Democracy Without Politicians or Elections (As We Currently Know Them)…

If this economic crisis has done anything, it has exposed our so called “democracy” as a fraud.

I believe the problem is simple: Politicians are no longer accountable after they win the election. Because if they were accountable then they wouldn’t be able to transfer the massive amounts of taxpayer wealth to the bankers. They wouldn’t be able to ignore the massive fraud in the mortgage “securitization” business.

They wouldn’t be able to change the FASB (accounting) rules so that bankrupt banks could hold their assets at pre-crash prices. And if the only thing citizens can do is riot in the streets and still be ignored by their governments, then it’s safe to say that while politicians hold office they are unaccountable.

In this video I present an alternative to our “democracy”: No elections. No politicians. Instead, it’s a political system where citizen completely control the legislative process without needing to be actively involved in crafting the legislation. In other words, they can continue living their lives, but they have absolute control over the laws in their country:

, , , , , , , , , ,

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Democracy Without Elections or Politicians | Disinformation -- Topsy.com()

  • Dust

    I didn’t watch the video yet, but from the description, this would definitely be something that would work, and I’ve heard about such types of democracies many times. Robert Anton Wilson predicted (inaccurately) that government would already be replaced by internet-democracy by now, and I’ve read articles about how the internet will save us from the archaic political forms of capitalism and communism and we’ll live with a type of collaborative anarchism. These are all fine and dandy until you realize what type of giant wealth this would undercut. How many people get rich off of the bank schemes and the government scheme and how that money equals power, so will they really let their power be undermined by a citizen controlled democracy. Of course not. The power/financial elite have contempt for democracy and would rather we think we have a choice when we buy their doritos instead of their cheez-its. It would be possible to pull the rug out from under them, but not without a lot of fighting against their attempts to illegalize the net (which they’re already doing to an extent; turning it into tv) or fighting against their attempts to smear whatever other non-internet form of direct democracy we seek. Unless we have the will to stand up and let go of apathy, the power doesn’t just end up in the people’s hands.

  • Dust

    I didn’t watch the video yet, but from the description, this would definitely be something that would work, and I’ve heard about such types of democracies many times. Robert Anton Wilson predicted (inaccurately) that government would already be replaced by internet-democracy by now, and I’ve read articles about how the internet will save us from the archaic political forms of capitalism and communism and we’ll live with a type of collaborative anarchism. These are all fine and dandy until you realize what type of giant wealth this would undercut. How many people get rich off of the bank schemes and the government scheme and how that money equals power, so will they really let their power be undermined by a citizen controlled democracy. Of course not. The power/financial elite have contempt for democracy and would rather we think we have a choice when we buy their doritos instead of their cheez-its. It would be possible to pull the rug out from under them, but not without a lot of fighting against their attempts to illegalize the net (which they’re already doing to an extent; turning it into tv) or fighting against their attempts to smear whatever other non-internet form of direct democracy we seek. Unless we have the will to stand up and let go of apathy, the power doesn’t just end up in the people’s hands.

  • Haystack

    Isn’t a member of congress already a “designated voter” who acts on behalf of his/her interest group? Wouldn’t becoming the designated voter for a large group require…you know…political skills? Maybe even money? How would an interest group of 1000 people select their “designated voter” without holding an election?

    This is mostly just reinventing the wheel, using new terms for old ideas.

    And frankly, I think it’s a good thing that elected representatives have a term in office during which they can get away with making unpopular decisions. Part of the problem we have solving our long-term problems is that we have representatives who are constantly looking at the next upcoming election, feeling pressure to do what is momentarily popular at the expense of what will be good for the country in the long run. How well do you think a go’vt would function if its lawmakers could instantly lose office any time they voted to, say, raise a tax?

  • Haystack

    Isn’t a member of congress already a “designated voter” who acts on behalf of his/her interest group? Wouldn’t becoming the designated voter for a large group require…you know…political skills? Maybe even money? How would an interest group of 1000 people select their “designated voter” without holding an election?

    This is mostly just reinventing the wheel, using new terms for old ideas.

