Viability of a "True" Democracy

[Tsukiyumi]

Dude, we can cut everything everywhere, and we still won't have nearly enough money just to cover our markers to China.

Not right away, no.

And, just whose decision was that, again? Not mine, assuredly. I voted agains... Right, I didn't get the option to vote on that.

I agree 100% that such a system wouldn't work at this time.

To posit that it can never work implies that we know what's going to happen in the future.

[Sionnach Glic]

If the construction crew is part of the state, I imagine it could be done pretty cheaply.

And the materials? Cost of closing the road off? Etc?

As for whether it's worth it, ask the people who live there.

Not a good method. People will always consider their own area to be worth upgrading. Do that, and you'll soon be out of money, as everyone will be wanting such stuff.

There are a number of new methods that could work to offset the lack of qualified teachers. I'll look some up.

All of which cost money. Thus such schools will require more money than standard. Thus your method will not work.

Human nature isn't immutable.

Immutable? No, of course not. Thing is, it takes centuries to change, and will not necessarily change in a way that suits society better. Indeed, humans will instead change in a way that society will suit them better. Spending the vast majority of their day reading up on bills and stuff is not a direction humans will voluntarily move in.

People would vote on what matters to them; elected officials could cover the rest.

And what happens when you have a bunch of fundamentalist morons impeding progress by voting down bills they don't like?

How about "more than 50% of your constituents disagree".

And what if 50% don't vote?

I could've written and asked for an itemized schedule, perhaps. I said "easily" available. As in, "I click on a button on my homepage, and I can see them".

And are you willing to spend time reading through perhaps dozens of them?

Rednecks with IQs over 150 would be more than welcome to vote.

You can be ignorant and bigoted while still having a high IQ, you know.

Oh, and this needs to be split by someone who isn't answering five different people.

*poof*

[Tsukiyumi]

If the construction crew is part of the state, I imagine it could be done pretty cheaply.

And the materials? Cost of closing the road off? Etc?

With the right equipment, a basic road reconstruction can be done at a rapid pace. Materials involved in road construction are cheap. The cost would be minimal.

As for whether it's worth it, ask the people who live there.

Not a good method. People will always consider their own area to be worth upgrading. Do that, and you'll soon be out of money, as everyone will be wanting such stuff.

They'd only have a certain amount to work from on the local level, which would already have been decided by vote.

There are a number of new methods that could work to offset the lack of qualified teachers. I'll look some up.

All of which cost money. Thus such schools will require more money than standard. Thus your method will not work.

Require more than the current standard. If the new standard required one computer per student, it wouldn't cost any more than standard. Where does the money come from? Cutting kickbacks and corruption. Taxes.

Human nature isn't immutable.

Immutable? No, of course not. Thing is, it takes centuries to change, and will not necessarily change in a way that suits society better. Indeed, humans will instead change in a way that society will suit them better. Spending the vast majority of their day reading up on bills and stuff is not a direction humans will voluntarily move in.

It doesn't have to take centuries to change.

Even if it does, at some point in the future, a similar system will almost certainly be possible. You can't rule out the possibility.

People would vote on what matters to them; elected officials could cover the rest.

And what happens when you have a bunch of fundamentalist morons impeding progress by voting down bills they don't like?

What fundamentalists? *ahem*

I mean, if there are that many people with genius-level intellect that believe in fundamentalist ideals, I'd be very surprised.

How about "more than 50% of your constituents disagree".

And what if 50% don't vote?

Then things go like they go today. At least the option would be present.

I could've written and asked for an itemized schedule, perhaps. I said "easily" available. As in, "I click on a button on my homepage, and I can see them".

And are you willing to spend time reading through perhaps dozens of them?

Sure. Most of them shouldn't be there, as I stated. Pork Project #1580612 would never be introduced, because it's bullsh*t. After a number of pork introductions, or a single prank bill, people would be barred from introducing laws, under penalty of medical experimentation.

Rednecks with IQs over 150 would be more than welcome to vote.

You can be ignorant and bigoted while still having a high IQ, you know.

A well-informed, intelligent bigot seems like an oxymoron to me, but I get your point. People are entitled to their opinions.

Oh, and this needs to be split by someone who isn't answering five different people.

*poof*

Thanks.

[Sionnach Glic]

With the right equipment, a basic road reconstruction can be done at a rapid pace. Materials involved in road construction are cheap. The cost would be minimal.

