User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 57

  1. #31
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    @onemoretime has already stated this case better than I could have.

    While I too am tired of our current way of doing things, I also put more faith in the possibility of prudent Representation in our Democratic Republic than @Myrtle seems to.

    I think the foundation of our electoral system is sound. There are inherent problems in implementing direct democracy within a country as large as ours is.

    Lastly, I also have faith in the ability of (the motivated within) the people to educate themselves, but that faith doesn't extend so far as to preclude the need for representation.

    With direct democracy you will never have the unity of vision that is achievable with a Republic.

  2. #32
    Senior Member UniqueMixture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    estj
    Enneagram
    378 sx/so
    Socionics
    esfp
    Posts
    3,036

    Default

    @onemoretime, it is almost as though the country should be chopped up, however due to a need to protect from external pressure this is impossible. Perhaps congress should be divided into regional councils like the judicial branch is with circuit courts. Or at least that level of bureaucracy could be added. We should also institute range voting, if not for the public than for the legislature and we we should move to a parliamentary system

    For those unfamiliar with the concepts, I would highly recommend reading about

    Range voting:

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_voting#section_1

    And proportional representation:

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propo...representation

    I recommend the switch to a parliamentary system because only executive democracies have been susceptible to coups in the modern era
    For all that we have done, as a civilization, as individuals, the universe is not stable, and nor is any single thing within it. Stars consume themselves, the universe itself rushes apart, and we ourselves are composed of matter in constant flux. Colonies of cells in temporary alliance, replicating and decaying and housed within, an incandescent cloud of electrical impulses. This is reality, this is self knowledge, and the perception of it will, of course, make you dizzy.

  3. #33
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7
    Posts
    97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    There are a lot more hackers than you think. Plenty of them are against any sort of state whatsoever, and would relish the opportunity to wreak havoc on the government. In their mind, they are fully morally justified, because the state is an inherent abomination and the primary threat to human freedom. I can't say I disagree with them entirely.
    I agree fully. Ultimately I wanna see the state dissolve and be replaced with free associations. I'm a Classic Liberal or as it is labeled today often as negative term Anarchist.

    Sure we see attacks on this institutions but the people you are talking about here are less likley to attack an institution the freer its function is.

    I believe the corruption can be attenuated, but ultimately will never go away entirely. That is a result of the nature of government - it is the means by which the ruling class justifies its authority. Those in the ruling class aren't there because they play fairly, but rather because they do not have to play fairly. They can use their resources (money, social connections, government benefit of the doubt) to make sure they have an insurmountable advantage in the system, starting with acceptance to a prestigious university.
    Agreed and these are probably the ones we need to fear the most in an advance for more democracy

    With such a voting system, a breach of the security system, just like any security system, would only require a sufficient amount of resources and time. Given that the business of government is the allocation of public wealth, those whose power relies on this allocation would have a strong incentive to game the system to their benefit, and likely the resources to do so.
    Hmm maybe they would but this would turn them into criminals, criminals we could apprehend and take away their resources. Sure thats the government works that way, but this proposed system you could end government and make it free to pay taxes for example, for individuals. I would like to keep forced tax on certain trade and on companies but thats just my opinion and would be up to the people working at said company, that is my belief.
    Finally, banks don't get hacked because those with the resources to successfully hack them would inevitably already have plenty of money, making it so that the risk associated with such a caper far outweighs the potential rewards.
    Thats a good point, however people that have no resources but skills seldom seem to manage anymore. how do you explain that? is it that they dont try anymore or has security indeed improved alot?


    You're absolutely right - political propaganda is used precisely because it's less expensive than the more direct means of getting out the vote that were once used. Furthermore, there are plenty of people who legitimately profit off the breaking of laws, and would prefer that as many people break those laws as possible. These people tend to make lots of campaign contributions.
    It really takes a genius to NOT see that they are criminals that just managed to legalize their criminal behavior. Like Noam Chomsky said "Propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship, its a game for the elites its not for the ignorant masses"


    Just look at what happened with the Occupy movement. The core principles were direct democracy and self-sufficiency, but it didn't take long before the government, "conceived in liberty," clamped down upon them and forced them out violently.
    Yes but I think they showed a model that had been forgotten for over 20 years, a model on how to fight back, and how to demand our rights.


