Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Smelling The Coffee: 2010
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 241 of 270 (543809)
01-20-2010 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Legend
01-19-2010 1:09 PM


Re: It's a Republic Stupid
It's a common misconception that in a Democracy the majority will infringe on minority rights. This is a myth, no more applicable to a Democracy than to the representative Republics of today. A constitution and individual rights are by no means incompatible with a Democracy. That's how the myth probably originated
I don't think anyone thinks that the system would fall in to disarray using a form of Direct Democracy, but only offer scenarios to avoid when revisiting history. At first glance it appears very attractive in terms of fairness. But then, so does communism. It has a good premise, but upon closer inspection it fails to protect those of the minority position, whatever that may be.
In the UK government currently has the support of around 30% of the populace. So they continue to make decisions -and will continue to do so till the next election- which are unsupported by the majority. In your very own country the electorate has a choice of two (2) ticks on the ballot (three if they're lucky), between parties with very little deviation between their policies and values. You can't surely even entertain the idea that these two parties (three with the odd independent) fully represent the minorities of the US!
The electorate has innumerable choices. They could even vote for themselves on a ballot to be president. The issue is that no one else knows who the hell you are, so you have nearly impossible odds of ever being elected.
As well, on the ticket is several representatives of a party from which to choose from who you think best represents your position.
So yes, if you really care about minority rights you should be favouring a Democracy, where *everyone* has a voice.
Who doesn't have a voice?
Lets suppose you have someone who wants to vote on abortion. But what if there is no election to be run? You send in your vote saying how you favor/dislike abortion, but who is listening to you if no vote was ever organised?
It's no coincidence that many of the Founding Fathers who so vividly criticise democracy (as per your video), were Freemasons, a system that is emphatically and inherently un-democratic. So it's no suprise they went for a representative Republic where the decisions and made by a select few on behalf of the many!
The Founding Fathers were not opposed to democracy. Republicanism is a form of democracy. The kind of democracy they were opposed to was a direct democracy, such as what you seem to be describing. As the video illustrates, the Framers had a clean slate to write on. They could have chosen any form of government they wanted. However, revisiting history served as the best guide in avoiding earlier pitfalls.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Legend, posted 01-19-2010 1:09 PM Legend has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 242 of 270 (543810)
01-20-2010 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Rahvin
01-20-2010 5:57 PM


Re: Indoctrination
I agree with basically everything you said, Rahvin. I'll just expound on a few of your points, and add a few other factors that I've become aware of.
Part of the problem is that the American media refuses to challenge anything that's said. There's precious little fact checking, and almost never is anyone called out for making outright lies.
First, if you notice, there is a level of apathy even in the media - by its very nature, the news is showing a degree of attention to the issues, yes, some issues are brought to light. But what's important to remember is that this information, what every it is, say about abortion or gun control, is preselected, preapproved information. It has been through the filter, and once released to the general public, the information sets a tone for where the opinions of the general public will go.
So that's one thing: the media releases filtered information that guilds public opinion. At which point, it is easy for hopeful politicians to campaign on the issues (he/she)* knows the public has being made aware of, and support the opinion that he/she knows their target audience already has.
* I used he/she as to not offend the gramm(a)r police.
The second thing to consider, is why are they doing it in this way? What is gained? Who gains? Somebody has to gain from this, I mean, it's just as easy to tell the whole truth on any given issue as it is to deliberately withhold information, and tell half-truths - or, omit certain topics all together.
So why?
Well this can get complicated, as there are many reasons why; some dead on in there explanation, some conspiratorial, and some that are just logical, self evident and easy to see.
I recommend that you too watch Manufacturing Consent. It's very informative, not at all conspiratorial, or crazy communist crap, and worth the time to watch, IMO. The link is video 1 of 9. So you may need to set out an hour or so for it.
[ABE] Here's a better link to the actual movie, Rahvin Manufacturing Consent.
It's not just about the media being the mouthpiece of big business. The media itself is big business. Their incentive is not only to keep their advertisers happy, but also to get ratings. This means that "news" is now simply one more form of entertainment.
I agree that this is the goal of the news stations themselves. I have no doubt that FoxNews' main priority is to boost ratings with wild stories and crazy folk like Beck and Coulter, for the purpose of gaining viewers, and in turn generating large sums of advertising dollars.
But, it goes deeper when you take into consideration the interests of the owners of the stations, their affiliates and their goal. It too is $ but they also need control. To get this (control) they must do the bidding of those who control - and that's the other global industries. They dictate the parameters that the news media will work under (for example, and again this is just evident, Fox News will lean more toward the right and CNN to the left). This wasn't something unplanned. They didn't take it to a vote and noticed that everyone working at Fox happened to be right leaning and everyone at CNN happened to be left leaning, this was guilded in this particular direction by those who own these stations.
Big Tobacco, the NRA, Big Pharm, etc., know where to advertise. And remember, some of these industries lean both ways, so they control both sides like puppeteers.
So there is a bigger agenda than just getting ratings. It is all done with a goal in mind. And politicians use this to their advantage. They affiliate themselves to these industries since they have the real power. It's a very corrupt system, and sadly, it's this very system that keeps the general public dumbed down, apathetic, uneducated and uninformed.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Rahvin, posted 01-20-2010 5:57 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by dronestar, posted 01-21-2010 9:23 AM onifre has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 243 of 270 (543845)
01-21-2010 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Legend
01-20-2010 4:11 PM


