Democracy how it should be

[A Free Mind]

Its time for us to collectively step forward and demand that our governments give us real say in the running of our countries because having a say once ever 4-5 years is just not good enough. With modern technology such as the internet digital TV ,mobile phones ect. citizens of a nation could with a push of a button review proposals from the government and vote instantly where ever in the they happened to be. In fact I believe that an Athenian style democracy in a western nation such as Australia or the USA could work as well now with the aid of modern technology (or better) as it did in the Assembly in Ancient Athens.

Basic organisation.
The everyday business of the state/reigon* would be handled by an counsel elected annually who would prepare the proposals for the general assembly (all citizens 18+). All citizens could make a proposial to the assembly for consideration with the help of their area counsellor if they met the requirements in the area (a cetiain % of the populations signatures indicating support ect).

*the organisation at local and federal levels would be the same

Voting.
I envision all citizens being issued an identity card which in a similar way to a bank card they would use to vote. You could vote online, through your TVs (provided they are digital) on the phone ect. All proposals put to the assembly would have been prepared by professional civil servants and would explained both briefly and optionally in in detail. The whole system would be supported by a information service which would help explain the more complex proposals.

[synthesis]

Actually, the Athenian process was not done by election but sortition, or random selection of candidates. Think of public positions being filled like they do with the jury. It's apparently been resurrected as a modern political idea, called demarchy. You should look into it.

[Laughing Man]

Clearly, both direct Democracy and Demarchy will not work. It may be possible to organize direct Democracy, but if so, it would never take into consideration the specialized knowlage needed to run a nation. Everyone cannot vote on everything. Even if they genuinly carred about everything, they just don't know enough about it. Most people, on the other hand, know a lot about certain things. People should be organized to vote for representatives regards those certain things, which include occupational and cultural groups. It may also be possible to randomly select officials, but come on. You never know when you might select the villiage idiot, or perhaps give one specialist power over something over a feild he has no knowlage of.

[synthesis]

Well, there would clearly have to be powerful recall mechanisms. These are obvious problems, and the people who advocate these theories have thought into solutions before publishing on them. You should read up on it before deciding to criticize.

[A Free Mind]

DyerMaker I know that in Ancient Athens the positions in the counsel were filled by lot from the tribes I just did not feel it was relevant. And for the record filling public positions like a jury would be (no offence intended) stupid because as Laughingman said the common person would not have the skill st run the government (with out the aid of professional politicians

Laughingman you misread me the members of the counsel would be professionals just like the MPs/senators in our current nations so while the citizens would make the decisions and could put forward motions the professionals politicians and those (with the right expertise) would draft the legislation so your argument of the citizens not having the know how to run the nation is not valid as they would be supported by those who did.
.................................................. .................................................. ........................................

part 2

I believe that under this democracy the population should be split into two groups which I will call Citizens and Civilians.
The citizens* would have the right to vote , free health care unemployment benefits and access to special government programs such as government sponsored trade apprenticeships and University schemes. A person would earn their citizenship by serving in the Armed forces who would educate them to a level where by they were able to run the nation and install in the citizens the values of duty to the state which would bind this citizen elite together dispute class or profession.

*all dependants of a citizen would be treated as citizens until their 17-18 birthday

Civilians would not be able to vote (basically the same as in Starshiptroopers) "If you are not willing to fight yourself why should you be able to make others fight for you" and would have to fend for them selves have to support themselves. Professions such as policeing ,emergency services , teaching in public school* ect. would be blocked to them but other wise they would have the same rights as a citizen.

*public schools would still be free for everyone

[redstar2000]

Oh, come on!

This is the idea behind Robert Heinlein's novel Starship Troopers...one of his worst ideas, by the way.

As if the fascist mind-set of military life was any kind of preparation for exercising the franchise.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Publius]

Tell me, why is democracy desirable?

[Michael De Panama]

Democracy is not desirable.

[LSD]

Tell me, why is democracy desirable?

Because participants in society should have a say in the government of society.

Because the only real alternative to democracy is tyranny of one kind or another. If the whole society isn't making decisions then an elite group must be, and that is always oppressive in nature.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 28 2005, 10:31 PM




Because participants in society should have a say in the government of society.

