Originally posted by spruce112358
Democracy only doesn't work if you don't know who you are voting for.
...or democracy is not working if your voting for someone else than the majority. Back to my original point: why do I have to live in a dictatorship where I have to live through the decisions of someone I voted against, just because some more people voted for him?
Why is my voice ignore?
I cannot be elected if I dont have a (multi)millions dollars election campaign, because nobody will even know that I exist or that I have applied for the job! Or look on the net to see how great I am!
And where will I get the money? Asking money to Big company that will ask me to close my eyes on all the bad things they will do while I'll be in charge?
Why do I need someone to talk for me? Am I too dumb to do it myself?
What are the probabilities that ONE person will represent all the time the exact thoughts of millions of people? That's close to zero IMHO.
Originally posted by spruce112358
I read not too long ago that the world conflict index is currently at a very low level -- very few wars at the moment relative to most of human history. So for all the hoopla about terrorism and such, open the window and look out -- this is what "world peace" looks like.
What scares me in you explanation is your acceptance of the situation. I can imagine a chilian under Pinochet, saying, eh thats as good as it will ever get!
Hitler went to power democraticaly. So it's ok to follow decisions that are IMHO criminal and stupid just because that makes democracy works?
Originally posted by JeeWhat is called democracy today is very often plutocracy - people with more money have more of a say.
Originally posted by spruce112358
[b]Democracy only doesn't work if you don't know who you are voting for.
...or democracy is not working if your voting for someone else than the majority. Back to my original point: why do I have to live in a dictatorship where I have to live through the decisions of someone I voted against, just because some mor ...[text shortened]... llow decisions that are IMHO criminal and stupid just because that makes democracy works?[/b]
Originally posted by mrstabbyWell seems easy enough for me:
This is where it gets fun. We need to find a viable alternative to corporations. When a company has more financial clout than a small country it gets a bit worrying
You don't like this corporation, then stop buying their product.
You estimate your voice isnt heard in your city, your tax money isnt use properly, then stop paying tax.
You think your streets are dirty, your schools aren't efficient, then stop paying taxes and organise with other people who might think like you, a local comitee to clean the place and raise/educate the kids.
Seems pretty easy to me: personal revolution. One by one, taking care of our life, so we wont have anyone to blame if something is wrong.
I mean when I see people throwing wrapping and cigs 5 inches from the bin, I aint calling the local governor for that! I take it and put it myself in the bin - usually got insulted for that by the original owner of the filth. I aint waiting anything from anybody, I dont think its anybody business to clean my bum, I do it myself.
Originally posted by JeeProblems:
Well seems easy enough for me:
You don't like this corporation, then stop buying their product.
You estimate your voice isnt heard in your city, your tax money isnt use properly, then stop paying tax.
You think your streets are dirty, your schools aren't efficient, then stop paying taxes and organise with other people who might think like you, a local com ...[text shortened]... ting anything from anybody, I dont think its anybody business to clean my bum, I do it myself.
Easy enough to boycott products you don't like, but corporations brainwash the masses into thinking that they must buy their product through advertising - is this ethical? TV has such a strong manipulative force on the general public. True, you are never forced to buy something, but unrealistic hopes and dreams are associated with many products to sell them.
If you don't pay taxes when you're meant to you get locked up.
Personal revolution is important, but I don't think it makes enough difference, and not everyone is capable of it.
Originally posted by mrstabby
Problems:
Easy enough to boycott products you don't like, but corporations brainwash the masses into thinking that they must buy their product through advertising - is this ethical? TV has such a strong manipulative force on the general public. True, you are never forced to buy something, but unrealistic hopes and dreams are associated with many products to sell them.
Just turn off your TV and educate people early about brain manipulation
Originally posted by mrstabby
Problems:If you don't pay taxes when you're meant to you get locked up.
Thats called Feodal system!
