Is the majority capable of self government?

My hypothesis is that our current system of government is based on an antiquated and outdated political architecture. Why do we elect representatives to form governments on our behalf? There are at least two obvious reasons that spring forth.

1, Convenience, we have to cede control of law forming, economic management and policy decisions to others, because the business of running the country requires full time dedicated positions to be effective. As a majority of citizens, we cannot possibly be directly involved in each and every level.

2, We chose those more CAPABLE than ourselves to make decisions, the correct ones based on experience, superior education and greater intelligence, than we ourselves could hope to make. Thus by electing these poeple to positions of power we acknowledge that they are better suited to the task of governing us than we ourselves are.

There are probably many more reasons. However I would like to challenge both of the above assumptions and see where it leads us.

Technology has advanced to the point where it may be feasible now, or in the near future for everyone to have a hand in policy making. The internet and distributed connectivity has made this possible. There will be no more reason to rely on a centralised policy making government for convenience or administrative sake.

The second assumption is the make or break of this. It is also the question that I put to you all. Given a means for policy making to be dependent on the will of the majority instead of an elected minority, are the masses, you and I and everyone else, as a majority capable of deciding our own fate?

To make sure you understand the principle I am trying to convey here, I am talking about all governmental policy being decided by the masses effectively being able to propose and vote for each act of parliament, economic decisions, foreign policy, defense policy etc..

Can the majority rule effectively? or is it really best left to an elite minority?

Nope Anakin.

We never gave them all that power over us, they took it. Communities used to take care of their own. There USED to be a program that everyone could pay into ( $2.00 a week) and get medical/unemployment/food but the government decided they could do a better job. Community is better at getting things done. There is no waste and little fraud.

reply to post by December21st2012

Is the majority capable of self government?

Of course it is but... we've strayed from the basic concept and corrupted the mechanism.

Today, we no longer even respect a majority vote. California voted against gay marriage but that wasn't good enough. I'm not personally against it but I feel sure had the majority voted the other way, the gay marriage community would be arguing in favor of what the people said.

Once we get to a point where we can no longer accept that the will of the majority doesn't agree with our personal opinions... then the system will fail.
Once we can no longer accept that we can lose... then winning is the only thing that matters and the system be damned, we be rendered useless.

From there, we will be left to live life under authoritarian rule... where what we think is about as important as what our opposites think. Then we will blame everyone but ourselves.

The best system would be an aristocracy of talent where by the best rise up and the crap sink down but it requires a firm framework to ensure fairness so if A is better than B at a task such as waste management then A should be promoted and B demoted but people hate that as they can have a bad week and be 3 pay grades down and people prefer stability and don't like change

If you want absolute democracy then its very hard to implement such a system due to fraud/apathy/scale of the task and the effort of working out just who's to be asked for each and every task, just imagine the voting needed just to repair potholes in the road when its cheaper to employ a surveyor of roads and let them tell the teams where to slap a bucket of tarmac rather than it taking 2-3 months just arguing over if the hole is worth filling since the people 2 streets away want their stuff sorting first so won't vote until they get their roads done

reply to post by December21st2012


I think the government is incapable of self governance , as for everyone else I think the majority want to emulate people what others are doing .

Also the majority of elected officials or people at the top positions in a business come from wealthy families and feel that they are entitled .

Personally I think our countries would run better with a direct democracy where the people vote for what they want to give banks tax breaks and hand outs or weather to tax more the super wealthy more .

When was the last time my country or yours have have a primeminister or president from a poor lower class citizen ?

No. When everyone gets a sayso then somehow favoritism gets involved. Then others complain and then their wants are met. Pretty soon everyone wants in on the action and the national debt is said to be 16 trillion but it is actually four times as high. Then nobody wants to pay for it, blaming others for the big mess. Our fake money is tied up in the whole infrastructure of the country making all the high paid jobs as well as the low paid jobs that we have. People say they have not got anything from the government but they are working for corporations with government contracts. They complain because their street is bad and the street gets repaved.

