What kind of government would you create?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by UngoodWatermelon
 


yes one that could really be held accountable by the public.




posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Well, this is going nowhere.


If I were going to start a government, it would be unlike any that exists on this earth today.
Actually, that's not true. It would be kind of like Flickr. I would seek to have as few specialized
organizers as possible, and certainly nothing like the current executive branch. I think people
can make decisions on their own, the key thing is to be able to have an idea had by anyone
change the way society works.

So in my government, it wouldn't be about people; it would be about ideas. If a crackhead has
better ideas than some old white guy, why listen to the white guy? My point is just that we need
to be able to benefit from the collective brainpower in a way that we're currently not, and that's
one of the main problems I'd try to fix in the beginning, since it seems to me that after that, we'd be
int he best position to solve the other problems.

Incidentally, this is the kind of government I'm trying to start, so if anyone's interested, send me
a message.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
-
edit on 19-8-2011 by UngoodWatermelon because: Following instructions.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by soul2soul
 


It sounds ok, but wouldn't we be an unproductive society as we all should be filtering billions of ideas on billions of topics. I don't have the knowledge of every topic and I claim no one has. I don't think we can teach all all of the theory behind an idea. In my experience the best ideas came from people who have difficulties explaining their ideas. Flicker and the likes are mostly about the best communicators.

I agree we shouldn't focus on the establishment just because they are in that position. But I also think that common fear would stop a lot of progression. Trains would make you insane of dazzling speed of 30 miles an hour. The ones who believed in it could not make the rail road without funding.

It would be great to start with a blank sheet, but I don't see that as a possibility in the near future. (even in the doom and gloom ideas for next year survivors will still remember the good old days.)

It is okay to step back and take care of yourself. An architect can build his own house, but it would take him years to collect all the materials he needs if he can get them, but what does he eat and drink? A cattle farm does produce milk and meat, who is going to transport it? on what roads? Who build the house of the cattle farm? Do we all need to be friends for that?


For now I would definitely say that a new government needs to be small, fast, cheap and the possibility to be held accountable by the one THEY serve, mainly the public. Somewhat the opposite of now.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ManOfGod267
 


My government would be a robotic one. Let's call it Robotopianism (Robotic-utopian-ism).

All production and authority would be maintained by robotics, where available, in order to create a utopian society, against materialism and needless excess.

Here's the only laws I could think of for Robotopianism:
Do not cause harm to others.
Do not cause harm to or steal others' property.
Do not mass produce without consumers.
Do not interfere with the robot police.

I think 99% of the laws we have are needless or are just exaggerations of the laws I listed above. We really have way too many BS laws.

I could go into great detail about Robotopianism, because I've thought a lot about how retarded our society is, but I don't want to waste anyone's time with my delusional dreams.

Anyways, nice thread.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diyainoue


It sounds ok, but wouldn't we be an unproductive society as we all should be filtering billions of ideas on billions of topics. I don't have the knowledge of every topic and I claim no one has. I don't think we can teach all all of the theory behind an idea. In my experience the best ideas came from people who have difficulties explaining their ideas. Flicker and the likes are mostly about the best communicators.


Well, that's the problem we've got to solve. Do you know about Captcha? I don't have a source on this, but I saw it in a documentary one time: when we solves Captchas, we are sometimes contributing to the massive conversion of scanned books to text files. Think about it: we could have one person transcribe whole books, or we could add one second to a task performed millions of times per day, breaking up the task until we achieve hundreds of millions of man-hours of work without hiring anyone.

I just see there being a potential for a qualitative change in government and organization through the application of this technique. If we can somehow take governance from a place where it's done by the few for the many to where it's done by the many for itself, we'll be much better off because each person will be less important, meanwhile a person can exert huge influence by coming up with an idea, which will be able to flow throughout society and become universally adopted.

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. Right now we all fear the state, because if we break the law it might get us. But there are so many breaking the law that the state can't possibly catch them all; thus, people commit crime when they think it's worth the risk and that's why we have crime, not to mention the fact that the government creates crime by dividing the resources unjustly. From ghettos in New York to terrorists in the Middle East, the government creates its own enemies in order to fight them. The radical insight for us needs to be that the enemies chosen by the state are precisely not the true enemies, namely it is the propagandizers and disinformers themselves who are the true enemies of the people. Their plots plotted in darkness and hidden behind ape entertainment are the only real plan of this society. The solution is the light of the people.

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.


Originally posted by Diyainoue
I agree we shouldn't focus on the establishment just because they are in that position. But I also think that common fear would stop a lot of progression. Trains would make you insane of dazzling speed of 30 miles an hour. The ones who believed in it could not make the rail road without funding.

It would be great to start with a blank sheet, but I don't see that as a possibility in the near future. (even in the doom and gloom ideas for next year survivors will still remember the good old days.)


You're right, I think that we need to look at the greatest opportunities available, existing social networks that can truly turn into emergency wartime engines much more efficient than the government. You are also right that at this point, we are looking for an innovation, the way that the internet can be used to magnetize society, the right process. But I think there are a lot of clues as to what the process will look like.

Peep this video: www.youtube.com...

