Why Not???

he still stands

so, I'm not going to read all that because I don't have time (and I'm lazy), but if I were to read it, could I surmise that your point is "the people do not know what is best for them and need someone else to tell them."???

mikepegg44

he still stands wrote:

so, I'm not going to read all that because I don't have time (and I'm lazy), but if I were to read it, could I surmise that your point is "the people do not know what is best for them and need someone else to tell them."???

no, nice discussion
***
nice to see that someone arguing for the one person one vote is too lazy to read something

blackredyellow

he still stands wrote:

so, I'm not going to read all that because I don't have time (and I'm lazy), but if I were to read it, could I surmise that your point is "the people do not know what is best for them and need someone else to tell them."???

So you are too lazy to read a post of a few hundred words, and people are going to read bills that are hundreds of pages written by lawyers?

know1

he still stands wrote:

Here's a revolutionary (but common sense) idea; I think it's time to abolish politicians entirely and let everbody participate in self-government via Internet. We needed representatives in the 18th Century, because we couldn't all go to Washington. We can have a vote weekly online and only need a small administrative government to carry out the tasks we vote on, like building roads, feeding the hungry, bringing home the troops, spending the military budget on feeding more hungry people everywhere on Earth, firing 32% of the cops, etc.

A true democracy by the people, for the people, of the people. Just click of the mouse away.

WHY NOT????

I've been saying this forever. There really isn't a big need for representatives anymore.

mikepegg44

know1 wrote:

he still stands wrote:

Here's a revolutionary (but common sense) idea; I think it's time to abolish politicians entirely and let everbody participate in self-government via Internet. We needed representatives in the 18th Century, because we couldn't all go to Washington. We can have a vote weekly online and only need a small administrative government to carry out the tasks we vote on, like building roads, feeding the hungry, bringing home the troops, spending the military budget on feeding more hungry people everywhere on Earth, firing 32% of the cops, etc.

A true democracy by the people, for the people, of the people. Just click of the mouse away.

WHY NOT????

I've been saying this forever. There really isn't a big need for representatives anymore.

can you explain why? seems the last guy is a bit too lazy

markin ball

he still stands wrote:

keeponrockin wrote:

he still stands wrote:

gives the majority too much power - yeah, one voice, one vote, a TRUE DEMOCRACY... too much power for the "majority"... Do we all understand the basic tenets of democracy here? If so, and we say that the "majority" has too much power, are we saying that we prefer totalitarianism which will allow power for the minority?!?!
I think you people just want to be led. I don't need leaders. WE don't need leaders... We have the technology to be involved with every initiative, bill, law, etc.

On issues like minority rights, it would be a problem. Do you really think we'd have gotten rid of Jim Crow in the south of there was direct democracy?

Yes. It (repealing of racist laws) was a federal measure that had overwhelming support from a nation-wide perspective.... even back in the 50s.

“A government is like fire, a treacherous servant, but a dangerous master.” - George Washington

"Despotism, or unlimited sovereignty, or absolute power, is the same in a majority of a popular assembly, an aristocratical council, an oligarchical junto, and a single emperor. Equally arbitrary, cruel, bloody, and in every respect diabolical." - John Adams

"The best government is the least government." - Thomas Jefferson

so, you see, there is nothing really radical or original about my thinking. I've got the first three Presidents of the USA on my side.

Since you are bringing the founding fathers into this why don't you look up why they decided on a representative government. I'm sure it wasn't because of technological limitations.

VINNY GOOMBA

Truly, a better solution would be to localize government a lot more, not federalize it. It would also be better to finally recognize this country as a true constitutional republic, NOT a democracy, where no one's rights are to be infringed upon despite the will of the majority. Tyranny of the majority has been happening since the beginning.

Jeanwah

Self-government is nearly impossible. A dream for some, but big picture wise, an absolute disaster in the making. Especially the US, with the sheep relying on govt to tell them what to do, where to go, what to eat, how to dress. Can you imagine the absolute chaos of this literally happening?

I agree with Vinny. Local government growing, federal govt shrinking.

he still stands

real quick... (working)

when did anyone say that this was something that would only be done at a federal level? We don't need Fed or State legislators and can do away with both. We can mimize the size of all scopes of government.

If the problem is that there are TOO MANY things to read and understand, that is a g'damn symptom of the underlying problem!!! Too many legislators pushing paper around performing repetitive and meaningless tasks.

People, we can largely govern ourselves by way of an absolute democracy. One voice, one vote. Technology now makes it a realistic possibility. A purely administrative government will probably be necessary for a few hundred more years, but we don't need thousands of legislators and the police state to protect the legislators' karass.

mikepegg44

he still stands wrote:

real quick... (working)

when did anyone say that this was something that would only be done at a federal level? We don't need Fed or State legislators and can do away with both. We can mimize the size of all scopes of government.

