Reforming Democracy

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Wed Mar 09, 2016 1:04 am

HaHaHa wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
HaHaHa wrote:
Its been 2600 years of idealistic fools running human civilization always promising to deliver humanity
to the fabled promised land if only people in their hearts have the patience to wait until utopia is created for all

And it would be exactly the same if anyone else were in charge so bear that in mind before complaining so much
If you want a model for how to effectively run society I suggest that you look at the collectivism of other species
But it would never work within human society since our sense of collectivism is in conflict with our individualism


Run civilization? No, I want to walk over it's ashes and ruins.

I desire its annihilation and end.


I will state again that I do not support nuclear warfare because it is not total annhiliation and our souls may end up on other earths and planets. Therefore, I support the idea of annihilation of the universe, but science does not know how to do it yet so I don't support the annhiliation of Earth because our souls may end up on Earth like celestial bodies.
trogdor
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
BANNED
 
Posts: 8311
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Wed Mar 09, 2016 1:13 am

Ultimate Philosophy:

I will state again that I do not support nuclear warfare because it is not total annhiliation and our souls may end up on other earths and planets. Therefore, I support the idea of annihilation of the universe, but science does not know how to do it yet so I don't support the annhiliation of Earth because our souls may end up on Earth like celestial bodies.



Ideally the destruction of civilization will come about without nuclear weapons. That's what I'm hoping for even though I acknowledge that the odds are against it. It's really a random coin toss as to how civilization will destroy itself.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Wed Mar 09, 2016 1:36 am

HaHaHa wrote:
Ultimate Philosophy:

I will state again that I do not support nuclear warfare because it is not total annhiliation and our souls may end up on other earths and planets. Therefore, I support the idea of annihilation of the universe, but science does not know how to do it yet so I don't support the annhiliation of Earth because our souls may end up on Earth like celestial bodies.



Ideally the destruction of civilization will come about without nuclear weapons. That's what I'm hoping for even though I acknowledge that the odds are against it. It's really a random coin toss as to how civilization will destroy itself.


My preference is civil war, but not before china is obliterated from the face of the earth.
trogdor
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
BANNED
 
Posts: 8311
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby gib » Wed Mar 09, 2016 3:25 am

Sanjay,

I'll reply to your post when I have more time.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby Moreno » Wed Mar 09, 2016 2:17 pm

zinnat wrote:Moreno,

Now you are spitting hair.
It seems to me the points I raised are not trivial. They include what today would be considered crimes against humanity.

Are we talking about the rulers or saints instead?
Same point. One could have ruled without doing the things I specfically mentioned and not been remotely a saint.
One cannot be behave like a monk or sage if he wants his regime to be in order and intact too.

As I mentioned most of those rulers started wars, extended their regimes and this led to the deaths of large numbers of their own citizens: iow poor soldiers - and then also the citizens of other countries. They consolidated power for their families in reverse of directions toward class freedom and democracy. And so on. I am not sure you read what I wrote.
One cannot offer the other cheek like Gandhi, if attacked by any enemy, either from outside or inside.
Straw man fallacy.
He has to reply in a fitting way. Even a man like Gandhi himself askeded that Pakistan should be given fitting military reply if it ever attaks India. He did not ask to follow non-violence in that case.
Likewise.

Did you notice that i did not mention Alexgender and Ganges Khan, even though they brought far more victories to their countries than those i mentioned?
I tend not to notice what people do not write. Unless they do not write something that is clearly entailed by a fair response to what I wrote.

Given the circumstances and considerations of their era, all those were better by far than most of the democratically chosen Nixons, Regans and Bushs.
If we look just at the considerations of their era, then you are arguing that we cannot evaluate them. Only those who are no longer with us can. I am certainly no fan of those people. Given the non-democratic facets of US society really quite horrendous people are much more likely to be elected. The US has not achieved democracy and is backtracking from whatever vestiges of it it had.

So, what is the point in democracy?
One facet of democracy, usually, is that there is a balancing of powers and restrictions on the powers of the leaders. This has been eroding in the US for a long time, but even so, Bush and Reagan had to spend a very large amount of money and lie a lot and use all sorts of pressure AND the corporations behind them had to wage all sorts of disinformation campaigns to manipulate Congress and the people to back a number of the harsher policies. Autocrats do not have to do this as much. They have god given rights to make decisions that the people may not want.

Democracy, generally, is not merely voting for the leader who may be a dictator. It has many other facets to limit the powers of the leader. In the US there are three branches who divide power and can stop each other in various ways. Many people seem not to understand this. They think we can vote in Alexander the Great. Of course this happens more and more because democracy is even less present than earlier in the US, for example.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Wed Mar 09, 2016 5:15 pm

Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:
HaHaHa wrote:
Ultimate Philosophy:

I will state again that I do not support nuclear warfare because it is not total annhiliation and our souls may end up on other earths and planets. Therefore, I support the idea of annihilation of the universe, but science does not know how to do it yet so I don't support the annhiliation of Earth because our souls may end up on Earth like celestial bodies.



Ideally the destruction of civilization will come about without nuclear weapons. That's what I'm hoping for even though I acknowledge that the odds are against it. It's really a random coin toss as to how civilization will destroy itself.


My preference is civil war, but not before china is obliterated from the face of the earth.



Yes, I also prefer civil war, chaos, and total anarchy over global thermonuclear exchange. I think we can all agree with that.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Wed Mar 09, 2016 5:23 pm

I think we should all dump our nukes on China, but not anywhere else.
trogdor
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
BANNED
 
Posts: 8311
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby gib » Thu Mar 10, 2016 3:29 am

zinnat wrote:95% of the people in any society use to be always vulnerable to what remaining 5% say, irrespective of what is the average level of wisdom of the society is. In our earlier discussion, you were of the opinion that relatively more literate people of the west will never compromise with their freedom but that is not true. People will follow whatever they find or think more appealing or useful.


