A new blue print for a world political system

Originally posted by xtcsx
reply to post by LFN69

 

Quite true... however I believe your perspective is off... a tree doesnt start as a full grown oak tree (to continue the analogy). It starts off as a seed... or a cell (individual) and then grows with respect to them. The problem currently is the top down approach... left over from the hundreds of years of monarchies and dictatorships that has somehow been engrained into our DNA. The US from the ideals of the founders was supposed to be the new experiment to counter that... Where society began with the individual and the protection of rights of that individual. For some reason thats been lost and it seems a little sad that such a simple thing like a shift of perspective over time can completely warp a once great nation into the acceptable police state that its become.

Im not too sure my perspective is that far off tbh.
There is a very basic and fundamental flaw in this whole new idea. For it to really work, you would need a collective of concience. Now, i dont really know if that is a term or even the right one but I shall try to explain what I mean.
We are all individuals, proven on this thread in so much as we would all agree that current Politics isnt neccessarily working for the average Joe and Jane. The problem is that there isnt just Joe and Jane, there is John and Jenny , Richard and Rachel etc. Not everybody will get what they want, not everybody will agree on anything. You cannot possibly re evolve a political process from the ground up to the top, Politics is not a tree, its a poor analogy to be fair. I could converely say that, once upon a time, when political groups/parties were formed by individulas ( many who were poor/working class and NOT part of the social elite) to represent and push for change for "the people" those parties were, indeed, the seed that was sown. We now have that full oak tree and people are suggesting that we chop it down and start again because we dont like the way it has grown, yet, it is public opinion and ideology that SHOULD be the water that feeds the tree that keeps it alive.
What we are talking about here is tantamount to throwing every political process and ideology into the bin because WE, the people, didnt look after that tree, trim it or chop a few branches off as it grew.
The current process is, id agree, a process where the people are merely sheep and the politics is the shepherd. Our choice is which sheperd we want to lead us!
Every one in my country has a vote, not everybody uses it. The fact of life is that the people who vote for any political party to govern will do so knowing that said party is merely broadly inline with their way of thinking, it is the compromise which we all have to make and, without question, we would have to make whatever system was in place.
What people here are proposing is nothing more than devolving everything into nice neat "focus groups" where it will seem that everybody will be able to have an input ( obviously no more than 5 ideas/points coz us humans havent the capacity to do more ) and, by consensus, everybody will have an input into the political process and running of their village/Town/City/Country.
Well I tell you something, my friend has sat on Parish council meetings representing the residents of his village and he has been in situations where nobody can agree on anything, purely because each member brings to the table views from different people within that village. Compromise and be done with it? Possibly but, as ive previously said, nobody is that happy about it are they.
Can nobody see that what is being proposed is impossible to acheive because we are not sheep but free thinking individual humans?
Ideology is fine, ideally we need to build a new colony on Mars, nobody quite knows how thats going to be done, its never been done before but in theory.........,....
If you want change you have to vote, you have to march, you have to shout and you have to get others to do the same. Unfortunately thats not always possible, in Britain we dont take to the streets like they do in Egypt, bloody hell, we dont even shout and scream when people queue jump!
Im bound to say that there are some elements within this thread that sound more like dictatorial politics than the freedom of expression politics thats been suggested.
Be careful what you wish for people.

reply to post by LFN69

Well TPTB are actively engaged in getting rid of the world's dictators (Syrian bad boy is next). Democracy will replace these rogue regimes over time and then these governments will be cooped by a global government in the form of a scientific dictatorship that will subplant national state sovereignty. It is all by design and well planned.
.

reply to post by AthlonSavage

3. The use of direct democracy into the United Nations. Therefore people of each sovereign nation are able to vote online on issues, and it goes to the UN where it is debated (fully visible) in front of world public view.

So how do we go about assigning an exclusive number to each and every person that can't be manipulated by computer systems?

NWO comes to mind with the mark of the beast or an RFID tag for everyone.

Mabye DNA as a biomarker?

In order to assign everyone a individual voting id a computer must manage the data and then a person must manage the computer giving them access to vast information and control.

Then AI comes to mind.... Do we let computers manage us??? That opens up doors everywhere you look.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by LFN69

 

Well TPTB are actively engaged in getting rid of the world's dictators (Syrian bad boy is next). Democracy will replace these rogue regimes over time and then these governments will be cooped by a global government in the form of a scientific dictatorship that will subplant national state sovereignty. It is all by design and well planned.
.