And the quality would also be minimal.

But we're getting away from the point. You can't simply say "yes" to every proposal that comes up. You'll just run out of money damn fast.

They'd only have a certain amount to work from on the local level, which would already have been decided by vote.

Which doesn't change the fact that you need a better criteria for deciding whether something gets funded than "ask some guy living there".

Require more than the current standard. If the new standard required one computer per student, it wouldn't cost any more than standard. Where does the money come from? Cutting kickbacks and corruption. Taxes.

And people are willingly going to vote to tax themselves more?
People in the US are already shrieking about how Obama's raised taxes by a miniscule amount. In Europe, we pay an insane amount in terms of taxes and we still don't have that sort of stuff. There's simply no way a US like you're suggesting would ever get to Europe's level of taxes, let alone the amount required to fund your schemes. Hell, the US you're suggesting would quickly find itself in economic ruin from mismanagement as the populace simply keeps voting the taxes down and burning every unpopular (but perhaps necessary) bill that comes onto the table. Your country would go from being the most powerful on the planet to a state worse than mid-90's Russia.

It doesn't have to take centuries to change.

Well, sure, if you want to brainwash people. Other than that, there's no chance your idea will ever come about for a few hundred years. If it does at all.

Even if it does, at some point in the future, a similar system will almost certainly be possible. You can't rule out the possibility.

No, I can't rule out the possibility someone'll try it. After all, someone tried out Communism, despite it being blatantly obvious it wouldn't work from the start.
Same with this scheme. Any country that tried it would collapse into utter ruin.

I mean, if there are that many people with genius-level intellect that believe in fundamentalist ideals, I'd be very surprised.

Better be surprised, then. Because such people do exist. Having a high IQ does not preclude a person from being insanely ignorant.
There are plenty of college-educated people in the US who nevertheless believe in idiocy like the Earth being 6000 years old, or black people being geneticaly inferior.
Ignorance and education often cancel each other out, but there are many cases when they can co-exist together. Someone can be a genius when it comes to English literature, but utterly ignorant when it comes to matters of science.

Then things go like they go today. At least the option would be present.

And it would never be used.
It would be abused.

Sure. Most of them shouldn't be there, as I stated. Pork Project #1580612 would never be introduced, because it's bullsh*t. After a number of pork introductions, or a single prank bill, people would be barred from introducing laws, under penalty of medical experimentation.

No, they'd still continue being put on the table. Why? Because the public won't give a shit. At least, not enough to actualy shoot it down. It'd fall back once again on the politicians voting it down.

A well-informed, intelligent bigot seems like an oxymoron to me, but I get your point. People are entitled to their opinions.

And if those beliefs are that homosexuals shouldn't be able to marry? Or that taxes should keep going down? Or that black people are taking too many jobs? Why should these people be given more power to force their ignorant beliefs upon others?

[Tsukiyumi]

With the right equipment, a basic road reconstruction can be done at a rapid pace. Materials involved in road construction are cheap. The cost would be minimal.

And the quality would also be minimal.

But we're getting away from the point. You can't simply say "yes" to every proposal that comes up. You'll just run out of money damn fast.

Why would the quality be minimal if your using the same materials, and an automated system to construct it? Of course you can't just say "yes" to everything.

They'd only have a certain amount to work from on the local level, which would already have been decided by vote.

Which doesn't change the fact that you need a better criteria for deciding whether something gets funded than "ask some guy living there".

No sh*t. You'd need some ironclad regulation in place so Backwater Lane doesn't end up with gold-paved streets.

Require more than the current standard. If the new standard required one computer per student, it wouldn't cost any more than standard. Where does the money come from? Cutting kickbacks and corruption. Taxes.

And people are willingly going to vote to tax themselves more?
People in the US are already shrieking about how Obama's raised taxes by a miniscule amount. In Europe, we pay an insane amount in terms of taxes and we still don't have that sort of stuff. There's simply no way a US like you're suggesting would ever get to Europe's level of taxes, let alone the amount required to fund your schemes. Hell, the US you're suggesting would quickly find itself in economic ruin from mismanagement as the populace simply keeps voting the taxes down and burning every unpopular (but perhaps necessary) bill that comes onto the table. Your country would go from being the most powerful on the planet to a state worse than mid-90's Russia.

I never said the current US would do this. I think intelligent, informed people should willingly vote to fund national programs. Like I said before, you may be right, in which case, a different approach would be required. The status quo is not acceptable.