    And frankly, I think it’s a good thing that elected representatives have a term in office during which they can get away with making unpopular decisions. Part of the problem we have solving our long-term problems is that we have representatives who are constantly looking at the next upcoming election, feeling pressure to do what is momentarily popular at the expense of what will be good for the country in the long run. How well do you think a go’vt would function if its lawmakers could instantly lose office any time they voted to, say, raise a tax?

    • DvDemocracy

      >Isn’t a member of congress already a “designated voter” who acts on behalf of his/her interest group?

      No. Firstly, member of congress can get elected with less than 50% of the vote. So, it’s possible for a member of congress to represent a minority of their district. Secondly, a Designated Voter is just someone in your group who represents 100% of the group. Also, anyone can form a group *regardless* where they live in a given country, so districts.

      >And frankly, I think it’s a good thing that elected representatives have a term in office during which they can get away with making unpopular decisions.

      You mean like the unpopular decision bail out the banks? You mean like the unpopular decision to forgive BP for killing the Gulf of Mexico? You mean like the unpopular decision by the Fed to secretly print trillions of dollars? You mean like the unpopular decision to force people into buying health care from corporations?

      • Haystack

        It’s difficult to imagine how a large group could reach a perfect consensus on a leader, so I’m assuming that people who dissent would simply move to a different DV. In that case influential DVs would be those who can amass a large number of followers. People like Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck who have corporate media backing would certainly become influential legislators under this system, whereas those who are currently obscure would likely remain so.

        Taking districts out of the equation would also have non-trivial implications. The Senate and electoral college currently serve to balance the interests of the rural and urban parts of the country. Under this scheme it would be much easier for large urban populations to effectively tyrannize country dwellers; the later being smaller in number.

        Some governments have systems of proportional representation, which I favor. Under this scheme, a district might elect, say, three members of Congress, who each have power in proportion to the number of votes they received in the election. This allows minorities to be represented together with regional interests.

        I think you would be hard pressed to argue that the popular decision is always the right one. Some would argue that the popular referendum system in California has contributed greatly to the crisis that state is now in.

        Everyone in congress understood that the bank bailouts would be unpopular, but as professional legislators they had sufficient expertise to understand their necessity. Certainly, they could have been better managed, and they were not followed up with adequate financial reform, but allowing the financial sector of the economy to collapse would have devastated the economy. There is much that is upsetting about it, but I am glad they were able to make an unpopular decision in a crisis situation. Likewise, I’m glad that minorities (e.g., Muslims) aren’t left to the mercy of momentary public sentiment. In any event, it’s difficult to imagine that a DV would be less beholden to corporate interests than a congressperson or senator would be, as both would depend upon expensive media exposure in order to garner influence.

        • DvDemocracy

          >In any event, it’s difficult to imagine that a DV would be less beholden to corporate interests than a congressperson or senator would be

          It’s quite simple: a politician needs money to fund a very expensive political campaign. Corporate lobbyists are more than willing to fund them… and get favorable legislation in return. It helps that the politicians are all in one place. Much more convenient for the lobbyists.

          A DV does not campaign and thus would not need lobbyist money. DVs would be scattered all over the country and there would be tens of thousands of them.

          It’s easy to imagine that there is a fundamental difference between politicians and DVs.

          • Haystack

            Why wouldn’t a DV campaign or seek a spot on the national stage?

            What would prevent Sarah Palin from becoming a DV with several million voters at her disposal?

          • DvDemocracy

            >Why wouldn’t a DV campaign or seek a spot on the national stage?

            Some DV would *definitely* seek a spot on the national stage. Watch the video again. Also read the title of the post again. Check out what’s written in the brackets.

            >What would prevent Sarah Palin from becoming a DV with several million voters at her disposal?

            Nothing would prevent that. It’s called freedom of choice.

            The second Sarah Palin does not vote the way the voters in her group want her to vote is the day voters start leaving her group in droves. It’s called accountability.

            You may not like Sarah Palin, but that’s *exactly* what democracy and free speech should be about: Having a forum where many ideas, even the ones you may *hate* can be discussed freely.