Re: Direct Democracy
The public, silly. We all propose and vote on issues on a digital Assembly and the ones most voted on get put up for further voting.
What? And who decides what gets voted on to get further voted on? This sounds like infinite regress.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Legend, posted 01-20-2010 4:11 PM Legend has not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 244 of 270 (543850)
01-21-2010 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by onifre
01-20-2010 7:31 PM


Re: Indoctrination
Hey Oni,
Thanks for your tireless efforts in showing the interconnectivity of government, corporate media, and big business whose interests are served before/instead of the public.
I hope you don't mind, I think it also a good idea to present these facts:
* GENERAL ELECTRIC, maker of fine military death machines/components, owns NBC Network News
* WESTINGHOUSE, maker of fine military death machines/components, owns CBS Network News.
Can anyone not see the obvious bias NBC and CBS news would have concerning war?
cheers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by onifre, posted 01-20-2010 7:31 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by onifre, posted 01-21-2010 12:29 PM dronestar has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 245 of 270 (543861)
01-21-2010 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Straggler
01-20-2010 9:28 AM


Re: That's not democracy!
In your setup can the majority vote to overrule the constitution by simply voting to do so?
Yes, the majority would have to agree that (i) the Constitution needs reforming and (ii) to the exact parts that need changing and the actual changes. In addition, for constitutional changes the majority threshold should be raised and repeated voting over a period of time would be needed.

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Straggler, posted 01-20-2010 9:28 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Straggler, posted 01-21-2010 2:40 PM Legend has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 246 of 270 (543865)
01-21-2010 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Huntard
01-20-2010 9:30 AM


Re: That's not democracy!
Also, who would determine what was in this constitution in the first place?
The public of course, silly. That should be the first thing a new democracy should do: vote for its constitution. Citizens can propose a constitutional principle or vote for someone else's proposal. The principles with most votes get drafted for inclusion in the constitution.

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Huntard, posted 01-20-2010 9:30 AM Huntard has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 247 of 270 (543874)
01-21-2010 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by dronestar
01-21-2010 9:23 AM


