reply to post by soul2soul
Some problems could be solved but not all. Reading between your lines I get this Utopia feeling that in the New Community everybody feels the same,
has the same community passion, I don't think it will work like that.
I read about the Captcha and how it helps putting analog text in a virtual/digital world. Besides the fact that history is mostly not in English and
due to typographic styles probably hard to put through Captcha it does not spread the knowledge it only digitalizes it.
I(First I would like to tell you that the existing government is not giving what I will explain right now)
II(I will also use everyday examples so that everybody can understand what I mean, even my demented Grandma )
III(processes of developing ideas are pretty much the same in every aspect we encounter as humans)
In a government of the many for the many, besides the fact that 51% will overrule the other 49%, I see the core problem as this: There will be a lack
of knowledge by the many. Maybe not knowledge but disinterest, lack or unwilling to understand, lack of talent or over-talented, people are different,
have different interest.
Example: Everybody know Star Trek, but we never see how it is on earth if you are just a craftsmen, we only see the utopian corporation educating
everybody on the Star Trek academy, I can't and won't believe everybody is a part of that corporation, in theory yes, reality no.
meanwhile a person can exert huge influence by coming up with an idea, which will be able to flow throughout society and become universally
What will happen if an idea is adopted but people were unaware of the consequences that idea has in a few months time, now people are like this: with
sports WE have won
if a national team won a game, THEY have lost
if the same national team loses. Will they blame it on the guy/girl
that just unhindered by the lack of knowledge in a subject, and so objectively puts out an idea/theory? Or do we share our mistake as a collective?
Meanwhile, the destruction of freedom can be destroyed by similarly casting light on it; if some mass murderer came up in a society where
everyone could be informed about it within a day, then that person would face a terrible vengeance and would refrain from doing so.
That would be dangerous imo, terrible vengeance is not explainable, it is just as bad, probably even worse as you provoke people to take action they
would not do in every day life. What happens if you got the wrong guy, or people messed with the info to make you a "bad" guy when you didn't do
anything at all.
Example: If my kid murders someone, the threes know why, and my neighbor kills him for that, I would have to kill my neighbor, because he is also a
murderer, but his kids need to kill me obviously, when will it stop? No one knows if my kid prevented something worse or just went insane.
namely it is the propagandizers and disinformers themselves who are the true enemies of the people.
I think lots of them really belief in their statements as they start with them, during that process they get the smell of Power (If that is money,
followers, easy access to get things done doesn't really matter), Power changes everything, it is not a human concept, it is driven from our primal
urges of becoming Alfa-male or Alfa-female, to make sure your genes will have the best possibility to grow and spread, it is just natural driven.
Another way of thinking about it is as us all being iron filings in a magnetic field, all suddenly locked into the correct shape by the
magnetizing force. You can't destroy that shape by hitting a filing, and we'll all be filings. The magnet will be the process.
You cant change the fillings that is right, you change the magnetic field, like every false flag does, fillings will follow. I like the idea but there
is no way to control the magnetic field by the fillings themselves, if all your neighbors turn left you are forced to comply no matter how you feel or
Put it this way: the idea-creation phase is collaborative, but the execution still involves authority because there's a process for
implementing the group's decision.
Example: Music industry, Main stream music is collaborative idea creation, sub stream is individual but in the present day, it spawns the ideas for
the main stream music. I don't say that every sub stream will spawn ideas, on the contrary, but I do not know any main stream that hasn't derived from
sub stream in order to prove its existence. It is just not visible for the main stream public, again lack of knowledge. It is not needed to know. Some
would call Madonna, she played the trick to get mainstream, do what the publishers want till she got so big with her fans she could do her own stuff,
but how many clones were there at that time?
I would say, after a proven worthiness of an idea it should be collaborative work-out project, but not before, this is when it normally get screwed,
the creator has been given the chance to work it out as they intended.
Easy Example/question: "have you ever been interrupted when you presented a theory/idea and the discussion although great, didn't give you the chance
to fully explain/explore your theory?
Imagine this: in every post office, there is a voting booth where we vote every day. It could be on any computer, but I think that two big
problems today are:
a) How are we going to access the internet as communities, not just as individuals, and
b) How are we going to ground the internet, i.e. make it into a tangible part of everyday life.
Again, you are entering dangerous grounds.
a) You should not focus on internet, internet is a tool for communication (and more), the question is How can we communicate as a community
respect for the individuals. Was Da Vinci part of that
community or an individual?
b) communication is/should be part of everyday life.
The problem with your example with the post office voting system, it would imply a identification system that works and cannot be hacked, as if.
Anonymous starts great but like I said before in this post: I think lots of them really belief in their statements as they start with them, during
that process they get the smell of Power
that will change some of them if that has not already happened. I don't believe "the many" can control
such a mechanism of open real-id digital communication. Do you want an real ID internet? Or do you like to hide some p*rnsite visits from your
girlfriend to keep the atmosphere in your household clean? (my late girlfriend liked it better then me, but I don't like to watch cooking programs
when I'm hungry either, i like to eat
At the post office, that is, in many public places, there is a screen and a terminal. There's a question: do you think we should raise the debt
Where does it explain it history, how did we get a debt ceiling, what are the consequences of either choice, do you understand what why when and
where, do you understand what impact it will have on your
life, how do you feel if your neighbors made the opposite choice and everything is
getting screwed, do you accept their dumbness as part of the community or will you be on the next BBQ the "I told you so" guy? Who makes the
questions? Who makes the possible answers/solutions. Again it is all about the knowledge and interest. I wouldn't ask a cook how to fix my car, nor
would I ask a programmer how to grow veggies. Why would we have a brake down in counties/zipcodes if we will have one community? They are irrelevant,
as the whole community is part of the process, dividing is just as lame as the election are now. Elections should be 1 community, 1 billion subjects,
how many of those subjects are pro? raise your hand.
I even think you should not make the results visible until the election is closed, think for yourself don't act as a herd.
I don't oppose you, I just see lots of troubles, including the implementation, a dictator could do that. Dictators are only bad because of the smell
of Power they have. Communism failed because of the smell of Power, Democracy was all about the Power, when it started. (the citizens were able to
choose, the civilians were not, kind of like the corporations of now, here are all of your possible answers now you are free to choose)
If I am vague or not clear in my writing it is due to the fact that English is not my native language.
BTW: do you think we should raise the debt ceiling?
Well that depends, do you like this game of monopoly and shall we hand out some more money? Or should we stop and play some Goose or Poker?
edit on 21-8-2011 by Diyainoue because: btw part