In the broad picture, yes, but for most of the history of the modern West, freedom is what they have found most appealing and useful. And it varies which Western country you're talking about.

But I don't think it matter. Most people who are brainwashed to believe they are free and that freedom is worth fighting for won't actually act on their beliefs.

zinnat wrote:Gib, if anyone, any organization, or even any country want to hire anyone for any post, it can be done in two ways. The first, simpler and easier way is to put a nominal eligibility for it and let the candidates apply. This is what is our general practice now to select the politicians, right from bottom to the top. Right. But, there is a slightly different way too. Instead for allowing the contenders to come the society, society should find the deserving candidates. My wordings of both options may be looking the same but they are not. Let me explain it further.

There can be two types of people who can do any job. First ones are those who want to do that job for their interest. The second one are those who are also fit for the job but they never do it because they do not have any personal interest in that. The second type are more suitable for the job, but the problem is that they will not come for that job because they do not have any personal interest in that. Society has to find those second type of persons to become politicians and run itself.

Now, the question is how to find those!

The answer is that somehow the society has to find such people who are not only wise but altruistic also. It is most likely that they will not come up on their own. Voters, who are already sorted out by the wisdom benchmark, have to nominate such candidates. Voters, as they know more about any such worthy candidate, who are known to them closely, may come up with hundreds or even thousands of such worthy candidates. Then, set a voting number benchmark and select some hundred candidates given by voters. This selected group will do what our present senate, congresses and lower and upper houses use to do. This selected group will have all powers, including choosing presidents/prime ministers and other ministers from within it or even outside from it.

No campaigning is allowed, no party system is allowed, no debates are allowed. Sorted voters will just come on the voting day and nominate any such person who they think is worthy to be in that group. Yes, there would be some routine conditions to be selected in that group like criminal background etc. But, when it comes to actual administrators like president or ministers, the conditions would be very strict.

Any such person, who is nominated by that group to become president or minister, would have to lose all his personal belongings forever. They would be given enough facilities as far as they are at the chair, but after that, they will not be allowed to have anything except what is their monthly salary, which also would be very nominal, just enough to live an ordinary but comfortable life, not a luxurious one. They would never be allowed to engage in any private activity to earn money or post. And, if any selected person by that elected group refuses to accept these conditions, he cannot become president or minister.

This is merely a broader idea which i have in my mind.


Broader idea meaning not all the details are fleshed out? Perhaps there is potential there, but I certainly think it needs to be fleshed out.

I can see a few problems with it. For one thing, anyone who is forced into a position unwillingly and who is unmotivated to do it can easily get out of it by doing a shitty job.

For another thing, this may only shift the corruption from those in power to those who elect those in power (which essentially means a shift in power). Such elections can be rigged if only a few corrupt individuals stage a "pon" or a "confederate" as their candidate. The general rule about pilitical corruption is that if there is a will there is a way. No political system is perfect--there will always be loop holes--and anyone who wishes to exploit those loop holes for their own corrupt purpose only need find them and jump through.

zinnat wrote:You already answered that in your this very post when you said that people will do anything what they were told. There would nothing such happened as you are fearing.


In today's America, yes, but what about in 200 years from now? Or what about in a different republic? The point I'm making is a lot more generalized. What I'm saying is that any government that suppresses certain rights of the people will have to contend, over the course of history, with potential uprisings and rebellions, and these are usually filled with violence, bloodshed, and death. History is rife with this, and any politician vying for power ought to be aware of this history. Such a politician may stand a reasonable chance of not seeing such violence within his own lifetime, like in America today, but he also stands a reasonable chance within the next 40 years or however long he remains in power of an angry mobbing wanting to chop his head off.

This is why the West has seen fit to extend the vote to as many people as possible. Give them the sense that they are controlling their own destiny and the chances of bloody violence in the face of disappointment in leadership will be significantly mitigated.

zinnat wrote:By the way, though i do not know much, but your PM seems to be more reasonable person to me than his US counterparts, at least prima facie.


Justin Trudeau, you mean? He hasn't been in power very long, so it's too early to tell. Though there are high hopes for him as he is the son of Canada's most venerated prime minister, Pierre Trudeau. He hasn't done any twirling yet though. :D
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby zinnat » Sat Mar 12, 2016 7:07 am

gib wrote:Most people who are brainwashed to believe they are free and that freedom is worth fighting for won't actually act on their beliefs.


That is why it is necessary to to make common people to understand two things -

1 - As everyone has his/her own limitations thus people should not try to overreach in their deductions.
2 - It is better to leave some complex and subtle issues to wiser and trustworthy people of the society.

Fighting for freedom or equality is one thing and worth doing but assuming that i am as wise as the experts of all verticals, is nothing but stupidity and dangerous too. Listen and have faith in those who are close, more experienced, well-wishers or have good intent.

gib wrote:Broader idea meaning not all the details are fleshed out? Perhaps there is potential there, but I certainly think it needs to be fleshed out.


It is merely an outline and certainly needs nuances to be figured out.

gib wrote:I can see a few problems with it


Yes, there certainly are, perhaps even more than those which i figured out myself.

gib wrote: For one thing, anyone who is forced into a position unwillingly and who is unmotivated to do it can easily get out of it by doing a shitty job.


At least that is not the problem. If any selected person by the voters do not want to take up the duty, he/she should not be forced to do that. Only willing person from the selected group should be asked to take responsibility. Unwilling persons are not fit for the job.

gib wrote:For another thing, this may only shift the corruption from those in power to those who elect those in power (which essentially means a shift in power). Such elections can be rigged if only a few corrupt individuals stage a "pon" or a "confederate" as their candidate. The general rule about pilitical corruption is that if there is a will there is a way. No political system is perfect--there will always be loop holes--and anyone who wishes to exploit those loop holes for their own corrupt purpose only need find them and jump through.