With respect, if that truly is the plan, its a sh*t one!!
It certainly hasnt worked in Iraq, has it? One dictator removed and utter f*****g chaos is the result.
Egypt? Well thats all gone pear shaped too, democracy re installed but, to all intents and purposes, it looks like the newly elected leader has decided that he shall bring in draconian laws hacking off all those that didnt want him causing mass protests, death and, wait a minute, the Army being called in to quell "democratic protesting...!"
This master plan is going down a treat isnt it.
Well, all I can say is if its all by design and well planned id love to see what a poorly designed shambolic mess looked like.
This Global Government idea isnt looking too healthy, is it ...

This is one of those good-on-paper ideas, like communism. World government would be too difficult to maintain, given the population on earth is 7 billion. There are way too many crazy people, and the people in power will take advantage of that just like in any other government. I'm fine with democracy. It works for me and it's not changing any time soon.

The question i think to ask is: Can the everyday man think and rule himself? I happen to think, yes! With that being said, there's no need to have a ruling world government rule over him. Who wants to be a slave? If you decide to disagree with the NWO, what happens then? What happens if a country disagrees with the NWO? How about the mixed emotions of religions? Does the NWO impose their religious beliefs on the world people? Who decides the rulers? The people? If the people decide, then that means the people can think for themselves, which comes back to my first question. Can the everyday man think and rule himself?

Originally posted by GhostyMew
This is one of those good-on-paper ideas, like communism. World government would be too difficult to maintain, given the population on earth is 7 billion. There are way too many crazy people, and the people in power will take advantage of that just like in any other government. I'm fine with democracy. It works for me and it's not changing any time soon.

Amen!!!!

Originally posted by LFN69

Originally posted by GhostyMew
This is one of those good-on-paper ideas, like communism. World government would be too difficult to maintain, given the population on earth is 7 billion. There are way too many crazy people, and the people in power will take advantage of that just like in any other government. I'm fine with democracy. It works for me and it's not changing any time soon.

Amen!!!!

Can the everyday man think and rule himself?

Theory 101 quoted this and i think LFN69 offered an opinion of the answer in his post.

In my opinion there are great risks presented with centralizing power. In fact in can never be centralized its too risky because the risks could never be guaranteed to managable without abuses of power and fraud coming into play. The reason for this is because behind the scenes running it are human beings and we all know what the average human is like in nature even if we dont want to admit it.

reply to post by knowledgedesired

Then AI comes to mind.... Do we let computers manage us??? That opens up doors everywhere you look.

Computers are tools no different to having tools in your garage. Woould a person let their power tools tell them how to run their household. The answer is No that we cannot let computers manage us, they will always be working tools.

Originally posted by knowledgedesired
reply to post by AthlonSavage

 

3. The use of direct democracy into the United Nations. Therefore people of each sovereign nation are able to vote online on issues, and it goes to the UN where it is debated (fully visible) in front of world public view.

So how do we go about assigning an exclusive number to each and every person that can't be manipulated by computer systems?

NWO comes to mind with the mark of the beast or an RFID tag for everyone.

Mabye DNA as a biomarker?

In order to assign everyone a individual voting id a computer must manage the data and then a person must manage the computer giving them access to vast information and control.

Then AI comes to mind.... Do we let computers manage us??? That opens up doors everywhere you look.

A computerized system does not have to be intelligent. In fact, a system that just impartially does one simple thing, repetitively, without favor, is exactly what is required.

If you take the rule of fives and then apply it to budgetary allocations as well as opinion gathering, it is obvious that, for fairness sake, such a 'dumb' computerization becomes essential to the division of larger tasks into balanced "work packets" distributed to all participants. This is idea no2.

reply to post by AthlonSavage


That depends.

Non intelligent machines are tools. Weak AI would be assistants. Strong AI, if it ever arrives, would manage us or end us.

The Neal Asher 'Polity' books are a good imagining of a human society ruled by mostly benign strong AI. They are fun too. To be honest its as close to the best case scenario for humanity i've ever seen.

As for the world as a pure democracy, for a book that plays with the full implications of pure online democracy i recommend reading 'The Prefect' by Alistair Reynolds.

The third idea is to make the structure feed back into itself so there is no top of the tree.

Imagine the tree structure laid out on a sphere, so the 'trunk' actually connects/feeds into the tips of the branches.

Then there is no top nor is there a bottom.

Power becomes equally distributed in the whole structure because everyone has someone "over" them and also are themselves the "leader" of five others.

