Can Direct Democracy Work Today?

[SoylentGreen]

Sonart
And once again, you're talking about... what... 200 million adult Americans

That is the problem, it is impossible to keep that many happy. To ever be able to achieve anything like direct democracy the U needs to taken out of the SA.

[Praxius]

I clearly expanded on that by adding "and the resources" so this is rather gratuitous argument. Besides, homeless people - certainly those who aren't drunk, stoned or insane - consume their time just trying to survive.

A bit of a narrow view on the above situations.... but in this same situation of having direct democracy, people should or could be paid for the time they take for their input, including the homeless if needed.

If there is a problem, there is always a solution.... you just have to take some time to think about it first. I have other methods which would solve a few of these other issues, but that involves the abolishment of Capitalism as we currently know it..... which I know some just arn't ready for yet.

And once again, you're talking about... what... 200 million adult Americans - maybe 20% with college educations - who you expect to sift through 1,000 page federal budget bills, scientific debates, global trade policy, federal banking policy, classified military briefings and budget requests, and international diplomatic initiatives?

Yup.... you can vote on the things you relate to or directly concern you, while leaving out the other topics for those who are more interested.... and if you hacked off 70% of the bureaucracies that currently exist to waste time and money, this process would be a lot more simple...... also.... it doesn't usually take a rocket scientist to understand many of these topics, and if these groups can't present their arguments in a way that the majority can understand, then they don't present them until they do.

Once again, this is exactly why the economic crisis started in the first place..... politicians a few years back wanted to know what was going on in the markets.... people in the markets told them to leave it alone because it's just too complicated to understand or explain..... so those politicians did so and left them to their own devices. This left them room to screw the whole system up for their own greed until it was too late to do anything about it..... and now half of these fools are being charged.... when if they were forced to explain it in the first place, we might have avoided this whole mess in the first place.

And how can it be too complicated to explain? They knew how it worked apparently and were taught it.

Also.... what does college or university have to do with understanding these things? I took three college courses, got diplomas, etc.... and none of it relates to politics.... what I do know I learned on my own time, due to my own interest.

That's why the average California initiative is voted down... unless some interest group has thrown vast sums of money into promoting their bill in simple terms in the media, voters look at the gobblety-gook that comprises most initiatives, throw their hands up in confusion and simply vote no, lest they unwittingly pass something bad.

Then the information should be presented in a regulated, detailed manner in a way that most people can understand..... or it's not presented at all until it is.

If you can't present your argument in a manner that can win the general public over, then you don't diserve the chance to win in the first place.

Do you think Obama or other Presidents/Prime Ministers understand all these various aspects of laws, physics, sociology, etc. before they make a decision?

They are usually explained to them, they do research, and after they feel they have gained enough information to make a sound decision, they make one..... any human can do this.

This is silly. People waste their time on Internet forums (relatively few, really), facebook and chatrooms because they're FUN.

I don't..... Facebook and forums are not anymore fun then typing an email or book report.... I do so, because I find them interesting.... certainly not because they're fun.

But if you find them fun, who am I to argue? We all have our reasons..... but each of those reasons usually result in similar end results.

Take this forum, for example. Out of all the threads currently running, how many are YOU participating in? Maybe one or two that interest you, right?

Indeed.... nobody ever said you had to get involved or submit your input into every part of a direct democracy, even I probably wouldn't..... with a few hundred million people in the US alone, there should be more then enough educated and informed input for any and all decisions to be made in a certain issue.

As an example of these forums/threads.... I don't post in all of them, because I either have no interest or I have no background in a certain topic, therefore I will allow those who do their chance to have their input...... but if something comes accross my path that I feel has an involvement in my life, or changes my view that I should have input..... I will.

Regardless of how informed somenoe is or isn't, so long as they are a citizen and adult, their input is equally valid, whether they decide their views based on informed, logical views.... or based on emotional appeal.

If the majority vote in favor of something due to fear, ignorance or emotional appeal, then you didn't do a good enough job in informing/educating people...... not my fault.

^ But in relation to that example, the current representational government isn't immune to this either. If it was, then people wouldn't have jumped on the Afghanistan & Iraq Band Wagons so quickly if they were given the right information in the first place and didn't react due to emotional revenge and ignorance.

People can't figure out their own medical insurance policies. Do you seriously imagine 200 million high school educated Americans are going to figure out how reform the health care system?

People can't figure out how to set their times on their VCR's/DVD Players..... should they be restricted in being allowed to figure it out on their own and have some technician come to baby sit them?

People are dumb and lazy because that's how they've been conditioned for so long..... as homer simpson put it "Can't someone else do it?"

