New form of government in the digital age.

[TheFootMan]

Today, democracy is touted many places in the world as the most desirable form of government. It is said that elections are important and that 'the people' decide. In reality, it's the money that decides, and those with a lot of money make the rules.

We can probably agree on that most people are not very smart, so many people are duped by political campaigns and nice words from politicians running for office, and the more money you can throw at the campaigns, the more people you can convince..

I think there's a couple of alternatives to the indirect form om democracy we have today.

1. Dictatorship. And I've thought of this, if one man, or one party actually does a good job, this could be great. But we would need good people to rule, and how would we find these people, and who would appoint them ? It's so easy to misuse power in a dictatorship. If however it was a group of humans that were wise, and made great decisions for their country on all levels, it would be great. Of course there would always be someone that disagreed for certain things, and it is a lengthy discussion to talk about what's the 'right' way to govern a country. But let me take a few examples that I think are important: Education, freedom of speech and minimal bureaucracy for starters.

2. Limited democracy. Here I would want only those intelligent enough to separate the wheat from the chaff, if it so only were 30% of the population that were intelligent enough to pass the intelligence test to get a voters license, so be it. Why do we need the sheep to be involved that are swayed by campaigns running the week before the election ? We need educated people to take educated and intelligent decisions based on facts and previous history. Big political campaigns should be illegal, and monetary funding of candidates should not be legal. There should be no travelling around trying to collect votes. All candidates should have their program and credentials laid out on their webpage, and political debate should be neutral debates were the candidates can debate in a polite way.

3. Direct democracy, people should vote for different political cases on a case by case basis. If the state of California wants to ban the use of marijuana, every citizen (or in the case of needing a voters license, only licensees) could vote if they want the law to go through or not. The people could then vote whether they want a hospital, or if they want a fotball stadium, and so on. A lot of people are annoyed by politicians wasting money on things that people in general do not agree spending money on.

I'm sorry to be condescending/elitist here, but why on earth should we have people who have no fucking clue about politics, but votes on a certain person, because somebody would give him a free beer if he did so, or just because he likes the smile of that politician ?

What could be better than democracy ?

[1714230017]

1714230017

[1714230017]

1714230017

[1714230017]

1714230017

[Mike Christ]

Anarchism.

But I suspect I'll soon have to defend my position on this matter.

[hawkeye]

Anarchism.

But I suspect I'll soon have to defend my position on this matter.

Not from me. 

[MonadTran]

3. Direct democracy, people should vote for different political cases on a case by case basis. If the state of California wants to ban the use of marijuana, every citizen (or in the case of needing a voters license, only licensees) could vote if they want the law to go through or not. The people could then vote whether they want a hospital, or if they want a fotball stadium, and so on. A lot of people are annoyed by politicians wasting money on things that people in general do not agree spending money on.

Let's see how it might work out on a limited number of people first, before moving on to entire nations.

1) You are in a company of 2 Muslims. They propose a law that every single person who does not pray to God every morning, gets his butt kicked. Unsurprisingly, they win, so now you have to pray.
2) You are in a company of 2 professional tennis players. They find out they need a new set of tennis racquets, so they suggest that the 3 of you buy one. 2 votes for, 1 vote against, now you have to buy them a tennis racquet.
3) You are in a company of 2 people. Suddenly, one of them proposes the "right-to-fellatio" law. You giggle, since you think the law is pretty ridiculous, and don't vote. You don't even read the law - after all, if it passes somehow, what's so bad in getting an occasional blowjob? Little did you know that the guy was gay, and little did you think that what's right for one is responsibility for another, so now you are required by law to go down on him regularly.
4) You are an anesthesiologist in a company of 8 IT specialists and 2 radical Christians. The Christians propose a law to ban anesthetics, since suffering is sent to us by God. The IT specialists don't care. 2 votes for, 1 vote against, now you are without a job. One of the computer guys gets seriously ill, and requires an operation, so now he's ready to support you, but you are still lacking votes to overturn the law. Besides, you have already lost you skills and sold your equipment.

[MonadTran]

If the state of California wants to ban the use of marijuana, every citizen could vote if they want the law to go through or not.

This particular part is very interesting to observe on smaller groups.

Say, you engage in a heated discussion with your friends about the use of marijuana. You enjoy smoking an occasional joint, and you see nothing wrong with it. They never tried it, but they argue it is not good for your health, and makes you behave in a weird way, so they are in favor of banning it. You understand there is a minor health impact, but you feel sooo good and peaceful when you smoke, so you stand your ground. You don't manage to convince them, they don't manage to convince you.

Next evening, when you are relaxing in your room with a joint, your friends kick down the door of your apartment, throw you down onto the floor, handcuff you and put you into a cage. Your friends are, admittedly, being a little mean to you, but you realize that you broke the law, so you cannot complain. Your friends do talk to you in your cage from time to time, so you can't really say they abandoned you or something. They are doing what they can, but their civil duties should always come first.

[TheFootMan]

There wasn't much serious input here. Disappointing, as I know there's a lot of bright minds around here.

Let me take an example:

A local municipality with a quarter of a million inhabitants, let's call them Foo-city have some politicians that're ruling the town. They suggest that the birth clinic of the current hospital be shut down, and anyone needing such services travelling to the next town, 80 miles away. This will free funds, which will be used for an art gallery that is heavily wanted by some rich voters in the town, the so-called 'elite'.

After online votes, it's found that 27% of the inhabitants votes, and of those 78% voted in favor of the birth clinic not being discontinued. That's the voice of the people. The art museum is not built, and the population is happy.