I agree they should have some say, but why absolute say?



Because the only real alternative to democracy is tyranny of one kind or another. If the whole society isn't making decisions then an elite group must be, and that is always oppressive in nature.

Democracy IS tyranny.

All government (Including democracy and its forms) is tyrannical.

Why give any group of people any significant power over your life?

The demos, the elites, any of them?

Isn't the majority just an 'elite' group?

And how is 'the whole of society' making decisions in a democracy? It's the majority that makes decisions.

[LSD]

Why give any group of people any significant power over your life?

Because there is no realistic alternative. Society, by definition, is a communal affair, thereby decisions need to be made that affect everyone.

I'll grant you that we should try and minimize the nescessity for such societal decisions, and afford as much individual liberty as is practically possible. But, eventually, community decisions do need to be made. And the best and fairest method for doing so is democratically.


Isn't the majority just an 'elite' group?

No.


Originally posted by Dictionary.com
elite: e·lite or é·lite, n. pl. elite or e·lites. 1. a) A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status.

The majority in democracy does not enjoy any superior status, there just happen to be more of them. The members of the majority to not have any "special" righ to make decisions, it just so happens that more people agree with them than with the other side.


And how is 'the whole of society' making decisions in a democracy? It's the majority that makes decisions.

Granted. But there is simply no concievable way that "everyone" could make decisions, especially when people disagree.

A truly democratic system in which everyone has the ability to voice and defend their opinions and in which everyone gets to place a vote, at least approaches full community decision making. Unlike the alternatives, it does allow full community participation.


All government (Including democracy and its forms) is tyrannical.

If by government you mean an institutional "state" with all the organization implications, then I entirely agree. If, however, you mean any system of government, then you are merely hopelessly naive.

If a society is to not degenerate into chaos it needs mutually agreed upon rules, and the very existance of those rules forms a rudenmentary government. Government is simply a nescessity of society, institutional government, however, is not.


Democracy IS tyranny.

I'm curious, Publius, since you oppose democracy, what system would you advise for making public decisions?

[Publius]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 28 2005, 11:29 PM





Because there is no realistic alternative.

Oh, but there are.



Society, by definition, is a communal affair, thereby decisions need to be made that affect everyone.

Societal relations can be handled different ways.



I'll grant you that we should try and minimize the nescessity for such societal decisions, and afford as much individual liberty as is practically possible. But, eventually, community decisions do need to be made. And the best and fairest method for doing so is democratically.

There is nothing 'fair' about democracy.

The best way to afford individual liberty is to allow absolute individual liberty, as long as it does not infringe on anothers liberty.

A state that affirms this and nothing else is acceptable to me.


A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status.

The majority would have superious social and economic status.

They would have all the power to increase their economic standing, and they would be the 'Lords of the land' and would be afforded societal leeway.


The majority in democracy does not enjoy any superior status, there just happen to be more of them. The members of the majority to not have any "special" righ to make decisions, it just so happens that more people agree with them than with the other side.

The majority in a democracy enjoys the status of Lord and arbiter.

They make all the decisions, and their power is absolute.



Granted. But there is simply no concievable way that "everyone" could make decisions, especially when people disagree.

So then why FORCE them to agree?

Why use governmental/democraticic force to make them bend to your will?



A truly democratic system in which everyone has the ability to voice and defend their opinions and in which everyone gets to place a vote, at least approaches full community decision making. Unlike the alternatives, it does allow full community participation.

It will allow community participation, but will not proliferate good decisions.



If by government you mean an institutional "state" with all the organization implications, then I entirely agree. If, however, you mean any system of government, then you are merely hopelessly naive.


gov·ern·ment Audio pronunciation of "government" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gvrn-mnt)
n.

1. The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit.
2. The office, function, or authority of a governing individual or body.
3. Exercise of authority in a political unit; rule.
4. The agency or apparatus through which a governing individual or body functions and exercises authority.
5. A governing body or organization, as:
1. The ruling political party or coalition of political parties in a parliamentary system.
2. The cabinet in a parliamentary system.
3. The persons who make up a governing body.
6. A system or policy by which a political unit is governed.
7. Administration or management of an organization, business, or institution.
8. Political science.