Clear Channel
Hey Dronester,
Thanks for your tireless efforts in showing the interconnectivity of government, corporate media, and big business whose interests are served before/instead of the public.
It's either this or internet porn.
But thanks dude, we both try to bring a different perspective to these debates, which I think is more factual than what the public is exposed to.
I hope you don't mind, I think it also a good idea to present these facts:
* GENERAL ELECTRIC, maker of fine military death machines/components, owns NBC Network News
* WESTINGHOUSE, maker of fine military death machines/components, owns CBS Network News.
Can anyone not see the obvious bias NBC and CBS news would have concerning war?
Lets also not forget Clear Channel, "the largest owner of full-power AM, FM, and shortwave radio stations and twelve radio channels on XM Satellite Radio, and is also the largest pure-play radio station owner and operator."
Here's a tid-bit about them and their past:
quote:
Tom Hicks and Vernon Jordan were formerly members of Clear Channel's board of directors. Jordan was a close friend and advisor to President Bill Clinton and was accused of lying to investigators during the investigations into perjury and obstruction of justice charges against Clinton. Hicks, Clear Channel's former vice-chairman, is a past donor to George W. Bush's political campaigns and a close associate of the Bush family.
And who sits as the head of the Board of Directors?
Lowry Mays: Mays is a close friend of and major fundraiser for both former Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. He was named to the Texas Technology Council when the younger Bush was the governor of Texas.
Quoted saying: in an interview with Fortune Magazine, he remarked, "We're not in the business of providing news and information. We're not in the business of providing well-researched music. We're simply in the business of selling our customers products." source
Also, Mark Mays (son of Lowry Mays, chief executive officer, president and chief operating officer)
and
Randall Mays (son of Lowry Mays, executive vice president and chief financial officer)
So I'll ask the same question you asked:
Can anyone not see the obvious bias Clear Channel Broadcast would have concerning war?
Can anyone not see the imminent danger of having our media so closely affiliated with the Defense Industry and Presidential families?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by dronestar, posted 01-21-2010 9:23 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by dronestar, posted 01-21-2010 3:15 PM onifre has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 248 of 270 (543881)
01-21-2010 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by onifre
01-20-2010 1:15 PM


