach to observe the behaviour of an animal in an inherently competitive system that penalises that animal if it does not compete, then to conclude that the animal is itself inherently competitive. It also strikes me as flawed to assume that it is merely the influence of the aforesaid competitive system that is responsible for the aforesaid animal behaving in a competitive fashion.

We just don't know.

But here's an idea.

We have - in most of the countries of the forum membership - access to the formal mechanisms of representative democracy. The most immediate way of improving upon this - IMHO - would be to raise the level of engagement of the average citizen in the political process and improve the quality of the information available to the engaged citizen.

If we can do this and resolve the problem of governments making decisions that are not representative of the will of the people, then great. It would have turned out that we had the perfect system all along. Cool.

If, on the other hand, we achieve this goal of a well-informed and highly-engaged populace and this still has not fixed the problems ... well, you'll have a populace that knows that something is still wrong and is prepared to fix it. Since a successful anarcho-syndicalist* system would be dependent for its success upon the existence of said well-informed and highly-engaged populace anyway, why not take the development of such a populace as a practical interim goal for anyone who wants a more just society?




*Assuming that this is something like what Veenet is advocating; I don't know.

So, can we say that flatter structure, greater openness and wider engagement are all potentially desirable?

Perhaps short term involvement is a good thing as well, more like jury service than a 4-year term.

We keep the management level of time-served experts in a civil service or service industry to ensure the streets are swept, roads and sewers are maintained etc.

Nicko wrote:The most immediate way of improving upon this - IMHO - would be to raise the level of engagement of the average citizen in the political process and improve the quality of the information available to the engaged citizen.

To achieve greater engagement might require the political system to be changed. If people feel disenfranchised I don't suppose a PR campaign will change that.


I suspect people are more engaged when they feel the stakes are higher. The greater the political polarisation the more there is to get worked up about, but wild left-right-left swings with alternating administrations can be very damaging and divisive. What will get people to engage in a constructive way? A proportional voting system might help. Participation on issues (rather than parties) might help.

GrahamH wrote:
Any new system had better take account of human psychology. Things like the Milgram experiments suggest that authorising one group to Control another is likely to lead to problems. Removing levels of hierarchy might be a good thing in that regard

That is a wonderful Utopian notion as I have already stated. One would love a world in which true equality existed but that is never going to happen if the model of human psychology is not fundamentally altered to accommodate the collective instead of the individual. Meanwhile one has to deal with those limitations. Truly representative democracy [ or as close as ] is on paper the best means that currently exists. It is not perfect given its fallibility but it is preferable to the alternatives

Hierarchal structures also exist in the animal kingdom too. This suggests that they are natural rather than artificial impositions and as such would be next to impossible to eradicate. One would simply be replacing one set of rulers with another. So rather than attempting to create an entirely new system the best and most practical alternative is to modify
the existing one

Totally agree about increasing engagement Nicko. One of the ironies here is that there's far more opportunity to influence the democratic process than most people take up, before they throw their hands up in the air and denounce it as a lost cause.

Nicko wrote:We have - in most of the countries of the forum membership - access to the formal mechanisms of representative democracy. The most immediate way of improving upon this - IMHO - would be to raise the level of engagement of the average citizen in the political process and improve the quality of the information available to the engaged citizen.

If we can do this and resolve the problem of governments making decisions that are not representative of the will of the people, then great. It would have turned out that we had the perfect system all along. Cool.

Where's the evidence that democratic governments, on any significant scale, make decisions that are no representative of the will of the people?

I think this is an idea that has come about out of frustration that one's say in the government of a country like Britain is diluted by that of the other 68 million people that live here (or whatever the number is of voting age). Democracy probably seemed very empowering in ancient Athens (to those allowed to vote), but in large modern nation states, it's just impossible to sense a direct relationship between one's vote and the system one lives under. People naturally find this frustrating and think the whole thing is bogus.

Thing is though, if you look at the big picture, it isn't really. The convergence of all three major UK political parties on a kind of economic centrism with a largely free market accompanied by a welfare state, largely reflects how the vast majority of UK citizens want the country to be. The Labour party isn't as far left as some diehard socialists would like, nor the tories as far right as some diehard capitalists would like, but that's inevitable once you have to pool together the ambitions of millions of widely differing people. The tories won the most votes in the last election largely because people had lost faith in Gordon Brown's ability to manage the economy. It now looks like they'll probably lose the next one because people don't believe that they, or the population at large, actually stand to gain anything from David Cameron's kind of "recovery".

Incidentally, Gordon Brown raises a very important point. I personally think Labour lost the last election largely because HE PERSONALLY was so astoundingly uncharismatic and people just didn't like him. But that's the peoples' own fuckin fault. If people are going to be such shallow idiots that they make their decisions based on who'd look better on X Factor, then they'll get the fucked up government they asked for. Changing the system isn't going to help that, particularly if it involves putting even MORE power into the hands of the shallow and idiotic.

I really just don't see this issue of democracy being so unrepresentative. Has it occurred to anyone that maybe the government IS largely representative of the will of the people, and the reason it does stupid things is because people are, by and large, pretty stupid.

Beatsong wrote:

laklak wrote:
Gods no, I'm not trusting major decisions to any idiot with the price of a DSL line. Government by meme and cute Kittens? Judging from some of the threads here there would be pitchfork and torch mobs in every city on a daily basis. What? That person said something nasty about gay people? KILL THE FUCKERS!!!!!! And this from a rational forum. Take a wander through reddit or 4chan some time, and tell me you want these people making decisions about your life

I agree with you, but . . . those people already do make decisions about my life, by casting their vote in elections

The decisions that affect you are less made by them and more by those higher up the food chain where there are checks and balances in place to reference accountability and deny abuse of position. For it is those individuals who actually have the real power. Furthermore those decisions may be necessary for whatever reason. The mere fact that they impinge on your freedom is not reason in and of itself to prevent them from occurring. Also you have the same rights so you can vote how you choose in determining decisions about the lives of others too. It is a commutative process after all

Firemen are good at their jobs that's why we trust them. Even Police perform their given job roles. A kid in a call center does his/her job, but none of them are in charge of us. I don't think government should be different. History tells us we used to be ruled by Kings and Queens, then there was a civil war and it was decided that we would have parliament instead (in the UK). However that just switched one set of rulers to another. We need a set of people that represent our needs and work on our behalf not rule us.

In reality there is no such thing as democracy in a monetary system. Whoever has the most money to put into their campaign is likely to win, or whoever has the most charismatic spokes person who pretends to represent our needs when really his/her job is to read speeches written by other people who basically represent their own needs and their close inner circle of elitists. Its a joke.

Whats the point in waiting 4 years before we can vote for someone else, when all the parties represent the same people anyway, i.e big corporations and certain families or groups of the elite. And the so called prime minister or president are just puppets doing what they are told by the people who wish to remain in the shadows. its literally crazy!!

There is a developing trend for career politicians (sometimes seen as a bad thing), but member of parliament is not a profession and no particular qualification or competence is required. Any of us could stand for parliament, if we had the funds and time to promote our candidacy.

The professionals are the civil servants that manage the system.

There is a developing trend for career politicians (sometimes seen as a bad thing), but member of parliament is not a profession and no particular qualification or competence is required. Any of us could stand for parliament, if we had the funds and time to promote our candidacy.

The professionals are the civil servants that manage the system.

yh that's cool but irrelevant. Politicians get paid and have hidden engenders. Although they often don't realize it, they are just acting out a well orchestrated game. They don't really have much say, accept in their local areas. In the grand scheme of things its all controlled by the elite. Certain families who try and control the leading businessmen who in tern try and control the politicians.

They do this by groups, committees or even secret societies. And that's not some sort of paranoid conspiracy theory, that's close to a fact.