Post Number:#166 April 30th, 2012, 3:49 pm
wanabe wrote:Being adequately informed only matters if they are going to do what the best information tells them, and it is what the people want. We currently have a system of "well informed" people that despite their information, and will of the people do other wise.
I'm talking about politicians. They are well informed but do nearly the opposite of what the majority of people want.edelker wrote:I disagree! Much of the data shows that huge swaths of the population are grossly misinformed on any number of vital topics! This is due to lots of reasons- no doubt! However, one vital player is the misinformation that circulates over well-established and more relevant information. There is far superior influence from certain well-funded religious organizations, business interests, think tank-lobbying organizations than anything analogous to what scientific consensus, relevant academic consensus—such as history and sociology, and research data on business practices, economics, and political behavior reported by “check” organizations currently possess!
You can't speak of certainty in my envisioned system it doesn't exist yet. You talk as if people have no free will of any kind. It's ridiculous. The problem with USA democracy is that money is involved in the decision and law making process. It should not be this way, and does not have to be this way. We can have a system where there are no lobbyists, and no money in politics, only votes. We write the law and punish offenders.edelker wrote:Also, those who might be considered well-informed but who are going down the wrong path-supposedly-may be the types of people that exist in any society. However, in our current social order-and most certainly in your envisioned one, those types will always have the edge where they can- or their organizations can- tilt the balance of power and influence in their direction as long as money and social-power are combined to override the interest of the masses! Business and many religious organizations find such things as democracy a threat to their agenda because either ego driven self-interest or ideological zealotry finds the masses not usually business or dogmatically friendly! This is why those very organizations spend billions a year on advertising their ideas and seeking out political allies to advance their interests over any popular objections that may oppose them. Again, wanabe-these are realities that you’re not dealing with!
We do have the time to do research, we spend most of this time watching TV. It's just laziness. By giving people an important task in their government they will recognize the gravity of the situation and responsibly research. Their laziness will actually effect them directly now and they will change. Checks and balances are only needed in a representative democracy, what I am taking about is direct democracy, they are not needed. Rich men have been worrying about mob rule for along time and they have done well to not let it happen. What people don't understand is that the mob is not the evil entity the rich make it out to be.
wanabe wrote:The current system has the same problems according to you. The problem is not the common man, it is and always has been the power players. The make up of the system, guarantees transparency and accountability by its very nature. Transparency: we all know the laws. Accountability: if something goes wrong we really can only blame our selves. Yet we get a chance to fix the law a year later.
You disagree but everything you mentioned here point to power players not the people being the problem.edelker wrote:Again, disagree! Passing tax cuts for the upper percentile, purging unions, forcing women to have invasive-medically pointless procedures, raising the student loan interest rates, maintaining a high trade value on the dollar, not passing a workable budget, laying off thousands of government workers, restricting voters access to voting, passing harsh immigration policies, and cutting benefits across the board were all issues passed and promoted by this Congress that the ‘voting’ public (2010) put in power! Why? For lots of reasons-but one large reason was the influence of organizations like ALEC-and the Dick Army organization known as the Tea Party—funded by millionaires and billionaires! The exaggerations about the Dodd-Frank bill, Obama Care, and historically deviant interpretations of the Bubble burst were literally concocted from the thin figurative air by people who possessed ideas and agendas that led the public astray! The public, disillusioned by the political debates over healthcare and fiscal reforms in 2009 and 10, simply didn’t show up to vote-and those who had influence, money and power used that money and influence to turn out ever greater portions of the public that was already leaning on stopping any progress on certain issues simply because of the Party (and black man) in power-not the substance of the policies debated. In fact, poll after poll showed just how Tea Party types were far more misinformed about issues, which ranged from the Iraqi war to the effects of Bush-tax policy, than their more center to left leaning counterparts!
What we had in 2010 was a combination of a voting reluctant public, large numbers of misinformed ‘active’ voters and highly influential people and business organizations pretending to be a grassroots organization of common voters when, in actuality, they were acting in their interest rather than that of the public good! Obviously, such trends would happen in any system. Again, the fact that such trends are inevitable, however, reveals just how needed the recommended reforms are and how your system provides no remedy to such scenarios!
I'll say this as plainly as I can. Direct democracy does not need reforms it only needs voters. The problems you highlight are ones that exist in a representative system of democracy not a direct form of democracy.
There can be a Constitution with out having a representative body as the government.
Democracy does work alone, the rich have just never let it.
All people only get one vote regardless of their money. The influence the rich have over things are irrelevant when the people think and vote for them selves because they have been given the power to change their circumstances via their votes.
We protest the corporations not the government we force the government to represent the people not corporations by shoving the laws of the government in their face.
The boggy man of wealth influence should not deter or alter our goals, only our methods to those goals.
Where the wealthy stand in terms of power changes completely as all people would have an equal vote. Their corporations may well be dissolved by a vote.edelker wrote:In your system the wealthy maintain their economic status! The powerful are still permitted to maintain their positions. Employers still run and organize productive property and manage wealth for the entirety of nation. Institutions that represent business-and other-interests are all left in place. Local prejudices are presumably left untouched and unchecked by the larger public. The average citizen still has no say in his place of work, possesses no relevant resources that would allow him equal access to the public ear as others would have, and, as a consequence, he does not have the same influence over shaping policy proposals for the public consideration. In basic, those in power and wealth are still allowed to promote their interest and at least attempt to sculpt public policy-and so on and so on! It is difficult to see just how your view could prohibit or stem the corrupting talents of those who would be in the best social positions from influencing outcomes that advantage their interests over those of the public. As long as there is such inequality in influence one cannot naively expect that outcomes will somehow magically change merely because people can vote more directly! The problems I’m identifying and that you’ve identified above are problems of equality of influence and power! Direct democracy may go some way to correct certain power systems-but does nothing about managing influence!
The people will manage their own power, you are tying very hard to say basically that media controls our lives and we have no free will, and this is just ludicrous. Things appear this way now because we live in a broken system where the people are not represented.
History does not tell us what's possible only what has happened. All your talk about how government has worked is irrelevant to a direct democracy.If you think that the only problem with democracy is giving people the ruling authority, then I would submit to you that you need to look far more closely at so-called populist legislation over the past thirty-five years and how it was framed and executed into public policy! Any such simple notions of power to the people without understanding how that power has been or is influenced is both blind and deaf to history and human reality! The long human narrative of taking power, maintaining that power, and protecting ruling power is anything but a simple act of shifting from a population of the few to a population of the many!
Your entire argument rests on mis characterizing my arguments and your single sentence quotes of me show this.
My system does not preserve corruption it allows people to act against it immediately, knowing that it will always be existent in some form. My system allows for transparency.
Obviously we have to agree to disagree.
Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, And Help All Others To Do So.Meaning of Life Is Choice. Increase choice through direct perception. Golden rule+universality principal+Promote benefits-harm+logical consistency=morality.BeTheChange.