New Direct Democracy / E-Democracy - Therory by Prax:

[Praxius]

Quote by: Athena You are talking distribution of resources here, and this is a different subject from policy making. Before jumping to how resources are distributed, determine on how the decisions are made. The US adopted England's autocratic model for industry. Most of the decisions in the US are made autocratically, not democratically. This thread will incomprehencible without clarifying autocracy and democratic methods.

Those were explained I believe:

REAL DEMOCRATIC DECISIONS- Along with the Global Employment Records for each person, they would be issued their own hand-held devices for voting on the fly and making decisions that will affect their society and country. First thing would be to remove all politicians from the government and replace them with all new officials who are interested in making their country and the people in it, better and happier, not for money and a comfy place in life. These new politicians would not be in any position of real power, since the real power would be of the people for once. These new politicians would be mediators, to voice the majority of people they are run by. If there are issues of health, or construction required for a location, the party member of that location would receive notification of a new official poll made up by the community, and would voice this poll to the political collective, and receive assistance from across the country, when needed. When a party member seems to not be doing their job correctly, there are no 4 year waits for election, if the majority wishes for them to be replaced. Once again, all of this would be done by the hand-held devices, each person would be issued. With today’s technology, it is possible to create these devices, or the necessary programs and tools required can be easily implemented into the common cell phone. Political party members would consist of people who are interested in the people around them, care for their community and will do what is best for the majority. No spur of the moment decisions would be made by this party. Ideas may arise, but must be presented to the country and approved by the people. 24 hour voting processes would have to be in place. Each day, you would check your Voting device and a list of decisions would be on them. If you did not have time to go through them at a part in the day, you would have 24 hours to place your vote, before the polls are closed and the final decision is made.

^ There would probably be only about 5 at the most per day, so you wouldn't be bombarded by piles of decisions. If you don't have a side for a vote, just leave out of it and let those whom it matters to vote.... it's all subjective to change.

Like I said, this is just an idea to start from.... if anybody's got any better ideas to replace the above, by all means, I'm all ears.

I'm not presenting this thread as "This is what I want to do so do it." ~ This is a thread about "Here's an idea to start from. If you want a change in government and this seems like a decent start, what would you change or add?"

My end result I am looking for is something that's actually workable. I don't have all the answers, which is why I have posted it here, to get additional input.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Praxius By the way, I almost forgot to mention how to start the implimention of this goverment process.... An easy and semi-safe way to test to see if this method would work, is to do it with a test city/town. Allow the one town to operate for one or two years this way and study how they work and interact with other towns and cities who still use currency. Chances are the town may not have a college or university for this type of process to have free education, so it would be more or less a study of the businesses and the people who work in them to see how things function. A university/college would still function similar to a business and how they interact with their clients/students. If any issues arise, then they can be addressed easier then it being a national system right away. A prototype so to speak. This would also be able to represent how one nation would ineract with other nations around the globe, only it would be a town interacting with the country. Once this process passes, you can start to impliment it into another town, to double check to see if it will still work elsewhere, and if all goes well in the second attempt, then it would be safe to say it would work for the rest of one country, with a few tweeks here and there, which would be expected. My theory is if this did work well overall, then you probably would also see an increase of interest and population growth in that community, due to other's wanting a chance at this new method of living.

With all due respect, this description is very vague. It contains no details of implementation, even on the scale of a single town or city. Have you worked out any of the necessary details? If so, I would like to read about them.

Another trend you might see is a population balance happen over the country. Since cost of things would be irrelevent, and everything being equal,

This is where you are wrong. Please re-read about opportunity cost and get back to me.

people who previously had fixed incomes or low income would be able to move outside of their normal limits and head back to smaller towns and locations where property values were high and difficult to meet, except for those who could afford it in the past or who have retired. This would also help the problem of high concentrated populated areas, such as in cities, reduced and those who were in low income housing and "Seedy" neighbourhoods would be able to move out of those locations, making a highly populated area less populated and tensions reduced in those area, which are prone for violence and hostilities.

Ability does not imply desire. People may not want to leave. How do you plan on dealing with that?

More people would be able to have their own family vehicles to get around, and without the problem of currency, Oil would be obselete and then the country could start moving forward much more faster with more enviromentally friendly vehicles and devices.

No offense, but this is naive in the extreme. There is no logical implication from the absence of currency to the obsolescence of oil. Quite simply, it is a non-sequitur.

The transition from fossil fuels to alternative fuels would be something that would have to span about 10 years aprox, due to the complex transition of companies, housing, vehicles, and the general market.

Why 10 years and not shorter or longer? Where do you get the 10-year figure?

- Rob

[Praxius]

Quote by: Autolykos With all due respect, this description is very vague. It contains no details of implementation, even on the scale of a single town or city. Have you worked out any of the necessary details? If so, I would like to read about them.

Like I said... I don't have all the answers. I did, but I forgot most of it.

Let me see if I can located additional information from the other forum I had this in.....