    I agree that a living wage on a shorter workweek is the primary thing that a state ought to be working toward. However, the neoliberal ideology is centered on "global competitiveness" and "enhanced productivity," that is, the reduction of costs incurred by every labor input. Meanwhile, technology continues to eliminate jobs entirely, rather than just reduce work burdens. Finally, in the US, labor and trade unions are very weak, leading to little equity in wage negotiations.
    Yes its sad that Unions are so weak in the us, you really have a great country with great people, most Americans I've met have been cool as shit. Without the Unions its gonna be pretty hard to push for lowered work week, the stagnation of salary in the US over the last decades is really chocking.

    I'm tired of our current way of doing things, too. It's very complicated to make these sorts of sweeping changes, however, in a country of 315 million people that spans over 5000 km from end to end. Furthermore, our current system does not look kindly upon those who seek to implement down-up power, calling them demagogues, or worse, in the history books. Huey Long from Louisiana in the 1930s is a representative case.
    Yes I think one can't be to focused on how big it is, you need to support the organizations that are independent and free and have an power structure you believie in. Im a member of a member owned bank, it has no in interest when borrowing money. Aswell i support media, some swedish papers that are more free, and some Energy cooperations, me and some friends thinking about starting an energy cooperation aswell. Then there is the union and the MMA center both membership based aswell. So we have some alternatives to the state, support them and start your own solutions, then the economy will collapse and if you can provide banking and electricity and run the factory anyway, then you just do it.

    It took 40 years in Spain before they had a shot at the power in 1936, right now the Greek Anarchists are making quite the progress establishing an own currency and other things they have run experiments the past 30 years atleast.

    Of course we have civilization. It's the source of everything that bothers you.
    What im saying is that we are not civilized

    Stay optimistic. The world needs people like you. Just remember what Voltaire said, though - il faut cultiver notre jardin
    Thank you. "And I remember even when the world is falling at top of me pessimism is an emotion not a philosophy"
    "Im right here, Deal with me!"

  4. #34
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7
    Posts
    97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post

    While I too am tired of our current way of doing things, I also put more faith in the possibility of prudent Representation in our Democratic Republic than @Myrtle seems to.

    I think the foundation of our electoral system is sound. There are inherent problems in implementing direct democracy within a country as large as ours is.
    You don't even have real parties The Republicans and The Democrats are two fractions of the business party. There are some differences among them but there very small, and more often then not it has little to do with economical policies and foreign policies.

    Actually U.S is technically a Polyarchy and not a democracy, A polyarchy is a system in which the wealth of the nation runs it and the ignorant masses gets to participate every once in a while to say that "okay you can go on" and are given an illusion of democracy.

    You can look this up at your local university which has classes in Political science ask a teacher there or take the class.

    And the turnout is something like 20% if that happens in any other country we would call that democracy a sham. People who went to prison are not allowed to vote. But there votes still count because of how your system is set up.

    Seriously what is sound about a system when you elect a guy that talks about change says hes gonna close the illegal prison on Guantanamo and doesn't, didn't he promise to end the war in Afghanistan to? Instead he increased the military there. I think about the only thing he did that was promised was Medicare and that turned out to be a very costly reform, when public opinion in the US had sad for a ling time that they want something like in Canada.

    On an international scale the UN Security council voted to declare the Israeli settlements in Palestine Illegal and stop further expansion, Obama vetoed it. Is Occupying foreign land something most Americans approve of?

    Obama passed laws like the Patriot act, making it so that he can arrest and detain anyone without prosecution or the right to a fair trial as long as he says there a terrorist

    I dont think I can think of a system that is less corrupt then the American.

    Lastly, I also have faith in the ability of (the motivated within) the people to educate themselves, but that faith doesn't extend so far as to preclude the need for representation.
    I agree on the first half of the sentence.
    With direct democracy you will never have the unity of vision that is achievable with a Republic.
    And why is unity so importent? once again you can argue that for dictatorship "With dictatorship you can have more unity then with a representive democracy". Is not freedom more importent? and how far did that "unity of vision" take you with Obamas "Change"? what happen since that? did he do anything right?

    The opposite of Congress must be progress
    "Im right here, Deal with me!"

