Topic: Politics and the Internet (Read 782 times)

You're absolutely right about that.  Anything that isn't glorious democracy (which never was a democracy but try telling a Christian there's no God and see where that takes you ) is pure evil and probably associated with communism.  I've actually been researching anarchism lately, and have learned many new things.  It seems any time you mention anarchism, people immediately think of total chaos and everyone dying and getting mugged and raped.  It's almost a losing battle, since belief in the state begins through forced public education and only beats you down until you submit by the time you finally get out.

If ever there'll be change, it has to start with education.  But I don't see anyone fighting for it.  In fact, it's supposed to be getting worse.  What to do?  There's a choke hold on these old ideas that people just don't want to give up.


Had to look this one up So it would be like jury duty almost?  Where, instead of appointing a politician to represent a group of people, a random person is chosen to step to the plate.  I like the sound of this idea, as long as it is truly random and people are rotated very often.

Try a representative sortition.

The only think holding back anarchy is the belief in the state. Try telling your average person that we should eliminate the state and they will probably recoil in horror. This is what has to change, it's a battle of ideas.

He he I see   Anarchy would be a cool turn, but it seems once anarchy takes place, people start asking for more government.  Unless everyone's fiercely anarchist in any area you could fit your thumb on a map, people will want to collude and figure out a way to run each other's lives just so they'll all be on the same page as to what's okay and what isn't okay.  The only way it would work is if everyone wants the same thing for their community, and though I do believe everyone essentially wants the same things in life, you'll always have one guy who wants to one up everyone else and proclaim himself leader and garner a following.  It assumes people have a tendency to think for themselves, but it seems we only tend to think without prompt when we're idle, which can't be so without technology.  So maybe with the advent of fully automating all industry to the point nobody had to work to live, anarchy would work.  And I do believe we have the technology to do that.  But as it stands, if right now anarchy was accepted worldwide, it wouldn't last.  Someone would come up with this grand new way for people to live and act.

Usually that follows a couple of reasons why, but I'll bite; why don't you like it, and what system would you prefer in their place, if not this or the current?

I'm gonna do some out-loud thinking for a little bit.  I've thought about this before but it keeps ringing in my head.  Maybe I've misinterpreted something along the way, but, I'll see what everyone else has to feel about it.

So, as I've come to understand it, the entire point of a politician is to represent their people on public matters.  It has to be done this way because having every American voice ringing loud at once would just create a lot of confusion, and having a crowd like that in one place would just never work.  So, the public voices their vote on who they want to represent them, including the HoR, senate, and the president.  These people have one job, and that is to be the voice of the American people to come to a conclusion on public policy, foreign policy, economic policy, on and on, that essentially sets the various rules in play for us to follow.  That way we're all one the same page on what's against the rules, and what's fair play, which builds up to a complex web of how we should handle various situations.

I could go on forever about how this system of running a country is open to various holes, leading to corruption, but I believe even the most uninformed American at least knows their government no longer has the best interest in their people, so I'll get to the point.

Essentially, the issue was, "How do we manage these growing, different communities, so they're all equally represented?"  Originally, the answer was, "Assign each community one person to voice the collective majority opinion of those people."  Which worked wonderfully.  It has its problems, but it has worked, to this very day, and has become very complicated and extremely intricate to the point that not even a well-educated high school student (oxymoron but bear with me) can understand exactly how big government works without rigorous study in the field.  I'm taking a college class on this issue right now and there's just no way I can remember all of what makes congress tick.

So what if we answered this question all over again, now that the Internet has connected so many people in not only this country, but a very large portion of the world?

"How do we manage these growing, different communities, so they're all equally represented?"

My input would be, maybe have a website (or even a P2P voting system, kind of like Bitcoin maybe?) where people could not only talk to each other about matters at hand, much like a forum if not exactly like a forum, and also have a place to cast votes on how they felt this way or that way.  There's still no way every single person would be able to talk at once, but in the very least, we would no longer have to trust just a drop in the pool to make fair policy for the rest of us.  It would kill lobbying at its core.  Corporations would no longer have a bigger voice than anyone else.  Finally, it would be, for the first time in American politics, extremely efficient.  It could be done in your own home.  It would tilt the scale into who has the most innovation and mind power, not who has the most money.  I'm still thinking about how it might work, but what do you guys think?  Is this a start?  Or are we better off trying to simply end corruption in politics today?