It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Govt of the people by the people, my vision

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 05:00 AM
link   
There is no end of left, communists vs capitalists etc, etc everywhere. This is all lose lose. If there is to be win win things have to change. For me; and this applies in all countries, the solution is:

1. recognise that having xyz millions of people being 'governed' by just a few hundred people may have been appropriate for a bygone era such as before telephones and the internet.

2. Recognise also that for the elite it is and has always has been, a relatively simple task to influence, corrupt, debase, intimidate and control just a few hundred people than it is to intimidate, threaten, corrupt and control millions of people. This current situation where the elite only have to deal with a few hundred people suits their interests extremely well. Apart from abolishing the concept of democracy and appointing themselves government, they would not want the current situation to change.

3. Recognise to that the unknown and the untried are not automatically better just because we don't know, appreciate or have experienced the downside of the the unknown.

4. Recognise also that if we are to have government of the people, for the people, we must become a referendum driven society.

5. Recognise that a society driven by referendums becomes very hard to corrupt, threaten, intimidate and control. In a referendum driven society, the rich, the powerful, the influential are rendered powerless because we the people vastly outnumber them.

Government are supposed to be servants not rulers. We the people, are supposed to be the executive government, we the people are the Senate or the Upper House.

Democracy is about much more than casting a vote every xyz years and then be relegated to spectators on the sidelines until the next election, that arrangement is only a pretend democracy.

In a real democracy we the people instruct the government what to implement. In a real democracy we the people own,control and rule the government.

Democracy is like some other things, use it or lose it. If we want a democracy we have to be prepared to do a bit of work to get it and keep it. Participating in the democratic process is a responsibility that goes with self government and freedom.

Electing a government to 'rule' for xyz years may have been appropriate in an era where communications were like they were before telephones and the internet.

So what do I mean by becoming a referendum driven society? Well, for example and these are just examples.

No government would be permitted to send troops to fight on foreign soil until we the people have approved of it in a referendum.

No government can sign any international agreement or conventions until we the people have ratified it first through a referendum. The entire agreement or convention would have to be published on the web for 3 months before the referendum.

No government could implement Obama Care until we the people have first given our approval through a referendum before it can become law.

No government could create the federal reserve until we the people have first given our approval through a referendum before it can become law.

Moreover, all referendum decisions would automatically have a sunset clause in them. This would give we the people the opportunity to 'undo' a previous approval after having experienced the approved decision.

Its not impossible to agree on a criteria or a set of rules for delegating what the servants can do without reference to their managers and owners. Similarly, its not impossible for we the government to set limits on actions and initiatives the servants can do but only after getting our permission first.

Left , right, socialist, fascists, capitalists etc etc would in this framework I suggest, would or eventually disappear because the majority would always rule and slowly, we the people will create the world that the majority want.

Of course there are problems with this that would have to be worked on but do you agree that this is the path we should walk down?

If there was a political party out there with this as their manifesto and policy, would you vote for them?

thanks for learning about my vision.




posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 05:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Azureblue

I can agree with points #1-4

Regarding point #5+:


originally posted by: Azureblue
5. Recognise that a society driven by referendums becomes very hard to corrupt, threaten, intimidate and control. In a referendum driven society, the rich, the powerful, the influential are rendered powerless because we the people vastly outnumber them.

If you think corrupting the masses is hard, think again. Crowd control is a well mastered craft in our day and age.
Just promise the people some benefits, like a fixed minimumwage for example (doesn't even have to be realistic) and they do what you want/vote how you want them to.
Have the centralised media push the right spin, or even stage a false-flag-attack, and people are willing to go to war.


originally posted by: Azureblue
[...] the majority would always rule and slowly, we the people will create the world that the majority want.

What about the minorities? The majorty is not enough when we are talking about freedom here.
That's why a republic is superior to mob rule...

I agree with your point that power has to be limited and spread... you just have to recognise that this also applies when the people hold power.

Just my 2 Pfennig... S+F OP.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 05:23 AM
link   
And a referendum driven democracy could easily be implemented over the internet. When a vote is required then the issue would be posted and registered voters would be able to submit their votes. The decision would upon closing of the voting window be posted and implemented by our chosen representatives! The people would then have the power back!!! This needs to be championed by a respected and honest individual!!



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 06:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Azureblue

Ive been thinking the very same. The Internet could easily do away with representative governments. We could have a true democracy.

But I also agree with the other member that crowds are easily sway able.

When I think of how simple minded most people are I can understand why some men take it upon themselves to rule over the majority. It's maddening how little most people think.