Re: Expertise
So it is in this sense that I used the union analogy.
I remain unconvinced by the validity of this analogy. Unions are more like single issue pressure groups than diverse communities. Everyone agrees on a very specific collective cause and they only ever vote on matters that relate to that very narrowly defined aim. There is in effect a very definite collective and narrow ideology from which nobody really strays. It is on this basis that the members form their union in the first place. I still fail to see how this translates to society?
And equally so, communities of citizens are also a collection of people with a common purpose (ie. jobs, healthcare, education, housing, safety, etc.).
Jeez you have just listed some of the most contentious areas of social policy possible. Issues where large swathes of any community of any size at all will be diametrically opposed on matters of principle, ideology and practise. Not just about how to achieve desired goals. But what those goals should even be in the first place. This is the very opposite of your union example. Simply advocating that we make things better in the most generic of senses is about all that could be reliably agreed upon in most communities. Never mind nations. And that is a useless platitude.
I believe the citizens can decide better how to spend and allocate the money for each of these necessities.
Are you talking about limited and localised allocation of regional funds? Or are you seriously suggesting that things like macro-economic policy and national taxation levels and strategy should be decided directly by popular vote? Rather than actual strategic budgeted policies for things like education, housing, healthcare, policing etc. etc. we instead have disparate popular votes on individual issues and hope that a cohesive economic whole somehow emerges? If this Is not what you mean how is a wider economic strategic policy arrived at?
That's just an example. But I'm sure you could see how, just with giving citizens control of where their tax dollars are being spent, would make a huge difference in our everyday lives.
The fact that you can cite an example that both you and I agree we would rather our governments were spending less money on and that this outcome is likely if put to popular vote doesn’t make the popular vote a good way of governing. Or of coming up with a budgeted economic policy. You want to advocate national referendums on particular issues that can decide the direction of the nation in the longer term? I have little argument with that. But specific yes/no individual issues pertaining to the long term values of a society put to the people on the basis of strong popular demand is not the same as government, and more specifically economic policy, by continual polling and majority rule as is being advocated here.
How could they? What we are talking about here is the difference between a government department dedicated to a specific area of expertise versus the collective wisdom of individual members of Joe public who may or may not choose to look some stuff up on the internet before casting their vote. A government department is armed with specialists, advisors, researchers and direct access to vast amounts of information. It is a point of contact to which those with knowledge in that area can direct their recommendations. Yes it is ultimately led by a politician with the specific responsibility and accountability for that particular portfolio. But that politician has to listen to these others no matter how much he thinks he already knows and even if he ultimately decides to forego all advice. And if he keeps getting things wrong then he can be replaced.
The danger with rule by majority decree is that the superficially obvious conclusion will be made with no need to even consider the complexities. The danger is that it will be akin to being governed by that bloke in the pub who starts his answer to every social question of the day with with the phrase Well it’s obvious innit.. before going on to espouse his narrow minded and barely considered view of the world. All that and no accountability whatsoever.
I don't think individual politicians are any better than individual citizens. But they are forced to face facts and they are forced to be accountable for their decisions to some degree. This, in my view is essential.
But surely you and I can agree that - given that the citizens are educated and well informed, not blinded by the mainstream media - a citizen run spending system can be a system worth investing in? Even, like I suggested, in small increments of just allowing the citizens to spend thier tax dollars properly, and then evolve from there.
Government by majority decree seems at least as open to media bias abuse as the current systems. In fact given that most people will be voting largely reactively as issues arise and that the media is the source of information regarding what the issues of the day are it seems that the media could be all powerful in a more immediate and direct way than they are even presently.
Yes we all want educated citizens making informed choices from unbiased media sources. But how have we reached this utopian ideal by implementing "direct democracy" of the type being proposed here? Where is the link?
In fact is there any such thing as unbiased media? How can there be? Someone has to decide what to cover and what not to. Or do we vote on that as well?
The faith-based system we currently have is failing us because our interests are not considered.
Well they are in the sense that those who want power are having to spend millions/billions on persuading us that we want what they want. That is your main complaint yes? Media and information control. What we have is superior to times gone past of simply decreeing without consideration of the masses at all. And where what "they" (whoever exactly "they" are) want is so obviously in oposition to the interests of the masses even media manipulation struggles to make it sound convincing.
Our opinions are considered. It may not be much. It may be subject to manipulation and disinformation. But don't underestimate how important even that small concession on the part of our "rulers" is. We cannot take it for granted.
If we control the way money is spent, and only control that, then the systems will undoubtedly be working with the interest of the people first. I'm not saying the military should talk to us when making decisions; but they wouldn't be allowed the corruption of frivolous spending that currently is being done.
We don't need yes/no votes on every issue - like Legend is suggesting - we just need control of how our tax dollars are spent, and that would place the governments balls in our hands - AND, take control away from lobbyist, special interest groups and corporate mobsters that are fucking us on a daily basis.
Well OK. I agree with the aim of eliminating lobbyists etc.. But how do you achieve this? By simply asking people what they want their money spent on with no national economic policy and related budget? You could ask people to list their spending priorities I suppose. But that is pretty broad, highly open to manipulation and doesn't tackle any of the specifics that dog such decisions. So health gets a high priority listing. For example. What then? Social healthcare? The country erupts into cries of "socialism".
I am with you on the power to people front but I don't get what it is you are advocating here?
Politicians are rightly condemned for knee-jerkism, bandwagonism and playing to short term popularist strategies. But the method of governance being advocated here seems to be a recipe for doing nothing but this. All of the time.
Are the general populace qualified to make that call? If not then why do we think that this method of decision making will be any better for areas where sociology, law, international diplomacy or whatever is the relevant field of expertise?
We still should allow the experts their opinion, and in fact, I think we would do a better job with that.
How do the general public have access to expertise in the same way that a government department responsible for a specific area of governance colectively has? They never ever can.
And how many people when faced with a complex social issue think the answer is "obvious" and that all these members of the intellectual elite don't know half as much as the average guys gut instinct? How many will actually do any research before voting at all?
Did GW Bush listen to the experts? No! So how is this government controlled system any better?
Firstly he was forced to hear it. Whether he wanted to or not. Because he was the president. Nobody can say that he wasn't told whether he listened or not. Secondly he's not there anymore. By popular demand.
I'm not trying to take the deciding power from educated people, like scientist, etc., I'm just saying that decisions can consciously be made by the citizens with the same information that the government currently receives
I am afraid that just isn't true.
Are you suggesting that those individuals (who can be bothered) doing some cursory searches on google is equivalent to a government department dedicated to researching and implementing a particualr area of financial or social policy with a view to forming and implementing a governemnt strategy in that area? How could it be?
since we would decide what's best for us, not what's best for corporate mobsters.
Or would "we" just do what the media manipulated us to do based on appealing to simplistic gut instinct, predominant world view and the tyranny of the self-righteous majority?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by onifre, posted 01-20-2010 1:15 PM onifre has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 249 of 270 (543882)
01-21-2010 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Legend
01-21-2010 10:57 AM


