reply to post by youhup
I do not believe that Utopia is a possibility, and would never attempt to achieve it, nor advocate that anyone else try it either. The simple fact is
that every time someone tries, they end up with some bloody god complex and kill a bunch of people for reasons that are only apparant, or sensible
within the context of that megalomania.
My attitude is that there is enough evil in the world without creating governmental systems which are focused toward taking and retaining power, that
ought to belong to the people directly. It is true that in times past, a centralised government was helpful in terms of creating uniformity of purpose
throughout a nations infrastructure, despite the obvious negatives of that scenario, it was better than the chaos which would have resulted in a lack
of governance of any kind, and is therefore commendable.
However, in this, the information age, where the masses by and large have access to, or could gain access to, communications technology like mobile
telecomunications devices and networked computers, the way our nation is governed COULD change to make it more inclusive, and immediately responsive
to the demands of the people. I believe that in the future, if democracy is to survive and evolve, the people of nations like ours, will be able to
vote via internet, not just on which workshy cretin in a suit gets to govern next, but on each individual policy and action of any real import. If
this inclusive involvement on the part of the electorate does not occur, when the tools to make it happen are clearly in place, then it is a matter of
time before those of us who respect democracy will have no choice but to FORCE that change on the government.
The fact is that democracy has only been limited in terms of public involvement in government, because not everyone with an opinion had a forum in
which to voice it. Some could not travel to London to make thier case directly. Others lacked the patience to wait for thier demands to be heard. With
the advent of instant communication with a central body, you can clearly see that soon, people will not accept the sluggishness of our parliament to
respond to orders from thier employers.
The people must remember that for all thier suits and fancy cars, those who govern are our underlings. Ours to demand of, to give orders, they are
meant to be nothing more than the voicebox which speaks for our nation on the world stage, and supposed to enforce the will of the majority within our
shores. They have no business acting for what they call the national interest, without permission from the people. In a nation run on what I like to
call IRD (immediately responsive democracy) the people could use thier OWN voices, and be heard in a national forum which has the power to overwhelm
and undermine parliament when it gets to big for its boots, and begins to behave in a manner which does not suit the population. It would have its
issues, but I really think that the oppertunity to force a minister or prime minister to account, or order a change in policy, or prevent one, is the
right of every citizen, and more control will have to be exerted in the future over our "leaders" if democracy is to be anything other than a more
polite version of fascism in time to come.
edit on 20-7-2012 by TrueBrit because: Grammar error correction. Sorry folks!