            Don’t be scared Homie.

          • Haystack

            I’m all for freedom of choice, but you’ve claimed that DVs wouldn’t be beholden to special interests. Clearly, cable news commentators and other opinion leaders are already dependent on special interests; for example, the corporations that give them a platform in the media. If anything, it would seem to me that it would make the problem worse. A politician serving a term only has to campaign every so often. A DV with influence changing in real time would continuously be in campaign mode, requiring some kind of funding or corporate backing to remain a figure on the national stage.

            I think where we fundamentally disagree is that you frame the problem largely in terms special interests as corrupting politicians into voting against the will of the people. I see the problem largely in terms of the ability of special interests to shape the opinions of the people (i.e. to propagandize). It’s easy for a politician or a DV to favor special interests if those special interests can convince the country that what is good for them is good for us…and they do.

          • DvDemocracy

            >special interests can convince the country that what is good for them is good for us

            Haystack. Look back at your posts.

            Your underlying argument always seems to be that the People are too stupid to make their own decisions.

            *That’s* where we fundamentally disagree.

  • Anonymous

    This is moronic. They want to replace a working (even if its poorly) Representative Democracy (Republic) with a worse version of a Representative Democracy?
    And what if you could not find a group that matches your views? What do you do when there is an item to be voted on and your group splits on what the vote should be? What do you do when there are 1 million groups, or only 2 consolidated groups? Who decides what the groups vote on? Who meets with foreign leaders and expresses our country’s stances? Who makes quick decisions when we are attacked, or when another country wants our help regarding foreign aid? Etc. Etc. Etc.
    Haystack is completely correct, there would be people who wanted to “lead” their group and so they would explain why they should lead and make promises about how they would vote. That’s a campaign. How would a group pick their leader? That’s an election.
    We are a Republic for a couple very important reasons, #1 the difficulty of getting the public to vote on every single thing. and #2 because you can’t always trust the public to make informed decisions. What if 51% voted to fire Nukes at Russia? Or voted to allow mercury to be put in drinking water because they were tricked by a clever ad campaign?

    Xtra Normal once again shows their weird philosophy that only sounds good if you don’t care to think too much about it. They should go make a science fiction movie. I will gladly suspend my disbelief in that medium.

  • hunter349

    This is moronic. They want to replace a working (even if its poorly) Representative Democracy (Republic) with a worse version of a Representative Democracy?
    And what if you could not find a group that matches your views? What do you do when there is an item to be voted on and your group splits on what the vote should be? What do you do when there are 1 million groups, or only 2 consolidated groups? Who decides what the groups vote on? Who meets with foreign leaders and expresses our country’s stances? Who makes quick decisions when we are attacked, or when another country wants our help regarding foreign aid? Etc. Etc. Etc.
    Haystack is completely correct, there would be people who wanted to “lead” their group and so they would explain why they should lead and make promises about how they would vote. That’s a campaign. How would a group pick their leader? That’s an election.
    We are a Republic for a couple very important reasons, #1 the difficulty of getting the public to vote on every single thing. and #2 because you can’t always trust the public to make informed decisions. What if 51% voted to fire Nukes at Russia? Or voted to allow mercury to be put in drinking water because they were tricked by a clever ad campaign?

    Xtra Normal once again shows their weird philosophy that only sounds good if you don’t care to think too much about it. They should go make a science fiction movie. I will gladly suspend my disbelief in that medium.

    • DvDemocracy

      Good questions by hunter349. I will make another video answering those types of questions in the future.

      >And what if you could not find a group that matches your views?
      If you can’t find a group that matches your views, you can make one yourself.

      >What do you do when there is an item to be voted on and your group splits on what the vote should be?
      If the designated voter gets back to the group with legislation that he/she wants to vote for, and some of the members of the group don’t want to vote for it, then they can opt out of that particular vote. That might happen occasionally, but because the members are like-minded, then the vast majority of the time they wouldn’t have to opt out.

      Who decides what the groups vote on?
      Watch the video

      Who meets with foreign leaders and expresses our country’s stances? Who makes quick decisions when we are attacked, or when another country wants our help regarding foreign aid?