This then eliminates the "higher ups" from controlling more than the "lower downs", no matter where in the structure you reside.

The fourth idea is the feedback mechanism of legal review.

The judiciary and legal process can remain in its present form, to administer the letter of the law and to push for new precedents with which to codify new law, but legal review is introduced systematically (to the entire tree) for the purpose of disestablishment of poorly framed or unfair laws. This is done as part of the "work packets" distributed to the tree.

Note that this process does not prevent such laws from being re-established by the judicial process or re-removal by the system.

It allows law to evolve with technology and society in a controlled and stable manner.

Originally posted by chr0naut
The fourth idea is the feedback mechanism of legal review.

The judiciary and legal process can remain in its present form, to administer the letter of the law and to push for new precedents with which to codify new law, but legal review is introduced systematically (to the entire tree) for the purpose of disestablishment of poorly framed or unfair laws. This is done as part of the "work packets" distributed to the tree.

Note that this process does not prevent such laws from being re-established by the judicial process or re-removal by the system.

It allows law to evolve with technology and society in a controlled and stable manner.

edit on 14/12/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

This is all gobbledygook.
Are you truly certain that the average person will have a clue as to what you are really on about?
I consider myself to be reasonably intelligent yet all I see is a complex structure of words that is meant to quantify and, i assume, be clearly understandable to the masses. Well it isnt.
I tell you what it really is. Its nothing more than philosophising over the kind of politics that belongs in a fantasy world. People dont even understand the political structures in place now yet you expect the masses to grasp a load of tosh about a "New World Politics" that was probably invented by a bunch of San Fransisco dope filled hippies circa 1967. What is proposed here has probably been proposed forever because there will always be sections of society who feel that everything isnt fair and the poor get jackbooted by the rich elite.
People still dont get the one salient fact that is inescapable, we are humans! It matters not what is in place, people wont like it, they wont want it and somebody somewhere will be corrupted by it.
What most hacks me off is the idea that this five suggestions/ideas or whatever you want to call it would be imposed upon people because others would consider anything more to be confusing and brain hurting. What bloody right would anybody have to impose that kind of doctrine upon us? Would we have a one man one vote, 7 billion of us click yes or no on the computer to pass that "law" or dismiss it? Utter farce.
The person that came up with the five idea is a bloody dictator!!!!
The biggest farce of all is that clearly intelligent people with plenty of acumen have even considered and discussed this "turd in the toilet" when if they had sat down and really thought about it, it would never have made the board.
Tip. If ideas to restructure the political stage are to be chewed over, you have to make it all VERY simple to understand because, Im afraid to say, much of Planet Earth is inhabited by thickies.
Having said all that tho, Ive enjoyed the discussion.

Originally posted by LFN69

Originally posted by chr0naut
The fourth idea is the feedback mechanism of legal review.

The judiciary and legal process can remain in its present form, to administer the letter of the law and to push for new precedents with which to codify new law, but legal review is introduced systematically (to the entire tree) for the purpose of disestablishment of poorly framed or unfair laws. This is done as part of the "work packets" distributed to the tree.

Note that this process does not prevent such laws from being re-established by the judicial process or re-removal by the system.

It allows law to evolve with technology and society in a controlled and stable manner.

edit on 14/12/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

This is all gobbledygook.
Are you truly certain that the average person will have a clue as to what you are really on about?
I consider myself to be reasonably intelligent yet all I see is a complex structure of words that is meant to quantify and, i assume, be clearly understandable to the masses. Well it isnt.
I tell you what it really is. Its nothing more than philosophising over the kind of politics that belongs in a fantasy world. People dont even understand the political structures in place now yet you expect the masses to grasp a load of tosh about a "New World Politics" that was probably invented by a bunch of San Fransisco dope filled hippies circa 1967. What is proposed here has probably been proposed forever because there will always be sections of society who feel that everything isnt fair and the poor get jackbooted by the rich elite.
People still dont get the one salient fact that is inescapable, we are humans! It matters not what is in place, people wont like it, they wont want it and somebody somewhere will be corrupted by it.
What most hacks me off is the idea that this five suggestions/ideas or whatever you want to call it would be imposed upon people because others would consider anything more to be confusing and brain hurting. What bloody right would anybody have to impose that kind of doctrine upon us? Would we have a one man one vote, 7 billion of us click yes or no on the computer to pass that "law" or dismiss it? Utter farce.
The person that came up with the five idea is a bloody dictator!!!!

