Is the majority capable of self government?

reply to post by December21st2012


Love this topic. Interesting point about technology, it is a double edge sword. Sure you could submit your opinion via wifi, but so can a robot. Localized humane societies, are all that is needed. Responsible individuals with unlimited resources to handle every aspect of living harmoniously. There would be no reason for war. This is already possible with fusion and other free energy technologies, that "they" don't want us to have.

Sure, we can give self-governance or direct democracy a try, but what about a Republic based on the rule of law? A Republic where the government is restricted by a set of rules or laws, and where the states or the communities can make their own decisions at the local levels, a Republic where power is not concentrated in one single branch of government.....

hahaha

Has anyone not seen BBC “The Code” wisdom of the crowds?
www.youtube.com...
It shows how group thinking (even guessing) can be almost paranormally-telepathically superior to individual thinking.

As for the OP...
Electing people is supposed to be an exercise in tapping into the wisdom of the crowds, but one problem is it is actually wisdom of the crowds influenced by the media and however many party's have a say in what the media in it's totally (radio, news and print) covers.
However it's still a good system, but the monopoly of two political party's clearly isn't.

I conclude from the above video: It's good if internet sites (similar to ATS) can simply influence our elected representatives, on how best-maybe to solve problems facing mankind (on literally every level).

reply to post by cartesia


Very interesting point. An education system stacked, to only allow a certain proportion through to its higher levels, where they are so few that they can be manipulated. Whilst at the same time suppressing the majority and churning them out as worker bees and fodder, to be appeased by the latest X factor show etc.

If I could change one thing, it would begin with education.

i find this post fascinating! has anyone ever read animal farm , i think it would end up like that it would start as equals but the ones with lesser intelligence naturally would follow a leader and they would naturally become greedy with power and it would be the same scenario all over . us been ruled they intelligent ones wanting out the patsy's happy with how it is. they give us technology so we want to get the next i phone or the latest computer . and why do they do this? they make them ultra expensive so we have to work our butts off to pay for utter tosh. to be truly independent a community would need to bin off technology , work on the land and be self sufficient not in reliance on anyone or anything.

Originally posted by schuyler
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.

Dog, you are the Voice of Raisin!

Er, Reason!

reply to post by December21st2012


I would say 'Yes we can'

I am seeing today that many people are fed up with the current System and have been for the last 10 at least. Each person would be able to vote Democratically via the Net on what they would like or not like... the Majority on the particular Subject will win and that practice gets put into place.

We are Adults and don't need to ruled by a Party or by People who think they know better!!

And I think you got this Thread Idea from a post of mine a few weeks back!

Originally posted by YouSir
reply to post by December21st2012

 

. Criminal organizations primarily inhabit the cities where their prey and corruption flourish.

YouSir

Not true anymore. Crime, specifically organized crime, is decreasing in the cities and rising in rural areas.

reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist


I must have missed that, its kind of something I have been thinking about for quite a while. As probably many other like minded people must also be. It certainly does raise some interesting questions and challenges us to carefully consider assumptions that have been made and believed for many years.

reply to post by leopardpimps


Yes, I was also thinking about Animal Farm and whether that scenario would happen. But perhaps the scale of the system would help prevent that. The idea would be to distribute the power and decision making to help prevent the few looking after their own interests. Ideally instead we would have the many, acting in the interests of the many.

I am still undecided though as to whether the majority really know whats good for them? Or maybe that doesnt really matter, maybe freedom to make those mistakes is what matters? I wonder if there have been any social experiments that delve into this kind of thing.

reply to post by December21st2012


there would still be decision making meaning some people would take more control than others and this would lead to split groups forming and maybe in effect cause party's like we have now some sheeple following some and other sheeple following others and depending on the bigger stronger group the out come of who will lead there will always be power mad people where ever you go