It doesn't have to take centuries to change.

Well, sure, if you want to brainwash people. Other than that, there's no chance your idea will ever come about for a few hundred years. If it does at all.

If a reasonably decent system can't come about naturally, then we should either look outside of natural evolution, or quit immediately (I mean die).

Even if it does, at some point in the future, a similar system will almost certainly be possible. You can't rule out the possibility.

No, I can't rule out the possibility someone'll try it. After all, someone tried out Communism, despite it being blatantly obvious it wouldn't work from the start.
Same with this scheme. Any country that tried it would collapse into utter ruin.

So, you're omnipotent, and have no need to qualify statements of opinion.

We aren't discussing whether I can walk outside, and fly like Superman. We're discussing something well within the realm of possibility.

I mean, if there are that many people with genius-level intellect that believe in fundamentalist ideals, I'd be very surprised.

Better be surprised, then. Because such people do exist. Having a high IQ does not preclude a person from being insanely ignorant.
There are plenty of college-educated people in the US who nevertheless believe in idiocy like the Earth being 6000 years old, or black people being geneticaly inferior.
Ignorance and education often cancel each other out, but there are many cases when they can co-exist together. Someone can be a genius when it comes to English literature, but utterly ignorant when it comes to matters of science.

Well, we'd just have to hope that such people don't make up a majority. The only other option would be de-brainwashing said people.

Then things go like they go today. At least the option would be present.

And it would never be used.
It would be abused.

And, the current system isn't abused by the elected officials?

Sure. Most of them shouldn't be there, as I stated. Pork Project #1580612 would never be introduced, because it's bullsh*t. After a number of pork introductions, or a single prank bill, people would be barred from introducing laws, under penalty of medical experimentation.

No, they'd still continue being put on the table. Why? Because the public won't give a s**t. At least, not enough to actualy shoot it down. It'd fall back once again on the politicians voting it down.

At least we'd have the option.

A well-informed, intelligent bigot seems like an oxymoron to me, but I get your point. People are entitled to their opinions.

And if those beliefs are that homosexuals shouldn't be able to marry? Or that taxes should keep going down? Or that black people are taking too many jobs? Why should these people be given more power to force their ignorant beliefs upon others?

Hopefully a more intelligent, better educated populace would preclude that thinking.

[Sionnach Glic]

Why would the quality be minimal if your using the same materials, and an automated system to construct it? Of course you can't just say "yes" to everything.

That last bit was more what I was getting at. If you insist on funding the majority of projects, you're going to have to make that money stretch. Ergo quality fails. Thus you need to review each proposal to ensure that it is needed. That was my whole point.

No sh*t. You'd need some ironclad regulation in place so Backwater Lane doesn't end up with gold-paved streets.

Exactly my point. And that's one more multi-page report filled with technical jargon that the voters need to read.

I never said the current US would do this. I think intelligent, informed people should willingly vote to fund national programs. Like I said before, you may be right, in which case, a different approach would be required. The status quo is not acceptable.

No population is ever going to do it. Not until human nature changes completely. For your system to work, we'd need to remove greed and sense of desire from humans. Otherwise, every tax cut that comes along will be instantly voted in, and anything that costs money will be quickly voted out. This system simply cannot succede with humans -as we know them- in control.
It's much the same as Communism in the way that it requires human nature to just suddenly change to work.

Indeed, many of your points could equaly apply to Communism.

If a reasonably decent system can't come about naturally, then we should either look outside of natural evolution, or quit immediately (I mean die).

We have a reasonably decent system. It's the one we're using now. I'll be the first to agree with you that it's far from perfect, but it's the best we can do as long as humans are in charge.

So, you're omnipotent, and have no need to qualify statements of opinion.

No. I merely know how the human mind works. And I also know that the way it works is not going to suddenly change towards some idylic utopian state.

We aren't discussing whether I can walk outside, and fly like Superman. We're discussing something well within the realm of possibility.

Except it's not within the realms of possibility. Any more than a successful communist state is. Your hypothetical state only works if you assume that humans are not in any way involved in it.

Well, we'd just have to hope that such people don't make up a majority. The only other option would be de-brainwashing said people.

There'll always be an ignorant and biggoted sub-level of humanity. People who assume that they're better than others due to believing the right religion or being a member of the best race. Sadly, there's nothing we can do about them short of brainwashing them. And if you're willing to go down that path, then count me out of your nation. As much as such people disgust me, I'll stand up for their right to be fucking retarded.