Back when personal computers came out, if they broke down, people had to get a technician to come in and fix them.... because they were too complicated we were told. Over the years, people started to realize they're not that hard to figure out and many people can build their own these days......

.... it went from the days where you got someone to come in and fix the computer and charge you hundreds/thousands of dollars..... to calling up your buddy down the road who can fix the computer for free.

Oh.... but then I expect to be told that computer's parts became easier to install and fix over the years....... yet my brother and I were fixing our Commador 64 at the ages of 9 & 11 respectfully..... no previous training.... we just looked up what we needed to know at the library and did it (this was before the internet became main stream mind you.)

If people want to learn something, they'll learn it..... their only limitation is their interest.

[Praxius]

How arrogant. It has nothing to do with being lazy. The average American simply isn't equipped to work a full time job, take care of their family AND educate themselves in all the complexities of running a hi-tech, economically complex, militarily powerful, culturally, economically and socially diverse country the size of the United States.

What's arrogant is your trivializing of people's abilities and intelligence.

If you can operate your cell phone or computer/internet..... if you can sit down and watch the news on TV for an hour or so a day after work... if you can pop onto an internet forum to hear what others have to say as well as give your own input...... if you can take that much time out of your day for any or all of these things, then you have enough time to inform yourself and share your input into the aspects of the above you find interesting/directly affect your life.

You're trying to over complicate something that really isn't that complicated.... nor needs to be.

No, Praxius, it can't. It's like controlling political contributions... you can't. Close one loophole, folks will simply find another one. The only real answer is to allow people to contribute whatever the like, but simply make it completely transparent.

If you adjust the initiative systems, the special interests will find ways to circumvent those adjustments.

As Kyle Reese said of the Terminator, "That's what he does! It's ALL he does!"

Then make it against the law for deliberate loopholing of the system.

Either that or remove political contributions..... and since in a direct democracy, there wouldn't be any parties to contribute to in the first place.... this wouldn't be an issue.

Oh cool... then no one will know a dang thing about initiatives except for the two paragraph summaries people would be willing to read on voting guides. Not to mention that it's a clear violation of the First Amendment.

NO... check!

Who said anything about just being two paragraphs? There would/could be a summery or breakdown in point form in the introduction for easy searching of topics that best interest you, followed by the remaining details of the subject if one wanted to delve that far into the subject. Then if someone makes a decision without reading all the details/fine print..... once again, they have nobody else to blame but themselves.

Put the responsibility where it should be..... in the hands of the citizens.

Oh that's right..... people don't have the time, I forgot.

Back on the reference you mentioned about people having too busy a life to contribute.... you responded with that from my references towards how people don't get involved now.... which is usually

A) - They don't believe in the current system.
B) - They feel their input has little difference in the final outcome.
C) - None of the parties to choose from represents most or all of their own views.

^ These people don't contribute to the current system due to these reasons, which direct democracy would solve this issue, as it invites people to have direct input in the matters that directly affect them..... and results in tangible results.

Those working in the Direct Democracy? You mean there's a staff?

As I have stated before, and elsewhere in another thread, there would still be a need for people to operate within the government, however they would not have any authoritive positions to make decisions over the citizens, other then their own vote. Unlike the current system where those in the government make the decisions and we suck it up..... this method would mean they do their jobs properly and with as few loopholes as possible..... ie: the people voice what they want to have done..... those in the government make it happen...... much more so then today's system.

No action is taken until citizen input is given.

Again, smacks of government censorship, don't you think?

The people determine how much the government censors.... and if the government is doing anything of the sort, then the citizens have the power to change things so that they don't.... thereby continuing to keep the power in the people's hands, not a select few who would be king.

To be honest, Praxius, I have vastly more trust in our representatives -- benevolent scoundrels though they may be -- than in hoping and trusting average Americans to be able to navigate the complexities of running this vast country.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter" -- Winston Churchill

.

Even people who gave out fancy little quotes over the years got things wrong from time to time.... nobody's perfect, but the more people you have involved, the less inperfect it becomes.

You may have more trust in your representatives then you do your fellow citizens.... that's your right, even if I feel it's a shame.

I on the other hand feel the total opposite..... then again, it could be due to the two differing democracies we're used to....... at least here in Canada, Politics is something usually talked over dinner tables accross the country by most.... and usually not for the good things they do. Every election that goes by, less and less people are turning out to vote, and the above three examples I previously provided are the popular reasons given.

Oh well, if you are happy with your current system, who am I to argue?

I just personally feel direct democracy does have a place in the world today, it can and will work if done right, and some places in this world would do a lot better with it.

