Direct democracy using technology - Page 5 - Politics | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The solving of mankind’s problems and abolition of government via technological solutions alone.

Moderator: Kolzene

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
You seem to be advocating an unlimited right of secession, which I like. In fact, non-anarchist liberals like Mises have considered unlimited secession as an appropriate and sufficient remedy to government oppression.

I would like to suggest an alternative, namely the radical reduction in the scope of what questions are resolved politically, as opposed to voluntarily.

One of the geniuses of the American founding fathers was to exclude religion from the set of questions to which the answer is determined by the political process. Not only did that radically reduce religious strife, it greatly aided in making America unique in the developed world in the degree to which religion (freed from the shackles, even golden shackles, of political intervention) prospers.

Why don't we do the same for economics? Product Safety? Labour practices? Education? Health Care?

Let's get government out of each of those arenas, and do away with the very prospect of having others dictate their preferences on you.
I don't care about the question of what is theoretically useful for a hypothetical government to be involved in. It's silly to argue about what a government ought to be into while we're not even looking at how democratic it is. I actually want a single payer health plan, this is why I don't advocate for Libertarianism but label myself an Anarchist -- Because I'm not distracted by side issues.
How is a single-payer health-care system consistent with being an Anarchist?

Moderation note: That is probably a question to be asked in the Anarchism forum, rather than the Technocracy forum.

Suska's reply to this question was moved here.
Last edited by Siberian Fox on 11 Dec 2012 23:33, edited 2 times in total. Reason: Note added
Suska wrote:If what you're saying is that when governance is counter productive less government is preferred I agree. That's common sense. If its some ideological thing, I don't care at all about any isms, and I don't care about my birth country if it's a stupid collection of idiots (no system will save us). I don't need the language of a polisci degree to know whats right and pleasing. The bottom line is I don't believe in government by itself, it's just a pagan deity without the capes and crowns. Where it concerns my interests I insist on having a say. If there's too many people for that then I insist on a smaller nation. If the folks in Washington think they can go to war in my name and I can't do anything about it this isn't a Democracy and I want out. If the issues are two contentious and the nation too divided to perform the actions that it MUST, then for God's sake DIVIDE! Fuck Lincoln, fuck the Union, fuck what you imagine America is, I am real and it is just a name. If you have a better idea then sell it to me, if you can't then you have no mandate to do anything to me or for me and if you use force then it's clear we're on different sides of a war. I'm not here stating a preference about style of government, if it doesn't care what I think but it won't let me go that's tyranny, it's war not governance.

This resonates very much with my own thinking.
Oh I love this idea. Where do I begin?

1. Voter Licenses
Like I've preached for ages, except in a direct democracy system allowing referendums, etc. You would need multiple licenses, not just one. To have a say on economic policies for example you'd have to take a more detailed economic test (again state paid of course)

2. Exceptions
By the constitution some laws would be exempt from democratic vote, such as basic health care or basic education, etc.

Those are the main points, but yes I support such a system.
If strictly followed, we wouldn't have any voting at all.

Can anybody seriously claim they understand the long-term implications of various government policies?

Take minimum wage. Professional economists are strongly divided on its effect. Clearly, they can't all be right. Therefore, they can't all understand it. How and who is to decide which of them (not to mention members of the public) actually understand the issue?
Voting would be legitimate if it was a mean for people to express their outcome preference under circumstances in which consequences were well understood.

Thus a Bridge club can vote on whether to have its next meeting on Tuesday or Wednesday. Easy consequences, personal preference.

IN circumstances under which consequences are ill-understood, even by experts, voting makes no sense.

There is little point voting on whether there is or isn't life outside Earth.
So why shouldn't the public be allowed to vote on immigration policy exactly?

If they voted against it wages would go up and this would lower profits for the rich. This is obviously (like anything that would improve living standards for anyone but the privileged few) an anathema to libertarians.
The public has very little (and generally skewed) understanding of the consequences of immigration policy options.

Most people, for example, view immigrants as posing a much greater burden on public services than those immigrants actually do. Similarly, people perceive immigrants (especially those not currently documented) as having a much greater risk of criminality.

Finally, many (including Decky) over-estimate the impact of loosening immigration restrictions on unskilled wages, while under-estimating their contribution to the economy.

If the principle is that people shouldn't vote on issues on which they are ignorant, most people should excuse themselves from voting on immigration policy.
That's totally impractical. If you live in a democracy you decide things together. It isn't complicated and you don't get to disqualify people based on your feeling that people are wrong.

People should vote on everything - even their nation's black ops. Period. I mean I would take it all the way. There's nothing special about that issue or immigration or what have you. If you think your people are too stupid then they aren't your people. Systematic governance can't fix that problem, only freedom to choose the nation you live in will, and if that ain't on the ballot fuck y'all - because this isn't my country and I can't afford to leave.
In a democracy, voters hardly ever take an informed decision. For example, how many people have actually read the law texts regarding one issue or legislation? If people don't even read the law, how can they ever decide whether the law is beneficial or not?
So what? That has nothing to do with the democratic principle. If people don't learn about what they're voting on they are fucked and they deserve it. It doesn't give anyone the right to step in and ensure the vote goes a particular way. You know what that is, so why do you even bother trying to rationalize it?
You are correct in that this is the democratic principle.

What we are doing is spelling out what that principle entails.

It means that people get to make decisions regarding other people's lives, potentially authorizing the use of force against those other peaceful people. Their right to do so is independent of any personal involvement, knowledge, understanding, rationality or good faith.

Now why do people wonder that we are not enamoured with democracy?

If people don't learn about what they're voting on they are fucked and they deserve it.

If only those voting stupidly were fucked, that would be one thing.

The problem is that people don't learn what they're voting on, and then other people get fucked. People who do not deserve it.
It's almost as if you're saying that we'll be governed regardless of whether we'll be governed well or not. It's an absurd idea. If a section of society justly or unjustly does not wish to abide by the democratic principle they ought to be free to leave the society and take their property with them, if that means land they may secede. That's democracy - not your abominable scenario in which no matter what is decided everyone must obey.
Eran wrote:Professional economists are strongly divided on its effect. Clearly, they can't all be right. Therefore, they can't all understand it.

I'm not a massive fan of technocracy but this is clearly a non-sequitur.

I'm not voting for Sanders do your own bidding bu[…]

He should have held onto it to ensure a suspended […]

Election 2020

terfering in our elections like they interfered i[…]

nothing makes me madder than when people weaponize[…]