"Two Sides of the Same Party"

[Whiteronin]

In an interview with Tucker Carlson, Catherine Fitts uses the phrase "two sides of the same party" several times:

https://youtu.be/BvLz1bI2sXU

As far as I can see, it's perfectly obvious that just like any representatives of big business inevitably monopolize and cartelize finally (they understand that it's more profitable for them to cooperate than to compete), the same process occurs with any parties. The only way to solve this problem is direct democracy, at least like in Switzerland - several referendums each year. I really hope that Trump would initiate an all-US referendum asking people to vote on all hot US issues - prohibition of abortions, "gender diversity", foreign policy, cryptocurrencies, etc. This will destroy the illusion that if Americans choose between Harris and Disantis, that means they have democracy.

[caroasi]

I spend a lot of time advocating for direct democracy, but direct democracy is only a small piece of the puzzle. There was a referendum to accumulate gold in Switzerland a few years ago and it failed because big banks advertised against it on television among other reasons.  Gold then proceeded to triple in value, making it the single worst voting decisions I've ever heard of. People are going to have to wise up. One big problem with democracy is it seems to get people thinking they can vote away their personal responsibility. You vote for someone and they solve your problem. No! The problem could just as easily get worse. You have to personally participate in solutions including researching what works and what doesn't.

Acceptance of personal responsibility through personal participation is what is needed more than direct democracy. But to your point though, Europe doesn't do enough. First of all, it is a strongest minority system, not a majority rule system. For most voting topics, voting doesn't actually reach 50% of the population, and in fact in Switzerland it may be that no direct democracy winning vote has reached 50% of the actual population, though I want to do more research on that and I can PM you when I do post about that topic.

Here is an idea you may never have heard of: Allow everyone to directly assign a representative. That representative then keeps them informed about essential issues and negotiates government social contracts on their behalf. The only kind of arrangement that doesn't require UNANIMOUS consent is locals criminal code, which still require at least an actual real popular majority. Obviously the guy you're prosecuting for a crime would not vote for example for their own prosecution, so that cannot really reach 100% agreement in some respect. But financial issues can all require 100% in that if you vote yes you pay for it, and if you vote no then you don't pay for it, except as a compromise, in which case you're still voting yes to a compromise to pay for some things you want and other things you don't. I call this idea a Cooperatie Republic and have a link to a complete idea in my signature.

[Whiteronin]

I spend a lot of time advocating for direct democracy, but direct democracy is only a small piece of the puzzle. There was a referendum to accumulate gold in Switzerland a few years ago and it failed because big banks advertised against it on television among other reasons.  Gold then proceeded to triple in value, making it the single worst voting decisions I've ever heard of.

The main problem is that these banks are from countries like USA, where the system like in Sqwitszerland is not present. If it was present, the people there would vote for legalization of cryptocurrencies and ending the bank era. So, the simplest solution is to persuade Americans demand the direct decomracy from their rulers.

Acceptance of personal responsibility through personal participation is what is needed more than direct democracy. But to your point though, Europe doesn't do enough. First of all, it is a strongest minority system, not a majority rule system. For most voting topics, voting doesn't actually reach 50% of the population, and in fact in Switzerland it may be that no direct democracy winning vote has reached 50% of the actual population, though I want to do more research on that and I can PM you when I do post about that topic.

Yes, this is an old problem of modern democracies. What do you think about the idea to fine people for not participating in elections or referendums?

Here is an idea you may never have heard of: Allow everyone to directly assign a representative. That representative then keeps them informed about essential issues and negotiates government social contracts on their behalf. The only kind of arrangement that doesn't require UNANIMOUS consent is locals criminal code, which still require at least an actual real popular majority. Obviously the guy you're prosecuting for a crime would not vote for example for their own prosecution, so that cannot really reach 100% agreement in some respect. But financial issues can all require 100% in that if you vote yes you pay for it, and if you vote no then you don't pay for it, except as a compromise, in which case you're still voting yes to a compromise to pay for some things you want and other things you don't. I call this idea a Cooperatie Republic and have a link to a complete idea in my signature.