This hasn't worked right here in the USA yet. Come to think of it no big government has ever worked right for some of the same reasons.

Government. the body that governs right? I don't have a problem governing myself. Even when elected officials KNOW that the people of this country DO or DON'T want something, the government still goes another way. We don't have a government, we have Lords & Ladies that think because they got voted in to office that THEY are in charge. Yeah, we can govern ourselves, and the government we have now is incompetent anyway, so it's like we're not being governed in the first place, it's called OPPRESSION. When the only thing the government ever worries about is protecting the government instead of serving the governed, it's time for a change. We are there.

reply to post by December21st2012


Same problem will continue to exist...it will attract power hungry sociopaths taking over control.

If you are able to filter them out chances for a fruitful and peaceful society will increase considerable.

The average IQ is 100. That's not very high. Half the people have an IQ lower than 100. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Justice is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. Deciding what should be done by a vote of everyone amounts to tyranny of the majority. The majority isn't very smart, isn't very well educated, and is ignorant of the issues. You really want them deciding what to do?

Look at our elections, national and state. All you have to do is pander to the IQ=100 majority and they will continue to vote you in. It's not based on a well-reasoned argument about what is right or reasonable. It is simply a matter of who will give you the most free stuff.

I think more direct democracy would be better. I do not have illusions about the intelligence of an average voter, and all the checks and balances will have to remain or be strenghtened, however we do have democratic elements in government and I think these would certainly be better if people voted directly on issues instead of representatives.

It is interesting isn't it? Most will come in this thread and claim no, people cannot rule themselves. We need a King! A ruler! We need law and order! And yet, of the many types of Government through history, all of which have led to brutal dictatorship, self Government has never even been attempted.

reply to post by December21st2012


I have been advocating distributed government models like this since I joined here.

So I say hear hear!

Is the majority capable of self government?

Considering the majority voted Obama back in office, I'd say no.

Hobble a horse long enough it'll never run again.

Regardless, the wants, desires, abilities, needs of the majority are wholly irrelevant when liberty is concerned.

I dont care one bit if a sea of morons eat themselves alive with their own stupidity. Hell, they already are.

I think it is possible that the uptake of something like this will naturally filter out people that feel that they either don't care enough, or don't know enough about issues, leaving others to partake in the decision making. It could be argued then that this defeats the whole purpose. However the way I see it, the increase in people actively involved in deciding policy will probably still be of an order of several magnitudes than we currently have, and in theory represent the voice of reason, as opposed to the elitist self preserving system in place now.

reply to post by December21st2012

Ummm.....the answer to that is yes.....and...no. Yes for rural and country folk and no for the sub and urban societies. The reasons for that are fairly obvious. Rural populations virtually police themselves. Criminal organizations primarily inhabit the cities where their prey and corruption flourish.

YouSir

When we lose the power to feel hurt while watching or making others suffer, we are stuck as a society.

If humans weren't forced to work and obey an indoctrinating, secretive, indulgent, commercially ego manipulating, militarized box of sugar free cookies...(YUCK!!!), then maybe the people would begin to understand their own power to self motivate, invent and learn some dignity.

Not to mention the propaganda is so thick nowadays...I can't see my own hand in front of my face.

Too many people have become dependent and expecting.

Be Positive

reply to post by jimmiec


I agree fully, I feel small communities would be the most efficient, and ensure that they serve the interest of the people. Each community should also be self sufficient in all the needs of supporting life. Such needs as Food, Clothing, Shelter, and Energy.

No person or group of people should be allowed to leverage over any other these life supporting elements.

I believe technology still would have a place, as people would innovate and develop luxuries that can be then exchanged between communities for other luxuries.

But never would a community suffer with starvation as a result of lack of wealth as it is their own responsibility to support their basic needs.

When a community grows too large, they must split and establish a new community for those that wish to seek a new community.

I would argue no.

If they were intelligent enough, we would have seen them take control of the situation and implement a different system.

Perhaps with intensive education.. but how do you implement a successful education system that teaches against the current system?