|Is a world revolution inevitable ? Page 3 of 3 (1, 2, 3)|
Over the past few years the concept of politics has been troubling me.
Why do we really need to elect a group of beaurocrats that upon advertisement, we think closest interpret our thoughts onto statutes and laws?
Why can't I vote on what effects me directly? An argument from someone could be that due to other commitments and time, they would prefer someone else to make those important choices for them, but I am still left begging the question what about me? What about my choices on each and every issue that concerns me?
At first I would doubt my argument by classing it as selfish, but the more I think about it, the more I understand that the disillusionment is amongst nearly everybody I meet. The inherent struggle I would describe as utopia and collective freedom vs. dystopia and superfluous freedom; imposed choices by a few.
The last thing I would prescribe is to riot for your freedom, as through past the the term of instability it would most definitely cause, at best the vacuum of power would only bring forward a different set of disguises. Things must evolve via current local constitutional rules.
When you think something is wrong or not quite right, do you not act on it to make the correction?
"One day one will be many, and everyone will stand up and offer people true freedom, they will dispense with choices imposed by the few."(...sir, would you like any pickle with your cheese?)
Why can't we not only vote on each law, but even collectively dictate the law to be debated by secure encrypted e-mail? Why not by phone or text?
I think therefore I am? No, I think, I act, I make decisions, I choose; therefore I am.
I am not a socialist, not a conservative or of middle way, I am an individual and so are the other 6,763,556,999 people on this globe. Stand up and defend your right of being, of collective choice...think, act, decide, choose....live
With time, is a worldwide revolution inevitable ? We are ever increasingly collectively uprising against many forms of oppression... will we ever see an uprise against politics itself?
A simplified version of the above would be:
If politics is an oppression, and all oppressions have eventually lead to revolution, how long will it be before we experience a true political revolution?
The Founder of the United States studied all that and found that history proved that pure democracy doesn't work. They setup a republican form of government in which the people would send representatives to speak on their behalf. As one of the youngest countries on earth, we have one of the oldest governments on earth. List the countries that you know of that have had the same government for 240 years? Good luck.
|Is a world revolution inevitable ? |
Posted: 7/11/2009 1:11:48 PM
As for getting anything done, nearly everybody has a mobile phone, an idea for speed would be via a registered mobile number for every voter, and a time period of a month to debate the subject and amend, maybe on forums not too dissimilar to this, then voting for, against, or just abstaining because you don't care, or you have better things to do than decide what laws you will be governed by.
Here's a copy of a 1,500 page federal budget. And here's the 250 page appropriations bill for the purchase of support supplies for the military. While you're at it, take a look at this 150 page bill overhauling the FCC, a 57 page bill for ovrehauling the patent system (along with 3,000 pages of background information).
Let me know when you're done so we can vote. I've got another 50,000 pages waiting here for you in the pipeline.
Oh, yeah - it doesn't matter if you even know how to balance your checkbook - we still need your input. And don't worry if you know nothing about the law in general, or patent law specifically - we still need your input.
Don't know anything about communications? Doesn't matter - we're all democrats here, and we still need to know what you think about the FCC and spectrum allocation, content regulations, net neutrality, and a metric buttload of other highly technical subjects you need to understand before you can say Yay or Nay
Direct democracy is a practical impossibility with the complexity of the world today. Being able to collect and tabulate the votes isn't the issue - the issue is having the specific domain knowledge is dispirate areas to be able to make INFORMED decisions. That's why your representatives has so many advisors.
Oh, yeah - you also have to hold down a job, feed your family, and pay taxes while you digest all that stuff and cast your vote.
|Is a world revolution inevitable ? |
Posted: 7/11/2009 7:49:12 PM
The conclusion of your 'no time' premise does not justify the current system but it does go to show the complexity of the current "nanny state" system.
Never said it justified it. But it does explain it, and show why the direct democracy you're talking about is a non-starter in any practical sense.
Why would we need military if the world was one government?
Needing the military is absolutely besides the point - it was an off-the-top-of-my-head example of a bill.
Maybe the savings in tax's will reduce the need for so many pages in those bills.
Bills are complicated because they're dealing with complex things. It doesn't matter how simple the tax system is - you'll still have to deal with 87,000 different items when it comes to spending money.
But that is just one example of how simplified governance will lead to so many knock on positives.
I'm sorry, but I disagree. Your idea is simple, but it doesn't change the nature of complexity of governing a big, complex society.
We have the idea distribution power of media and the internet. Every law passed or about to pass recieves critiscism or praise with arguments for and against under the current system. Why would this condensation of information not occur in an utopian society? And if there is something that you feel is wrong you can read up on that section of the law and vote against that particular sub-section. That is if you have the time to care about it.
Overload. I'm a computer programmer - I have been since 1982. I spent anywhere between 1 and 6 hours a day just trying to stay current in my field, where I already have 25 years experience. How many more hours would I need about other fields to even have the minimum knowledge required to know that something didn't pass the smell test?
Trust me on this - I could, BY MYSELF, start sending you enough good, solid information daily on almost any subject of your choosing to bury you alive.
What do you think notgorshkovagain? I'm just throwing ideas about! Have you ever thought about how much of your hard work / income gets taken away directly or indirectly via government tax's towards wars, institutions, free housing, and ideals you may not agree with are neccessary?
And maybe if I knew a little more about the areas in which that "wasted" money was being spend, I'd change my mind about whether or not it's necessary. But I wouldn't know that unless I put the time and effort into doing the research, would I?
You, and others who advance this type of argument, make a big, fundamental mistake. That is, you think information is power and liberating. It's not. KNOWLEDGE is power, and KNOWLEDGE is liberating. Don't confuse the two. whYou need information to have knowledge - but you also need time and effort to turn that information into knowledge. And there just isn't enough time for a person to be KNOWLEDGEABLE in enough disparate fields for a system like yours to be workable.