I have heard about this idea many times, but I don't think it is good.

[caroasi]

What I think about the idea of a fine for not voting is that it seems to be your first idea for a solution. Violence is to be a last resort, whereas you seem to think of violence as the first solution to a problem we're having and the only one you've suggested. So, it would be an improvement if that was the last idea on a list of about 100 ideas. The porcupine principle as I like to call it is that you cannot use aggression or violence against other people except as defense to stop aggression or violence against people or property. Using violence against people to achieve something unrelated to defense is simply immoral. Doing immoral things is not something I've ever seen be a net benefit to society, but I'm unaware of any studies on that assertion.

Do you believe that people should be entirely unrepresented in government? It seems like by your own idea of direct democracy I can vote on whatever I want, except for delegating someone to vote to represent me is is unpopular. Am I supposed to vote on thousands of direct democracy initiatives when I have so little time on my hands, or do we only get to chose between the two government approved choices in the direct democracy you want? It seems like there is no limit on how many ballet items can be on the ballet in a direct democracy. Under direct democracy, not every single person can participate in every single thing the government does. Direct democracy puts all the needs and responsibility on each and every person, and I don't know about you, but I don't have time to micromanage other people even if I had the will to do that.

Look at all the Switzerland organizations who funded propaganda against gold as money:

“The SNB considers this initiative to be both unnecessary and harmful.”
Swiss National Bank
Why the SNB opposes the gold initiative. 2014.
https://www.snb.ch/dam/jcr%3A52cc1920-c00b-4ede-a1a0-c153fdbc2c7a/media_dossier_gold_wik.en.pdf

“The Federal Council recommends rejecting the initiative without a counterproposal.”
Swiss Federal Council
Federal Council rejects gold initiative. 20 November 2013.
https://www.admin.ch/en/nsb?id=51042

“The FDK rejects the Gold Initiative in agreement with the Federal Council and Parliament.”
Conference of Cantonal Finance Directors
Argumentation against the Gold Initiative. 26 September 2014.
https://www.fdk-cdf.ch/-/media/FDK_CDF/Dokumente/Themen/Finanzpolitik/Schweizerische_Nationalbank/140926_goldvi_kurzargumentarium_mk_d.pdf

“No to the Gold Initiative.”
FDP.Die Liberalen
The FDP rejects the three popular initiatives of 30 November. 2014.
https://www.fdp.ch/aktuell/medienmitteilungen/medienmitteilung-detail/news/die-fdp-lehnt-die-drei-volksinitiativen-vom-30-november-klar-ab/

“The Gold Initiative: Highway Robbery, Not Patriotism.”
Swiss Trade Union Federation (SGB)
Die Goldinitiative: Strassenraub, nicht Patriotismus. 2014.
https://www.sgb.ch/themen/wirtschaft/detail/die-goldinitiative-strassenraub-nicht-patriotismus

“No to the dangerous Gold Initiative.”
economiesuisse
Nein zur brandgefährlichen Gold-Initiative. 2014.
https://prod.economiesuisse.ch.netnode.cloud/de/artikel/nein-zur-brandgefaehrlichen-gold-initiative

No positions of FDP, FDK, SGB, economiesuisse, and other organizations.
Swissvotes
Gold-Initiative, vote of 30 November 2014.
https://swissvotes.ch/vote/589.00

Each and every one of these organizations should be disbanded because they are so severely negligent they are not acting as legitimate organizations. The world's record most costly no vote there was both maliciously negligent and unreasonable, regardless of whether gold kept going up or sunk down, because it has been basic common sense for over a millenium of recorded history that gold is a high-value asset. The no vote was purely a favor to wealthy elites. I don't see how the USA banks caused this, but you're more than welcome to explain that.

I don't give people a scapegoat pass. When a country fails and votes no to financial success, its the people who I blame, not big banks. Its everyday people who clearly have the means to determine choose their own will and destiny. The whoa as me excuse may have worked to some extent in the time of monarchies but even then it was a bit weak.

