Topic: Is democracy an utopia nowadays? (Read 349 times)

opposite is true

you need transparency to prove democracy
otherwise people will cheat the system using anonymity

sharing info and broad agreement on the vote count. is needed to be a fair vote/consensus

if votes are done anonymously then people can double vote and false vote where its not accountable to be sure of a fair vote

..
saying that . having something transparent does not mean it require WHOLE LIFE history invasion. just the quantifiable data limited to the purpose would be required

no one needs to know your first pets name or what sandwich you bought yesterday to vote., but you would need to:
show id to ensure you didnt vote at 5 polling stations.
or you
show a ballot paper posted to your address where you only got 1 ballot which is your only chance to vote

note:
blackhatcoiner, you seem to have a paranoid level of fear of being watched. where that worry you have causes you stress and easily triggered anxiety
i have the solution.
angelo.... im watching you

I think that a hundred years ago, when there was no Internet and privacy was much easier to maintain, there was much less democracy in the world than now

What is described here is all about fairness which has nothing to do with democracy. Democracy is about people's participation in decision making which has been proven to be fundamentally flawed. All the laws that are unfair (involving economy, taxes and distribution of wealth) are democratically proposed, approved and enforced.

Utopian thinking is the most dangerous kind of thinking there is. When you expect an impossible outcome, nothing you do will seem to work.

Cynical, but true.

Overpopulation (on a macro scale) is a serious issue.

So I could argue the best way for privacy is space and lots of it.

Thus we need more planets or more condoms.😏

My vote for democracy and an utopia is 40 acres and a tesla

I also disagreed with the economist on the part that bitcoin will lead to Oligarchy. It is only bitcoin can remove oligarchical tendencies in the Democratic system in the whole world. The few people that are accumulating wealth from the detriment of the poor will no longer have the access to steal in the state. And I also agree with the him on the part that, the Economy of the state will be out government (the oligarchy) control, though government can still control their Wallet. In the real modern democracy right now is in the hands of the few (Oligarchy) but bitcoin will take over the world governments, democracy will be become an Utopia, which will create equal opportunities for all. That is why most countries see it from that way and ban the uses of bitcoin in their Countries. Even the definition of democracy is an opposite to the modern  government. Democracy is the government of the few not for the people.

I think that the current type of democracy always was pretty much an utopia.
I think that for a working democracy all law related institutions have to work and have safeguards (if one doesn't work properly others will fix that).
I think that for a working democracy there's a need that the same set of laws are ruling everywhere.

There will always be people or institutions that will try to not follow the rules. But finding them (and successfully convicting them) without invading privacy is a big challenge that will have to be fixed sooner or later. But without same laws and without fully working institutions in each corner of the world, this is impossible.

Now i got it, i agree with you. There can’t be democracy without privacy. So I’ll add some points.

• It also changes the behaviour of people when they know they’re being watched. This has economic and social consequences as shown in states like china and east Germany.
  
• People might conform to the government, even when they personally disagree with it, because they know they’re being watched or it could be used against them.
• People might also start to trust other people in society less and try to maintain a public image that conforms to the government, so they won’t share their real opinions with each other anymore. So people could start doing things they disapprove of even tho most disagree with it, simply because information isn’t shared between each other.
• The population is supposed to put checks on the government, but this becomes impossible without privacy.

I'm not talking about democratic money here, whatever that's supposed to mean. I've broadened it, and wonder: Can there be democracy when a core principle of it is to not have those in power "sniffing" on everyone's personal life? Brainwashing tactics are nowadays inevitable to succeed, because those in power know (nearly) everyone's responses.

I included the other posts so its easier for others to follow.

I actually agree with your definition and this is what is actually needed for money in my opinion. I called it democratic, because i didnt know how i should describe it otherwise, but yeah its consensus based money. But i think this is whats actually needed, everyone is open to propose ideas or implement them themselves, but they gotta get consensus for it, or they simply stay in the minority. This leads to a competition of ideas and the best one wins.

For money this is desirable, because it tends to monopolize to the best one. The one that achieves a balance between individual interests and societies benefit. A money that has no users will have no worth, so it cant focus on just serving specific groups interests. And a money that doesnt serve its users will keep loosing users and thus lose value over time, so it also cant ignore individuals interests. I disagree with the author and i think individuals interests and societies interests balance each other out, you cant just serve one. In a free market the money that achieves this balance best, will get most users and thus have most value and win. In markets with legal tender government currencies, theres room for 2 currencies, soft and hard money, while the hard is the one that will be used as a store of value. And will replace the soft money as a medium of exchange, once the soft one has lost too much value. This cycle is expressed in greshams and thiers law.

So to make things short the best consensus based money is actually what achieves a balance between societies and individuals interests. If it doesnt do this, it simply wont be adopted by the majority anymore. If it stops doing this it will be replaced by something that can do this better over time.

I dont think its privacy what would make democratic money fail, but that it would end up with a weird mix of properties that satisfy neither of the interests. Ideas cant be proposed or implemented without approval. And you basically have a completely theoretical process where ideas need to get the most votes before theyre implemented and proven in practice. It would be opaque and not clear for most voters what the best decisions are, and not everyone is a monetary system designer or has ever thought about this, this can also backfire heavily where the group with the most votes will simply serve themselves and thus not benefit society anymore. Consenus based money allows us to simply let ideas compete in practice and it will be clear by itself which one serves everyone the best after enough time. It gives everyone their voice back, that can be lost in democracies.

This thread is relevant to "Bitcoin and Keynesianism".

I was watching an economist-politician's dialect, about war, money and technology[1]. He was asked of why he disapproved of bitcoin. He justified that it leads to oligarchy and makes it impossible for the state to control the money during crises and recessions. While the former is already debunked, the latter appeared to create me some interest, at least in the way he described it. He said he prefers of a digital currency that's controlled democratically from the citizens, essentially focusing on society's benefit instead of individual's.

My first thought was: Sure. If the supply of that money changes based on the people's benefit, democratically, it can only help on blunting inflation and deflation, during recessions and crises.
My second thought was: Isn't impossible to have the italicized part nowadays?

We're being spied from nearly everywhere. Phone calls, messages, internet activity, movements, biometrics, conversation recordings etc., having our privacy invaded in most inches. Isn't utopian to try and convince people to civilize democratically under these conditions? There can't be true democracy without true privacy, and that's a fact, not an opinion.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97pUJTB8Ges, talks about bitcoin at 1:01:01. Don't know if English subs are available, though.