Note the highlighted words. Government is fully about power, control, and tyranny.

The only way a state can produce positive effects, is when it uses it's monopoly on force for desirable ends; uses its tyranny for good.

Namely in my view, protecting individual rights.

The existence of that afformentioned state is tolerable. Anything else is not.

And I very much doubt any state can or will stay within those bounds.

Therefore, all government, as defined there (You're free to give me your defintion) is forceful and oppressive.



If a society is to not degenerate into chaos it needs mutually agreed upon rules, and the very existance of those rules forms a rudenmentary government. Government is simply a nescessity of society, institutional government, however, is not.

Then you must not support a government.

You cannot 'mutually agree upon' government rules.

The government/govorners IMPOSE them upon you.

Goverance is necessary, government is not.

The best form of goverance makes no use of government.



I'm curious, Publius, since you oppose democracy, what system would you advise for making public decisions?

I would advise against 'public decisions' and 'public anything' entirely.

Read this: http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe4.html

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Accordingly, to lower the production cost of security and improve its quality, a natural order is characterized by increased discrimination, segregation, spatial separation, uniculturalism (cultural homogeneity), exclusivity, and exclusion. In addition, whereas states have undermined intermediating social institutions (family households, churches, covenants, communities, and clubs) and the associated ranks and layers of authority so as to increase their own power vis-a-vis equal and isolated individuals, a natural order is distinctly un-egalitarian: "elitist," "hierarchical," "proprietarian," "patriarchical," and "authoritarian," and its stability depends essentially on the existence of a self-conscious natural – voluntarily acknowledged – aristocracy.

Gosh, that sounds really swell! :lol:

But he's going to have a little problem with that "voluntarily acknowledged" aristocracy, isn't he?

After 1789, we learned how to deal with aristocrats, "natural" and otherwise.

I also liked this one...


Economic and political theory, especially of the Austrian variety, is a treasure trove of such propositions....democracy (majority rule) and private property are incompatible.

Quite so...but we communists have known that for 150 years.

I'm pretty sure Aristotle knew it. :lol:

If there were a contest for nutball capital of the 20th century, I think Vienna would win in a walk. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[LSD]

The best way to afford individual liberty is to allow absolute individual liberty, as long as it does not infringe on anothers liberty.

And how is it determined what infringes on anothers liberty and what does not?


They would have all the power to increase their economic standing, and they would be the 'Lords of the land' and would be afforded societal leeway.

Except that they have no way of knowing who they are!

That's the beauty of the "secret ballot", there is no clearly defined "majority" that can improve its own standing at the cost of a clearly defined "minority".


They make all the decisions, and their power is absolute.

But because they are not a defined group, they are unable to make decisions that specifically bennefit themselves, unlike the "voluntarily acknowledged aristocracy" of Hoppe's whack-job model.


Why use governmental/democraticic force to make them bend to your will?

Because someone has to decide that the rapist should be stopped from raping and the murderer stopped from murdering and the decision is not made democratically, how is it made?


Goverance is necessary, government is not.

The best form of goverance makes no use of government.

Fine, call it governance. This isn't a semantic discussion.

"Governance" then is what I'm talking about. Decisions regarding societal "governance" should be done democratically.


Read this: http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe4.html

Hoppe!?!?

:o

You're joking right?

He's about as whacko-libertarian as they come down there in the "Austrian school", and that's saying a lot. He's not just another Misesian libertarian, he's actually a reactionary regressivist, almost bordering on primativism. He not only wants to abolish the state, he practically wants to return to feudalism!

Reading his "theory" reminds me of reading the "old oligarch's" tirade against Athens, complaining that one could no longer "beat the poor in the streets". Although I did find one particular "gem":


Not only do neoconservatives interpret this development as progress; there is near-universal agreement that democracy represents an advance over monarchy and is the cause of economic and moral progress. This interpretation is curious in light of the fact that democracy has been the fountainhead of every form of socialism

Basically, he's saying that if people are given the choice between capitalism and socialism, they choose socialism.

Big surprise! :lol:

[Publius]

Actually, I find Rothbard's view of an anarcho-capitalist society more appealing, but Hoppe's is just plain more fun to discuss.