[Whiteronin]

What I think about the idea of a fine for not voting is that it seems to be your first idea for a solution. Violence is to be a last resort, whereas you seem to think of violence as the first solution to a problem we're having and the only one you've suggested. So, it would be an improvement if that was the last idea on a list of about 100 ideas. The porcupine principle as I like to call it is that you cannot use aggression or violence against other people except as defense to stop aggression or violence against people or property. Using violence against people to achieve something unrelated to defense is simply immoral. Doing immoral things is not something I've ever seen be a net benefit to society, but I'm unaware of any studies on that assertion.

Well, what do you think about the violence against children who don't go to school? I mean that our state educational system means forcing people to study, and this is considered beneficial for the society in common.

[OgNasty]

2 wings on the same bird as they like to say. The more they can turn the sides against each other, the more they can push their agenda with wacky things on both sides. Cooperation and common goals are the only way that the people are going to make it out of this and right now they can’t even agree on what a woman is.

[Whiteronin]

Compulsory voting never fixes broken politics. Low turnout is often just people voting with their absence - refusing to give legitimacy to a system where both candidates serve the same corporate donors. Forcing people to pick between bad options under threat of a fine isn't democracy; it's just pure coercion.

This is the reason I fully agree with the idea of direct democracy. Each individual subject must occupy a separate point in the ballot.

[programmer3666]

The voting aspect on big issues through national referendum sounds nice but you have to put into account that it can turn into a disaster as well because the average citizen on the street does not have the time or luxury to go through hundreds of pages of economic policies rules to know what it says before casting their vote. If everyone has to cast their vote based on their emotions on how they perceive things or what was trending on social media clips, then you will end up with laws that have no meaning or tangible outcomes. This is where the representative systme matters because even if it is not that perfect but at least it serves as a beacon so that important and life affecting choices are not made by a panick crowd.

[Odusko]

In an interview with Tucker Carlson, Catherine Fitts uses the phrase "two sides of the same party" several times:

https://youtu.be/BvLz1bI2sXU

As far as I can see, it's perfectly obvious that just like any representatives of big business inevitably monopolize and cartelize finally (they understand that it's more profitable for them to cooperate than to compete), the same process occurs with any parties. The only way to solve this problem is direct democracy, at least like in Switzerland - several referendums each year. I really hope that Trump would initiate an all-US referendum asking people to vote on all hot US issues - prohibition of abortions, "gender diversity", foreign policy, cryptocurrencies, etc. This will destroy the illusion that if Americans choose between Harris and Disantis, that means they have democracy.

Meaning two side of same coin right, but the risk is that when both side goes opposites there will become an imbalance system of government where kiosk becomes the order of legislation and no head way can ever be made with such setting as far as true democracy is concerned, we must have to accommodate diverse choices and opinions, and for that to happen, pickup each agenda and pushing it to wider debate not just two side becomes very important to do. This way the interest of all is protected through engaging discussions and legislations.

[Whiteronin]

The voting aspect on big issues through national referendum sounds nice but you have to put into account that it can turn into a disaster as well because the average citizen on the street does not have the time or luxury to go through hundreds of pages of economic policies rules to know what it says before casting their vote. If everyone has to cast their vote based on their emotions on how they perceive things or what was trending on social media clips, then you will end up with laws that have no meaning or tangible outcomes. This is where the representative systme matters because even if it is not that perfect but at least it serves as a beacon so that important and life affecting choices are not made by a panick crowd.

I can suggest one thing: initiating a planetary referendum with a suggestion to accept a law for all countries, that the amount of time a person can spend for his work, is not bigger than a specified value (e.g. 4 hours a day). If the work will be prohibited, people will have more free time, and they will spend at least some part of their free time for studying economics, history, political science, etc. Hope my proposal does not sound too fantastic.