I would call that democracy. It's not democracy if the people who are voted in by the people take money under the table and listen to the interests of the elites, against the will of the people.

So the idea is to create a community/form of ruling were people feel they're respected and listened to.

This wasn't input from me to waste time, but to discuss some serious ideas. For very small groups with special interests as mentioned above, such voting could give weird outcomes, but for larger population groups, I assume that the people would be able to select what would be in their best interest.

I'm not sure though if everyone are 'responsible' voters. I wouldn't mind putting people through an intelligence test, and perhaps a test to check whether they have some basic knowledge about how the political system works, before being allowed to vote. I'm not sure if the 'voting for everyone' is the right thing to do.

As it is, as people mature and become grown-ups, they tend to have a wider perspective and care more for their community, so perhaps noone should be allowed to vote before the age of 30 ?

[hawkeye]

What's wrong in the above example of having a private health clinic and a private art gallery?

Why do these things have to be voted on? 

[myrkul]

This wasn't input from me to waste time, but to discuss some serious ideas. For very small groups with special interests as mentioned above, such voting could give weird outcomes, but for larger population groups, I assume that the people would be able to select what would be in their best interest.

And there's where you're wrong. The larger the group, the less likely it is to get a good result. Read up on these concepts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ignorance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Now that you know why Democracy doesn't work, consider this as an option:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by privately funded competitors rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market.

[FoBoT]

What could be better than democracy ?

pretty much * is better than democracy

Would you like to know more?

http://fubarandgrill.org/node/1172

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarchism

Autarchism (from Greek, "belief in self rule") is a political philosophy that upholds the principle of individual liberty, rejects compulsory government, and supports the elimination of government in favor of ruling oneself and no other. Advocates of the philosophy are autarchist (from Greek, "one who believes in self rule"), while the state in which everyone rules themselves and no one else is called autarchy (from Greek αὐταρχία autarchia, "state of self rule").

[TheFootMan]

Thanks for the input guys. Interesting links.

[virtualmaster]

We need a crypto-government.

[Mike Christ]

We need a crypto-government.

We just need to learn how to take care of ourselves.

[hawkeye]

Ultimately, you have to ask the question,

Why is it, that whenever we have these problems that need to be solved in society, the first solution proposed is "we need to steal people's money to pay for it"?
 

[TheFootMan]

Ultimately, you have to ask the question,

Why is it, that whenever we have these problems that need to be solved in society, the first solution proposed is "we need to steal people's money to pay for it"?
 

Not defending taxes, just wondering:

How would you pay for roads, hospital and police in a society were there's zero taxes ? The money would need to come from somewhere, and someone would need to provide those services.

How do you suggest it be funded?

[myrkul]

Ultimately, you have to ask the question,

Why is it, that whenever we have these problems that need to be solved in society, the first solution proposed is "we need to steal people's money to pay for it"?
 

Not defending taxes, just wondering:

How would you pay for roads, hospital and police in a society were there's zero taxes ? The money would need to come from somewhere, and someone would need to provide those services.

How do you suggest it be funded?

In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by privately funded competitors rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market.

[hawkeye]

Not defending taxes, just wondering:

How would you pay for roads, hospital and police in a society were there's zero taxes ? The money would need to come from somewhere, and someone would need to provide those services.

How do you suggest it be funded?

There are such a thing as private hospitals.    Private insurance etc...

There are a myriad of possibilities regarding roads.  Tolls is one way but there is also advertising.  Imagine the local freeway/highway having ads similar to the way formula 1 racing does for example.

Police?  Security will be a highly desired service.  Companies will provide, most probably a better service than the cops.  There are already many private arbitration services as well as private security firms.

At the end of the day none of these areas are my speciality, but people have written about them and there are examples in the real world to a limited degree.

Remember, just because you or I can't imagine something doesn't mean there aren't other people out there who can think of ways around problems.   Ask yourself if you could have thought of all the different business models in all the different industries in the private sector.  I daresay nobody could.  When you look at it like that you realise just how unimaginative and lazy the stealing option is.

[TheFootMan]

Remember, just because you or I can't imagine something doesn't mean there aren't other people out there who can think of ways around problems.

I can vividly imagine alternative models, I just wanted your opinion.

[Mike Christ]

When it boils down to it, if people need something, they will pay for it.  People need food, so they pay for it.  People need to get around, so they pay for the roads and the cars they drive them on.  People need assistance when they're not healthy, and they'll pay a business to keep them healthy when that time comes.  People need security, so they'd pay for the officers to help them, and if someone didn't need the security (say, they were really buff or felt a gun was security enough), they'd opt not to have that service.  Whatever we need that is paid for in tax can be just as well paid for voluntarily; if we truly needed a 100 billion dollar army, we would be happy to pay for it, right?  If we truly needed welfare and social security, we would be happy to pay for that, too.  If we wanted it, if we needed it, we would already be paying for it; naturally, this assumes people are mature enough to take care of themselves.

Like a man who never moved out of his mother's home by age 50, that's how the government is to us; it's essentially the mother figure who assumes we can't take care of ourselves, and when people get used to this idea, they tend to believe that there's no other way.  To lose the government would be the end of the world to those types, who have become accustomed to being mothered, and if there were no higher power to guide their lives, all the world would collapse.  It certainly does seem that way before the 50 year old moves out and decides to govern his own life.  Ancap assumes the majority of society is big enough to take care of their own, and though we'd all like to believe that's true, we can't say we're old enough to do that but rely on government to dictate our lives, often in ways we don't like but assure ourselves that it's the only way and the best way for society to function.  I say, there's no need for government beyond the age of adulthood, by which, the only government one would know then would be from their own families.