Quote by: the eagle what will these alternate fuels be? Electric, Wind, Hydro, Vegitable, and all other alternative fuels that are being worked on currently. what makes you think anyone in the oil industry is interested in changing pathways? maybe they love what they do... ! Because they all know that it's not only bad for the enviroment, but the primary concern for them is once they use up all the fossil fuels there will be no more, and they'd still be out of a job..... this way, they still have a future. and people love their cars... would this government encourage massive stand ups to the present oppositional powers that be? because they are bound to form... They would vote in the party, just like they would any other political party they vote for today..... if they become the majority government, then they would slowly change each law as most comfortable to the general public and what is voted in. It wouldn't matter then what the previous government wanted, because in Canadian politics, it doesn't work that way..... hence why there are so many political parties out there to vote for that all have very different ideas..... Liberals, Conservatives, New Democratic Party, Green Party, Marijuana Party, The Communist Party, etc. One more can't hurt, and if a Communist party is allowed to play the game, why not this one? are you ready to be responsible for igniting the next civil war? what kind of 'military' are you planning on having to back you? Canada has never had a Civil War, and for the most part, we're not that kind of country. We've always had a history of peaceful resolutions. I wouldn't need a military to back me up, because I shouldn't have to force anybody to do anything, anymore then what the current government forces us to do..... if not less. There would only be one military, which is the Canadian Military, which supports what the current government needs. Currently the Conservatives are throwing our military to Afghanistan and abroad, and while there are protests about what the military is currently doing, they still do their job and there are no riots in the streets. and we know you inhaled... so that means, you lose out on a good portion of voters right there...hehehe So did Clinton. there are alot of seriously religious and powerfully religious folks out there, prax... maybe you are the third anti christ !! :lol: They can think whatever they want to think about me. They will still be allowed to practice their religions as the do now without fear of restrictions, so long as they do not infringe on the rights of the people who follow them.

See, if the majority of the population doesn't want it, then they gave their answer.... plain and simple and it dies right there.... but it's worth trying then doing nothing.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Autolykos This is where you are wrong. Please re-read about opportunity cost and get back to me.

I read it, I understand it.... this method is a bit out of the whack, but the method in question eliminates it.

Ability does not imply desire. People may not want to leave. How do you plan on dealing with that?

Then they don't leave. It was an option, not a law. What they need and desire can and will be worked on. It's a development idea that can change regularly, not like a constitution that is out of date that can not be modified for the change of society.

Why 10 years and not shorter or longer? Where do you get the 10-year figure? - Rob

Well I said 10, because the government that is in power today has claimed in order to convert all vehicles from fossil fuels to cleaner fuels and reduce greenhouse emissions, it will take aprox 10 years, so I went for 10 years.

When you think about the amount of conversion that is required in all fields, it would take a number of years.

8-10 has been the magic numbers I've heard bouncing around in the last few months.

[Praxius]

Here is another quote of some FAQ's and comments form another forum:

Quote by: Jivana I'm not disagreeing with you or anything Actually, I guess this ^ is the basic premise of anarchism. I agree with alot of the ideals that you present. I'm just not sure, in general, that there should be just one system or style of government that people should follow (I don't think that's what you're suggesting though). That would be a bit fascist, wouldn't it :twisted: It sure would, and if the goverment flops, then it flops, but at least it tried (Future tense) there would always be allowed re elections, they can always vote out one person and vote in another who can do the job better. Politics is just like religion .. it doesn't solve all your (or the worlds) problems. There's a multitude of terrible things going on .. and probably just as many ways of fixing them too. True, but the right system would at least solve some of the problems.... I'm not saying this would fix everything in the world, but it would fix a lot of the things that our current goverment doesn't..... or just doesn't care about. Just a thought .. maybe 'utopia' is ultimately rejected (just look that film 'the Beach' with Leonardo di Caprio .. that all turned to shit in the end, didn't it? :shock: ) because life really isn't meant to be perfect. Yeah, but they were still controled by the leaders of that island with extreme rules of no contact from the outside world, that's where they failed. This is not the same case. Not only that, but they were on an island with an army of drug dealers, so their situation was unique. Maybe the universe and nature is perfect in it's natural state, true .. but if human beings don't have chaos or dilemma's to deal with, how do we grow and evolve? If everything was perfect and lovely, wouldn't we become stagnant?? That's not to say we shouldn't strive for a better world to live in though. Well I never said this would make a perfect utopia, I'm not that illusioned, lol. Nothing is perfect and this system is not going to be perfect. But if it is better then the current, then why not "Upgrade" to something better? I'm not saying this will solve all our problems, and there will still probably be wars in the world, there will always be people in distress and problems to overcome, but this method I am working on will at least solve most of the common problems that are not being addressed by the current goverment. Jeff Martin said himself in that half drunken rant on polotics that you gotta start getting in younger people who are not corrupted by the old goverment, who know what todays people needs. That's at least one thing I can agree on with him. -------------- Once again, I'm not claiming this to be the perfect system, but with the right questions and concers by people such as yourselves, it can be improved and improved to something better then where we are now. Here's a question for you guys....... If we keep the same goverment that we have now, or as we know it today..... do you honestly think in 10 years or so, things are going to improve? For the last 20 years of my life, I have seen no real changes in our way of life for the better, things are always being cut, laws are always changing for foolish reasons, Taxes keep increasing, shool tuition is always increasing and funds for them dropping. Back in the early 1900's something that cost you $10 now, would only have cost like 10 cents back then (An example) and every year prices of things keep rising, and as we try to fight for raises in our pay to balance this out, it's never equal to the ammount of cost that was increased, and we slowly grow further and further into debt. The goverment take a little bit of money and puts it into this program here, and then a year later put a little bit of money into another program there..... it's a patch job for a problem they can not fix. Which is why I think the primary problem today is currency. You guys keep talking about Communism and Facisim and the sort, but have any of you ever watch Star Trek:TNG? Many of their principles and concepts follow similarly towards what I am heading towards, and most of that was thought up by Gene Roddenberry Who was thinking of all of this long before I was born. Yeah, true Star Trek was just a show and a fictional story, but 90% of what was brought about in those shows were baised on logical and factual things that exist today to make it as realistic as possible. Many technologies we used today probably would have never came to be if it wasn't for that show. Don't get me wrong, I'm not religious with that show, lol, but many of it's concepts could and can work, and has helped me get some things solved in this system.