No matter how well a person is heard, you are still not going to get unanimous agreement; people just prefer different things.
Fundamentally, this is why democracy is flawed. It uses violence to apply the will of a majority (regardless to how this majority is identified) over a minority.
Moreover, the very idea of citizenship, borders and rulers are flawed concepts. These are manufactured concepts, which place divisions where they need not be.
The internet has no borders. Families and businesses transcend borders too. Citizenship and a class of rulers are things from the past. If we want to think about the next generation of social empowerment, I think we need to look beyond these dated concepts.
Fundamentally, this is why democracy is flawed. It uses violence to apply the will of a majority (regardless to how this majority is identified) over a minority.
This is not unique to democracy and not a fair characterisation IMO. Yes violence is used to enforce in certain situations, but this is true of all systems to a greater or lesser degree, and democracy one of the least prone to this. So I don’t see this as a problem of democracy, nor a reason to dismiss it.
True, it is a general characteristic of statism. I agree democracy is the best form of statism, but it is still based on the foundation that might is right and the majority can decide how the minority must behave, through threats of jail time.
Is this really the best we can do? Is it really the peak of civilised behaviour? I would say no… it is just another way step towards peaceful coexistence.
Not sure that I agree that democracy is the best form of statism, other than the fact that it at least nominally seeks to empower “the people”–though not the individual, which is the more important truth.
The problem with democracy is the same as any other -cracy or -archy: the root of these terms is “to rule.” If the individual doesn’t have a right to begin with, how can that person delegate that right to another? This is where democracy is hypocritical.
@happybeing, I think you’ll agree that I don’t have the right to “rule” you, nor you me. Can you and I then have the right to decide to rule @Al_Kafir? What if @Traktion also decides that @Al_Kafir really needs ruling and joins us. At what point is @Al_Kafir morally obliged to give a shit what we think. We can decide that we’ll hire @chrisfostertv to do the enforcement to make @Al_Kafir behave; he can be the heavy and just say he’s following orders and enforcing the will of the majority.
To me that’s a lot less honest than saying “I rule you because I’ve got control of the money and can hire people with guns to make you do what I think you should.”
At least a monarch has to be very careful not to offend the ruled too much, because his veneer is thinner, and he might wish to pass on the realm to his heirs in good shape. In democracy, “we the people” are on the hook fo the behavior of the ruling class. “If they’re violating your rights it’s your own fault, because you haven’t done your job keeping them in line. And the solution is to give the system even more legitimacy by scrambling harder to vote and grab the reigns of power so that you can make people do what YOU think is best.”
That’s pure Stockholm Syndrome.
The funny thing is that it actually is our fault for not keeping them in line. But the reason it’s our fault is for giving them the legitimacy in the first place.
I do agree with you. Democracy was necessary to get us to where we are today. But its time for a change.
ideally, we would not have borders and we would have a resource based economy, where the word economy would actually be applied in its truest sense.
However, it is a big leap from here to there. We need intermediary steps.
By providing an arena for people to speak their minds without the fear of persecution, we facilitate the sharing of ideas and knowledge. This is what we do in open source and this is what we are doing here.
In the end, good stable arguments weed out the bad ones and we’re left with a few good options to select from.
Information is power. The diffusion of information results in brighter minds and those minds help pass on knowledge. Perhaps, even to a point where people are making decisions based on the greater good of the group instead of the individual (optimistic).
I think that many of our differences - the really big ones, and those that matter most, are based on a lack of education and knowledge.
Would the wars we fight have taken place if the truth about them had been freely spread before they happened? –- That’s just a thought experiment. Lets avoid getting into that
Erm…this isn’t a plot is it?
The thing is Fergish, imagine if we all lived in the same house…lol…say for instance Al Kafir had asserted his alpha male status, however often strayed from the master bedroom (and his honeys) in his underpants. Imagine further that Traktion, Chris and Happy keep arguing over the TV (Chris keeps turning it off) and you keep smoking my weed - we’d need some house rules.
Yes, those rules may include “no nicking weed” or “no turning the tv off if someone’s watching it” etc. The downside maybe that my freedom to walk around in my underpants is hindered a bit…or I’m coerced into wearing trousers, but how else do you solve these basic conundrums without either Democracy or some level of coercion?
For the duration that I am living in a shared space with others. I also have the option to leave.
I think core to this is thinking about the carrot being the motivation, rather than the stick.
I know that I could strike and yell at my child to make him do as I want, but I choose not to. Instead, I talk it through with him. I explain why I would like him to do X rather than Y. Sometimes we give one another time to think about it, but we always reach agreement in the end. My son is 2 btw - if he can negotiate peacefully and freely, I expect any adult yo be capable.
How does this scale up? A big topic with endless details, but ultimately you want society to reward positive behaviour and shun negative behaviour, without resorting to violence.
Bringing the next generations up peacefully without resorting to threats is a great start. Concepts are learned and teaching a child that might is right gives them that outlook for the rest of their lives (without strong self teaching to the otherwise).
Instead of threats, negotiating becomes the first thought. We have been moving in this direction for centuries, but it is an on going journey.
I envisage various ratings being associated with individuals, which help or hinder their progress. Positive social actions improve those ratings and increase opportunities. Negative social actions result in the opposite.
Ofc, some are always going to resort to violence, but hopefully far fewer in the long run. Self defence will still have to be applied and likely outsourced too. However, if violence is not rewarded, it shall be seldom used. Currently, being violent is far too acceptable and profitable, which is reflected in both how society is structured and acts today.