I agree that no system can be perfect but that still not mean that all systems are equal. Some may be worse or better than others. That is precisely for what we should aim to discern. Let us make it better, even given that perfection is not possible.

Secondly, i have considered your objection long ago when i thought about this election process for the first time.

Instead of like our present election systems, which usually take place in 4 or 5 years, this election system will vote and choose that elite congress on fixed dates in every six months, or even after every quarter it possible practically. Means, sorted voters can drop, retain or elect new members of that working group. That will help to keep elected members on the right path to a good extent.

Gib, my main focus is to give ultimate power to general voters, neither to that selected few hundred members nor to the actual administrators selected by that group. In my scheme of things, sorted general voters would be the final authority. No elected member would be either able to ignore or take them for granted even for some months.

Secondly, i propose negative voting for the incumbent elite congress members as well. Means, in every voting, general voters may vote both positively and negatively for as many elite congress members as they like. If any incumbent elite congress member will get more negative votes than the positive ones, he would be dropped from the congress.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3589
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby gib » Sun Mar 13, 2016 7:26 am

zinnat wrote:That is why it is necessary to to make common people to understand two things -

1 - As everyone has his/her own limitations thus people should not try to overreach in their deductions.
2 - It is better to leave some complex and subtle issues to wiser and trustworthy people of the society.

Fighting for freedom or equality is one thing and worth doing but assuming that i am as wise as the experts of all verticals, is nothing but stupidity and dangerous too. Listen and have faith in those who are close, more experienced, well-wishers or have good intent.


The problem with allowing the wise and the virtuous to run society, or to vote for those who run society, is that, at least in the West, we can't tell who's really wise and virtuous from those who only put out an image of wisdom and virtuosity. We've been lied to too many times in the West, seen too much corruption, watched too many politicians break their promises, to honestly believe those who are running for government office are really wise and virtuous. Some of them may be wise and virtuous, but we know some of them won't be, and we don't know which is which.

On this point, maybe the conservatives are right. Maybe we shouldn't be voting for strangers who live half a continent away--people whom we only know through the media--the filtered, distorted, and intentionally manipulated media--maybe we should be voting for local community leaders instead--people whom we've seen in person, whom we have an opportunity to talk to directly, maybe get to know a little better, people whose work we can experience the effects of more directly. Then maybe we'll have the grounds to trust or distrust with a bit more certainty, to be able to distinguish between true wisdom and virtuosity versus lies and corruption.

zinnat wrote:At least that is not the problem. If any selected person by the voters do not want to take up the duty, he/she should not be forced to do that. Only willing person from the selected group should be asked to take responsibility. Unwilling persons are not fit for the job.


Ok, I see. But earlier you said these would be people who would not be motivated. Do you mean people who find it difficult to put their hearts into it but understand that it has become their responsibility anyway, so they take it as a kind of "call of duty"?

zinnat wrote:I agree that no system can be perfect but that still not mean that all systems are equal. Some may be worse or better than others. That is precisely for what we should aim to discern. Let us make it better, even given that perfection is not possible.


I completely agree with this.

zinnat wrote:Instead of like our present election systems, which usually take place in 4 or 5 years, this election system will vote and choose that elite congress on fixed dates in every six months, or even after every quarter it possible practically. Means, sorted voters can drop, retain or elect new members of that working group. That will help to keep elected members on the right path to a good extent.


I suppose. I mean, if they only have six month, how much damage can they really do? But don't you think this can be an extremely stifling process? I mean, it's always during election time that government is pressed to do the most challenging balancing act it can do--they have to spend equal time on campaigning as they do running government. It is usually during election time that enemies abroad look to the West for moments of weakness because they know the government's full attention is not being paid to foreign affairs.

zinnat wrote:Gib, my main focus is to give ultimate power to general voters, neither to that selected few hundred members nor to the actual administrators selected by that group. In my scheme of things, sorted general voters would be the final authority. No elected member would be either able to ignore or take them for granted even for some months.


Yes, I get that. But you must understand that in proposing a new system that is unfamiliar to people, it will be tested (at first intellectually, and later through practice) because the people will feel like you are inviting them into the unknown. You really have to give reassuring arguments to each and every of their nuanced questions and doubts. A system like yours *may* work but it's going to have to run through a lengthy process of philosophical discourse (maybe centuries) coupled with real world examples that, at the very least, approximate it.

zinnat wrote:Secondly, i propose negative voting for the incumbent elite congress members as well. Means, in every voting, general voters may vote both positively and negatively for as many elite congress members as they like. If any incumbent elite congress member will get more negative votes than the positive ones, he would be dropped from the congress.


So by "negative" votes, you mean voting members of Congress out of office? Sure! Great! Absolutely! :lol:

It's actually an interesting idea, now that I think about it. We're so used to voting people into office here in the West that I don't think anyone's ever thought of the prospect of voting people out of office (except for impeachment).