[minorwork]

.... nobody's perfect, but the more people you have involved, the less imperfect it becomes.

Where do you work that you see that unlikely circumstance?

[grandpa]

Thank you- consider this- the Afghanistan army and the terrorist
are volunteers.
Effectively these people have more freedom than you and I,
because they do not have the bureaucratic structure above them,
that is above us.

I wouldn't say they are volunteers. Like true-blue theocrats, they do tend to brainwash and terrorize people into joining their ranks. And they have Allah and various warlords above them (along with a newly installed "Westernized government" that, although not entirely successful, wishes to be above the Afghanis).

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Speaking of Fox News....

That's almost always followed by something shameful and/or hilarious.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Where do you work that you see that unlikely circumstance?

It's not that unlikely, provided people aren't carrying out orders like mere robots.

Grandpa h.

[minorwork]

It's not that unlikely, provided people aren't carrying out orders like mere robots.

Grandpa h.

How've you been Grandpa? Election go your way? I'm happy so far. But then I'm not giving back a million dollar bonus.

Have you ever worked somewhere that would verify Praxius' statement?

The need for a scapegoat will be demanded. Where do you apply for that job in a direct democracy? Qualifications?

[Praxius]

Where do you work that you see that unlikely circumstance?

At a sign/advertisment company of about 40 some odd people and without the proper system in place everything can and will go to hell in a hand basket pretty quickly.

Just in the last couple of years of working here, I have seen first hand how old, flawed systems need to be updated for the times, or you lose out on business, quality, productivity and money.

If it wasn't for the other people a project has to pass through looking through it all and making sure everything made perfect sense and can actually be constructed.... there'd be a lot of half-arsed crap up on buildings and on vehicles around the maritimes.

You could be the best designer or sales rep in the entire world, but nobody is perfect and one person alone can not find all the problems, let alone solve them on their own, all the time.

It is very likely.... every day I come to work, and if it's not someone else's mistake on a detail or info missing, it's mine.

[Praxius]

Have you ever worked somewhere that would verify Praxius' statement?

The need for a scapegoat will be demanded. Where do you apply for that job in a direct democracy? Qualifications?

My comment you quoted about "nobody's perfect, but the more people you have involved, the less imperfect it becomes." was a general statement for any situation in life.... or at least most.

Rather then me listing out all the small things I've covered in the past, I'll just link you directly to my original concept:

http://www.volconvo.com/forums/polit...y-therory.html

Enjoy

[Disinformant]

.
It's not? Tell that to any of the free market libertarians around here.

They would agree wholeheartedly of course.

What congressional friends were those? The Gingrich GOP 'Revolution' that took over Congress in '94 was hardly Clinton's friends. In fact, they tried to impeach him, remember?
And you're completely ignoring the supply-side revolution that began with Saint Ronald of Reagan, and the back-to-Reagan, free-market deregulation fervor that took over once the Republicans took over ALL the branches of our government in 2000.
I daresay your selective focus on Clinton seems just a tad absurd.

I wouldn't call it a focus, my only goal is to demonstrate that this economic crisis was planned from the outset by the same people, and the President (Bush or Clinton) have been used to act out that plan. The plan is described by Thomas Jefferson:
“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and the corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered .”
The bold part is most relevant. By making money easy to acquire, by loaning out all these terrible loans (be they Adjustable Rate or dozens of other bad loans) the government is forced to inflate the currency to compensate for the increase in debt. Then deflation (on its way). Now, for this process to have worked, "selective deregulation" was applied to banks, essentially giving rise to many of these loans. In an effort to get more Americans into more homes, Clinton deregulated some aspects of banks and regulated others. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act is a good start, essentially repealing the Glass-Steagall Act. The Glass-Steagall Act was the most integral legislation for banking regulation. The Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 dissolved the Bank Holding Company Act essentially allowed massive banking mergers between different types of banks (Like WaMu and Chase, or BofA and Lynch). Prior to these repeals, sub-prime lending was minimal, and grew by at least 6 times after the repeals. This is the most essential piece of legislation regarding the financial crisis, and it was signed in by Clinton (And voted in with minimal resistance).
This is selective deregulation at its worst, and it is not a free-market principle. Robert Ekelund and Mark Thornton put the difference into context, "in a world regulated by a gold standard, 100% reserve banking, and no FDIC deposit insurance the Financial Services Modernization Act would have made "perfect sense" as a legitimate act of deregulation, under the present fiat monetary system it amounts to corporate welfare for financial institutions and a moral hazard that will make taxpayers pay dearly."
Selective deregulation and selective regulation are used in conjunction to favor the largest and most lobbied companies in the US. This is deregulation being used to favor select banks in taking over other banks. Regulation often consists of things like the new Animal Farm ID Act, designed strictly to disenfranchise small farmers and favor large farm corporations like Monsanto and ConAgra by forcing Organic growers to follow specific and expensive regulations on tracking their animals that large farms don't have to follow. This is how regulation often works. Neither of these two things can be free-market, at its core a free-market is about preventing all legislation which favors one business or trade over another artificially. A free-market is a market uninfluenced by government or legislation and at its core sub-prime lending is proof of the current implicit relationship between banks and government.