If we use logic to determine how often each person gets the TV and how you can walk around in your underware without bothering anyone, we can find a balanced solution for all.
Everyone gets the TV for an hour. If thats not enought, we get a new TV.
We create an underware only room (hmm… i like that)
Logic and scientific process has and continues to solve many of our problems. It can be applied here.
And yes… It’s all about the carrot. Any basic analysis of penal systems will show you beyond a doubt that the stick does not work.
United States has been fighting a drug war for years. Never has drug abuse been so rampant.
Netherlands and Portugal both decriminalized drug use and now treat it as an illness with state sponsered care. They have some of the lowest instances of drug related crime and death.
Using the stick is easy because it’s obvious but it’s a week weapon compared to the carrot (or chocolate cake).
No, it gives me the right to participate in the established form of governance (not ruling by an elite - at least not theoretically). The form of governance would be democracy, which gives you an equal voice with equal rights to everyone else in Society. A system of Law and Order is also required for proper functioning of any Society.
I understand you think of it as a “Them and Us” situation in a way, but “Them” are supposed to be representing “Us” - to the extent they don’t and the reasons for this are where the problems lie.
I wouldn’t use a child/parent analogy as this suggests either a very paternalistic or Authoritarian relationship going on. In that analogy the Govt is the Parent and the Voter the ignorant child needing educating by the Govt.
Someone on here recently said they thought Democracy was an intermediate step to…something else. Marx thought Socialism was a step on the road to Communism. I would say crypto tech is going to facillitate the de-centralisation of many things and lead to a paradigm shift in how we think of governance and Society.
I’m largely in agreement with this Veblen Guy I’ve just been reading about:
“Veblen believed that technological developments would eventually lead toward a socialistic organization of economic affairs. Veblen saw socialism as one intermediate phase in an ongoing evolutionary process in society that would be brought about by the natural decay of the business enterprise system and by the inventiveness of engineers.”
Funnily enough, this guy’s thinking had a lot to do with the later Technocracy Movement that ChrisFostertv asked about if Etherium was modelled around. Having read up a bit actually I would say that both Etherium and Maidsafe are Technocracy in action.
There’s that “-cracy” again. I don’t really know about Etherium, but I think SAFE is a decided move away from such. Technocracy is the principle that human society should be ruled by “science”, the definition and parameters of which are defined by political enforcement to back whatever “science” is considered orthodox, expedient, or correct by the lights of political correctness. “Climate science” is a great modern example of such political nonsense.
So, please, let’s not try to paint the Project SAFE with that odious brush. It is antithetical to that sort of movement.
Please elaborate…as I think it goes to the heart of the matter. Do we want to be informed by the relevant Scientists in their fields or by whoever you are informed by?
Well known scientists are frequently wrong. Often those who are right are considered heretics until the tenured generation passes on. Science is no cleaner than any other institution run by political humans. Certain things get funded, certain things don’t. Certain lines of studies make you a crazy nutcase and certain lines of study are socially acceptable.
It is well publicized that climate scientists have been caught tweaking the numbers. “Global warming” is a outdated term – Now we have moved on to “Global climate change” It sucks when your life’s work is undermined and made useless and irrelevant. That is why the institutions protect themselves from such possibilities.
It may be, it may not be – but there is plenty of evidence that humans are promoting agendas.
All well and good, I’ll take this on board insofar as my health is concerned. The relevant nutritional scientists have informed me of their opinion and I will weigh this against any contrary arguments when deciding whether to eat 5 fruits a day or not. The same would go for smoking, drinking, taking drugs etc - these are lifestyle choices.
Probably not, but that would be decided by the voter, not the scientist - the scientist is informing the voter/Govt, not running things.
There appear to be a number of different ideas around what constitutes a Technocracy and I’m certainly not advocating technocrats running Govt - in fact I’ve not even ever advocated any form of Technocracy, but I actually would thinking about it.
The form in which it would take would be to de-centralise.a number of Govt functions - remove the middle man to an extent when deciding different policies.
If we go back to the to the basic problem of Lobbyists having too much influence on Govt, the often more scientific/rational arguments get drowned out - this needs re-balancing. I would suggest that alongside having all Lobbyist meetings recorded and providing the same forum for counter arguments to be made - the voices of the relevant sciences/disciplines should also inform the debate. The idea of a federated News service would also help inform the public better.
I am happy for scientists to recommend things too. Putting it into law though is a very different thing though.
Science is great and should be used to help to guide our actions. It doesn’t mean that there is one, indisputable, action that everyone must take though.
I know you keep referring to Science as if it’s an entity, Church, Institution or Religion whatever, but it really isn’t…it’s a method…the Scientific method.
The method can be mis-used, results fudged etc, but evidence is evidence…and there’s overwhelming evidence for Climate change - your objections to “Science” are mis-placed. Nobody’s asking anybody to blindly “trust the experts”, but listen to the relevant arguments.
I don’t get this “don’t listen to the experts” bollocks…what is meant is don’t have blind faith in them or worship them religiously…don’t worry, I won’t, I will continue to make my own mind up based on the arguments/science.
As an example, if you wanted an informed opinion about XOR space, would both mine and DIrvine’s respective opinion be of equal value? I’d suggest not, because, I am missing the “informed” bit.