An example: you rent a flat that needs some work. Pay the rent on a blocked account until the works are done. There's tons of way to by pass that. Do homeless pay taxes? If you step out of the system, you're pretty much safe. And if we all step out, there won't be any room left in jail anyway. The State holds you only by the fear of their power. In a place like the states, people have more guns then police and army together. If a majority wants to step out, I dont wanna be on the side of the cops. It's just a illusion that the state create to make you think they are everywhere, controlling you, checking on you and ready to beat you if you steal a candy. Well they are not, they are just worry about making money and social peace.
The only fair thing is if you don't pay taxes, then don't use the system off course. But then it's time to build a new world, just the way it has been done before, many times. I think they called it "revolution".
Revolution doesnt mean blood or violence, look at Portugal for that.
Originally posted by mrstabby
Problems:
Personal revolution is important, but I don't think it makes enough difference, and not everyone is capable of it.
I'll say it's very hard but worth trying it for all those disgusted and left over and stepped over by the system.
In the first century AD, Seneque wrote:
"It is not because things are impossible that we don't do them. It's because we don't do them that they seem to be impossible"
So do I count you in or out?
Originally posted by JeeI have no working TV anyway 😉
Originally posted by mrstabby
[b]Problems:
Easy enough to boycott products you don't like, but corporations brainwash the masses into thinking that they must buy their product through advertising - is this ethical? TV has such a strong manipulative force on the general public. True, you are never forced to buy something, but unrealistic hopes and drea ...[text shortened]... n't do them that they seem to be impossible"
So do I count you in or out?
People often dismiss the notion of TV brainwashing as "hippy crap", the problem is very deeply embedded.
Persuading people to step out of the system is difficult, because it means (temporarily) lowering your standard of living, and while people are happy enough as they are they won't be willing to do that.
If you don't pay taxes and don't use the system, then it means not using the roads, NHS, or anything subsidised by the government. These things need to be paid for by someone, and we need to have a system in mind before we bring the current one down.
I'm already in as far as boycotting corporations (ie using local business as far as possible) and not paying taxes (I'm expempt anyway, being a student). The problem is persuading other people to think differently, as they are far too comfortable in life and don't give a damn about suffering (as long as they don't witness it). So how do we persuade them to change?
Originally posted by mrstabbyslow down, first like you said let see what are all the other possible ways, eventhough, yeah forcing people to change the way they think and get out of their confort is a big chalenge in itself already.
So how do we persuade them to change?
And there's no need to throw away everything of the existing system neither.
I think asking people what they want is a good bit in the democratic system.
Someone told me once that the difference between Dictatorship and Democracy was that in a Dictatorship you will be told "shut up" while in a Democracy you will be told "keep talking, loser, nobody is listening to you anyway".
He told me also that Comunism was the expoitation of men by men while Capitalism was the opposite 😀
So maybe lets see first if there's some good bit to keep in every system.
Originally posted by JeeThe answer is a binding constitution protecting the individual. A constitution so binding that it dosen't matter how officials arrive in office (whether popular vote, inheriting the position or getting their name drawn from a hat) about the worst damage they can do is decide to paint their office mauve.
slow down, first like you said let see what are all the other possible ways, eventhough, yeah forcing people to change the way they think and get out of their confort is a big chalenge in itself already.
And there's no need to throw away everything of the existing system neither.
I think asking people what they want is a good bit in the democratic system. ...[text shortened]... e opposite 😀
So maybe lets see first if there's some good bit to keep in every system.
The US nearly had it right, I wish NZ had one but if it was written now...? I'll let Bastiat's famous quote answer:
“The state, is the great fiction by which everybody tries to live at the expense of everybody else."
Frédéric Bastiat
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter - Churchill
I think there is merit in having to pass a written examination before you vote. Nothing difficult, just being able to recall the policies of the major candidates. Is it really right if someone can vote if they don't know what they're voting for?
Originally posted by mrstabbyThat's why the electoral college was put in place -- on the theory that it would prevent a purely deceitful demagogue from being elected. As it turned out, that wasn't really the problem (or, the college DID solve that problem and now we have other problems -- however you like to think).