CEO of Cisco basically says that they went from command-and-control leadership to collaborative leadership and productivity is higher. People do the job better when you don't tell them what it is. They all brainstorm together and look, it's still a fortune 500 company, but still, check it: the future does not look like the twentieth century governments, with one charismatic leader whose image gets beamed out to millions of sheeple. That's no longer the newest technology and clearly we are still in the infancy of the internet and we are still learning how to use it. It makes us more efficient and is the greatest tool, but also the greatest pitfall.

Anyway, it's not really about the internet, it's about the shift Cisco made and how a different way of operating, less focused on the outcome and more focused on the process, can work more efficiently than a results-driven system. 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. I think that might help clarify a lot.

Peep this video: www.ted.com...

and this one: www.ted.com...

People have an idea of what this looks like. We need new words to explain it because as is, I think it's a hard concept to get across, as it doesn't exactly exist yet.


Originally posted by Diyainoue
It is okay to step back and take care of yourself. An architect can build his own house, but it would take him years to collect all the materials he needs if he can get them, but what does he eat and drink? A cattle farm does produce milk and meat, who is going to transport it? on what roads? Who build the house of the cattle farm? Do we all need to be friends for that?


For now I would definitely say that a new government needs to be small, fast, cheap and the possibility to be held accountable by the one THEY serve, mainly the public. Somewhat the opposite of now.


YES. Small, fast, cheap government. One that does not suck the energies of the population into itself, like it's putting them through a sieve, but instead a diffuse, cheap technological framework.

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. The above proposal, I think, works. Imagine this:

At the postoffice, that is, in many public places, there is a screen and a terminal. On the screen is what looks like a google map of the entire country. There's a question: do you think we should raise the debt ceiling? And then, on the map, the country is broken down into ZIP code where the redder the county is, the more it says no, and the bluer it is, the more it says yes. Undecided? Purple. Thus the country is color-coded based on what everyone thinks and public opinion is instantly readable, every day. Do you see how easily we can see what we think, and how hard it is now that we're still in the stage of history of relying on the corporate media for information about ourselves?



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
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 adopted.


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 think.


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 WITH 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 ceiling?


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



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ManOfGod267
 


A type of size capped(county level) community based anarcho-syndicalism/libertarian socialism. No taxes at all. Non-profit public voluneership for the needy and for experience in coops. A wealth cap. There are jails,police dept, and courts but they are ran by people in the community and are elected by the community. There just isn't any real tier of influence overall. Anyone in the community has part in the community. The community as a whole has a monopoly on power within that community. All laws are set by the community but are limited to the communities boundaries.

There is power but its extremely decentralized,limited, and segmented that well over 70%-75% of the community has to collude for it to make any sense to corrupt it. Even then they would need the other 25% but hey they can pack up and leave to another community or just strike if they are abused. Your not forced to work.
There are no mayors,kings,presidents,councils etc. The general public approves streets/schools/football teams hospitals etc themselves. You let functioning healthy efficient communities/public co-ops survive. Inefficient poorly ran communities/public co-ops die off.

Don't like one community move to another one. Want a all gay/lesbian/etc community? Move to one. Want a all women-that-are-starwars-fans community. Move to one. Want a legal marijuana community. Move there. Simple.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
my government would be a Technocratic Demarchy.

it doesn't exist, but under my control it would combine the best of a Technocracy and a Demarchy.


Technocracy - Technocracy is a form of government in which engineers, scientists, health professionals, and other technical experts are in control of decision making in their respective fields.



Demarchy - Demarchy (or lottocracy) is a form of government in which the state is governed by randomly selected decision makers who have been selected by sortition (lot) from a broadly inclusive pool of eligible citizens


I would combine the two by randomly selecting eligable Experts to govern according to their own common sense and moral principles.

Also they would have at least one Citizen advisor each.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by yourmaker
my government would be a Technocratic Demarchy.

it doesn't exist, but under my control it would combine the best of a Technocracy and a Demarchy.


Technocracy - Technocracy is a form of government in which engineers, scientists, health professionals, and other technical experts are in control of decision making in their respective fields.



Demarchy - Demarchy (or lottocracy) is a form of government in which the state is governed by randomly selected decision makers who have been selected by sortition (lot) from a broadly inclusive pool of eligible citizens


I would combine the two by randomly selecting eligable Experts to govern according to their own common sense and moral principles.

Also they would have at least one Citizen advisor each.



You would have to figure out how to keep people from gaming the system and putting their friends/moles/family in positions of power.

Demarchy is cool in that it makes collusion a bit harder.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Originally posted by yourmaker
my government would be a Technocratic Demarchy.

it doesn't exist, but under my control it would combine the best of a Technocracy and a Demarchy.


Technocracy - Technocracy is a form of government in which engineers, scientists, health professionals, and other technical experts are in control of decision making in their respective fields.



Demarchy - Demarchy (or lottocracy) is a form of government in which the state is governed by randomly selected decision makers who have been selected by sortition (lot) from a broadly inclusive pool of eligible citizens


I would combine the two by randomly selecting eligable Experts to govern according to their own common sense and moral principles.

Also they would have at least one Citizen advisor each.



You would have to figure out how to keep people from gaming the system and putting their friends/moles/family in positions of power.

Demarchy is cool in that it makes collusion a bit harder.


I think the system itself would be beneficiary in such a way that people wouldn't need to cheat themselves into it.

That type of greed is programmed into us at a young age. If we collectively reformed the way we educate kids, and ourselves, perhaps we could remove that need of power and replace it with a need for what's good for us all?

or something like that.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join