[caroasi]

What I think about the idea of a fine for not voting is that it seems to be your first idea for a solution. Violence is to be a last resort, whereas you seem to think of violence as the first solution to a problem we're having and the only one you've suggested. So, it would be an improvement if that was the last idea on a list of about 100 ideas. The porcupine principle as I like to call it is that you cannot use aggression or violence against other people except as defense to stop aggression or violence against people or property. Using violence against people to achieve something unrelated to defense is simply immoral. Doing immoral things is not something I've ever seen be a net benefit to society, but I'm unaware of any studies on that assertion.

Well, what do you think about the violence against children who don't go to school? I mean that our state educational system means forcing people to study, and this is considered beneficial for the society in common.

My first thought is that home schooled children are more intelligent on average than children who go to a government school. Secondly I think today's governments care exactly zero about either children who don't go to school or who do, because the first thing they would do would be a before and after study to determine the difference they were making in children's education. They need to focus on testing them selves before they test anyone else. Government schooling in some places seems to be so defective as to possibly make people even dumber than if they never went to school at all, such as a large fraction of high school students being unable to read, what a shockingly horrible result!

Forcing a child to learn may easily have the opposite effect for many if not most children... that they think learning is something nobody wants to do but people are made to anyways. Certainly many people tell us they hate math, which is not natural and rather the result of government force. I'd love to see a study of how many home schooled children hate math... probably about none.

There are many ways of improving children's education, and I highly encourage you to try to think of one non-violent solution your self and share it right here.

[Whiteronin]

My first thought is that home schooled children are more intelligent on average than children who go to a government school. Secondly I think today's governments care exactly zero about either children who don't go to school or who do, because the first thing they would do would be a before and after study to determine the difference they were making in children's education. They need to focus on testing them selves before they test anyone else. Government schooling in some places seems to be so defective as to possibly make people even dumber than if they never went to school at all, such as a large fraction of high school students being unable to read, what a shockingly horrible result!

Forcing a child to learn may easily have the opposite effect for many if not most children... that they think learning is something nobody wants to do but people are made to anyways. Certainly many people tell us they hate math, which is not natural and rather the result of government force. I'd love to see a study of how many home schooled children hate math... probably about none.

There are many ways of improving children's education, and I highly encourage you to try to think of one non-violent solution your self and share it right here.

If I am not mistaken, in the book “Banker” by Leslie Waller there was a phrase: “All things which are touched by the state, are turned into excrements”. I think that most probably, this is the reason of all problems of state education, and the explanation is that the ruling elite promotes education which make people think less, because a thinking man can start being interested in politics and criticizing the ruling elite. This is also the reason of the appearance of the consumer society – Homo Consuming is less interested in politics.
I am not sure how a good educational system can look like, but I think that theoretically, it is not needed at all, because people can start getting knowledge themselves, if this helps them to find friends. When the world of direct democracy will begin, probably people will soon start uniting in “political sects”, clubs of interest aimed at being good and educated citizens who vote most rationally.

[Whiteronin]

I am sure that the direct democracy can solve the overwhelming majority of human’s problems. If in the US the referendum I proposed above is performed, firstly it will destroy the lie, that if Americans choose between Harris and DeSantis – this means that they have democracy.
If a referendum is performed in US with two separate suggestions – allowing abortions and banning transgender people in big sports – I am sure that both the abortions will be allowed and the transgenders will be banned. The majority of Americans will vote for the first point, and slightly other majority, but still the majority, will vote for the second point. These results of the referendum will be good both for the Left supporters and for the Right supporters, because the Right supporters will not become really very unhappy because of the allowance of the abortions (this question is less important for them, than the second question), and same for the Left supporters. Also, this referendum must cover questions like international politics vector (Ukraine) and the legalization of cryptocurrencies.
I don’t know why Trump does not declare that he wants to perform such a referendum. And anyway, maybe his wish is not really so important. I think that the described referendum can be performed via people’s initiative only, without the actions of the government. Spreading information via forums like this, X and Meta will be enough. Does anybody here guess what I mean?