[minorwork]

My comment you quoted about "nobody's perfect, but the more people you have involved, the less imperfect it becomes." was a general statement for any situation in life.... or at least most.
http://www.volconvo.com/forums/polit...y-therory.html

Enjoy

Surprisingly I did enjoy it. I now have the foundations for the economic system and government for Star Trek: The Next Generation all in one place. Next Gen is my favorite of the Star Trek series. A lot of good morality dilemmas to deal with.

The trouble with broad statements is in the details of application. For sure a quarterback alone will not win a football game against 11 players. Upgrades ARE needed. But there is also such a thing as an optimum number of team members for a given task. Too many and you get a clustertuck. Not good. The hard part in any scheme will be in understanding the technology and human personalities that will bring fluidity to that optimum number's determination.

There are utopian visions and eutopian visions. I'm pretty sure you'd claim yours as the latter. I'm inclined toward the former.

The Great Thanksgiving Hoax
Thanksgiving 2003
By Richard J. Maybury Mr. Maybury writes on investments. This article originally appeared in The Free Market, November 1985.

Each year at this time school children all over America are taught the official Thanksgiving story, and newspapers, radio, TV, and magazines devote vast amounts of time and space to it. It is all very colorful and fascinating.

It is also very deceiving. This official story is nothing like what really happened. It is a fairy tale, a whitewashed and sanitized collection of half-truths which divert attention away from Thanksgiving's real meaning.

The official story has the pilgrims boarding the Mayflower, coming to America and establishing the Plymouth colony in the winter of 1620-21. This first winter is hard, and half the colonists die. But the survivors are hard working and tenacious, and they learn new farming techniques from the Indians. The harvest of 1621 is bountiful. The Pilgrims hold a celebration, and give thanks to God. They are grateful for the wonderful new abundant land He has given them.

The official story then has the Pilgrims living more or less happily ever after, each year repeating the first Thanksgiving. Other early colonies also have hard times at first, but they soon prosper and adopt the annual tradition of giving thanks for this prosperous new land called America .

The problem with this official story is that the harvest of 1621 was not bountiful, nor were the colonists hardworking or tenacious. 1621 was a famine year and many of the colonists were lazy thieves.

In his 'History of Plymouth Plantation,' the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with "corruption," and with "confusion and discontent." The crops were small because "much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable."

In the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622, "all had their hungry bellies filled," but only briefly. The prevailing condition during those years was not the abundance the official story claims, it was famine and death. The first "Thanksgiving" was not so much a celebration as it was the last meal of condemned men.

But in subsequent years something changes. The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, "instead of famine now God gave them plenty," Bradford wrote, "and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God." Thereafter, he wrote, "any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day." In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn.

What happened?

After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford , "they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop." They began to question their form of economic organization.

This had required that "all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means" were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, "all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock." A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.

This "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that "young men that are most able and fit for labor and service" complained about being forced to "spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children." Also, "the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak." So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.

To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.

Many early groups of colonists set up socialist states, all with the same terrible results. At Jamestown , established in 1607, out of every shipload of settlers that arrived, less than half would survive their first twelve months in America . Most of the work was being done by only one-fifth of the men, the other four-fifths choosing to be parasites. In the winter of 1609-10, called "The Starving Time," the population fell from five-hundred to sixty.

Then the Jamestown colony was converted to a free market, and the results were every bit as dramatic as those at Plymouth . In 1614, Colony Secretary Ralph Hamor wrote that after the switch there was "plenty of food, which every man by his own industry may easily and doth procure." He said that when the socialist system had prevailed, "we reaped not so much corn from the labors of thirty men as three men have done for themselves now."

Before these free markets were established, the colonists had nothing for which to be thankful. They were in the same situation as Ethiopians are today, and for the same reasons. But after free markets were established, the resulting abundance was so dramatic that the annual Thanksgiving celebrations became common throughout the colonies, and in 1863, Thanksgiving became a national holiday.

Thus the real reason for Thanksgiving, deleted from the official story, is: Socialism does not work; the one and only source of abundance is free markets, and we thank God we live in a country where we can have them.