Re: That's not democracy!
It is still desperately unclear how it is ever decided what gets voted on in your proposed system. Whether it be re constitutional changes or anything else. It is also desperately unclear how your constitution is protected from simply being overridden if it gets in the way of the immediate wishes of the tyrannical majority.
Yes, the majority would have to agree that (i) the Constitution needs reforming
How can they agree unless asked by majority vote? Are we not back in the realm of infinite regress?
(ii) to the exact parts that need changing and the actual changes.
Who proposes the changes to be voted on?
In addition, for constitutional changes the majority threshold should be raised and repeated voting over a period of time would be needed.
OK. Who writes the questions? Who decides the threshold? And who decides how much time is needed to make a proposed change an actual change?
And are all of these restrictions on amending the constitution able to be overruled by simple majority decree?
If the majority decide that they want to change the constitution AND that they want to change the restrictions on changing the constitution to get their changes through quickly and easily can they do this by popular vote?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Legend, posted 01-21-2010 10:57 AM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Legend, posted 01-21-2010 4:12 PM Straggler has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 250 of 270 (543887)
01-21-2010 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by onifre
01-21-2010 12:29 PM


Re: Clear Channel
It's either this or internet porn.
Oh, so sorry about your limitations, I find there is more than enough hours in the day for both. Unfortunately, at my workplace, where internet uasge is heavily filtered/censored, the only porn I can download is girl-on-girl action featuring Bea Arthur and Madeline Albright. Thank god "Transformers II" movie-director, Michael Bay was in charge of the camera work.
I didn't know of Clear Channel's infamy. Thanks for the information. It ALWAYS comes back to the filthy Bush family dynasty, doesn't it . . .
While researching Westinghouse, I came across the following, however I need to verify the information. (But it seems with the SLIGHTEST amount of digging, one always finds interactivity between politicians and big business working in tandem AGAINST the publics interests):
"Westinghouse Electric Company, part of of the large Nuclear Utilities Business Group of British Nuclear Fuels. Which is Headed By Frank Carlucci of the Carlyle Group. A group with very strong ties to the Bush Administration."
WhoOwnsTheNews.com is for sale on biix. | (Who Owns The News)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by onifre, posted 01-21-2010 12:29 PM onifre has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 251 of 270 (543893)
01-21-2010 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Straggler
01-21-2010 2:40 PM


