On Voting...
The difference between Representative and Direct Democracy isn't just a few tweaks or features. They are actually the complete 180 degree opposite to eachother. One of the systems suggests a master-slave relationship, while the other suggests a self-empowerment one. So pick the one you like!
The truth is that the so called "Democracy", the Representative one, that is sold to us in this day and age, is sold to us as this wonderful progress in human liberty. But if you really think about it, it's not. In fact it's not a progress at all. It's the same kind of system that was used for millenia. I mean you had noble councils, elder's councils, priest's councils, whatever .... all of them made up by the ruling class pretending to be your servant, while it was the other way around.
They didn't need to hide this relationship in the past, because they could just subdue anyone with force. But lately, certainly in the past 100 years, they just had to put up a show to keep up the illusion that you have a choice, since the people became more aware thanks to better communication technologies, like the internet.
"Democracy" is now so great, that they have to make it mandatory.
- http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/22-countries-voting-mandatory/
- http://www.voanews.com/a/3229570.html
- https://www.thenews.com.pk/archive/print/628368-of-31-countries-with-compulsory-voting,-a-dozen-actually-enforce-it
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Greece
Can't you just smell the breeze of freedom? You better vote for Johny, or we put you in a cage, but don't worry you are in control all the time! It's OK, you have all the control in your hands, meanwhile they just put everyone in prison. I wonder who did "vote" for that?
This is literally the Orwellian 180 degree inversion of reality. Because if you see through the bullshit, you can instantly realize that we are all enslaved. But on the surface they easily keep up with this propaganda world, and a large part of the population accepts it.
Although the circus can only work until there is bread, because if the politico-economic situation gets dire, people will not put up with bullshit any longer, they will quickly come to their senses or perish, if an economic or political turmoil hits them.
Like they did in 2008. People were starving on the streets, and they certainly didn't vote for the bailouts. So a lot of people can be taken out of the matrix when the situation is dire, because otherwise they are just in this delusional state of propaganda.
Once people are out of the matrix, they rarely go back in, so the number of freedom lovers is actually growing.
The issue with "Democracy"
Ok so people start to see now that "Democracy", as in the Representative one, is not working. So they are either ignorant, and don't care about politics, or they do, but they find alternative methods to express their anger.
There are protests, but those are not really effective. I mean they literally send out Nazi Brownshirts to beat protesters up, instead of hearing out their voice. So they are not interested in hearing your opinion, they just want you cornered.
But they also don't want people to be totally ignorant either, because then people catch onto the scam, and will just ignore Government out of existence, and that is very frightening to them. Because that is where all their power lies.
So they have to keep people in the middle, between fear of being beaten up by Nazis, and between the delusion that they have some control.
The Scam
So people are forced to vote, reinforcing the delusion that they have a choice. But they don't because at best they can vote for 2-3 politicians that are not that much different.
There are no options, it's literally the Overton Window, and you never ever ever ever have the option to vote for yourself.
Why? Why can't you vote for yourself? Why do you need others to rule "represent" you? It's just so obvious. Why don't you have a choice over your life? And why does a ruling class control your life?
It's just so obvious that we are totally enslaved. Maybe our chains are not physical, but nontheless the amount of lies and the way the system is setup, it's undeniable.
So if you just had the option to vote for yourself, or voluntarily come together with your friends or community, that would be direct democracy, you and others voluntarily agreeing on something, and if you can't reach consensus you just try again or compromise. I have proposed a 95% threshold for example to have a transparent system for consensus (no bullying), but there could be other solutions too.
The point is that you can't use force, and a lot of effort should be put into developing voluntary communities. You know a chess club will not kidnap people from the streets and beat them up, but riot police will do that.
We are group animals, we join groups, but the nature of the group is in question here. Does the group respect your individuality, or does it try to dominate you?
Sources:
https://pixabay.com
Very good post my friend, upvote. Here is a post for you to enjoy a little sudden trip. regards..