Personally, what I think you're system needs is, first of all, some way of connecting the voting elite to the needs and demands of the general public, something that assures that they are voting not only on behalf of themselves but the good of the people in general. I think most in the West would see a disconnect here--a separation between the elder, wiser, elite who vote for the nation's leader(s) and the general public--but if we could flesh out your system such that the former are somehow connected to the latter in terms of their interests, then they would feel a bit more comfortable with the idea. Secondly, as much as you feel that the elder, wiser voters in society must be stern and disciplining, like a parent showing tough love to their children, they have to deliver some degree of comfort and happiness to the people--otherwise, eventually, the people will not tolerate it. And this is kind of the point I've been trying to make--as much as the wiser, elder voters may be right in their leadership roll, as long as the people don't understand their wisdom, there will be the impetus to rebel and attempts will be made to slit their throats. The elite will have to be sure to make life comfortable for the majority of people so that they have little reason to overthrow them. I'm not saying give them whatever they want, but I am saying give them enough so that they don't attempt to overthrow the only source of their security and well-being.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby zinnat » Sun Mar 13, 2016 8:05 pm

gib wrote:The problem with allowing the wise and the virtuous to run society, or to vote for those who run society, is that, at least in the West, we can't tell who's really wise and virtuous from those who only put out an image of wisdom and virtuosity. We've been lied to too many times in the West, seen too much corruption, watched too many politicians break their promises, to honestly believe those who are running for government office are really wise and virtuous. Some of them may be wise and virtuous, but we know some of them won't be, and we don't know which is which.


The case is the same in all democracies, all over the world, whether east, west or anywhere else. And, the simple reason is that present democracies were formulated in a hurry and with a biased mind. Democracies originated in Europe as a counter to replace monarchy, thus, freedom and equality were stretched to such extremes that they start causing harm to the system instead of adding value to it.

gib wrote:On this point, maybe the conservatives are right.


No, conservatives were not right, at least intent wise, though their implementation sounds somewhat similar to what i am proposing, but by intent is totally different , or rather just opposite. Founding fathers of US allowed only wealthy landowners white male to vote. The basic idea behind was to give control to a selected and privileged class only, irrespective of their knowledge and intent. On the other hand, i am not interested in their other qualities like social or monetary status, origin, cast, breed, color, gender etc. I am looking only for knowledge and right intent. That is all.

gib wrote:Maybe we shouldn't be voting for strangers who live half a continent away--people whom we only know through the media--the filtered, distorted, and intentionally manipulated media--maybe we should be voting for local community leaders instead--people whom we've seen in person, whom we have an opportunity to talk to directly, maybe get to know a little better, people whose work we can experience the effects of more directly. Then maybe we'll have the grounds to trust or distrust with a bit more certainty, to be able to distinguish between true wisdom and virtuosity versus lies and corruption.


Yes, that is precisely the problem with present election system, and the only way to correct it to bring down elections to that local level, where voters can know about their leaders personally, not via any third party. If that happens, right people will start getting elected. Modern election campaigns are not real but doctored, just like TV serials and films, where candidates do nothing else but acting. The success of the candidates depends more on scriptwriters and directors of the show than the candidates themselves. It is now not much different than marketing a product to the customers.

Chanakya, the greatest political guru that ever happened in India, centuries ago said that if you want to judge the intent of any person, you just have to watch how he behaves in private with those over whom he has some control like subordinates, juniors, employees, servants etc. But, you cannot judge these things from present election campaigns.

Voters should not be asked to vote to any candidate beyond a certain distance. It is matter of debate but my personal opinion is that 1000 voters should be asked to choose one person from their locality. That benchmark is lower enough to have enough in person knowledge about their leader. That means that there will be 1000 leaders to on one million voters, and as those voters are sorted ones, thus my guess is that 1000 leaders would cover at least 10 million citizens. Going by the present US population of around 325 million, there will be approximately 32,000 elected local leaders all over US.

Now, from here on, things can be handled in either in one step or two steps. These elected members can choose the President and other administrators directly, but, if it becomes too complicated because of huge number of elected members, these members can choose the second layer of congress from within themselves, something to the tune of one thousand to control the overall governing system.

gib wrote:Ok, I see. But earlier you said these would be people who would not be motivated. Do you mean people who find it difficult to put their hearts into it but understand that it has become their responsibility anyway, so they take it as a kind of "call of duty"?


If their election as a leader is not good enough motivation for any person, he cannot be motivated in any other way, thus not fit for the job just because of not having right intent. He is either interest in himself only, lethargic or lacks courage to take up the responsibility. All intelligence and knowledge is useless without right intent. So, if any elected leader do not want to be one, he will not be forced and next most getter will be elected in his place.

gib wrote:I suppose. I mean, if they only have six month, how much damage can they really do? But don't you think this can be an extremely stifling process? I mean, it's always during election time that government is pressed to do the most challenging balancing act it can do--they have to spend equal time on campaigning as they do running government. It is usually during election time that enemies abroad look to the West for moments of weakness because they know the government's full attention is not being paid to foreign affairs.


Again, there will be no such thing in my proposed system which will be similar to present election system, especially campaigning. I very specifically mentioned that there would no political parties, no election campaigning, no TV debates. Yes, people and elected members also are free to believe in any ideology they like. And, the debates are reserved for the congress sessions will be telecasted live, so general voters and public can see what they are concluding and how.

As far as this issue of election mode is concerned, the congress and government will remain in election mode always, not because they have to fight elections, but because they have to perform all the time just to be at their posts, forget about reelection.

Secondly, my proposed election system may vote positively (elect local leaders) after some fix time intervals, but negative voting system will be open for the sorted voters 24/7. All eligible grassroot voters would have an online account saved with password with main election server. And, they can login and vote negatively anytime both for their local elected representative and also for anyone in the executive government, including president or PM. And, as soon as negative votes cross 50% even for a fraction of a second, targeted elected person would have to step down, no matter whoever it would be, though voters will have the right to take back their negative vote anytime also, Thus, all elected members of the congress and nominated government executives by that congress have to on their toes and perform.

gib wrote:Yes, I get that. But you must understand that in proposing a new system that is unfamiliar to people, it will be tested (at first intellectually, and later through practice) because the people will feel like you are inviting them into the unknown. You really have to give reassuring arguments to each and every of their nuanced questions and doubts. A system like yours *may* work but it's going to have to run through a lengthy process of philosophical discourse (maybe centuries) coupled with real world examples that, at the very least, approximate it.