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter - Churchill
I think there is merit in having to pass a written examination before you vote. Nothing difficult, just being able to recall the policies of the major candidates. Is it really right if someone can vote if they don't know what they're voting for?
The main issue at the moment seems to be that some voters feel that OTHER voters are a bunch of idiots who are being taken in by a lot of very expensive, highly emotional campaign rhetoric.
The remedies range from reining in the money, to censorship, to IQ tests before voting.
I have to say that apart from campaign finance reform (which people have so far failed to do) all of your "cures" sound worse than the disease.
We have better information than we have ever had on which to base our democratic choices. We have freer communication than any people have ever had in history.
I think the main problem now is that the information isn't being organized and presented very well. That creates a gap into which people can charge with highly inflammatory ads.
Look at the popularity of the "myth debunkers" on TV. We will get there with politics eventually.
Originally posted by spruce112358freer communication ?
We have better information than we have ever had on which to base our democratic choices. We have freer communication than any people have ever had in history.
I think the main problem now is that the information isn't being organized and presented very well. That creates a gap into which people can charge with highly inflammatory ads.
Look at the popularity of the "myth debunkers" on TV. We will get there with politics eventually.
There's 2 press agency (AP and Reuter) that delivers/controls 90% of the information. You got to move to a country where you can get a lot of tv channel from a lot of different countries and you will realize that on the 8 o clock news it's the exact same 5 footages with the exact same comment on it, no matter which country's tv you're looking at.
Aint too sure about the amount of publisher that own the publishing market today (books, newspaper), but last time I put my nose in that dirt, the 5 main ones belonged to Multinational groups who's job was to build/sell weapons.
I think we've never lived in a time where the information was so much obviously controlled.
Dunno which freedom you're talking about? Internet? 90% of porn and the rest blogs from teenagers with too much free time.
I did two years in the university in europe in journalism and the first sentence from the first class was: information doesnt exist, your job is to create it. If you're gonna write for newspaper, here's the priority in the subjects:
1) the king/president of the country you're working with
2) The pope
3) the president of the us
4) if there aint over 100 dead in another country, just move to sport
So no, I dont think we really know anything about anyone.
Just check your newspaper. Have a look at the full page ad in them (thats around 30,000 dollar for the page only), then look for articles about the company that has put the ad in. You can check that for a month in the same newspaper, you wont find a word on it (good or bad).
Dont bite the hand that feeds you! No publicity, no news (tv, radio or paper).
Originally posted by JeeI was talking about the Internet not the traditional media. Are you telling me the Intenet is controlled? I agree it is not as well organized and served up. But look at a thing like Wikipedia -- pretty amazing if you ask me. Who controls that?
freer communication ?
There's 2 press agency (AP and Reuter) that delivers/controls 90% of the information. You got to move to a country where you can get a lot of tv channel from a lot of different countries and you will realize that on the 8 o clock news it's the exact same 5 footages with the exact same comment on it, no matter which country's tv you're lo ...[text shortened]... ad).
Dont bite the hand that feeds you! No publicity, no news (tv, radio or paper).
Originally posted by spruce112358Well I have started a thread in here called "wikipedia is written by my mom". I was banned from that thread just for proving that anybody can write/delete any sh-ite on that site 😕 whatever!
I was talking about the Internet not the traditional media. Are you telling me the Intenet is controlled? I agree it is not as well organized and served up. But look at a thing like Wikipedia -- pretty amazing if you ask me. Who controls that?
So I aint gonna start again here 😉
I aint telling that Internet is controlled, I am saying that any dog can write stuff on the net. So you will find 5,000 website saying that I am God and 5,000 saying that I am Devil. according to your own opinion, you will
1) search
2) be willing to believe
what your opinion already is.
Well actually I just tested on google:
Jee is god returns 623,000 results, when
Jee is devil only return 189,000 results.
Now make your own opinion! 😀
So are you telling me that I dont need to travel or read books anymore because I got Internet?