Humpy, yes - I do think that direct democracy is the direction that society is evolving into. This gets away every competing political ideology - because it's something that transcends ideology, and rather is founded philosophically on advantage, realities and technological capabilities. You just can't stop evolution. The fair, balanced society with minimal government, simpler judicial burden and avoidance of many of the current pitfalls to society is something that appeals to any benign political ideology. Ultimately, any political ideology needs to be benign to survive. Authoritarian rule or dictatorship will all eventually fall, be it by generational change or protest - and the democratic society is the evolution of humankind and civilization. The e-democracy through the modern technological capabilities is just the perfection of this system - and progress itself. I don't really think it can be stopped, and it's something any population wants - with huge rewards. Those who are early adaptors are many times also early winners, if using sound business sense. It's just keeping the ideas clear and not losing sight of the big picture changes to fit into any business plan. Free markets...
To go completely overboard in theory of financials and economy intermingled with political decision here: Consider having an electronic market where you could by and sell individual/block votes on particular issues. As long as there is full disclosure demanded by the voting system of who posses the voting rights, at least it won't happen covertly. The power of free markets... Oh, what a tangled web we weave...
Not sure I agree with your last post Gringinho. It would put power back into the hands of the rich ( the new rich are in the Middle East, Russia etc. but why , if there is a God he put the world's resources under their patch, only he knows ? ). Surely the ideal is 1 man 1 vote ??
Here is a bit of fun so that you can see for yourself where you are in the political spectrum http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
Well, if someone pledge or sell their vote is something that I'm not sure if it's possible to hinder in any way. I agree that many - maybe most - would object to having a system for trading their votes. There is also the need to have trustees that can vote in place for others when they can't fulfil their function, or they want to rely on the judgement of someone for a specific decision/issue. By having a system where votes can be continuously changed, while still having commitments to decision/project initiation/progress, maybe there is a way to render the pledge of votes meaningless to strategies of selling out or buying votes. It is still a fundamental problem with any voting system, and the question is not legislation - but a systemic one and how to design a system so that it nullifies the effect or removes the possibility.
What a great future that could be. How would we arrive at it? Wouldn't those who rely on a large bureaucracy be resistant to such change? We know the corrupt politicians and media would resist with all their might, as their way of living would be at stake. Internet censorship in dictatorships that have no interest in democracy could be a major thorn. Can such obstacles be overcome as a result of e democracy, or must they first be overcome to achieve e democracy?
wjk, a dictatorship or totalitarian, very authoritarian rule could not immediately and peacefully be turned into a direct democracy unless that ruling system was forfeited, and in the case of censorship - an e-democracy is impossible. They first need to go through the step of becoming an open democracy. Then you can peacefully transition into a direct democracy by using a representative direct democracy - where you basically elect party representatives to carry out the voting of it's members - or even better - the entire voting population. By having the entire population take part in direct democracy immediately - you also instantly get them approving and understand the process - empowering them as individuals. The other great thing is that you can have traceability - so that you can follow in detail your vote and understand the dynamic effects of the interaction process - debating, reflecting and taking part in resolving issues. It really is a way to stay healthy using your brain as well. Special interests - like politicians, some bureaucrats and news organizations would need to adapt and assume new functions as a result of progress. It is not in their best interest that we have such a democracy, as they make their living on the deficiencies we have today. They can delay the progress, but never stop it.
Something else that can be seen as partly defused are some of the conspiracy theories that are sometimes rampant. Something like the Bilderberg Group is in practical terms certainly not a place where world plots and geopolitical strategies are being formed. However, there is something which undeniably is a consequence of participating in a "secretive" and exclusive society - the understated "brotherhood" and the fact that they share this experience while perceiving the honer, privilege and importance of being "accepted". Of course people "build networks", and you can imagine the effect of someone having further contact after meeting at such an exclusive event... "We met at the last Bilderberg meeting. Remember me?" So, it's more of who are meeting, and the relations that are being initiated - not so much in what is being discussed at the events. Well, this goes for any exclusive group of course - and the sociological functions of such groups are interesting, even though the meetings of the group themselves are very innocent. Trusting that the democratic model is something transparent with full possibility for audit as well as having openly known functions will rid society of many such influences - however understated they may be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group "Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything." - Joseph Stalin
I wonder... is there any more perfect and realistic model for a "perfect competition" economy than the fairly executed reverse auction or tender process coupled with open exchange and futures market? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_auction
Just a continuation of some philosophical musings a made in another thread - but on a similar theme... As we are not similar to most insects, reptiles or others who abandon their offspring at birth to fend for themselves - we take care of our children up to a particular age. When should a parent no longer have to pay for their child? That age is set by us all - society - because we have chosen to live in something else than the completely separated existence of other humans. Universal health care - as it can be seen as a mandatory insurance to make sure no child is born without the means to have proper care and treatment is one of these social choices that we make. We make social choices because they help us progress and grow beyond our individual means. If someone really wants to simplify life, don't pay any of the social burdens unless they want to - there are alternatives. There are people in the Amazon forest, in Africa and near the polar caps that do not worry about taxes or universal health care at all... I'm not really a libertarian and do not consider myself a follower of any other "calling" than reason itself. I think there will still be a strong diversity in the future, and it will explode into many different directions with the help of technology. I mainly consider the strengths and structural dynamics of the various systems that are part of our existence, as I'm interested in the philosophical aspects and theories - especially how the structure of knowledge is formed and can be represented, replicated through technology. One always need to consider the various scales of structures in the universe - individual, families, society, history, environment and so on - just like a trader need to consider more than reading the tape, 1-minute bars or the various instruments and the influences on market. That's just the type of reasoning that comes with "systems theory" and the other related sciences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory The strength, success and longevity of any structure, model or system lies in it's structural integrity and ability to adapt. It's all about reaching some kind of balance with the rest of universe while we continue growing, evolving and adapting. In 2019 there are planned new landings on the moon, and a decade later there are planned permanent structures on the moon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing#Future_plans There is no threat to either political factions or religion in the future - it will explode in diversity when humans have cheap vehicles for going into space and establish permanent orbital or free-ranging stations. No doubt we will see this within 1000 years or less - unless we go through some catastrophic conflict or event. As technology continue to advance quickly, there will be new energy sources, cheaper advanced vehicles - and we will see some kind of new-found freedom with the option for permanent dwelling outside of the earth - Mars for sure. This will result in exactly the same conflicts that we saw when new continents were explored - with strong conflict, piracy and many types of rule or oppression. Make no mistake about it.