      I’m not saying there wouldn’t be an executive. Just that the public would control the legislation. That’s the key part.

      • hunter349

        Wow….Respect for responding.

  • MoxAmok

    When one person inevitably disagrees with their “DV” and the majority of their group, their only recourse is to change groups, which being so important to accurately count, will probably be a cumbersome process. And the inherent problem with democracy is still very present, that “50%+1″ can vote away the rights of the rest if adequate external protections are not in place.

  • MoxAmok

    When one person inevitably disagrees with their “DV” and the majority of their group, their only recourse is to change groups, which being so important to accurately count, will probably be a cumbersome process. And the inherent problem with democracy is still very present, that “50%+1″ can vote away the rights of the rest if adequate external protections are not in place.

    • DvDemocracy

      >When one person inevitably disagrees with their “DV” and the majority of their group, their only recourse is to change groups

      No. Any member can opt out of a particular vote. The DV would inform the group before voting, giving the members the option of opting out. But that probably wouldn’t happen often given that they are supposed to be like-minded people.

      • http://twitter.com/yarner Bognar Peter

        Ihave the feeling that you are too idealistic about the notion “like-minded individuals”. With given time every group begins to deteriorate: new power bases, factions emerge, points of view change.
        I have seen fan clubs fall apart in an ugly display of power struggles, not to mention groups with real interest and conections towards big business.
        Have I mentioned that your system is extremely prone to corruption?: just think about one point: public procurement. Which company to choose for eg a highway construction deal?

        This system would merely mean a temporary change, within a few years (maybe even shorter time) it would lead back to more or less the same system as the players learn to play around the rules.

        or, it would work, but only for smaller communities, not whole countries (especially not confederations, like the US)

  • danielson

    Democracy as we know it is a spin off from the French revolution. It is destined to fail.

  • danielson

    Democracy as we know it is a spin off from the French revolution. It is destined to fail.

  • http://twitter.com/D351 D351

    This is the same shit we already have. Fuck voting.

  • http://twitter.com/D351 D351

    This is the same shit we already have. Fuck voting.

  • FREEK power ULTD.

    The only way that a system like this would work is if globalization and empire were completely dismantled. Localization and community organization not seen since the rise of the nation state several centuries ago would have to reestablish itself. All political affiliations would have to be completely voluntary unlike our current system which uses violence and coercion. This would make anything resembling a government be exceptionally weak which would be a good thing. Like Thoreau said “the government that is best is that which governs least”, or Paine, “government at best is a necessary evil.” Global trade would still exist as it has for centuries, so the “government” would be something more like a trade union representing a certain territory. The artisans producing the goods would be in charge of the unions. This is the only thing that would really resemble the kind of organization the video is talking about. Respect for each others individual rights would develop quite naturally in this situation. Laws, which really are a failure because they legislate natural morality and are necessitated by poverty, would be practically non-existent. This would be a true civilization and it would be my hope that its what humanity is evolving towards. By my estimation it will take 150 to 1000 years to get there.

  • FREEK power ULTD.

    The only way that a system like this would work is if globalization and empire were completely dismantled. Localization and community organization not seen since the rise of the nation state several centuries ago would have to reestablish itself. All political affiliations would have to be completely voluntary unlike our current system which uses violence and coercion. This would make anything resembling a government be exceptionally weak which would be a good thing. Like Thoreau said “the government that is best is that which governs least”, or Paine, “government at best is a necessary evil.” Global trade would still exist as it has for centuries, so the “government” would be something more like a trade union representing a certain territory. The artisans producing the goods would be in charge of the unions. This is the only thing that would really resemble the kind of organization the video is talking about. Respect for each others individual rights would develop quite naturally in this situation. Laws, which really are a failure because they legislate natural morality and are necessitated by poverty, would be practically non-existent. This would be a true civilization and it would be my hope that its what humanity is evolving towards. By my estimation it will take 150 to 1000 years to get there.

  • Test

    let the tyrany of the majority rule, huh? there will be no freedomswithout out checks and balances

  • Test

    let the tyrany of the majority rule, huh? there will be no freedomswithout out checks and balances

    • DvDemocracy

      I didn’t say there wouldn’t be checks and balances. This system concerns the legislative branch only.

  • anonymous

    is this a Geiko commercial?

  • anonymous

    is this a Geiko commercial?

  • Anonymous

    Come on ya’ll its a frigging cartoon! Pastel ideas and all.

  • GregForest

    Come on ya’ll its a frigging cartoon! Pastel ideas and all.

  • DvDemocracy

    >Isn’t a member of congress already a “designated voter” who acts on behalf of his/her interest group?

    No. Firstly, member of congress can get elected with less than 50% of the vote. So, it’s possible for a member of congress to represent a minority of their district. Secondly, a Designated Voter is just someone in your group who represents 100% of the group. Also, anyone can form a group *regardless* where they live in a given country, so districts.

    >And frankly, I think it’s a good thing that elected representatives have a term in office during which they can get away with making unpopular decisions.

    You mean like the unpopular decision bail out the banks? You mean like the unpopular decision to forgive BP for killing the Gulf of Mexico? You mean like the unpopular decision by the Fed to secretly print trillions of dollars? You mean like the unpopular decision to force people into buying health care from corporations?

  • DvDemocracy

    Good questions by hunter349. I will make another video answering those types of questions in the future.

    >And what if you could not find a group that matches your views?
    If you can’t find a group that matches your views, you can make one yourself.

    >What do you do when there is an item to be voted on and your group splits on what the vote should be?
    If the designated voter gets back to the group with legislation that he/she wants to vote for, and some of the members of the group don’t want to vote for it, then they can opt out of that particular vote. That might happen occasionally, but because the members are like-minded, then the vast majority of the time they wouldn’t have to opt out.

    Who decides what the groups vote on?
    Watch the video

    Who meets with foreign leaders and expresses our country’s stances? Who makes quick decisions when we are attacked, or when another country wants our help regarding foreign aid?

    I’m not saying there wouldn’t be an executive. Just that the public would control the legislation. That’s the key part.

  • DvDemocracy

    Good questions by hunter349. I will make another video answering those types of questions in the future.

    >And what if you could not find a group that matches your views?
    If you can’t find a group that matches your views, you can make one yourself.

    >What do you do when there is an item to be voted on and your group splits on what the vote should be?
    If the designated voter gets back to the group with legislation that he/she wants to vote for, and some of the members of the group don’t want to vote for it, then they can opt out of that particular vote. That might happen occasionally, but because the members are like-minded, then the vast majority of the time they wouldn’t have to opt out.

    Who decides what the groups vote on?
    Watch the video

    Who meets with foreign leaders and expresses our country’s stances? Who makes quick decisions when we are attacked, or when another country wants our help regarding foreign aid?

    I’m not saying there wouldn’t be an executive. Just that the public would control the legislation. That’s the key part.

  • DvDemocracy

    Read my response to Haystack and hunter349.

    Here’s the key point: The citizens would control the legislation. There would still be room for the executive. The “no politicians, no elections” part was concerning the legislative process. I didn’t want to make a 2 hour video explaining all the details.

  • DvDemocracy

    Read my response to Haystack and hunter349.

    Here’s the key point: The citizens would control the legislation. There would still be room for the executive. The “no politicians, no elections” part was concerning the legislative process. I didn’t want to make a 2 hour video explaining all the details.

  • DvDemocracy

    >When one person inevitably disagrees with their “DV” and the majority of their group, their only recourse is to change groups

    No. Any member can opt out of a particular vote. The DV would inform the group before voting, giving the members the option of opting out. But that probably wouldn’t happen often given that they are supposed to be like-minded people.

  • DvDemocracy

    I didn’t say there wouldn’t be checks and balances. This system concerns the legislative branch only.

  • WhiteRose

    The system was fine its that a bunch of rich fat white men abused it…… and the stupid american people let them get away with it so who is to blame here?

    • DvDemocracy

      Look at what happened in Iceland. It’s a very small, very educated, and very politically involved country. And even in Iceland, the politicians wanted to bailout the banks against the public will. Good thing it was put to a referendum and the public rejected the bailout. Now Iceland is beginning to see daylight.

      Take a look at Ireland and tell me which country made the better decision: the politicians, or the people.

      “Rich men” have always abused the system because the system is perfectly suited for abuse. The politicians are all in one place, they need money to run elections, they have a monopoly on drafting legislation, and they want to have a great job after they leave political life.

      Guess who Tony Blair is working for right now… JP Morgan. They probably offered him the job for doing such a great job looking out for the public’s interest.

  • WhiteRose

    The system was fine its that a bunch of rich fat white men abused it…… and the stupid american people let them get away with it so who is to blame here?

  • gil

    Sorry for being out of topic, but why is this post cutting off the rest of the frontpage? I get everything that was posted after this, but then the site “abruptly” stops after this post. Is it just me?

  • gil

    Sorry for being out of topic, but why is this post cutting off the rest of the frontpage? I get everything that was posted after this, but then the site “abruptly” stops after this post. Is it just me?

    • gil

      Ok, ignore me; it’s fine, now.

      Carry on.

      • justagirl

        GIL!!! :D

  • Anonymous

    Wow….Respect for responding.

  • gil

    Ok, ignore me; it’s fine, now.

    Carry on.

  • Haystack

    It’s difficult to imagine how a large group could reach a perfect consensus on a leader, so I’m assuming that people who dissent would simply move to a different DV. In that case influential DVs would be those who can amass a large number of followers. People like Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck who have corporate media backing would certainly become influential legislators under this system, whereas those who are currently obscure would likely remain so.

    Taking districts out of the equation would also have non-trivial implications. The Senate and electoral college currently serve to balance the interests of the rural and urban parts of the country. Under this scheme it would be much easier for large urban populations to effectively tyrannize country dwellers; the later being smaller in number.

    Some governments have systems of proportional representation, which I favor. Under this scheme, a district might elect, say, three members of Congress, who each have power in proportion to the number of votes they received in the election. This allows minorities to be represented together with regional interests.

    I think you would be hard pressed to argue that the popular decision is always the right one. Some would argue that the popular referendum system in California has contributed greatly to the crisis that state is now in.

    Everyone in congress understood that the bank bailouts would be unpopular, but as professional legislators they had sufficient expertise to understand their necessity. Certainly, they could have been better managed, and they were not followed up with adequate financial reform, but allowing the financial sector of the economy to collapse would have devastated the economy. There is much that is upsetting about it, but I am glad they were able to make an unpopular decision in a crisis situation. Likewise, I’m glad that minorities (e.g., Muslims) aren’t left to the mercy of momentary public sentiment. In any event, it’s difficult to imagine that a DV would be less beholden to corporate interests than a congressperson or senator would be, as both would depend upon expensive media exposure in order to garner influence.

  • Asdf

    had a few good points. I agree that politicians need to be held accountable and that our system is flawed. But overall I found this to be completely ignorant to WAY too many factors.

  • Asdf

    had a few good points. I agree that politicians need to be held accountable and that our system is flawed. But overall I found this to be completely ignorant to WAY too many factors.

    • DvDemocracy

      If you took the time to actually post a comment, maybe you should have listed at least one of those “WAY too many factors”.

  • justagirl

    GIL!!! :D

  • DvDemocracy

    >In any event, it’s difficult to imagine that a DV would be less beholden to corporate interests than a congressperson or senator would be

    It’s quite simple: a politician needs money to fund a very expensive political campaign. Corporate lobbyists are more than willing to fund them… and get favorable legislation in return. It helps that the politicians are all in one place. Much more convenient for the lobbyists.

    A DV does not campaign and thus would not need lobbyist money. DVs would be scattered all over the country and there would be tens of thousands of them.

    It’s easy to imagine that there is a fundamental difference between politicians and DVs.

  • DvDemocracy

    If you took the time to actually post a comment, maybe you should have listed at least one of those “WAY too many factors”.

  • DvDemocracy

    Look at what happened in Iceland. It’s a very small, very educated, and very politically involved country. And even in Iceland, the politicians wanted to bailout the banks against the public will. Good thing it was put to a referendum and the public rejected the bailout. Now Iceland is beginning to see daylight.

    Take a look at Ireland and tell me which country made the better decision: the politicians, or the people.

    “Rich men” have always abused the system because the system is perfectly suited for abuse. The politicians are all in one place, they need money to run elections, they have a monopoly on drafting legislation, and they want to have a great job after they leave political life.

    Guess who Tony Blair is working for right now… JP Morgan. They probably offered him the job for doing such a great job looking out for the public’s interest.

  • Haystack

    Why wouldn’t a DV campaign or seek a spot on the national stage?

    What would prevent Sarah Palin from becoming a DV with several million voters at her disposal?

  • DvDemocracy

    >Why wouldn’t a DV campaign or seek a spot on the national stage?

    Some DV would *definitely* seek a spot on the national stage. Watch the video again. Also read the title of the post again. Check out what’s written in the brackets.

    >What would prevent Sarah Palin from becoming a DV with several million voters at her disposal?

    Nothing would prevent that. It’s called freedom of choice.

    The second Sarah Palin does not vote the way the voters in her group want her to vote is the day voters start leaving her group in droves. It’s called accountability.

    You may not like Sarah Palin, but that’s *exactly* what democracy and free speech should be about: Having a forum where many ideas, even the ones you may *hate* can be discussed freely.

    Don’t be scared Homie.

  • Haystack

    I’m all for freedom of choice, but you’ve claimed that DVs wouldn’t be beholden to special interests. Clearly, cable news commentators and other opinion leaders are already dependent on special interests; for example, the corporations that give them a platform in the media. If anything, it would seem to me that it would make the problem worse. A politician serving a term only has to campaign every so often. A DV with influence changing in real time would continuously be in campaign mode, requiring some kind of funding or corporate backing to remain a figure on the national stage.

    I think where we fundamentally disagree is that you frame the problem largely in terms special interests as corrupting politicians into voting against the will of the people. I see the problem largely in terms of the ability of special interests to shape the opinions of the people (i.e. to propagandize). It’s easy for a politician or a DV to favor special interests if those special interests can convince the country that what is good for them is good for us…and they do.

  • Ianpc04

    we dont live in a democracy we live in a representitive republic the word democracy is not even in the constitution.

  • Ianpc04

    we dont live in a democracy we live in a representitive republic the word democracy is not even in the constitution.

  • anonamous

    heres an idea how about looking at

    individualism vs collectivism theres a pretty popular version on youtube .

    it explains the system and may help clear up the confusion .

    and i repeat we live in a representitive republic. (democracy is the transitive state between)

    why germany ended up the way it did.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMYicq_SN1E

  • anonamous

    heres an idea how about looking at

    individualism vs collectivism theres a pretty popular version on youtube .

    it explains the system and may help clear up the confusion .

    and i repeat we live in a representitive republic. (democracy is the transitive state between)

    why germany ended up the way it did.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMYicq_SN1E

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_UQFTKAFTLDZJ2PFFGQINTQK4ZY Sasha K

    The problem is that democracy is an inherently broken idea.

    “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.”

    How does direct democracy fix this inherent problem?

    The state is a dead concept. It’s not worth saving. We need to bury it.

    I am more interested, for instance, in the idea of panarchy: google it. Governments don’t have a geographic monopoly, every person can choose their government.

    Or simply market anarchy, really a workable idea, read Rothbard’s “For a New Liberty” (google it for a free PDF).

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_UQFTKAFTLDZJ2PFFGQINTQK4ZY Sasha K

    The problem is that democracy is an inherently broken idea.

    “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.”

    How does direct democracy fix this inherent problem?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_UQFTKAFTLDZJ2PFFGQINTQK4ZY Sasha K

    The problem is that democracy is an inherently broken idea.

    “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.”

    How does direct democracy fix this inherent problem?

  • DvDemocracy

    >special interests can convince the country that what is good for them is good for us

    Haystack. Look back at your posts.

    Your underlying argument always seems to be that the People are too stupid to make their own decisions.

    *That’s* where we fundamentally disagree.

  • http://earthsociety.org Tyler

    Violates the non aggression principle. The best system is anarcho-capitalism. No government needed, people ‘vote’ with their money.

  • http://earthsociety.org Tyler

    Violates the non aggression principle. The best system is anarcho-capitalism. No government needed, people ‘vote’ with their money.

  • Jamesofberkeley

    This proposed fix has some good ideas but they represent steps with unintended consequences. Much as the French Revolution copied American ideas and made “fixes” that contributed to the Terror. What would stop the tyranny of the Majority? From your responses to other questions, I’m guessing you would suggest joining another group? That works on a nebulous concept, but what if your family is in a group you don’t agree with? Your boss or union (another group concept with difficulties) are in a DV and suggest that you ought to be too? There are larger social factors which are too easy to gloss over when examining the big picture. It would be nice if all the people were smart enough to make informed decisions, but you cant address the limits of intellect or information adequately for all people, all the time.

    There are people who smoke, know that it will contribute to cancer, and will smoke until they die. There are people who smoke while pushing their children down the street. These people know that there are negative, severely negative consequences and continue doing it. NAMBLA could form a DV right? There are so many specific instances where a system of DVs would enable society to change in ways that the current system does not allow. And while that is true about good improvements as well as negative, I believe that there are tools in the current framework that allow slow positive change, while stifling negatives. Imperfect in many ways, but stable in my opinion.

  • Jamesofberkeley

    This proposed fix has some good ideas but they represent steps with unintended consequences. Much as the French Revolution copied American ideas and made “fixes” that contributed to the Terror. What would stop the tyranny of the Majority? From your responses to other questions, I’m guessing you would suggest joining another group? That works on a nebulous concept, but what if your family is in a group you don’t agree with? Your boss or union (another group concept with difficulties) are in a DV and suggest that you ought to be too? There are larger social factors which are too easy to gloss over when examining the big picture. It would be nice if all the people were smart enough to make informed decisions, but you cant address the limits of intellect or information adequately for all people, all the time.

    There are people who smoke, know that it will contribute to cancer, and will smoke until they die. There are people who smoke while pushing their children down the street. These people know that there are negative, severely negative consequences and continue doing it. NAMBLA could form a DV right? There are so many specific instances where a system of DVs would enable society to change in ways that the current system does not allow. And while that is true about good improvements as well as negative, I believe that there are tools in the current framework that allow slow positive change, while stifling negatives. Imperfect in many ways, but stable in my opinion.

  • http://twitter.com/yarner Bognar Peter

    Ihave the feeling that you are too idealistic about the notion “like-minded individuals”. With given time every group begins to deteriorate: new power bases, factions emerge, points of view change.
    I have seen fan clubs fall apart in an ugly display of power struggles, not to mention groups with real interest and conections towards big business.
    Have I mentioned that your system is extremely prone to corruption: just think about one point: public procurement.

    This system would merely mean a temporary change, within a few years (maybe even shorter time) it would lead back to more or less the same system as the players learn to play around the rules.

    or, it would work, but only for smaller communities, not whole countries (especially not confederations, like the US)

  • Anarchy Pony

    Democracy is impossible for very large populations to effectively carry out, to many minority groups get marginalized which is likely to lead to terrorism and various social breakdowns. Which is why giant “democracies” like the US are so prone to corruption and are foolish endeavors to be carried out in the first place.

  • You Are An Animal

    Democracy is impossible for very large populations to effectively carry out, to many minority groups get marginalized which is likely to lead to terrorism and various social breakdowns. Which is why giant “democracies” like the US are so prone to corruption and are foolish endeavors to be carried out in the first place.

  • Mash Er47

    The cancer from smoking comes from the chemicals they put in the tobacco.
    Not the tobacco itself…..

    French copied American ideas? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/America1789.png
    What in hell is an “American” idea in 1789?

21