Oh, and you quoted my last three point, but I can't see any comments after them. Was that just a mistake?

[Sionnach Glic]

Whoops, think you edited your post while I was typing.

And, the current system isn't abused by the elected officials?

Oh, it's certainly abused alright. But at least the current abusers are willing to raise taxes, and fund unpopular things. As corrupt as many of them are, they do at least realise that unpopular choices must be made. Give the populace the power of veto in these decisions, and society collapses.

At least we'd have the option.

Indeed. And that's what scares me. I wouldn't want to be a member of a minority living in rural Alabama if such power was available to the people.

Hopefully a more intelligent, better educated populace would preclude that thinking.

Sadly, there are plenty of well-educated people around who are just as ignorant and racist as some hick in Georgia.

[Tsukiyumi]

Oh, and you quoted my last three point, but I can't see any comments after them. Was that just a mistake?

Sorry, I have company. I failed to put the quote tags in the right places.

It's fixed now.

Anyways, you're suggesting that the present system is the best we can do?

Plan B it is, then.

[stitch626]

Oh, I don't think he's saying that what we have is the best we could get. We could make many changes that would make things better.

But the fact remains that, just like a purely communistic economy cannot exist (due to human nature), nor can a true democracy.

[Tsukiyumi]

But the fact remains that, just like a purely communistic economy cannot exist (due to human nature), nor can a true democracy.

This is what I disagree with. Human nature is greed and selfishness?

I guess I'm not human, then?

[stitch626]

But the fact remains that, just like a purely communistic economy cannot exist (due to human nature), nor can a true democracy.

This is what I disagree with. Human nature is greed and selfishness?

I guess I'm not human, then?

By, human nature, I mean the majority of humans.
There are always exceptions to such things. Theres records of a lion that would not eat meat (it was at the South African Preserve, back in the 80's). But lions are still carnivores.

[Tsukiyumi]

But the fact remains that, just like a purely communistic economy cannot exist (due to human nature), nor can a true democracy.

This is what I disagree with. Human nature is greed and selfishness?

I guess I'm not human, then?

By, human nature, I mean the majority of humans.

Then, I guess the majority of people currently don't matter. I'm suggesting that it won't always be that way, and if it is, we have no business reproducing, and spreading Starbucks, Brittney Spears and AIG across the galaxy.

Basically, if this is the best humans can do, then everyone should follow this.

[stitch626]

Basically, if this is the best humans can do, then everyone should follow this.

The only one suggesting that what we have is the best we can do is you.

We can do better. Just because we aren't doing something doesn't mean we can't.

It still stands that even if we weren't greedy and selfish, a true 100% democracy is impossible. There just aren't enough hours in a day.

[Tsukiyumi]

Basically, if this is the best humans can do, then everyone should follow this.

The only one suggesting that what we have is the best we can do is you.

Sorry, I must have misinterpreted all the posts about human nature precluding the possibility of open voting as meaning that we can't have a society that utilizes open voting.

We can do better. Just because we aren't doing something doesn't mean we can't.

So, why aren't we, again?

It still stands that even if we weren't greedy and selfish, a true 100% democracy is impossible. There just aren't enough hours in a day.

If you mean a system where people are required to vote on everything, I agree. The system I proposed is still an open true democracy, but people don't have to vote.

[Tsukiyumi]

Whoops, think you edited your post while I was typing.

Sorry about that. A friend of mine is moving to Baltimore, and I was trying to respond and talk to her at the same time.

And, the current system isn't abused by the elected officials?

Oh, it's certainly abused alright. But at least the current abusers are willing to raise taxes, and fund unpopular things. As corrupt as many of them are, they do at least realise that unpopular choices must be made. Give the populace the power of veto in these decisions, and society collapses.

I just disagree that a properly educated populace would vote for immediate self-interest alone. The interests of the country are your interests, after all.

At least we'd have the option.

Indeed. And that's what scares me. I wouldn't want to be a member of a minority living in rural Alabama if such power was available to the people.

The majority of the nation seem to disavow the lunatic fringe; it's the concept of individual states being able to decide basic rights that causes problems.

Hopefully a more intelligent, better educated populace would preclude that thinking.

Sadly, there are plenty of well-educated people around who are just as ignorant and racist as some hick in Georgia.

This can be fixed with proper upbringing and education.