I think it is merely new or you may call it somewhat strange but i do not think it is much complicated to understand. And, once you understand it, the intention behind it and what can be achieved by this, its acceptance would not be that much difficult.

gib wrote:Personally, what I think you're system needs is, first of all, some way of connecting the voting elite to the needs and demands of the general public, something that assures that they are voting not only on behalf of themselves but the good of the people in general. I think most in the West would see a disconnect here--a separation between the elder, wiser, elite who vote for the nation's leader(s) and the general public--but if we could flesh out your system such that the former are somehow connected to the latter in terms of their interests, then they would feel a bit more comfortable with the idea. Secondly, as much as you feel that the elder, wiser voters in society must be stern and disciplining, like a parent showing tough love to their children, they have to deliver some degree of comfort and happiness to the people--otherwise, eventually, the people will not tolerate it. And this is kind of the point I've been trying to make--as much as the wiser, elder voters may be right in their leadership roll, as long as the people don't understand their wisdom, there will be the impetus to rebel and attempts will be made to slit their throats. The elite will have to be sure to make life comfortable for the majority of people so that they have little reason to overthrow them. I'm not saying give them whatever they want, but I am saying give them enough so that they don't attempt to overthrow the only source of their security and well-being.


You are assuming rightly. But, most of these issues would not trouble much if merely 1000 voters would be choosing one member.

Secondly, my number of sorted voters would not be that much less as you are assuming. All citizens crossing 45 (open for debate) would become automatically eligible for voting, irrespective of their education level. All post graduates. or graduated at least would be eligible for voting. Besides this, there would a voting eligibility exam held in every six months. Anyone else can attempt it irrespective of his age and education. If if clears it, he would also become a voter.

So, my guess it that one out of every ten citizens would become a voter. The scrutiny is not that high as you are thinking. Having said that, yes, the faith of the people in having some faith in others has to restored to some extent, which is decreasing constantly since long. I think that choosing leaders from personally known local persons may restore the faith of citizens in politics and politicians.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3589
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby zinnat » Mon Mar 14, 2016 8:10 am

I tried to have a general idea of the spread of US population, and it came out that every age year covers roughly 1.25% of us population. I am not sure what is present voting age limit in US, but if that is 18, it means that about 22.5% of US citizens are not voters now. If we calculate it for 21 years, this figure would be 26.25%. The official figure was 27% in 2009, which confirms that my ratio is almost on the target.

Now, as i proposed that all above 45 years would be voters by default. That means 43.75% of the citizens will be able to cast votes. besides this, US has almost 10% of its population which has masters degree and above. Adding this to above figure of 43.75%, the total goes up to 53-54%. So, we can safely assume that at least half of the US citizens would be able to vote, which is not a big deal statistically, but that can change the course of politics for sure.

That also tells that my earlier assumption about figures was wrong, especially in the case of US. I equated it with India but US has both of more life expectancy and higher educated citizens also. I also tried to have a rough idea about indian numbers, and it comes out that india has only 21.9% of population above 45. The ratio of post graduates and above in not more than 3% here. Means, if we apply the same benchmark at india, only 1 out of 4 citizens would be able to vote, which i still think not a very big deal for the masses.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3589
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby zinnat » Mon Mar 14, 2016 8:28 am

I realized that I am still making a mistake in calculation. There must be some overlapping in above 45 citizens and post graduates and it would be wrong to add both figures. Having said that, I still feel that one can take 50% as an eligible voters.

With love,
Sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3589
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby zinnat » Tue Mar 15, 2016 4:54 am

In the light of the actual numbers, US would have around 160, 000 elected local leaders, instead of 32000 as i gussed earliar. That is a huge number. Now, this can be tackled in two way. Either voters should be asked to choose a local leader from more than 1000 citizens, or elected local leaders have to once again elect a second layer of leaders within themselves. I prefer second option.

First layer of leaders (160,000) should be asked to elect the second layer in n the same way how they ( first layer) were elected. No political parties, no nomination from the candidates, no campaigning, no TV debates etc.

First layer of leaders may again nominate 1 out of either 500 or 1000 to reduce the actual working either to 320 or 160. That number is good enough to manage and work unitedly.

Remember, negative voting by the grassroot voters still applies to all elected members, be it first layer, second layer or executives.

With love,
Sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3589
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby gib » Sat Mar 19, 2016 4:28 am

Hi Sanjay,

I see you posted a lot since I last visited this thread. You'll have to give me some time to read it all. I probably won't get back to this thread for a while, but I will get back.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby zinnat » Sat Mar 19, 2016 6:22 am

gib wrote:Hi Sanjay,

I see you posted a lot since I last visited this thread. You'll have to give me some time to read it all. I probably won't get back to this thread for a while, but I will get back.


Never mind. Take your time. There is no hurry.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3589
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Sat Mar 19, 2016 4:26 pm

If voting changed anything they would of made it illegal already.....
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby CelineK » Sun Mar 20, 2016 2:01 am

HaHaHa wrote:If voting changed anything they would of made it illegal already.....


it never will... moreover, trusting voting machines in this globalist environment ???
The Laws Of Light, Emotions And Sexuality. http://www.celinek.net The time has come in the history of man's journey from his material jungle to his spiritual mountain top when it is imperative that he must live more and more in the cosmic Light universe of knowing, and less in the electric wave universe of sensing -- Walter Russell.
=============================================================
A Money-Free Society Is Now Reality! The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth and not to fall under the will or legislative authority of man but only have the law of nature (immutable principles) for his rule. Samuel Adams. -- http://www.earthcustodians.net
User avatar
CelineK
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 3:37 pm
Location: No Man's Land In A Money-Free Wold

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby gib » Sun Mar 27, 2016 5:32 am

zinnat wrote:The case is the same in all democracies, all over the world, whether east, west or anywhere else. And, the simple reason is that present democracies were formulated in a hurry and with a biased mind. Democracies originated in Europe as a counter to replace monarchy, thus, freedom and equality were stretched to such extremes that they start causing harm to the system instead of adding value to it.