[Whiteronin]

Sorry for continues posting, here is my suggestion: the Americans who agree with the idea that the government should perform this universal referendum (i.e. who agree with the idea of direct democracy), should wear clothes of specific color. e.g. orange. Those who disagree with the idea of direct democracy, should wear another color, e.g. blue. If more Americans wear orange clothes than blue ones, this will be an “order” to the government from the people to start this referendum, and government will be obliged to start it, otherwise it will become illegitimate.

[caroasi]

Sorry for continues posting, here is my suggestion: the Americans who agree with the idea that the government should perform this universal referendum (i.e. who agree with the idea of direct democracy), should wear clothes of specific color. e.g. orange. Those who disagree with the idea of direct democracy, should wear another color, e.g. blue. If more Americans wear orange clothes than blue ones, this will be an “order” to the government from the people to start this referendum, and government will be obliged to start it, otherwise it will become illegitimate.

“Americans’ perceptions of government corruption in the U.S. are at their highest level in 20 years, with 89% of U.S. adults saying it is widespread.”
Gallup
Record-High 89% in U.S. Say Government Corruption Widespread. September 2, 2026.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/713933/record-high-say-government-corruption-widespread.aspx

A majority opinion of corruption means the American government is illegitimate because corrupt is an opposite of legitimate. And one could say, "Oh that is just an opinion, opinions can be wrong.". Yes, but the majority is declared to be in charge in the USA. So if the people "in charge" of the USA declare the government to be corrupt, then it has to be illegitimate at least by that definition.

The primary solution I focus on with illegitimate government is directly replacing bad government with good by immediately doing what the government is doing but better. But before doing that its often better to move somewhere in which your specific political ideas are supported in the first place.

I'm not going to wait on the government to solve my problems for me or become legitimate. The first organization I'm involving myself with is one to determine whether or not a specific company is a scam or not. I encourage everyone to involve them self in replacing corrupt government directly. I hope to find at least one partner in this after the related website is complete.

If you really wanted such an idea to work about red vs blue, then you'd have to make yourself well known on the news circuits by advocating on a regular basis in your spare time. Just one post on one forum wouldn't be enough. In the USA political stances have become quite a topic of division, so its not clear to me if people would make a public statement like that or not. It seems like democracy is one of the least controversial topics though.

[Ishicryptic]

The voting aspect on big issues through national referendum sounds nice but you have to put into account that it can turn into a disaster as well because the average citizen on the street does not have the time or luxury to go through hundreds of pages of economic policies rules to know what it says before casting their vote. If everyone has to cast their vote based on their emotions on how they perceive things or what was trending on social media clips, then you will end up with laws that have no meaning or tangible outcomes. This is where the representative systme matters because even if it is not that perfect but at least it serves as a beacon so that important and life affecting choices are not made by a panick crowd.

I can suggest one thing: initiating a planetary referendum with a suggestion to accept a law for all countries, that the amount of time a person can spend for his work, is not bigger than a specified value (e.g. 4 hours a day). If the work will be prohibited, people will have more free time, and they will spend at least some part of their free time for studying economics, history, political science, etc. Hope my proposal does not sound too fantastic.

I wish that life and getting things done as it should were that simple then we can have a near egalitarian society where everybody's opinions is same with every other persons but the reality is that we as humans have diversified views and when you call for a referendum some people don't even know where they stand. I think that we need people who understands economics and politics to make laws for their countries, the problem is not that great minds cannot come together to formulate policies that would be beneficial to their economy that benefits the ordinary citizens but corruption and having people who don't have any business being in leadership positions are the big clogs that governance have.

Any country that have competent leaders who are proactive to know the expectations of their electorates are good to go, no need for everybody who doesn't understand what it takes to formulate laws to be a part of decision making. Imagine the majority choosing something that cannot be feasible to achieve, it means that you have to accept it because majority have voted for it, that would be a total failure.

[montaga]

With modern blockchain technology it's no problem whatsoever to vote on anything what is important to you. If a will it can be done.
Selecting someone who votes on your behalf has nothing to do with democracy.
Your preferred legal guardian (aka politician)  may vote in your interest or may not.