Viability of a "True" Democracy

[stitch626]

If you consider that it usually takes several hours for one bill to be voted on (and thats just between a few people), it would take an enormous amount of time to vote on all of them.

Think of the multi day long debates we have on here. Each of those is a bill, and every day, we could have 5 of them to vote on. Now, with just us few, that would take days of discussion. With even a small cities worth, it could take months.

[Tsukiyumi]

If you consider that it usually takes several hours for one bill to be voted on (and thats just between a few people), it would take an enormous amount of time to vote on all of them.

Think of the multi day long debates we have on here. Each of those is a bill, and every day, we could have 5 of them to vote on. Now, with just us few, that would take days of discussion. With even a small cities worth, it could take months.

It already takes months of discussion. Put a deadline on the vote, and have all discussion beforehand.

Seriously, the only difference is that we would have a direct say in things we cared about. Would we have voted in favor of military action in Iraq?

Who knows; we didn't have a say in it.

[Sionnach Glic]

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

The best we can do while still having humans as we know them involved.

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

I guess I'm not human, then?

Yes, actualy, it is. It's one of the most basic pieces of psychological evolution, and one that is not going to go away for a long time. The desire for more is found in every species, and certainly in humans. Why do you think politicians go corrupt and take bribes? Purely for those reasons. Give Average Joe the power to lower taxes, and they will.
Some people -such as you or me- know that the best way to function in a society is to supress those feelings. But they are still present. Ever felt the desire to take that little bit more than you need? Would you like to have more money than you need to simply get by? Then you too have those desires. It's just that you recognise the importance of also making sacrafices.

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.

The simple fact is, those desires simply aren't going to go away. Indeed, if anything modern society encourages those desires. The petty desire many people have to own a car that's nicer than their neigbour's, or to have a more expensive house, etc. It's stupid, and in an ideal world that wouldn't be so, but that's simply how it is.

So, why aren't we, again?

Because the vast majority of people are etiher too lazy, too stupid, too afraid, or too comfortable in the current system to change it. Yes, the current system could be overhauled and made a bit more effecient and with greater incentives to use your government posts wisely (personaly I say any government official found guilty of corruption should just be shot. That'll kill bribery pretty damn quick). The problem is getting people to get off their arses and do something about it, and then you have to basicaly take on the government itself, which is not going to just change happily.

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.

No worries. Was just a bit confused.

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.

You'd be surprised. Inteligence doesn't mean an interest in politics, or an incentive to vote.

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.

Yes, the majority outnumbers the lunatic minority, but is that majority going to actualy vote down the idiots? And what if the fundamentalists outnumber the rational people in an area? To prevent them from doing damage you'd have to actualy remove the ability to vote on a load of things.

This can be fixed with proper upbringing and education.

Indeed. And how are you going to bring proper upbringing to a bunch of rednecks in the southern US who are sure that their ignorance is correct?

It already takes months of discussion. Put a deadline on the vote, and have all discussion beforehand.

And if it takes months of discussion?
Hell, if anything you'd need more time before the vote to allow people to read up on it themselves.

Seriously, the only difference is that we would have a direct say in things we cared about. Would we have voted in favor of military action in Iraq?

Who knows; we didn't have a say in it.

It would still have happened. At the time, support for the war in the US had the majority of peoples' support. Your new system would just make manipulating the public's opinions more important.

[Tsukiyumi]

All good points, Rochey.

I said; I agree that it could not work now. If circumstances changed, it could. I'm just saying it's possible.

You've sold me on Plan B.

[Sionnach Glic]

Yes, if society and human nature changed massively, it could work. But then again, so could communism.

[Tsukiyumi]

Yes, if society and human nature changed massively, it could work.

Thank you.

But then again, so could communism.

I think Communism is too far; our current system is just too far in other direction, IMO.

[Sionnach Glic]

Thank you.

Yes? That's what I was saying all along. That this system only works if you assume humans are not involved. By changing how humans think, you are effectively removing them from the equation.

I think Communism is too far; our current system is just too far in other direction, IMO.

I was just using communism to emphasise my point that any system can be superior to our current system if you change humans enough. Hell, feudalism could work if humans changed enough to accept their place in the social ladder.

[Tsukiyumi]

Thank you.

Yes? That's what I was saying all along. That this system only works if you assume humans are not involved. By changing how humans think, you are effectively removing them from the equation.

I think Communism is too far; our current system is just too far in other direction, IMO.

I was just using communism to emphasise my point that any system can be superior to our current system if you change humans enough. Hell, feudalism could work if humans changed enough to accept their place in the social ladder.

So, when you take over, remember that I don't want humans in the equation either, because I'm apparently not human.

[Mikey]

This can be fixed with proper upbringing and education.

Whoa! Put the brakes on right there. Who gets to decide - to legislate - what constitutes "proper" upbringing? No matter how much I might disagree on that GA redneck's POV on anything, I will defend to the death his right to believe what he wants to. The most notable man who tried to enforce "proper" upbringing was a German art-school dropout called Schicklegruber.

[Tsukiyumi]

This can be fixed with proper upbringing and education.

Whoa! Put the brakes on right there. Who gets to decide - to legislate - what constitutes "proper" upbringing? No matter how much I might disagree on that GA redneck's POV on anything, I will defend to the death his right to believe what he wants to. The most notable man who tried to enforce "proper" upbringing was a German art-school dropout called Schicklegruber.

Well, that's not what I meant. I'll explain in detail later.

[Mikey]

Believe me, I think I know enough about you to know that's not what you meant. But when you start making it OK to do that - even in the way that you did mean - it's not long enough before someone does take it that way, and acts accordingly.

[Tsukiyumi]

Believe me, I think I know enough about you to know that's not what you meant. But when you start making it OK to do that - even in the way that you did mean - it's not long enough before someone does take it that way, and acts accordingly.

I know it isn't the best example, but...

If people had noticed Hitler's Nazi party taking power, and done something about it, would the world be better, or worse off? Just because the majority believes a certain thing doesn't make that thing right.

I need to sleep at some point. Even my arguments sound tired.

[Mikey]

Yeah, they do. This part:

Just because the majority believes a certain thing doesn't make that thing right.

sure seems to agree with the fact that you can't regulate how a person is brought up to believe.

[Tsukiyumi]

So, if a whole generation of kids was being brought up to believe that Hitler was the second coming of Jesus, and all non-Aryans should be eradicated, no one should do anything about that?

That doesn't sit well with me.

[Mikey]

The flip side of that is, that if a whole generation of people were brought up under Hitler and believing that Judaism was evil, they would also have the right to do something about it - like turn me into strange fruit.

That doesn't sit well with me.