Https://steemit.com/life/@jorlenbolivar/a-small-journey-from-your-machine-into-the-universe-open-this-post-without-compromise-you-will-not-lose-anything
A representative republic is supposed to be comprised of people in each sector who "represent" those in their sector. Not those who will vote as the sector wishes, but someone who has the same problems, issues, wishes and goals as those in their sector. Such a person (for example, in my case, a retired single man on a small pension), will vote as a person like me might vote, but with the advantage of being paid to study the issue. They make an intelligent, educated decision based on their knowledge and background. They vote knowing they must come back to our sector and live under the laws they made.
Career politicians are a vast perversion of that system. They sway in the breeze of re-election votes. They pander to those who will slip them a contribution.
that only works inside your own monkeysphere.
anything larger and it goes crazy.
a hint?
As I said, there are multiple options, my 95% suggestion is just one of them. There could be smaller communities too, if people feel more comfortable that way.
I don't know which one is better, people have to figure that out.
there most definitely should be smaller communities.
Clans
existing in federalism under the auspices of the Constitution.
(some of which is no longer needed...'coin money' for example... or 'post office')
Well maybe they need to apply the 95% in the small community.
The problem that I have with small communities is that either a big strong one will bully them. Or they will go to war with other similar sized ones.
When you have multiple communities, there will be conflict , war, between them.
If you have only 1 mixed community, then intra-violence is reduced.
People are always selfish, they only work in their own interests. So will the politician, they will serve only their own interests. They know this.
Only the voter is so stupid to fall for this.
Exactly right. This is what the representative republic was supposed to leverage. If another retired man in my area votes for what is good for him - it also will be what is good for me. This worked better when there were few differences between people. Everyone had a home business, a truck garden and children. I hope to see it work again, now that we have social networks to help us find those who truly represent us (are an archetype of us). But for it to work we have to avoid, subvert, and supplant the current system.
I think truly everyone can just represent themselves the best. Nobody knows what is best for others but only for themselves.
Then people will just find the community that aligns to their own intestests, voluntarily. Then you don't need to represent anyone, because everyone in the community will have the same goal and work towards that same goal.
Well, thanks to the internet, we can actually find affiliate groups. Even if you are a one in a million kind of guy, there are still nearly 8 thousand of you in the world. I'm constantly trying to find ways to make that smartphone app, that will allow you to find your demographic, develop a consensus, and apply it to the world.
I love your job, follow me and we help each other
Well put. I personally believe that the next crisis will wake the majority. On the other hand historical cycles appear to show our group think taking us back to some sort of monarchy after the mess. Followed and resteemed.
Not this time, yes historically people need a strongran in case of a crisis, but with current technology that is not the case anymore. I think now if a major crisis hits, society will be fragmented, and more local self-sustaining communities could form.
I would hope that's the case, but i really don't see it. We have the world's collective knowledge at our finger tips, and most are just content in ignorance, with the entertainment side of it. A person is smart, people are stupid. Maybe I'll get to see you be right
The last form of government was invented before the steam engine was.
perhaps that's a hint?
Yes we need some innovation,upside. Government is a 6000 year old beast that just doesn't want to go away.
Before that there were voluntary small communities, either hunter gatherers or smaller farming communities in Africa, Mesopotamia, North America and East Asia.
we REALLY don't know what it was...6K years ago...hell we don't even know what it's like today.
history( and the news) is a lie.
it's written by the winners
when the winners die
the history is revised
wash, rinse, and repeat.
There is pretty good archeological and other evidence to show that the first form of governments formed in Babylon/Egypt around 4000-3000 BC.
And it's important to stress that a Government is not just any kind of system, it's a system where there is already a bureaucracy forming.
You could say that a small patriachic tribe with a chieftain is a government, which is not entirely accurate. It is true that there could be coercion in a tribe, but the rules in a tribe are direct and easy to follow.
