Total Democracy?

It would be a benefit, but only when we have reached a sufficient level of technological progress, created free, renewable fuels and eliminated the evils of capitalism and patriotism, thus abolishing war and exploitation of the poor

Total democracy is something to be avoided like the plague!

Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising Could total democracy be a benefit to society, or a hindrance which would slow down political and developmental decisions to a very slow pace?

It would be mob rule which would be more of a hinderance in my humble opinion.

Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising Originally posted by Nick1986 It would be a benefit, but only when we have reached a sufficient level of technological progress, created free, renewable fuels and eliminated the evils of capitalism and patriotism, thus abolishing war and exploitation of the poor Imagine every decision which is made in parliament having to be voted on not just at the end but at various stages of its development. Do you think every process would slow down the workings of a nation's development? Do you see it as a good thing that everything is slowed down, or do you see the slowing down as a burden on society?

When we have flying cars, teleporters, spaceships, modernist architecture, equally paid jobs (so everyone can afford to live well and has a function in society) we're sufficiently developed in my view. The powers of the central government must be limited with as much local control as possible in order to prevent totalitarianism: for example, gun control may be beneficial to the big city (to keep them out of the hands of gangsters) but it would be tyrannical if forcibly applied to the small town (where people use them for hunting and target practise). Every law passed by the government should be either obeyed or ignored by local communities (led by democratically elected councils) depending on whether they are in the people's interest or not (with the exception of universally recognised laws preventing killing, stealing, vandalism, assault or rape)

Originally posted by Nick1986 Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising Originally posted by Nick1986 It would be a benefit, but only when we have reached a sufficient level of technological progress, created free, renewable fuels and eliminated the evils of capitalism and patriotism, thus abolishing war and exploitation of the poor Imagine every decision which is made in parliament having to be voted on not just at the end but at various stages of its development. Do you think every process would slow down the workings of a nation's development? Do you see it as a good thing that everything is slowed down, or do you see the slowing down as a burden on society? When we have flying cars, teleporters, spaceships, modernist architecture, equally paid jobs (so everyone can afford to live well and has a function in society) we're sufficiently developed in my view. The powers of the central government must be limited with as much local control as possible in order to prevent totalitarianism: for example, gun control may be beneficial to the big city (to keep them out of the hands of gangsters) but it would be tyrannical if forcibly applied to the small town (where people use them for hunting and target practise). Every law passed by the government should be either obeyed or ignored by local communities (led by democratically elected councils) depending on whether they are in the people's interest or not (with the exception of universally recognised laws preventing killing, stealing, vandalism, assault or rape)

That is far too much consumption!  It is not sustainable.   Can you pare it down to what a family actually needs, with consideration of what was thought essential 200 years ago? 

Originally posted by eaglecap Ancient Athens, Greece is probably the closet to a pure deomcracy; whereas, the USA is a Republic or representive form of government. I would start by studying the history of ancient Athens but I am not sure about modern examples.

Originally posted by PADDYBOY Originally posted by ralfy   Is it the case that only white, male Athenians were allowed to vote? True. Even Spartan women had more say than Athenian women.

Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising Originally posted by Athena I am overwhelmed by your question.  Have you ever functioned in a large group trying to agree on something?  The more people who participate, the longer it takes to get a decision, and the chances of it being a good decision are increased.   Before we go any further with this, we might ask, where are we going in such a hurry? There's a huge difference between large groups taking a long time deliberating on a point hoping to get a good decision for some aspect to be acted on by others, and monumental numbers of people deliberating on every decision on everything before anything can proceed. Any bad decision for example would become so many times worse because of the protracted methodology needed to act upon it once it has been found to be bad. More over, as a single decision may have knock on effects, those effects would need to be deliberated on and acted upon. The question is, as these procedures are so protracted, which do you spend your precious times deliberating on first, the cause or the effect? If you decide on the cause, will the effect become a cause of further effects...etc...? If you choose the effects first, does the cause further effects? If there are multiple effects, do you find your self in an even more difficult deciding on your priorities?

I hope others get the point I am struggling to make.

I remember when the receptionist knew everything and could answer all the questions, and everything was managed on a more personal level.   That was before developing the Prussian bureaucratic model to the point we have developed it today.   Now the bureaucracy above us crushes individual liberty and power, but this was not always so.   We made personal decisions based on our interaction with human beings and shared values, which contrast sharply with today's amorality and decisions based on what is written in the policy that defines every detail of our jobs.   Until this change in our reality is understood, it is rather futile to discuss democracy.  
 
I am history.    I am old and so are my friends old and we going crazy with the cold, impersonal, "professional" human interactions that reduce us to powerlessness.   No longer is the receptionist  thinking about the person s/he is speaking with.  No, s/he is thinking about the procedure s/he is to follow.  Trying to engage with this person, trying to resolve a problem with this person, could not be worse if this person were a computer.   S/he has nothing like the power of past service providers, and neither do those seeking service.   Everyone is so unaware of the power they have lost, as though human beings were always so powerless.  And it makes me really nuts that we think the US is defending democracy around the world, when those folks have far more personal power than we do. 

Excuse me, you do not have the paper work that is required to proceed from here.   Be sure when you come back you have the proper identification and your paper work is done correctly. 


Edited by Athena - 13-May-2011 at 20:00

I do not understand how people who believe it is their job to please me, would ruin my vacation?  However, someone who would not allow me to board public transportation without the proper ID and who could not make an independent decision, surely could ruin a vacation.  

Why the concern for making fast decisions?  Where are we going in such a hurry? 

What does complete democracy mean to you?   To me it doesn't mean no authority, because that would be a problem, but it does mean limited authority.   The janitor does not make dental decisions that a dentist makes, because this is not his field of expertise, but neither does the dentist drag people out of their homes for dental care.   Even in a democracy jobs must be delegated, but a mayor is not given the right to create new taxes when a budget short fall means either increasing revenue or cutting services.  It is great to be a mayor when times are good, but it has to really suck when times a bad.   I don't attend the political meetings I should be attending, and have my doubts about people having voting rights when they do not attend the meetings.   Knowing how few people actually attend the meetings, I don't think too much participation is a real threat to our democracy.    


Edited by Athena - 15-May-2011 at 17:53

Democracy is a nothing. Benevolent dictatorship would most likely be a lot better than most democracies at any given time.  You'd think the poor fellow would vote for his interests, alas, he is easily conned.

Absolute Monarchy based on Patriotism and loyalty to the country, and the individual culture of the single nation, that's my political philosophy. There may yet come a day. Today, I suffer the inverse. Democracy & Globalization ...