But what to do about it? Even if it is possible to establish a method for drawing out the wise and virtuous and ushering them into leadership positions, we need to restore the people's faith in their leaders. I believe that when the people lose faith, even if it is on false grounds, their lack of faith causes the system to fall apart--it eventually becomes a self-fulfilling professy.

zinnat wrote:
gib wrote:On this point, maybe the conservatives are right.
No, conservatives were not right...

gib wrote:Maybe we shouldn't be voting for strangers who live half a continent away...


Yes, that is precisely the problem with present election system...


This is what I meant by the conservatives being right. One of the most salient points they stand for is smaller and more regionally localized government.

zinnat wrote:...and the only way to correct it to bring down elections to that local level, where voters can know about their leaders personally, not via any third party. If that happens, right people will start getting elected. Modern election campaigns are not real but doctored, just like TV serials and films, where candidates do nothing else but acting. The success of the candidates depends more on scriptwriters and directors of the show than the candidates themselves. It is now not much different than marketing a product to the customers.


Or like a football match, or like reality TV. You watch, Donald Trump will be president... just because he was a reality TV celebrity.

I believe Uccisor even concurred with this point in this very thread.

I swear, federal elections have become a popularity contest in the US, and voters make their decisions with the mentality of teenagers.

I also think the US government has turned due process into a social science experiment. They are currently testing the population to see what they can get away with. They found that Schwarzenegger can win in California, and with Trump they're testing the theory that celebrity-hood wins more votes than wisdom, virtue, or competency.

zinnat wrote:Chanakya, the greatest political guru that ever happened in India, centuries ago said that if you want to judge the intent of any person, you just have to watch how he behaves in private with those over whom he has some control like subordinates, juniors, employees, servants etc. But, you cannot judge these things from present election campaigns.


Ah, so that's where the Harry Potter quote came from:

"If you want to know what a man's like, take a look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals."
- Sirius Black

zinnat wrote:Voters should not be asked to vote to any candidate beyond a certain distance. It is matter of debate but my personal opinion is that 1000 voters should be asked to choose one person from their locality. That benchmark is lower enough to have enough in person knowledge about their leader. That means that there will be 1000 leaders to on one million voters, and as those voters are sorted ones, thus my guess is that 1000 leaders would cover at least 10 million citizens. Going by the present US population of around 325 million, there will be approximately 32,000 elected local leaders all over US.


Yes, now speaking of conservatives, and the original intent of the Constitution, they understood that given this many local communities, or "states", there had to be some kind of centralized government with minimal power whose sole function was simply to keep all the states from going to war with each other. The greatest fear at the time of America's birth was that the union of all states would degenerate into war, just as it had in Europe, at the first opportunity. They didn't want to just expand Europe. They wanted a new system, a system that wasn't like Europe, a confederation that was able to maintain harmony amongst the states in a way that Europe never could. The best they could think of was to establish a glorified "committee" made from representative from all the states whose purpose was to make decisions for the states when the states couldn't amongst themselves.

It's not clear, at least to me, whether they predicted the monolithic monster this mere committee would one day become, a monster that can now drag down the entire Earth with its own downfall.

zinnat wrote:Now, from here on, things can be handled in either in one step or two steps. These elected members can choose the President and other administrators directly, but, if it becomes too complicated because of huge number of elected members, these members can choose the second layer of congress from within themselves, something to the tune of one thousand to control the overall governing system.


Either way, one must be careful. A government 1000 strong will need a leader amongst its own ranks, and then you're adding layers upon layers of government in a hierarchical structure. One man to rule over 32,000 thousand local leaders may not be all that worse than several layers of leadership (in the form of whole governments) in a colossal hierarchical structure.

Rome fell because it became too big. America may be different in its structure and its methods, both presently and in the past, but I can't think of a single system that can maintain a population of 325 million and span a continent one and a half thousand miles wide without eventually crumbling. Layers upon layers of bureaucracy makes for a deck of cards. One man to rule over 325 million makes for a lone pillar holding up an unsustainable weight. I see no other method than these two.

(This makes me think: is the reason for the fall of great empires--republics or otherwise--simply unmanageable size? Could the secret to maintaining a republic be to live within a moderate size? What if America were actually four or five smaller confederations? Would the dangers of war breaking out between them still be as great?)

zinnat wrote:If their election as a leader is not good enough motivation for any person, he cannot be motivated in any other way, thus not fit for the job just because of not having right intent. He is either interest in himself only, lethargic or lacks courage to take up the responsibility. All intelligence and knowledge is useless without right intent. So, if any elected leader do not want to be one, he will not be forced and next most getter will be elected in his place.


Ok, so you must mean people who are motivated to take on the yolk of leadership but are not hungry for power. They therefore don't compete for it. They don't go to any ruthless end to take it.

The problem, therefore, if I understand you correctly, is that in allow our leaders to compete for and take power themselves, we are inviting the ruthless and the power-crazed to jump to the top of the food chain. The kind of person we want in power are those that are fully qualified, of course, but require others to usher them into power. That, if I understand correctly, is a method for filtering out all the maniacal mad-men.

zinnat wrote:Again, there will be no such thing in my proposed system which will be similar to present election system, especially campaigning. I very specifically mentioned that there would no political parties, no election campaigning, no TV debates. Yes, people and elected members also are free to believe in any ideology they like. And, the debates are reserved for the congress sessions will be telecasted live, so general voters and public can see what they are concluding and how.