Re: That's not democracy!
It is still desperately unclear how it is ever decided what gets voted on in your proposed system.
I've already explained it in a couple of posts: we do. The Assembly. Anyone can put a proposition through to the Assembly and everyone's free to vote on it. Example: you want more severe sentences for hate-motivated crimes. You go to the Assembly (electronically speaking) and put your proposal forward, or vote for it if someone else has already proposed it. At the end of the month, the top X suggestions which have been most voted get put forward for further discussion and drafting of bills.
It is also desperately unclear how your constitution is protected from simply being overridden if it gets in the way of the immediate wishes of the tyrannical majority.
Like I said I'd expect a huge majority needed for constitutional changes, say 80% OFTOMH, and repeated voting over a period of time in order to avoid 'immediate' wishes.
How can they agree unless asked by majority vote? Are we not back in the realm of infinite regress?
Please see my first paragraph. You want to see e.g. separation of religion from state in our country so you put it forward during the Constitutional debate at the Assembly. If 80% vote for it, then it gets passsed to the next stage: If after six months there's still 80% of the populace who want this then it gets to the next stage and if, finally still 80% of the public want this after, say, 18 months then it's part of the Constitution. Simples.
Who proposes the changes to be voted on?
You do, I do. We all do.
Who writes the questions? Who decides the threshold? And who decides how much time is needed to make a proposed change an actual change?
Have a guess! These are rules that the nascent democracy will have to agree on at its inception.
And are all of these restrictions on amending the constitution able to be overruled by simple majority decree?
Yes, subject to checks and balances, as outlined above.
If the majority decide that they want to change the constitution AND that they want to change the restrictions on changing the constitution to get their changes through quickly and easily can they do this by popular vote?
Yes, although doing so should be neither quick nor easy.

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Straggler, posted 01-21-2010 2:40 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Straggler, posted 01-22-2010 8:10 PM Legend has not replied
 Message 258 by Rrhain, posted 01-22-2010 9:44 PM Legend has replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 252 of 270 (543902)
01-21-2010 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by onifre
01-20-2010 4:58 PM


Come on man, pass it
Heya onifre
onifre writes:
Thanks for the info on your name. How do you like living in England? As opposed to the US (Texas).
This would be a whole topic in itself, but I can sum it up in a few personal observations:
Texas=warmer and less rain.
England=colder and less cops.
Texas=Sunday afternoon football and a barbecue + hot apple pie.
England=Desperate attempts to find a good internet stream to watch the NFL on whilst eating a ready meal (tv dinner).
Texas=conversations that rarely achieve a level higher than "Did you see Jackass the other night?" and "Come on man, pass it."
England=conversations that often rise to intellectual heights such as "The founder effect is evident in the genetic code of Icelanders" and "Come on man, pass it."
To be a bit more serious, like anything it has its positives and negatives. I'll try to get around to starting a serious thread about my observations at some point. Overall I am finding my life here more interesting, but there are many reasons for that which have nothing to do with USAvEngland.
One example:
  • Your personal space is smaller here. People regularly move into a space so close to me that it sets alarm bells ringing in my brain. However, I suspect I would get the same sense if I had moved to New York or some similarly denser US area. My sister who travels to Germany on business says it is a European thing as well. She says "In Texas, if you get that close to somebody it's either because you're gonna fuck them up, or just plain fuck them." Ah - my sis - she knows how to turn a phrase.
    --2010 EVC BALLOT: Briterican
    Legalise cannabis? yes
    Establish direct democracy? probably not, but I'll keep reading about it here.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 239 by onifre, posted 01-20-2010 4:58 PM onifre has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 256 by Straggler, posted 01-22-2010 8:00 PM Briterican has replied

      
    hooah212002
    Member (Idle past 801 days)
    Posts: 3193
    Joined: 08-12-2009


    Message 253 of 270 (543914)
    01-21-2010 8:16 PM


    Media isn't ALWAYS evil
    I just saw this video of Anderson Cooper. I, personally, take no party lines and don't really care to know which news station is leaning to which side (other than Fox, which I know is red). He steps aside from being a journalist to help this kid out.

    Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
    -Carl Sagan
    For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
    -Carl Sagan

      
    Legend
    Member (Idle past 5006 days)
    Posts: 1226
    From: Wales, UK
    Joined: 05-07-2004


    Message 254 of 270 (543965)
    01-22-2010 12:33 PM
    Reply to: Message 234 by Briterican
    01-20-2010 2:19 PM


