Let's say there isn't state, each person has the same rights, everyone is "equal" (I really don't believe in equality, as it smashes the individuality). Then I suppose there won't be any constitution, because who will rule the country are the citizens directly, right? What they want is the law.
So the majority starts going against others unfairly, creating a big syndicate that will rule (dictatorship) aiming their own interests. There won't be any laws to protect anyone, as what matters are the majority wishes. After this point, a civil war may happen.
This majority can also create big economical issues, as there is a chance they won't know what they will be doing.
Why shouldn't there be a constitution? The constitution just must be writen by citizens as it has been done in Iceland.
And you talk about a big syndicate aiming at their own interests, but that would be only if you manage to find a large enough amount of people who share the same interests.
What you mean here is that majority would rull over minority right?
You're right. The constitution might guarantee certain rights and we can change the idea of majority by saying for example laws can pass only if 60% of the population agrees but eventually, you reach a point where you say "hey, 80% of us agree on this so let's do this". But I don't see any way to have a system where a group manages itself without deciding that majority rules minority. It's teh very base of group interactions. Unless you see something else possible?
Politicians should be more capable than the average Joe to get that position (probably the average Joe should be more capable to choose the right politician too). It's true in many countries it doesn't work well, here there was a preacher as Science and Technology minister. Nothing against preachers, but in this case the guy didn't know anything about science or technology... At least here now there is a promise it will change, I hope so.
Exactly. The average Joe will be as skilled as many politicians and at least he won't be corrupted and sold to big corporations. That sounds like a win to me.
I'm not a big fan of these studies, they are very convenient when they want. It may vary depending on how you interpret them. Maybe a law that benefits the wealthy people, benefits average people too. Especially taking in consideration investments wealthy people make on the countries, what is advantageous even for the miserable ones.
Well the study was both easy and objective: there are polls of opinions on all the laws and they're classified depending on how they're received by the different social classes. The study got international recognition and was approved by pretty much everyone, it's rather reliable.
But if a representant isn't being coherent with his initial proposals, there are many others on the competition, waiting for a chance. With social medias the pression over them is much bigger nowadays.
Yeah and that's what's happening, politicians are replaced every terms or nearly, but does that change anything? No, as they don't have to stay true to their words they just lie, get elected, get all the money they can, go away...
That is true, that is how Democracy is fail, not a perfect system, but at least there are some guarantees that respect our individuality against a possible majority's abuse.
I don't see how... It's even worse, in current Democracies, as laws opposed by the majority are still enforced.
And even if it was the Communism you say, these people would continue apathetic towards the politics, with the difference it would be a hostile unstable system.
That's a possibility, but education and knowing they actually have power will change a lot of people. Don't you see how people are more eager to discuss about politics when there are important elections? How they get more interested and involved? A direct democracy would mean people would be able to keep this state of mind all the time!
Yes, changes are needed, 5 years is too much to accept quietly, especially if the political said one thing during the campaign and did the opposite or nothing after elected. I just don't think changes should be so extreme...
Well that's understandable cause that would be some crazy changes. I don't see any mild solution but if you do feel free to tell
Between the two options, none was good for them, however their candidates weren't enough to please the majority too, otherwise they would be on the final round of the elections... The stronger group wins, with or without majority. It's really hard to find a candidate who is able to get votes from most people of a country.
I think if a politician lies new polls should be summoned.
And he should go to prison or get executed. That would be a good start we can agree on this
Yes, because the ones who just press the buttons on the election's day and doesn't care anymore. Some people don't even know the difference between a president and a mayor... Again, it's not a perfect system, changes are constantly needed, but always preserving the conquests we made so far.
I really think people would change their state of mind if they knew they had actual power. Today people don't give a shit because they know politicians are just lying and nothing can be done.
If you tell them "ok now you make the laws and the constitution, no more representants you're going to decide yourself" they will be scared of course, but also happy to have control over their own destiny. And I think they'll really get more and more involved in politics.