As far as this issue of election mode is concerned, the congress and government will remain in election mode always, not because they have to fight elections, but because they have to perform all the time just to be at their posts, forget about reelection.

Secondly, my proposed election system may vote positively (elect local leaders) after some fix time intervals, but negative voting system will be open for the sorted voters 24/7. All eligible grassroot voters would have an online account saved with password with main election server. And, they can login and vote negatively anytime both for their local elected representative and also for anyone in the executive government, including president or PM. And, as soon as negative votes cross 50% even for a fraction of a second, targeted elected person would have to step down, no matter whoever it would be, though voters will have the right to take back their negative vote anytime also, Thus, all elected members of the congress and nominated government executives by that congress have to on their toes and perform.


Hmm... the only problem I can see with this system is that, on occasion, there may be long drawn out periods where the people are indecisive about who they want as their leader. Suppose you had two candidates, and the population was more or less split 50/50 on who should win. Suppose one candidate won by a margin of 51%. It wouldn't be that surprising that within the next week or so, the winner's ratings drop to 49%, thus ushering in his opponent. Then a couple days later, his ratings rise again to 52%. Then again, after a few days, to 48%. You can see how this could drag on for months. In this kind of situation, government would be stifled. It wouldn't happen all the time, of course, but when it does, it would be like a traffic jam where nothing gets done.

zinnat wrote:I think it is merely new or you may call it somewhat strange but i do not think it is much complicated to understand. And, once you understand it, the intention behind it and what can be achieved by this, its acceptance would not be that much difficult.


Well, in order to convince people, you will need a lot more than just understanding. You will need to demonstrate real world examples of its success. This is, by far, the most powerful way to convince people (which is why science is so successful).

zinnat wrote:You are assuming rightly. But, most of these issues would not trouble much if merely 1000 voters would be choosing one member.

Secondly, my number of sorted voters would not be that much less as you are assuming. All citizens crossing 45 (open for debate) would become automatically eligible for voting, irrespective of their education level. All post graduates. or graduated at least would be eligible for voting. Besides this, there would a voting eligibility exam held in every six months. Anyone else can attempt it irrespective of his age and education. If if clears it, he would also become a voter.

So, my guess it that one out of every ten citizens would become a voter. The scrutiny is not that high as you are thinking. Having said that, yes, the faith of the people in having some faith in others has to restored to some extent, which is decreasing constantly since long. I think that choosing leaders from personally known local persons may restore the faith of citizens in politics and politicians.


With 1000 voters to every leader, this would certainly go a long ways to satisfying the two essentials that I mentioned--assurance that the voters are thinking on behalf of the population at large, and that the elected leadership is able to maintain the people's happiness and wellbeing--and perhaps there are other essentials that I'm not thinking of at the moment--but I'm just saying: these are essentials, and the system wouldn't work unless they are met (unless the system we're aiming for is a repressive dictatorship, but no one wants that).

zinnat wrote:I tried to have a general idea of the spread of US population, and it came out that every age year covers roughly 1.25% of us population. I am not sure what is present voting age limit in US, but if that is 18, it means that about 22.5% of US citizens are not voters now. If we calculate it for 21 years, this figure would be 26.25%. The official figure was 27% in 2009, which confirms that my ratio is almost on the target.


Are you taking into consideration that there is usually more younger people in society than older people? This assumes that there is, on average, more than two children for every set of parents.

zinnat wrote:I realized that I am still making a mistake in calculation. There must be some overlapping in above 45 citizens and post graduates and it would be wrong to add both figures. Having said that, I still feel that one can take 50% as an eligible voters.


I think you're going to continue making calculation mistakes so long as you go purely on speculation. There are just too many variables determining who will be eligible to vote and who won't, and these variables will continually occur to you so long as you keep thinking about it.

But I think your point is made: the portion of the population who are eligible to vote (and do vote) will be significant enough to have the intended effect.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Sun Mar 27, 2016 5:50 am

CelineK wrote:
HaHaHa wrote:If voting changed anything they would of made it illegal already.....


it never will... moreover, trusting voting machines in this globalist environment ???


The very definition of foolishness.

"The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." - Joseph Stalin
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby gib » Sun Mar 27, 2016 7:12 am

HaHaHa wrote:"The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." - Joseph Stalin


Ain't this the truth?

It really surprises me how few people will really think through the ramifications of things like this--like there's so many hidden holes in the system that can be exploited by anyone who wants the circumvent the system and has the wherewithal to do it. The question that everyone should be asking is: what's actually stopping the vote counters from tampering/skewing the results? This is the bewildering part, because the answer really is: nothing!

Now this doesn't mean they always will tamper or skew the result--given that they really are impartial, they *should* just do their job, tally up the votes, and go home. But no one is really impartial. Either they have their own personal reasons to skew the results (and given that almost everyone in politics wants one side or the other to win, even vote counters will have a preference--they are human, you know), or they will be easily--easily--paid off or threatened to skew the results.

Seriously! Like, what's stopping this?!

This thread has seriously flipped my attitude towards politics through a 180--not that I held any serious convictions on politics for any great length of time at the beginning, but like I said countless times before, I was a newbie to political philosophy when I started this thread--I decided: what the hell, I'll give it a shot--and I started out with all the newbie thoughts and values, all the prejudices and misconceptions, and I quickly (or over the course of 2 years) got torn to shreds.

Now I'm more cynical than I've ever been. More despairing about the fate of mankind.