    Re: Underpants Gnomes on Skype
    As I've said in replies to others, the wording of my post was somewhat ill-advised, and my failure to think some of it through is apparent.
    That's perfectly alright, Straggler does it all the time and it's never really bothered me.
    I've made the point in my other replies that (possibly wrongly) I feel that even the worst choice for a candidate for public office is likely to be better qualified than a large chunk of the voters. I welcome anyone's comments in this regard, and am still formulating my own opinions.
    Better qualified than most voters? Perhaps. But that doesn't necessarily means that he/she has the interest of the voters or the general public or country at heart. This is where a people representative system fails IMO: it is a faith-based system, the voter assumes/trusts that the votees will act the way they say/imply they will and the way the voters expect them to. This is rarely the case as we are constantly being reminded. In a direct voting system the faith element is removed and the voters are solely responsible for the decisions made. Which is a good thing.
    At the risk of getting tomatos thrown at me, I would like to say that GW was a good governor of Texas (where I lived during his term).
    Start ducking!
    I'll point out that I consider his presidential administration to be a disgrace to put it mildly.
    You might have just redeemed yourself
    I think onifre's response to me made me realise that I don't sit at the end of the spectrum you might infer when reading my post. I think I fell victim to taking a polar opposite view to you that doesn't really match my own. I felt I was making sense at the time, but discovered later I had gone too far.
    that's fine, it happens to the best of us
    I'm still not convinced direct democracy is a viable alternative to representative democracy, but yours and others responses are informative and appreciated.
    Allow me to reciprocate, after all if people agreed with me all the time I'd never get a chance to think things through and challenge myself. As for direct democracy I think this is the first time in two millenia when our technoogical advances make it a plausible alternative. The biggest challenge I anticipate -and you can see in this forum- is convincing others that it is a good idea, despite its self-evident value. Some people are just conditioned to reject change, even if it's in their benefit!

    "We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 234 by Briterican, posted 01-20-2010 2:19 PM Briterican has seen this message but not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 255 by Rahvin, posted 01-22-2010 2:04 PM Legend has not replied

      
    Rahvin
    Member
    Posts: 4032
    Joined: 07-01-2005
    Member Rating: 9.2


    Message 255 of 270 (543971)
    01-22-2010 2:04 PM
    Reply to: Message 254 by Legend
    01-22-2010 12:33 PM