But I see what you are putting forth as a vision of how people will change. Maybe when they have the actual responsibility of voting to send people to war they will actually think about all the ramifications of their vote.

Or they will just do what the talking heads tell them.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Azureblue

I wholeheartedly agree that the people could and should be more involved in decision-making processes, and a referendum process could work. Like you said, there would be issues to work out first... for starters, I don't trust our electronic voting system now as the machines are too easily mis-programmed, and there is no paper trail to confirm results. That is what I see as the biggest challenge.

But beyond that, as another poster already noted, we have a republic -- not a democracy -- that protects individual rights from mob rule. Likewise, the states have rights as well, which is important to maintain and promote. It's not just having power centralized in the hands of a few which is a problem, it is also a problem to try and impose one-size-fits-all solutions on everyone. What works in an agriculture state doesn't necessarily work in a manufacturing state, and vice versa.

And the first vote should be that congress critters (and other elected/appointed officials) are no longer exempted from laws passed for the rest of us. If it applies to one of us, it applies to all of us! Any government official/employee/contractor who breaks the law will simultaneously be charged with breaking the public trust, receiving the same sentence for both to be served consecutively -- not concurrently.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Azureblue


I somewhat agree with your post. A representative Republic was/is a great idea.
Problem is, we the people have lost all control of the government. It's awesome sounding when
we hear someone quoting the founding fathers telling us what to do to keep or regain our control
of the government. We the people have let it get away from us, with little hope of getting it back.

In the 2012 elections, somewhere between 54% to 57% of the voting age public turned out to vote.
The best we could do for a presidential election.

A referendum driven democracy sounds great. Puts the congress in check. Gives the power back to
the people. But, we would have to have better participation than the turnout in 2012. How?
The internet you say? The pentagon computers just recently got hacked, and their computers
should be the most secure in the world.

If a way could be devised to allow this form of governing to work, I honestly am not sure I trust
the majority of citizens to vote responsibly. Here on ATS, there are numerous instances of
posters misunderstanding what some other poster has put forth. In a recent thread, it took roughly
6 replies to one poster to make one poster understand that there / their have different meanings.

A simple English form of presenting referendums would be required. Yes, this would be much better
for all of us. Even being simple, how many fellow citizens are going to read a 1000 page piece
of legislation before voting on it?

I firmly believe something has got to change, and I do like your ideas. I'm just not sure how to
go about reaching a viable solution.

S&F for a great topic.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 04:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Azureblue

thanks for all the replies
cheers



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 12:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: zardust
a reply to: Azureblue

Ive been thinking the very same. The Internet could easily do away with representative governments. We could have a true democracy.


True democracy is a recipe for failure. The ordinary citizen is not an expert on all the fields that come up for a vote. The representative isn't either, but the representative has advisers. Ignorant masses checking a box because one thing sounds better than the other while having no true understanding of the subject matter is rule by the least skilled, and most ignorant in society on every single subject. None of us have in depth knowledge on all subjects. That is why representatives are far more effective voters. Unlike the ordinary person who has to care for a family and go to work, their work is researching these votes so that they can represent the publics best interest.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 05:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Oh I fully understand the potential problems with a true democracy. Though one has never been tried so we don't really know how it would go. I can't believe it would be any worse than what we have now which is about zero say in actuality. The only thing that may sway our masters is public opinion which oddly enough is the outcome of a democracy anyway (at least according to the talking points against it).



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: zardust
a reply to: Aazadan

Oh I fully understand the potential problems with a true democracy. Though one has never been tried so we don't really know how it would go. I can't believe it would be any worse than what we have now which is about zero say in actuality. The only thing that may sway our masters is public opinion which oddly enough is the outcome of a democracy anyway (at least according to the talking points against it).


There have been many democracies throughout history. Maybe not a 100% say on every single issue but they have been close.

I agree we don't have much say right now, but I'm not sure what the fix to that is. Should a representative vote for a policy that they know is detrimental to the public even though it's popular? An example here would be the Iran deal. Not going along with the deal wins by majority vote but it is 100% negative for the US to back out of it, and it even threatens our security to do so. Another example would be legal punishments, the popular narrative is to be tough on crime, which our elected representatives do go along with despite all studies and evidence pointing to the fact that this causes more crime in the long run.

The only solution I've been able to come up with is having more representatives that each have less power overall, but have a lot of power over a limited specific area. This allows experts to be elected, and people to vote for those who are knowledgeable, while also limiting the effects of corruption. Since each person would also have less overall jurisdiction they would have less to do which would allow us to move governance to a part time occupation.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join