  5. #35
    Senior Member UniqueMixture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    estj
    Enneagram
    378 sx/so
    Socionics
    esfp
    Posts
    3,036

    Default

    I don't think you think in terms of self-defense enough @Myrtle. My original post was in particular regarding state-sponsored hacking (esp china and even from the us internally). Not to sound arrogant about Amurika, but I believe it is fundamentally different because it is the current power nexus particularly because of the size of its military. I think because of this power mongers are attracted to it much like the beautiful young starlet is to hollywood, or the priveleged to the financial sector. I think this makes it a prime target for... shall we say extra-legal power agents (to attempt) to wrest control. Unfortunately, because people are dependent on corporations for their survival they tend to ignore the abuses of it because they must to keep their jobs. This is why youth movements are more radical, they have not yet entered the system of direct dependency upon some organization whose national and international interests tend to be in direct opposition to their autonomy
    For all that we have done, as a civilization, as individuals, the universe is not stable, and nor is any single thing within it. Stars consume themselves, the universe itself rushes apart, and we ourselves are composed of matter in constant flux. Colonies of cells in temporary alliance, replicating and decaying and housed within, an incandescent cloud of electrical impulses. This is reality, this is self knowledge, and the perception of it will, of course, make you dizzy.

  6. #36
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UniqueMixture View Post
    @onemoretime, it is almost as though the country should be chopped up, however due to a need to protect from external pressure this is impossible. Perhaps congress should be divided into regional councils like the judicial branch is with circuit courts. Or at least that level of bureaucracy could be added. We should also institute range voting, if not for the public than for the legislature and we we should move to a parliamentary system

    ...

    I recommend the switch to a parliamentary system because only executive democracies have been susceptible to coups in the modern era
    We're stuck in a weird spot, because even though the benefits of regional devolution of power are pretty apparent, we're still a union comprised of theoretically sovereign states, even though that argument ended in 1865. The states as they exist today are pointless products of historical idiosyncrasy, but there is enough power entrenched in each state, along with Constitutional obsolescence, to prevent any sort of regional realignment without a Constitutional Convention. Furthermore, many people have a strong sense of state identity. There are other potential hazards of this approach as well, such as being left with the military as the only remaining institution that coherently spans the continent (the military could not be regionalized, essentially because of the nukes).

    This Constitutional Convention would not likely be the high-minded college of political philosophers that we might hope. Instead, you'd probably see a horse-trading show starring all these regional interests gallivanting in all their provincial glory. At the same time, any sort of federal-scale regionalization would likely be reflexively opposed by the Southern representatives, both because of the Reconstruction experience, and because of the current federal oversight regions associated with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Even if an agreement were formed, you'd then have the lengthy court challenges based on whether the Convention had the power to draft the document.

    I'm not so sure about the parliamentary system. In that sort of system, all it takes is buying off a few politicians to have whatever legislation you want rammed through. The UK may putatively be a democratic system, but it also shows unnervingly authoritarian tendencies these days.

    Quote Originally Posted by Myrtle View Post
    Hmm maybe they would but this would turn them into criminals, criminals we could apprehend and take away their resources. Sure thats the government works that way, but this proposed system you could end government and make it free to pay taxes for example, for individuals. I would like to keep forced tax on certain trade and on companies but thats just my opinion and would be up to the people working at said company, that is my belief.
    Have you ever read Max Weber? One of his core ideas is that the State is defined by its monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Its authority comes from its ability to harm you with impunity while under its jurisdiction.

    The people referenced here would be acting to hijack the State apparatus for its own means. This seems like it is a criminal act. However, by the State itself being the perpetrator that act, it legitimizes it, because the State has the guns to back it up. Furthermore, the State is not going to imprison and dispossess others for acts it made under its own sovereign authority. (I'm not saying that I agree with this, but just that this would be an argument against punishing these guys, an argument that several high-priced lawyers might be happy to make).

    Thats a good point, however people that have no resources but skills seldom seem to manage anymore. how do you explain that? is it that they dont try anymore or has security indeed improved alot?
    Not worth the risk. If you get caught, you'll probably spend at least 10 years in federal prison.

    Yes but I think they showed a model that had been forgotten for over 20 years, a model on how to fight back, and how to demand our rights.
    And the State showed exactly how it will respond - through suppression.

  7. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7
    Posts
    97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UniqueMixture View Post
    I don't think you think in terms of self-defense enough @Myrtle. My original post was in particular regarding state-sponsored hacking (esp china and even from the us internally). Not to sound arrogant about Amurika, but I believe it is fundamentally different because it is the current power nexus particularly because of the size of its military. I think because of this power mongers are attracted to it much like the beautiful young starlet is to hollywood, or the priveleged to the financial sector. I think this makes it a prime target for... shall we say extra-legal power agents (to attempt) to wrest control. y
    Okay so your saying a coordinated attack from a rival country would be a problem? to do what? I mean the system would not be fully automated. So its not like you can fire the War heads directly. I'm not thinking about self defense because I think its details that can be easily solved. The internet was made by the military, lots of military applications today run on the Internet. You don't see them under constant attack, so why would this be just because its direct democracy?