    Re: Underpants Gnomes on Skype
    As for direct democracy I think this is the first time in two millenia when our technoogical advances make it a plausible alternative.
    Only because the sizes of governed communities has griown fromcity-states into continent-spaning nations, but yes.
    Unfortunately the technology is only close. Just because we can get votes from all over the country for American Idol doesn;t mean we can support the secure voting necessary for national elections. Have you not heard of all of the issues we've been having with electronic voting machines here in the states? They've been notoriously easy to hack, have registered votes other than what the voter intended, ec - and they aren't even remotely as effective as what your system requires. You;re suggesting we should leverage the power of cell phones, the itnernet, TV, etc to make voting universally available for virtually every subject.
    When discussing only the technology (and not direct democracy itself), we're a long way off. Cell phones and itnernet access feel omnipresent to us...but they are not. Voting needs to be freely available to everyon, including those without phone or web access. The only way to do this is with centralized voting locations, just like we use right now...except those locations are not dedicated polling buildings. They're temporarily repurposed libraries, churches, schools, etc. If we're to vote on every issue, we'll need the polling locations to be permanent.
    Further, we'll need them to be larger and/or more numerous. Voting is currently a chore due to lines. If we're going to be discussing and voting on issues on a daily basis (which we'll need to do without representatives dedicated to the purpose), it needs to be available enough that it doesn;t interfere with our lives too much, lest the country crumble because nobody does anything other than vote.
    Security is a major issue. Yes, transmission of the vote can be pretty secure with SSL encryption and the like. But the actual vote is still subject to fraud. How do you make that work? A passcode for every citizen? That can be stolen, and requires significant overhead in equipment and manpower to maintain. Biometrics? What happens if you're injured and a retina scan/fingerprint/voice analysis will no longer be accurate?
    Even right now we have significant concerns over vote fraud and even just simply voting mistakes. These aren't small issues. You can;t just say "we have the technology" and consider it easy, or even possible. We have the technology to make a power plant that runs on nuclear fusion...that doesn't mean we've been able to get it to work for practical purposes.
    Deirect democracy requires,speaking only of technological concerns:
    1) Universal availability. Perhaps a blend of phone, internet, and voting machines in designated polling locations, sufficient to support voting on a variety of issues on a very frequent basis.
    2) Universal information distribution. It will be necessary to include even those who are destitute in teh political and debate process. This means providing media access (forums, televised debates, webmeetings, however it's done) in centralized locations in addition to web/phone/TV based access.
    3) Security. Again, transmission encryption is pretty decent, but that doesn't mean vote fraud is suddenly impossible. Especially when you're talking about massively distributed voting methods for very frequent votes (ensuring that recount availability will be rare, and paper trails will be impossible). You'll need some way of ensuring t oat least a reasonable degree that everyone gets one vote only, and everyone gets a vote. You can't just allow one voter per phone number - I have two phones myself, and special interest bodies could literally manufacture votes simply by purchasing additional phone lines. Some families will share a single number with different numbers of eligible voters. The same is true of IP addresses and computers. You can bypass this by using a personal identification number, like the social security number or another passcode, but this requires significant overhead to run, and is still very subject to fraud (you could automate random-SSN dialing processes that vote a certain way on a given issue, for example). We currently check IDs, verify addresses, etc. to combat voting fraud, and it;'s still a concern. Imagine trying to expand that to universal voting on every issue.
    The technical hurdles are not small, and despite "having the technology," it still may not be feasible to impliment in practical reality.
    The biggest challenge I anticipate -and you can see in this forum- is convincing others that it is a good idea, despite its self-evident value. Some people are just conditioned to reject change, even if it's in their benefit!
    Nobody discounts the self-evidence value of being able to directly represent one's own interest in government. The point of all democratic governments (including representative republics) is to try to give every citizen representation.
    The problem is that it also carries significant drawbacks, which you are ignoring.
    Let's make a few simple examples here:
    The question of how to legally regulate internet traffic is brought up. This requires a minimum baseline knowledge in how the internet actually works, knowledge the average citizen does not have (and in some cases cannot easily understand). This can lead to laws regarding the internet that are technically impossible to implement, simply because the majority vote includes too many people who have insufficient knowledge about the topic they're voting on. This is a subject that cannot be taught in a matter of hours to every person in the country. More time is unavailable, because there are more issues to vote on, and because after basic instruction the topic of regulation still needs to be debated in the first place.
    The topic of building standards comes up. The average person is neither a structural engineer nor an architect. This is not a field that can be easily taught in a short amount of time. Any majority vote will be made primarily by people with no knowledge of how to reinforce a building against earthquakes or hurricanes, minimum fire safety or load bearing ability.
    You can combat these sorts of problems (which admittedly exist in our own system as well - except that, since our legislators establish committees dedicated to various subjects and are dedicated to full-time legislative duties instead of being part-time voters with normal lives and jobs, and so can spend more time becoming familiar with the subjects they must write legislation for) by forming committees of field experts, and voting on the legislation those committees draft. But then you're still setting up representatives instead of direct democracy, and the final vote will still be made by people who do not and cannot understand what they're voting on.
    Are you qualified to vote on banking regulation? Do you understand financial systems to a sufficient degree that your opinion is worth more than the random guess of a high school student? A third grader? The flip of a coin?
    What about classified issues? You cannot vote on funding a new super-secret spy plane, for example, without making its existence fully public knowledge, and thus available to other nations including our potential enemies in any conflict.
    Representation in government is a constant struggle to find a balance between sufficient competency on the subjects being decided, and full representation. Representative republics (and parliamentary systems, etc) seek to elect representatives who will vote how their constituents would vote if their constituents had all the facts available. It's a shoddy compromise, but the alternatives (direct democracy, straight-up plutocracy, etc) are worse.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 254 by Legend, posted 01-22-2010 12:33 PM Legend has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024