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.
™ Version 4.2