If the problem is that there are TOO MANY things to read and understand, that is a g'damn symptom of the underlying problem!!! Too many legislators pushing paper around performing repetitive and meaningless tasks.

People, we can largely govern ourselves by way of an absolute democracy. One voice, one vote. Technology now makes it a realistic possibility. A purely administrative government will probably be necessary for a few hundred more years, but we don't need thousands of legislators and the police state to protect the legislators' karass.

but you aren't addressing the issues raised...what happens to minorities?
we have a large bureaucracy and to shrink it and give rights back to states and local governments is much more useful than eliminating representative government...I would invite anyone who thinks one person/one vote will work to shadow me in my office for two weeks and then tell me all these issues can be solved by simply one person/one vote.
Do you think allowing the people to vote on things directly would eliminate useless bill propositions? do you ever work with the public? Everyone has a bone to pick, everyone has a platform and there would be MORE things to read and go through.
It is very odd for me to be arguing "for" government, but what you are asking for would be a nightmare and drive us backwards quickly.

edit*** put representative govt in the wrong place

he still stands

what are you suggesting is going to happen to minorities?

Do you think that the white majority is going to put everyone brown, yellow or red on a boat or a train "home?" Set up different minimum wage laws for different ethnicities? Consider everyone non-white to be a terrorist? Allow racial discrimination in the workplace? ???

I think government IS in place to protect the minority... like Jefferson said (paraphrasing) "the role of government is to protect the minority of the opulent from the majority"

I see the problem as being diametrically opposite to your supposition. Government allows the majority to be oppressed and protects "the minority of the opulent", not the minority of race or creed. If we had an absolute democracy this would end immediately. We don't need the few-hundred head dictator to control us any longer.

mikepegg44

he still stands wrote:

what are you suggesting is going to happen to minorities?

Do you think that the white majority is going to put everyone brown, yellow or red on a boat or a train "home?" Set up different minimum wage laws for different ethnicities? Consider everyone non-white to be a terrorist? Allow racial discrimination in the workplace? ???

I think government IS in place to protect the minority... like Jefferson said (paraphrasing) "the role of government is to protect the minority of the opulent from the majority"

I see the problem as being diametrically opposite to your supposition. Government allows the majority to be oppressed and protects "the minority of the opulent", not the minority of race or creed. If we had an absolute democracy this would end immediately. We don't need the few-hundred head dictator to control us any longer.

I am not speaking simple about racial minorities...all groups can be minorities. but let's go with race for a minute...what would stop people from returning to segregation? what would stop people from legalizing the systemic elimination of certain peoples...do you not see that as a possibility? there will always be people trying to lead and there will always be followers...if you feel you are the former not the latter than go out and lead...but people NEED to be saved from themselves...what you are talking about is tantamount to anarchy
Please, go in and shadow your local city or county government...go to town hall meetings...tell me that there is room for everyone to be able to participate in the formulation of the legal, tax, or any other codes that ALL people would have to live by.
The old joke is that a camel is a horse designed by a committee...can you imagine a horse designed by the entire country?

he still stands

well, Mikepegg... if that is the reality of the situation then count me out. If people are so hateful and vitriolic that they'll just allow everyone else in our tribe to be segregated, exploited, raped, burglarized, etc... I want NO PART of this fucking human race.

And yes, ANARCHY should be the end-goal. Anyone who thinks differently is a blind fool. It may not be in our lifetimes or in our children's lifetimes, but for us to evolve individually and become a "CIVILIZATION" the predatory practices subscribed to everyone in the hierarchy must be abolished.

Man used to work together for the common benefit of the tribe. Now we compete against each other with fervent passion and without remorse for tickets to play a game that are allocated by evil man A or evil man B. It's a broken system.

Anyone who works in government is part of the problem.

Jeanwah

he still stands wrote:

Man used to work together for the common benefit of the tribe. Now we compete against each other with fervent passion and without remorse for tickets to play a game that are allocated by evil man A or evil man B. It's a broken system.

And you can blame capitalism for that. Not government.

mikepegg44

he still stands wrote:

well, Mikepegg... if that is the reality of the situation then count me out. If people are so hateful and vitriolic that they'll just allow everyone else in our tribe to be segregated, exploited, raped, burglarized, etc... I want NO PART of this fucking human race.