The flip can be summarized thus: the false hope in democracy is based on the illusion of 10 out of 100 loop holes in the political system being plugged by so-called solutions. People end up thinking that since we used to have, maybe, 1 solution plugging 1 loop hole out of 100, and then we figured out this ingenues system that plugged up 10 loop holes, we had it made. Sure 10 solutions to 10 problems is a hell of a lot better than 1 solution to 1 problem, but you still have 90 more plugs to come up with (not to mention the fact that every solution you come up with introduces 10 new loop holes--every plug has a few holes). But people will be so enamored and frankly desperate to believe in the efficacy of those 10 plugs that they will completely ignore the 90 holes that still exist, denying their existence, and will therefore convince themselves that they've built the perfect system. 10 plugs is all they need because the 10 holes they fill were the only problems needing to be solved. Now the system is perfect!

The flip I went through is to stop focusing on the 10 plugs and to recognize the 90 holes that still exist. The fact that there's nothing stopping the vote counters from skewing the results--nothing in the theory of democracy, nothing in the constitution, nothing in the virtuosity of human nature--is one of these glaring holes that I would have just dismissed 2 years ago. Now I'm seriously asking myself: what's stopping them? I can't think of anything. And this is not the only loop hole.

Something broke in my mind, something that was blocking me from seeing the 90 holes in all their stark reality. But now that's all I can see--just a shit load of loop holes in a system that is faaaar from perfect, so many ways for anyone to exploit whenever they want to so long as they have the wherewithal. Oh, it's still a lot better than the monarchies of medieval Europe, 10 times better as a matter of fact, but that's pathetic compared to the 100 times better it could be if, ideally, all loop holes could be plugged.

So let me just take a moment to mock myself from 2 years ago:

gib wrote:Democracy is the best political system the world has ever seen.


BWAHAHAHAHA!!! :lol: :laughing-jumpingpurple: :laughing-lettersrofl: :laughing-lmao: :laughing-rofl: :laughing-rolling: :laughing-rollingred: :laughing-rollingyellow: Oh God.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby Eric_The_Pipe » Sun Mar 27, 2016 7:27 am

gib wrote:So let me just take a moment to mock myself from 2 years ago:

gib wrote:Democracy is the best political system the world has ever seen.


BWAHAHAHAHA!!! :lol: :laughing-jumpingpurple: :laughing-lettersrofl: :laughing-lmao: :laughing-rofl: :laughing-rolling: :laughing-rollingred: :laughing-rollingyellow: Oh God.

The line goes: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Democracy doesn't work... But all of the others are worse. "In a true democracy, 50% +1 of the population can piss in the Wheaties of 49% of the population, then force them to eat it."

This is why the best parts of the American Government are not the democracy parts...

This is also why I spend so much time telling people, "This is not a fucking democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic!!!" The constitution is what must be held up. Everything else is mob rule...


(HI GIB! I don't know how long I'll be back, but it's good to see you are still here.)
“Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his ‘basic rights’” – An old saying rewritten by a follower of Thomas Sowell

"It's true that the bastards would win. But we shouldn't shut down a system just because the bastards win. A good system should be like a hamster wheel for bastards hooked up an electric generator. A well designed system is not one that prevents bastards from winning, but one that generates a lot of positive externalities from bastards trying to beat each other. And that's exactly what markets do. Markets entice bastards, they reward bastards, and the bastards love them, but as they operate they generate a lot of good that inadvertently benefits everyone else." - Carleas

The Newest EconPop: Economics of Demolition Man

The man, Thomas Sowell: Wealth, Poverty and Politics

Sowell's Writing
User avatar
Eric_The_Pipe
Thinker
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Sun Mar 27, 2016 12:59 pm

Glad to see you coming to your senses Gib and you're quite correct in elaborating the many flaws with democracy.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Sun Mar 27, 2016 1:03 pm

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:
gib wrote:So let me just take a moment to mock myself from 2 years ago:

gib wrote:Democracy is the best political system the world has ever seen.


BWAHAHAHAHA!!! :lol: :laughing-jumpingpurple: :laughing-lettersrofl: :laughing-lmao: :laughing-rofl: :laughing-rolling: :laughing-rollingred: :laughing-rollingyellow: Oh God.

The line goes: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Democracy doesn't work... But all of the others are worse. "In a true democracy, 50% +1 of the population can piss in the Wheaties of 49% of the population, then force them to eat it."

This is why the best parts of the American Government are not the democracy parts...

This is also why I spend so much time telling people, "This is not a fucking democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic!!!" The constitution is what must be held up. Everything else is mob rule...


(HI GIB! I don't know how long I'll be back, but it's good to see you are still here.)



Constitutional Republic is what devolved into our current state of existence right now.

Oligarchy and plutocracy wet dream.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby Eric_The_Pipe » Sun Mar 27, 2016 2:19 pm

HaHaHa wrote:Constitutional Republic is what devolved into our current state of existence right now.

Oligarchy and plutocracy wet dream.
Expectations will never help make wise decisions.
“Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his ‘basic rights’” – An old saying rewritten by a follower of Thomas Sowell

"It's true that the bastards would win. But we shouldn't shut down a system just because the bastards win. A good system should be like a hamster wheel for bastards hooked up an electric generator. A well designed system is not one that prevents bastards from winning, but one that generates a lot of positive externalities from bastards trying to beat each other. And that's exactly what markets do. Markets entice bastards, they reward bastards, and the bastards love them, but as they operate they generate a lot of good that inadvertently benefits everyone else." - Carleas

The Newest EconPop: Economics of Demolition Man

The man, Thomas Sowell: Wealth, Poverty and Politics

Sowell's Writing
User avatar
Eric_The_Pipe
Thinker
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Colorado

PreviousNext

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users