The biggest farce of all is that clearly intelligent people with plenty of acumen have even considered and discussed this "turd in the toilet" when if they had sat down and really thought about it, it would never have made the board.
Tip. If ideas to restructure the political stage are to be chewed over, you have to make it all VERY simple to understand because, Im afraid to say, much of Planet Earth is inhabited by thickies.
Having said all that tho, Ive enjoyed the discussion.

I thought I invented/discovered the "five" idea (and some of the other stuff) but I hardly think I am a dictator as I am only fielding suggestions on ATS. Just "shootin' the breeze".

I'm not a particularly politically active person, either, these days. Just another "armchair expert".

I do take on board that you want it "dumbed down" somewhat. Fair enough, but I'm not well equipped to determine the internal thought processes of the lowest common denominator.

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by LFN69

Originally posted by chr0naut
The fourth idea is the feedback mechanism of legal review.

The judiciary and legal process can remain in its present form, to administer the letter of the law and to push for new precedents with which to codify new law, but legal review is introduced systematically (to the entire tree) for the purpose of disestablishment of poorly framed or unfair laws. This is done as part of the "work packets" distributed to the tree.

Note that this process does not prevent such laws from being re-established by the judicial process or re-removal by the system.

It allows law to evolve with technology and society in a controlled and stable manner.

edit on 14/12/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

This is all gobbledygook.
Are you truly certain that the average person will have a clue as to what you are really on about?
I consider myself to be reasonably intelligent yet all I see is a complex structure of words that is meant to quantify and, i assume, be clearly understandable to the masses. Well it isnt.
I tell you what it really is. Its nothing more than philosophising over the kind of politics that belongs in a fantasy world. People dont even understand the political structures in place now yet you expect the masses to grasp a load of tosh about a "New World Politics" that was probably invented by a bunch of San Fransisco dope filled hippies circa 1967. What is proposed here has probably been proposed forever because there will always be sections of society who feel that everything isnt fair and the poor get jackbooted by the rich elite.
People still dont get the one salient fact that is inescapable, we are humans! It matters not what is in place, people wont like it, they wont want it and somebody somewhere will be corrupted by it.
What most hacks me off is the idea that this five suggestions/ideas or whatever you want to call it would be imposed upon people because others would consider anything more to be confusing and brain hurting. What bloody right would anybody have to impose that kind of doctrine upon us? Would we have a one man one vote, 7 billion of us click yes or no on the computer to pass that "law" or dismiss it? Utter farce.
The person that came up with the five idea is a bloody dictator!!!!

The biggest farce of all is that clearly intelligent people with plenty of acumen have even considered and discussed this "turd in the toilet" when if they had sat down and really thought about it, it would never have made the board.
Tip. If ideas to restructure the political stage are to be chewed over, you have to make it all VERY simple to understand because, Im afraid to say, much of Planet Earth is inhabited by thickies.
Having said all that tho, Ive enjoyed the discussion.

I thought I invented/discovered the "five" idea (and some of the other stuff) but I hardly think I am a dictator as I am only fielding suggestions on ATS. Just "shootin' the breeze".

I'm not a particularly politically active person, either, these days. Just another "armchair expert".

I do take on board that you want it "dumbed down" somewhat. Fair enough, but I'm not well equipped to determine the internal thought processes of the lowest common denominator.

Look, you are a clever fella, no doubt.
The thing is, you are looking to create the very things that you want to destroy.
The five idea may well be your own invention, my tongue in cheek point, was purely to serve the fact that it is rare nowdays to come up with new ideas that reinvent our social and political structures
My dictator jibe was a joke, however, any attempt to impose without consensus COULD be viewed as dictatorial, such is life.
New ideas tend to be rehashed old ones, repackaged and refurbished. Whether any of your ideas fall into that catagory isnt really important because, to be fair, most people wouldnt understand a word of it anyway.
Its a no brainer really, the political structures currently in place were cultivated by us all anyway and what we have are systems in place that are understandable by the people. You listen to what Political parties have to say and on polling day you go to the local School/Town hall/Church, you go into a cubicle and put an 'X' by the candidate of the political party you want to represent you.
Simples.
The only people who really want to change that are the "thinkers" the people who just know for certain whats best for the rest of us and the sons/daughters of the "elite" who squat in £10 million houses in Holland Park with sod all better to do but hug trees and be our social concience.
They can all bugger off, as far as Im concerned.