A government is when a bureaucracy is setup, that starts to issue arbitrary laws to extend it's power, and therefore make almost everything illegal.
how about the underwater cities recently discovered on the continental shelves...several places..
such as India, off shore Japan, Cuba...etc?
how long ago did that area flood?
Yes it's interesting I've also heard of 30,000 year old cities, but there was no evidence of a government there.
They all had direct democracy there. A city of 1000-5000 people all living in direct democracy basically.
So maybe you are right with that monkeysphere thing. In smaller sized communities consensus works better.
The thing is that by the time it got to the Greeks (1000 BC - 500 BC) it had already became bureaucratized. Cities by then had easily 10,000-50,000 inhabitants, and you had to setup permanent bureaucracies by then.
So the people easily lost control in favor of a king, an elders council, a parliament or whatever.
But that was only a logistical issue. Today with the internet, shall I say that the Monkeysphere can be expanded to larger numbers.
Keep in mind that the monkeysphere is an individual thang. It's the bell curve. For some the number is greater, for other's its much smaller.
For me, I think, the number is less than one hundred....for you it might be a thousand..depends on how your wetware is wired.
But I AGREE...the internet, the blockchain, and direct neural interfaces (in the not so distant future) might very well augment that wetware. It's entirely conceivable that the size of each individual's monkeysphere might be increased..
Or you don't have to confuse direct contact with indirect contact.
There are different layers, different relationships affect people differently. Not all relationships have to be tight.
Like you might care a lot about your immediate family ,but care less about your friends, care even less about your neighbor, and even less about your community.
So the farther a person it is from you, by relationship, the less you care. It's not a black & white issue, as if you only care about your family and nobody else.
There are layers of care, and yes the farther it goes the less people care. Like for example I care almost none for a random person in Asia, but I do care about principles in general.
So if my principles can be extended across the spectrum, then that will in turn effect that random person. So even though I did not care, I still do care, indirectly.
This is where you are confusing direct relationships with indirect ones.So indirect help can just be as beneficial, if it does have very positive effect on people.
Like not polluting a river. You might not care about every single person that drinks there, but it's in everyone's interest for the water to be clean. Same about the air, same about anything else.
Democracy is a good idea before it got subverted by the minority to rule over the majority. Democracy is dependent upon the altruistic nature of human beings but unfortunately human beings comes in all shades of grey.
Let me disagree. I see that as opposite. Founding fathers wanted Re-public, which is representative democracy and later it shifted more to direct democracy (take US president election). That is wrong for the sake of effectiveness and good for media manipulation and insanity. Would you like Average Joe to choose chief scientist /operator in nuclear power station? I guess no. So why do you want him to choose the best president of the country with public budget of $4 trillions and numerous services for 320M people? In case of nuclear power station I guess you would rather want some consensus of best people in the industry, experienced, with track record. Look at Bitcoin, Dash... That is how founding fathers modeled, electors from states choose president. BTW this is how it works in China, shortly. And it is called meritocracy.
I don't think you understand what a Direct Democracy means. A presidential election is not a direct democracy.
Also a meritocracy is arbitrary who decides who is meritable or not?
Hi, whether you get decisions on some policy, initiative or people as executives, you can vote on it directly (all members get decision, majority wins) or via representatives. Representatives are chosen via direct vote. Those representatives vote other representatives in higher level, etc. I consider it as much better system than when 300M people vote for one guy with enormous power.
I do not oppose advance of direct democracy on specific questions and I believe soon it will bloom thanks to blockchain technology. I just show the other sides of a coin. In Switzerland direct democracy on some topics get along with very decentralized governance scheme. Most of the power lies on cantons/municipalities, not federal government.
As of meritocracy in China, it's the opposite arbitrary. You have to prove the merit. Show proof of work (your track record in lower levels of public service), proof of stake (as a public representative you have given up privacy on your assets and assets of your family etc.).
I'm really interested in how blockchain tech can revolutionize voting. Do you think in the future people in 'Crypto-democracies' could receive a special voting token by proof of citizenship and how they spend that token decides the outcome?
Very good post