    The only difference from today is that it would be an coordinated platform with several institutions linked and that it would have an voting mechanism. You would still have employees whether they consist of government employees, Cooperations or Corporations whom would execute the orders.

    You could have additional safety installed into the system, You could the make the system run on an touchpad with a frequency that seldom used and all data with a 256-bit encryption aswell as an separe code authenticator. Then you could set into place an autmatic email that goes aout to a random test group just to see that there actions are correct. If something dosent at up you look into it and do a re vote.

    There are many ways to do this and as I see it its not a big difference from today EVERYTHING is already on the internet.

    Unfortunately, because people are dependent on corporations for their survival they tend to ignore the abuses of it because they must to keep their jobs. This is why youth movements are more radical, they have not yet entered the system of direct dependency upon some organization whose national and international interests tend to be in direct opposition to their autonomy
    Yes this is why its gonna get alot worse before it gets better people are so plugged into the matrix they cant be woken up, they simply refuse to accept it, until it hits them in the face.
    "Im right here, Deal with me!"

  8. #38
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myrtle View Post
    Okay so your saying a coordinated attack from a rival country would be a problem? to do what? I mean the system would not be fully automated. So its not like you can fire the War heads directly. I'm not thinking about self defense because I think its details that can be easily solved. The internet was made by the military, lots of military applications today run on the Internet. You don't see them under constant attack, so why would this be just because its direct democracy?
    There are a few problems with this. First, someone's going to have control of the nukes and the guns. Like it or not, who ever that is rules the country, because they have sufficient force to enact their will unopposed from anyone else within the country. So you're likely looking at a military dictatorship with a democratic veneer, only voting on those matters which are not "critical to national security." Meanwhile, you've got a massive, entrenched bureaucracy that has been deemed necessary to enact "the will of the people," and will likely do so in whatever way it sees fit.

    The problem with this system is that it preserves the massive institution while removing all of the institutional safeguards.

  9. #39
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7
    Posts
    97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Have you ever read Max Weber? One of his core ideas is that the State is defined by its monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Its authority comes from its ability to harm you with impunity while under its jurisdiction.
    Yes I belivie that is true. I recognize the name so have probably read about him, or something of him.

    The people referenced here would be acting to hijack the State apparatus for its own means. This seems like it is a criminal act. However, by the State itself being the perpetrator that act, it legitimizes it, because the State has the guns to back it up. Furthermore, the State is not going to imprison and dispossess others for acts it made under its own sovereign authority. (I'm not saying that I agree with this, but just that this would be an argument against punishing these guys, an argument that several high-priced lawyers might be happy to make).
    The argument was that someone would buy votes which the people under an direct democratic system would have made illegal. The punishment for doing that might be drafted so that you take the resources away, or fine them a hefty fine. Imprisonment isn't necessary in this case.

    As long as wealth is highly concentrated those with that wealth have and will exercise force against the dispossessed when they do so it is only self defense to deprive them of the resources with witch they exercise force against the dispossessed, when the dispossessed try to improve their position with democratic non violent means.

    And the State showed exactly how it will respond - through suppression.
    Yes It is an Institution of repression and it is its only mode, with law, police, military and taxes impose its will. Society should be one of free associations. not forced ones like the state.

    Now one could argue as you say above that the person above whom is being stripped of some of his belongings is subject to force and not free to exercise his freedom the way he choses, Now as long as wealth is concentrated in a few hands and the state is helping them protect and acquire more wealth the dispossessed will never be free to make choices. They will be at the will of the ruling class until they organize and demand democracy.

    This wealth that these people accumulated they did illegally, they did it by destroying the environment, using slavery, killing indigenous people all over the world, forcing people to work in terrible conditions, rigging the economic system, subjecting a big percentage of the worlds population to starvation and going to war for this resources. To believe that these people rightfully posses the right to keep these resources and to subject even more people to few options thru manipulating the economy with the vast majority of resources they own, that is to believe that we should keep having slaves in this world.
    "Im right here, Deal with me!"

  10. #40
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,675

    Default

    I think trolls, libertarians or hackers would ruin it. Possible a combination of all three.

Similar Threads

  1. Google, democracy and the truth about internet search
    By nonsequitur in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 12-08-2016, 11:23 AM
  2. getting oriented via Ni
    By Prometheus in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 09-04-2007, 10:48 AM
  3. Kama Sutra Positions for Internet Writers
    By sdalek in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-14-2007, 11:35 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO