So I’ve just finished chastising an Israeli and a Palestinian on another forum for their (IMO) narrow, poorly considered points of view regarding each other.

I’m curious as to how others here think the relentless progression of technology might affect politics in the near future… Say over the next fifty years.

It occurs to me that people will become increasingly “on-line” in the near future, connected by words, attitudes and opinions to each other in an increasingly direct way. Ultimately, it would seem that plebiscites and referendums could easily become a matter of almost daily consideration, free of most of the beuracracy which currently limits the effectiveness of a true democracy… Very soon it could be that “the people” are actually given control of their society, rather than the current “democratic” method of ceded control.

On the surface, this sounds fantastic. Government by the people, for the people. But I wonder if this kind of true democracy is really a good thing. It can only lead to ever increasing spin and hype on the part of PR absorbed governments, with a concomitant reduction in the depth to which issues are explored and rationally analyzed and acted upon. It seems frighteningly likely that the future of humanity will be controlled by those who can tell the best story, rather than those who can best dissect any particular issue.

Now this isn’t unprecedented. Human societies have been controlled by stories basically since they first existed. But there’s something else happening these days. The stories are being distributed instantaneously to virtually everyone…. Unadulterated. This widespread distribution of modern stories seriously undermines the ability of the human race as a collective to react critically to the information being fed to them.

And regarding the “daily referendum” thing, I wonder if its actually a good idea to let the average plebeian dictate political policy, which is the way things are heading.

they will never allow a democracy

human society is pyramidal with the haves and have not arranged top to bottom with degrees of have nots.

exactly do you have democracy here for example if you don’t know who is casting there vote, how many times and if they are legally allowed to?

on line referendums? given the current system it could be hacked and the referendum will be swung the way it suits the powerbrokers.

the word democracy comes from Greece as you’d know – you could vote in Athens as long as you had Athenian parents. there’s a fine line between mob rule and a free voting electorate.

interesting concept though but before we jump ahead we need to make the system right before we move on.

Wookie,

Do you support the concept of a pure democracy? A system where by the people get to decide political policy week by week, day by day, or even hour by hour?

草泥马

A system where by the people get to decide political policy week by week, day by day, or even hour by hour?

i reckon it would be a shambles trying to run a country that way. there would be no coherence between policies.

Boris said:

A system where by the people get to decide political policy week by week, day by day, or even hour by hour?

i reckon it would be a shambles trying to run a country that way. there would be no coherence between policies.

Sometime four years isn’t enough time to get real progress implemented…

esselte said:

Wookie,

Do you support the concept of a pure democracy? A system where by the people get to decide political policy week by week, day by day, or even hour by hour?

The closest I would think we are capable of approaching this ideal in a manageable manner is to invest essential resource industry with veto powers over lobbyists. This would likely only be manageable as a global body that focused it’s financial concerns on food, housing and education. The economic market outside of this criteria would have to compete for finance against these fundamentals as a global body rather than each on it’s own terms.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

esselte said:

Wookie,

Do you support the concept of a pure democracy? A system where by the people get to decide political policy week by week, day by day, or even hour by hour?

The closest I would think we are capable of approaching this ideal in a manageable manner is to invest essential resource industry with veto powers over lobbyists. This would likely only be manageable as a global body that focused it’s financial concerns on food, housing and education. The economic market outside of this criteria would have to compete for finance against these fundamentals as a global body rather than each on it’s own terms.

“She said Oh-man, you foolish man,
That surely sounds like hell,
They may be master to half the World,
They’ll not own me as well”

Adapted from Beeswing
With apologies to Richard Thompson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aePp93pq8Pw

Esselte – how do you see this transition happening, given that it would require the people who currently control the political process to give up their power?

How would the interests of minorities be protected under this system?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

esselte said:

Wookie,

Do you support the concept of a pure democracy? A system where by the people get to decide political policy week by week, day by day, or even hour by hour?

The closest I would think we are capable of approaching this ideal in a manageable manner is to invest essential resource industry with veto powers over lobbyists. This would likely only be manageable as a global body that focused it’s financial concerns on food, housing and education. The economic market outside of this criteria would have to compete for finance against these fundamentals as a global body rather than each on it’s own terms.

“She said Oh-man, you foolish man,
That surely sounds like hell,
They may be master to half the World,
They’ll not own me as well”

Adapted from Beeswing
With apologies to Richard Thompson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aePp93pq8Pw

Me needs a ‘like’ image.

The Rev Dodgson said:

“She said Oh-man, you foolish man,
That surely sounds like hell,
They may be master to half the World,
They’ll not own me as well”

Adapted from Beeswing
With apologies to Richard Thompson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aePp93pq8Pw

Are you suggesting that the scenario I illustrated is non-democratic, or simply that the “money” people would not accept the concept of privately profiting from the essential needs of others willingly?

How would the interests of minorities be protected under this system?

this is the point. the majority isn’t always right.

Boris said:

How would the interests of minorities be protected under this system?

this is the point. the majority isn’t always right.

Doesn’t help when the majority is only freely fed the information that those who control the media prefer.

so the media would have to be controlled then to get the result that is best.

as i first said, it would be a shambles.

Boris said:

so the media would have to be controlled then to get the result that is best.

as i first said, it would be a shambles.

Why is “control” necessary? As esselte referred to, social media is becoming the preference. If self education is promoted in this manner through networks of those with a responsible community philosophy, why should such a system be incongruous?

social media is becoming the preference.

where do all the commentators get their info from? they can’t all be at every event to get the info they comment on first hand.

Boris said:

social media is becoming the preference.

where do all the commentators get their info from? they can’t all be at every event to get the info they comment on first hand.

it is available on the news circuit.

it is available on the news circuit.

oh the media? now why didn’t i think of that?

that is the whole bloody point i’m making. geez.

Boris said:

it is available on the news circuit.

oh the media? now why didn’t i think of that?

that is the whole bloody point i’m making. geez.

:)

Riff-in-Thyme said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

“She said Oh-man, you foolish man,
That surely sounds like hell,
They may be master to half the World,
They’ll not own me as well”

Adapted from Beeswing
With apologies to Richard Thompson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aePp93pq8Pw

Are you suggesting that the scenario I illustrated is non-democratic, or simply that the “money” people would not accept the concept of privately profiting from the essential needs of others willingly?

It sounded non-democratic, in that a few people would be given a power of veto, but what you wrote didn’t really make a lot of sense to me.

Looking at much of the stuff that is circulated by social media and e-mail now, the effect of this stuff without broadcast media to at least provide some sort of balance, is a real worry.

The Rev Dodgson said:

It sounded non-democratic, in that a few people would be given a power of veto, but what you wrote didn’t really make a lot of sense to me.

The scenario I provided was limited in detail and practical development. The intention was to propose a body that spread the choices that concern essential needs. Those who exercise power through their money have an unacknowledged power of veto simply in withholding what they consider theirs from a global concern(unless they can personally profit from being involved). I would have to assume that a body specifically designed to involve the greater public in their own interests would be a better deal than the “unofficial” powers that rule the world’s economy.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Looking at much of the stuff that is circulated by social media and e-mail now, the effect of this stuff without broadcast media to at least provide some sort of balance, is a real worry.

Not a problem that could not be overcome with a little application of thought and consideration in my eyes.

Not a problem that could not be overcome with a little application of thought and consideration in my eyes.

getting closer to 1984 all the time.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Looking at much of the stuff that is circulated by social media and e-mail now, the effect of this stuff without broadcast media to at least provide some sort of balance, is a real worry.

Not a problem that could not be overcome with a little application of thought and consideration in my eyes.

How does “a little application of thought and consideration” by any individual stop people posting crap on social media?

Or are you suggesting a government committee to exercise censorship with “a little application of thought and consideration”?

Riff-in-Thyme said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

It sounded non-democratic, in that a few people would be given a power of veto, but what you wrote didn’t really make a lot of sense to me.

The scenario I provided was limited in detail and practical development. The intention was to propose a body that spread the choices that concern essential needs. Those who exercise power through their money have an unacknowledged power of veto simply in withholding what they consider theirs from a global concern(unless they can personally profit from being involved). I would have to assume that a body specifically designed to involve the greater public in their own interests would be a better deal than the “unofficial” powers that rule the world’s economy.

Centralising power and removing the profit motive has not worked that well in the past.

Social media spreads outrage and misinformation like wildfire. People pass it on without doing any sort of investigation, without any sort of requirement for accuracy, often without even checking if it’s new news or from three years ago.

I don’t do Twitter or Facebook and have thus inoculated myself against outrage.
I’ll be happier, live longer and my brian will be free to pursue more noble challenges.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Looking at much of the stuff that is circulated by social media and e-mail now, the effect of this stuff without broadcast media to at least provide some sort of balance, is a real worry.

Not a problem that could not be overcome with a little application of thought and consideration in my eyes.

How does “a little application of thought and consideration” by any individual stop people posting crap on social media?

Or are you suggesting a government committee to exercise censorship with “a little application of thought and consideration”?

You are presuming that the concept I am attempting to develop is simply a follow on from what is already established. I will spend some time outlining the greater details and post that for critique.

I will spend some time outlining the greater details and post that for critique.

excellent. we will await with bated breath.

Boris said:

I will spend some time outlining the greater details and post that for critique.

excellent. we will await with bated breath.

I’m sure you won’t, but I do value feedback that is constructive, so I hope I’m not placing undue demands on yourself. ;)

Riff-in-Thyme said:

You are presuming that the concept I am attempting to develop is simply a follow on from what is already established. I will spend some time outlining the greater details and post that for critique.

I’m not presuming anything. That’s why I asked how it would work.

i can hold my own so don’t worry on that score. just look forward to what you have planned.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

You are presuming that the concept I am attempting to develop is simply a follow on from what is already established. I will spend some time outlining the greater details and post that for critique.

I’m not presuming anything. That’s why I asked how it would work.

Sorry. May have put that pedantically unintentionally.

Boris said:

i can hold my own so don’t worry on that score. just look forward to what you have planned.

:) Will pay as close attention to detail as I am able then.

“Electronic direct democracy (EDD) is the strongest form of direct democracy, in which people are involved in the legislative function. Many advocates think that also important to this notion are technological enhancements to the deliberative process. Electronic direct democracy is sometimes referred to by many other names, such as open source governance and collaborative governance.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-democracy

Ian said:

“Electronic direct democracy (EDD) is the strongest form of direct democracy, in which people are involved in the legislative function. Many advocates think that also important to this notion are technological enhancements to the deliberative process. Electronic direct democracy is sometimes referred to by many other names, such as open source governance and collaborative governance.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-democracy

Without even involving “governing in the term, collaboration is what has to be focused on. I have been of the opinion for some time that it is encouraged within the system for the individual to distance himself from his neighbors. There is an alarming absence of locally informed individuals and the term community is becoming something of a misnomer.

There is something of a difference between deliberative functions (involving discussion, counter-proposals, amendments) etc and mere approval/disapproval.

I certainly don’t suggest that our current system is the best way of having such deliberations, nor that direct-democracy proposals are incapable of so doing, but naive versions of e-referendums (or whatever) don’t seem to do anything to ensure that proposals are adequately considered by the people voting on them.

MartinB said:

There is something of a difference between deliberative functions (involving discussion, counter-proposals, amendments) etc and mere approval/disapproval.

I certainly don’t suggest that our current system is the best way of having such deliberations, nor that direct-democracy proposals are incapable of so doing, but naive versions of e-referendums (or whatever) don’t seem to do anything to ensure that proposals are adequately considered by the people voting on them.

I agree. It is interesting you mention approval/disapproval. It is one thing to be informed of developments in your local community but the decline in individuals “knowing” their neighbors ensures a growing trust gap that is easily manipulated for wasteful purposes. After knowing someone who worked for the ALP in a significant position I can only describe what I know of the practices that are employed for candidates to win seats is not a good indicator of how other area’s are managed. Encouraging the community to “know ones neighbor” is arguably the most stable long term solution if it is encouraged in an honest fashion.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

It is one thing to be informed of developments in your local community but the decline in individuals “knowing” their neighbors ensures a growing trust gap that is easily manipulated for wasteful purposes.

What evidence do you have for such a decline? My experience is the opposite, but I wouldn’t suggest that my experience is typical. I don’t know the direction of the individuals knowing their neighbours statistic.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

It is one thing to be informed of developments in your local community but the decline in individuals “knowing” their neighbors ensures a growing trust gap that is easily manipulated for wasteful purposes.

What evidence do you have for such a decline? My experience is the opposite, but I wouldn’t suggest that my experience is typical. I don’t know the direction of the individuals knowing their neighbours statistic.

It is declining rapidly and is now down to 23.417%.

please don’t tell me anymore about celebrity diving shows, unless there are live and angry stingrays and crocodiles in the pool.

oops, sorry. Mossad made me post in the wrong fred

i guess my experience isn’t typical as i live in a smallish community, <6000 pop, but it seems a pretty good lot of people. i know my neighbours. one lot brings me food parcels in return for fruit and computer help and for nothing as well. my next door neighbour comes over quite frequently. i know most in the street by sight and a wave. even when i lived in perth we knew our immediate neighbours. i used to make wooden crucifixes for the vietnamese catholics. it is not that they are friends just people that you pass the time of day with.

i don’t know what other peoples experiences are.

I’m in Brisbane, and I know all the immediate neighbours and about 50% of the people in the street. I know a few people in other streets around here. I like most of my neighbours.

But we do have street parties about once a year so we can all get together.

Anyway, that’s an anecdote, and should not be accepted as data.

Michael V said:

Anyway, that’s an anecdote, and should not be accepted as data.

With a random sample of those, we may have something ;)

The Rev Dodgson said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

What evidence do you have for such a decline? My experience is the opposite, but I wouldn’t suggest that my experience is typical. I don’t know the direction of the individuals knowing their neighbours statistic.

I am not sure what you mean by statistics. I do not see much interaction between neighbors in my street and I haven’t seen much evidence for it in former addresses. The basis of my line of thought was that to promote a social environment with “less government”, it would be important to provide less to govern. If an individual doesn’t have to compete for basic essentials then it is more likely that they will develop trust, which is essential within a functional community. It seems wasteful to assume that it is against human nature to seek genuine common sense when encouraged to openly investigate the world. Having said that, it is regularly surprising how juvenile public opinion can be, but peer pressure is not a bad thing if it is learned. It is good that Professor Tyson uses Twitter. Trustworthy people need a community medium that doesn’t have to expose them to the dog eat dog competition inherent to politics and business. Trust is not a thing that can be bought and sold, but is essential to practical cooperation.

My neighbours know my dog’s name.

Michael V said:

I’m in Brisbane, and I know all the immediate neighbours and about 50% of the people in the street. I know a few people in other streets around here. I like most of my neighbours.

But we do have street parties about once a year so we can all get together.

Anyway, that’s an anecdote, and should not be accepted as data.

Still good to hear.

Michael V said:

I’m in Brisbane, and I know all the immediate neighbours and about 50% of the people in the street. I know a few people in other streets around here. I like most of my neighbours.

But we do have street parties about once a year so we can all get together.

Anyway, that’s an anecdote, and should not be accepted as data.

Al Capone used them to good effect. Maybe you have something!

>And regarding the “daily referendum” thing, I wonder if its actually a good idea to let the average plebeian dictate political policy, which is the way things are heading.<

What evidence do you have that this is the way things are heading?

All I think of when I read this thread is the Egyptians rallying each other via social media for the riots, and Iran shutting down the interwebs and underground hackers regaining control to overthrow the government.

Divine Angel said:

All I think of when I read this thread is the Egyptians rallying each other via social media for the riots, and Iran shutting down the interwebs and underground hackers regaining control to overthrow the government.

Glad we aren’t all Egyptians.

Divine Angel said:

All I think of when I read this thread is the Egyptians rallying each other via social media for the riots, and Iran shutting down the interwebs and underground hackers regaining control to overthrow the government.

Yes, the internet can make large-scale protest and insurrection easier to organise, in those regions prone to such major upheavals.

Well, in Iran it seems to have been A Good Thing. The main point is, the government can’t keep the people down. In 20 years, when North Korea’s military die from old age, it’s probably going to be harder to rally young people to support the views of Dear Leader.

>The main point is, the government can’t keep the people down.

OTOH, the popular protests against the Egyptian government, although overthrowing one regime, don’t seem to have resulted in its replacement by a better regime. And let’s remember that the Iranian revolution which installed the Islamists appeared to have widespread popular support at the time.

“People Power” movements don’t necessarily translate into greater democracy.

Divine Angel said:

Well, in Iran it seems to have been A Good Thing. The main point is, the government can’t keep the people down. In 20 years, when North Korea’s military die from old age, it’s probably going to be harder to rally young people to support the views of Dear Leader.

I reckon they should send a delegation of Aboriginal Elders to chat with Dear Leader. If they couldn’t get on his good side nobody could.

Bubblecar said:

>The main point is, the government can’t keep the people down.

OTOH, the popular protests against the Egyptian government, although overthrowing one regime, don’t seem to have resulted in its replacement by a better regime. And let’s remember that the Iranian revolution which installed the Islamists appeared to have widespread popular support at the time.

“People Power” movements don’t necessarily translate into greater democracy.

I think the French tried this long before others…some lost their heads with it.

Bubblecar said:

>The main point is, the government can’t keep the people down.

OTOH, the popular protests against the Egyptian government, although overthrowing one regime, don’t seem to have resulted in its replacement by a better regime. And let’s remember that the Iranian revolution which installed the Islamists appeared to have widespread popular support at the time.

“People Power” movements don’t necessarily translate into greater democracy.

Definitely not without recognising one’s inexperience with management.

poikilotherm said:

Bubblecar said:

>The main point is, the government can’t keep the people down.

OTOH, the popular protests against the Egyptian government, although overthrowing one regime, don’t seem to have resulted in its replacement by a better regime. And let’s remember that the Iranian revolution which installed the Islamists appeared to have widespread popular support at the time.

“People Power” movements don’t necessarily translate into greater democracy.

I think the French tried this long before others…some lost their heads with it.

.

And some were allowed to eat cake, prior to it.

poikilotherm said:

I think the French tried this long before others…some lost their heads with it.

That was a spiked result. There is known to have been a widespread hallucinogenic mold contamination of the French rye wheat supply at the time.

Michael V said:

And some were allowed to eat cake, prior to it.

hallucinogenic cake

Bubblecar said:

“People Power” movements don’t necessarily translate into greater democracy.

God no! I know people, I don’t want to be ruled by them! *shudders *

poikilotherm said:

Bubblecar said:

>The main point is, the government can’t keep the people down.

OTOH, the popular protests against the Egyptian government, although overthrowing one regime, don’t seem to have resulted in its replacement by a better regime. And let’s remember that the Iranian revolution which installed the Islamists appeared to have widespread popular support at the time.

“People Power” movements don’t necessarily translate into greater democracy.

I think the French tried this long before others…some lost their heads with it.

IIRC some tens of thousands of innocent people lost their heads. I’m not quite sure why the French seem so proud of it.

Wait, are we talking the French Revolution or the Salem Witch Trials with Winona Ryder?

*Seems a long time to be suffering rye contamination.

pommiejohn said:

poikilotherm said:

Bubblecar said:

>The main point is, the government can’t keep the people down.

OTOH, the popular protests against the Egyptian government, although overthrowing one regime, don’t seem to have resulted in its replacement by a better regime. And let’s remember that the Iranian revolution which installed the Islamists appeared to have widespread popular support at the time.

“People Power” movements don’t necessarily translate into greater democracy.

I think the French tried this long before others…some lost their heads with it.

IIRC some tens of thousands of innocent people lost their heads. I’m not quite sure why the French seem so proud of it.

At least the dude that passed the law that allowed this also lost his head.

poikilotherm said:

pommiejohn said:

poikilotherm said:

I think the French tried this long before others…some lost their heads with it.

IIRC some tens of thousands of innocent people lost their heads. I’m not quite sure why the French seem so proud of it.

At least the dude that passed the law that allowed this also lost his head.

Was that the Duke Pomme Frites ?

I participate in elections so I get to vote for someone who then votes for me and others around me. The elected parliamentarians are willing and interested people, who inform themselves of the issues and then vote. If I did that, I would have no time to look at rocks or ride motorbikes, or have dinner parties with friends and neighbours, or all those other things I like to do.

So, if I had to vote on every little thing, then either I become informed and lose my life, or vote ill-informed and keep my life.

Currently, should I feel strongly enough about something, then I can take the time to inform and convince my local parliamentarian.

I’d prefer things the way they are. It is flawed – we all know that, but it works for me.

pommiejohn said:

poikilotherm said:

pommiejohn said:

IIRC some tens of thousands of innocent people lost their heads. I’m not quite sure why the French seem so proud of it.

At least the dude that passed the law that allowed this also lost his head.

Was that the Duke Pomme Frites ?

Don’t know who or what that is…

Maximilien François Marie Isidore de Robespierre

pomme frites are french fries. basically. although it really says fried apple

Michael V said:

I participate in elections so I get to vote for someone who then votes for me and others around me. The elected parliamentarians are willing and interested people, who inform themselves of the issues and then vote. If I did that, I would have no time to look at rocks or ride motorbikes, or have dinner parties with friends and neighbours, or all those other things I like to do.

So, if I had to vote on every little thing, then either I become informed and lose my life, or vote ill-informed and keep my life.

Currently, should I feel strongly enough about something, then I can take the time to inform and convince my local parliamentarian.

I’d prefer things the way they are. It is flawed – we all know that, but it works for me.

I wasn’t implying a greater voting system if that counts.

should be pomme de terre frites.

poikilotherm said:

pommiejohn said:

poikilotherm said:

At least the dude that passed the law that allowed this also lost his head.

Was that the Duke Pomme Frites ?

Don’t know who or what that is…

You need to watch a few more Carry On films :)

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

Boris said:

pomme frites are french fries. basically. although it really says fried apple

The classic ( and I use the term loosely) from Carry on Pimpernel was “ The Duke Pomme Frites has had his chips”

pommiejohn said:

poikilotherm said:

pommiejohn said:

Was that the Duke Pomme Frites ?

Don’t know who or what that is…

You need to watch a few more Carry On films :)

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

Ah.