It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by trust_no_one
reply to post by okamitengu
i am a fan of this motivation and have had similar thoughts and desires for the internet to be utilized to form a global community
one problem that comes to mind is the many people who dont have computers or internet access (most likely in poverty or in third world countries) wont have representation for themselves?
anyhow ive had many concepts on what to include for an online network community (with politics)
i think one important thing to keep in mind is how to get people to be active in a global community on the internet
maybe a lot of people spend a lot of time on facebook but that doesnt necessarily mean that everyone will be willing to log on to their political website even each month
Originally posted by mretgis
What happens when, for example, a minority applies for a business license in a small tightly knit town that is intolerant of that minority's culture or other societal label and they democratically vote against the business license despite a possible need for the business?
Would agricultural areas have policy that is voted upon by citizens in a nearby industrial area? Would this present a bias between the voters?
Who determines who the top economists are? Economics is not a single theory, it is a mass of theories. Look at the city of Atlanta, GA in Fulton County. Fulton County stretches from N. GA through Central GA and into S. GA, each of these areas of GA are marked by vastly different economies. Those who live in Northern Atlanta have better accessibility to technology and have a high median income, they also inhabit what in GA is known as the Red Sea (Staunchly Republican, with a good portion on the far right). Those who live in South, West, and East Atlanta have low to middle median incomes and inhabit what is known as the Blue Island (Staunchly Democratic, with a good portion on the farther left). Population density in the areas other than the Northern section (where there are also larger plots of land) would misrepresent the Northern area. That is their chief complaint now, their tax revenues pay for projects in the lower income areas and they feel unrepresented in some regards. They would be very against welfare economics, where its argued the other areas are welfare dependent in many regards.
I think that you've got a good idea but there will need to be representation, pure democracy can be pretty inhumane.
Originally posted by Aeons
Government by the mediocre, taken to the extreme.
I can depict for you what will happen after a period of time. It'll look essentially like smart motivated people getting tired of your bs and removing you from the process. In a more profound way than they do right now.
Further, most of you will not participate most of the time. So, your direct democracy will distill down to a small group less than 30% of the population, who will control most decisions. Probably 10%-25% most of the time. This is not direct democracy - this is direct voter fascism taken to a modern format.
Which is fine with me on a personal level, as I'd be one of those 30%. However, as someone who actually likes modern civilization and admires the principles of enlightenment governance and understands the problems of regionalism, I have to object based on my ethics.edit on 2012/2/15 by Aeons because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by filosophia
Democracy and republic are contradictory. If a majority can eliminate civil rights, its not a republic, if a republic does not respect a groups interests, it is not democratic.
No form of government works. All systems of government can and does become corrupted and destructive. Will comes from individuals, the best we can do is get along by individual means and stop the failed policy of trying to control people.
Originally posted by okamitengu
You know, im glad you brought this up. I don’t think there needs to be representation as you describe it, but many many things couldn’t be done at the local level. They would need to be overseen by some kind of upper level. Again, I wouldn’t want representatives to decide on things at this level, just to ensure civil rights, equality and distribution of resources.
But, its not up to me. That’s the point. Im going to copy and paste this post specifically to the forum as it has a lot of points I would like to address in MUCh greater detail and this site, isn’t really the place for it.
In short somethings would be local, something’s would be… im going to say national, but that’s really just a word to describe a concept that is familiar to you.. (and me)
What levels of who does what would need to be nutted out. Again, I DO NOT have all the answers.
How would you suggest this work?
Originally posted by filosophia
Democracy and republic are contradictory.
Originally posted by Aeons
So I assume in your system, that we all vote instead for representatives for International affairs. Or are we all voting every day on those matters to?edit on 2012/2/16 by Aeons because: (no reason given)
All other things are not equal, and never could be.
That voting everyday on all sorts of matters, eveyone spending their time boning up on every little detail. Most people aren't capable of that. I'm sorry, I konw that people want to think that they are but they aren't. Or is your idea to essentially leave most decisions to bureaucrats?
Are you asking me why things aren't equal? Because the difference between my intelligence level and the intelligence level of the bottom end of the bell curve is vaster than the difference between someone in the middle of the bell curve and a chimpanzee.
That's reason one. We can start going off on how resources are not equally distributed on the planet and they don't magically become so because it creates inconvenient levels of disparity. Or how differences in cultural and religious memes cannot be evened out because you just really really want them to be. Or that if you did, you'd be utilizing force to do so proving inequality of fo