And yes, ANARCHY should be the end-goal. Anyone who thinks differently is a blind fool. It may not be in our lifetimes or in our children's lifetimes, but for us to evolve individually and become a "CIVILIZATION" the predatory practices subscribed to everyone in the hierarchy must be abolished.

Man used to work together for the common benefit of the tribe. Now we compete against each other with fervent passion and without remorse for tickets to play a game that are allocated by evil man A or evil man B. It's a broken system.

Anyone who works in government is part of the problem.

Yeah, I am a huge part of the problem...public health is a huge part of the problem...
people who make statements such as yourself can stand on your soapbox all you want, but you would be the first person asking for protection when society got together and decided you were the one they were going to eat first. People are animals...never forget that.
Anarchy shouldn't be the end goal...and I take offense to the idea that I am a fool for believing that.
what you describe about the way man USED to work is the epitome of the myth of the noble savage. I would even go as far as to say man never worked that way, they worked for self interest and it was in their best self interest to work together...but those loyalties fell apart pretty fast when people were able to provide for themselves... if you feel that the competition is unfair than that is fine, but if you think going back to tribal living will make it more fair you are turning a very complicated problem over to an all too simple solution that will have many more and dangerous problems...
but you are right, I am the problem...people yelling solutions without ever addressing the repercussions are the real savior of society...
but don't let the door hit you on the way out...the human race will miss you,

he still stands

saying that ALL government employees are a problem was a hyperbole... and incorrect. I apologize.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Your opinion is the liberal, police-state loving, status quo abhorrent vomit that makes me stay away from this forum.

Peace.

mikepegg44

he still stands wrote:

saying that ALL government employees are a problem was a hyperbole... and incorrect. I apologize.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Your opinion is the liberal, police-state loving, status quo abhorrent vomit that makes me stay away from this forum.

Peace.

I think I will frame that. I couldn't be further from that. Just check with gimmie for proof...I cannot stand the size and scope of government...but enjoy closing your mind up

VINNY GOOMBA

mikepegg44 wrote:

he still stands wrote:

saying that ALL government employees are a problem was a hyperbole... and incorrect. I apologize.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Your opinion is the liberal, police-state loving, status quo abhorrent vomit that makes me stay away from this forum.

Peace.

I think I will frame that. I couldn't be further from that. Just check with gimmie for proof...I cannot stand the size and scope of government...but enjoy closing your mind up

I agree with both of you often. It seems the argument here has changed to anarchism (or to use a much nicer and much greater term for describing the true purpose of having no government, voluntarism) vs. limited government. Limiting government would be on the path to voluntarism if the transition was smooth, and it seems that He Still Stands wants to achieve this by 100% total democracy within a small, local, government framework run by online voting. Whether that would be a total clusterfuck or not remains to be seen, but I think it's a cool idea. I personally believe that anarchy (in a very nasty form) may come to us from government ballooning to the point where bloody revolution may bring it to be. I certainly do not want this to happen, but I've got my reasons for believing that staying the current course here in this country will make this a reality.

I think it may be time that something revolutionary should happen with regards to our system of governance here and elsewhere all over the globe. It seems to me that if countries like the US, Canada, and a few European and Asian nations are doing an "OK" job at governing their people today, that government as a whole is still 90% a failure historically worldwide. What good is government if there is NO respect for the rule of law? Those who actually do the "governing" seem to have the least amount of respect for the rule of law, and their well connected friends in big business have the rule of law bend around them. I have said it once, and I'll say it a million times-- capitalism is not the problem, but crony capitalism is. Remove the force of government from behind big business and I promise that over time things will never be perfect, but will be a lot better.

Also, true progressives should advocate progress via persuasion, not coercion.

whygohome

Why not?
Because people are stupid and lazy....

he still stands

mikepegg44 wrote:

he still stands wrote:

saying that ALL government employees are a problem was a hyperbole... and incorrect. I apologize.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Your opinion is the liberal, police-state loving, status quo abhorrent vomit that makes me stay away from this forum.

Peace.

I think I will frame that. I couldn't be further from that. Just check with gimmie for proof...I cannot stand the size and scope of government...but enjoy closing your mind up

I apologize again for my hasty and overly-simplified responses... I don't know why I do that online because I would never do it in person.

What about a method of non-compulsory government? Meaning that I can opt out of EVERYTHING if I so desire. I don't know how i'd get around using the government's infrastructure though... and obviously this will never work because I'm a form of energy that produces tickets (money) and the government either a) wants about 40% of those tickets or b) will lock me up or even kill me.

Ugh, I just feel complicit in the government's size/scope and abuse of power because I'm not doing anything to stop it. There really is no alternative, other than to become militant. That's not an option because I have a son to take care of and he doesn't need a dead dad.