An alternative to political parties? A new democracy?

[zephid]

It is supposed to be extremely hard to get anything done. It's an attempt to slow the government down and reduce the number of unnecessary, harmful, or hasty decisions they can make. The problem lies in the fact that being a politician is a viewed as a career, and not the civil service it should be.

Yes but the problem is that you can make it pretty much impossible for the president to do anything, even good things.

[Deleted]

The politicians lie to the people, make them pay more for THEIR MISTAKES etc..
Every day i wonder why the fuck we keep taking this shit.

Most people keep taking the shit because sacrificing their comfy first world lifestyle is something they are not wiling to do. Which is EXACTLY the reason there will be a lot less conflict globally when the entire world reaches that level, unless a serious energy/resource problem develops.

[Grimfrost]

Most people keep taking the shit because sacrificing their comfy first world lifestyle is something they are not wiling to do. Which is EXACTLY the reason there will be a lot less conflict globally when the entire world reaches that level.

That will never happen because of the greedy politicians and cultural conflicts and such. Some african tribes have never even seen a white person so let alone live in a comfy house with internet and an iphone

[Deleted]

That will never happen because of the greedy politicians and cultural conflicts and such. Some african tribes have never even seen a white person so let alone live in a comfy house with internet and an iphone

yeah it will. china and india will reach first world status in a couple of decades, they are already halfway there. africa will follow a couple of decades after that, because they will take the place china has now for cheap labor, which will eventually improve the continent, just like it has it china. this process will just repeat untill the entire world is first world.

[Chain Chungus]

Replace Representative Democracy with Direct Democracy.

[Grimfrost]

yeah it will. china and india will reach first world status in a couple of decades, they are already halfway there. africa will follow a couple of decades after that, because they will take the place china has now for cheap labor, which will eventually improve the continent, just like it has it china. this process will just repeat untill the entire world is first world.

I'm pretty sure it won't, greedy people rule the world and that's a big issue.

[klogaroth]

Replace Representative Democracy with Direct Democracy.

Largely the general public aren't nearly engaged and knowledgeable enough about most issues for this to work any time soon. People will know a lot about a few issues, but most others they probably won't unless they are already involved in politics.

[Deleted]

I'm pretty sure it won't, greedy people rule the world and that's a big issue.

But greed is the driver for this process:

1. you want cheap labor if you are greedy, cheap labor is found in the undeveloped lands.
2. the place with the cheapest labor probably cant do the job without education and political stability, so you arrange this.
3. education and political stability cause a area to develop
4. few decades later: its now a first world country and you need to go elsewhere for cheap labor, go back to step 1.

just look at history:

Europe/US used their own people for cheap labor until they became to developed, then they started outsourcing to china, now china is becoming a developed nation, soon it will no longer be considered cheap labor. rinse repeat.

The only thing that can break this cycle is major energy or food concerns. and once the entire world is developed, politics will see a major change, not before.

[TZK203]

Replace Representative Democracy with Direct Democracy.

That is not a good idea, as many, many people today are very gullible and uninformed about politics, in general.

[diddle]

Not to be a dick but your OP is essentially "Do differences in thinking cause problems in the world?"

[Deleted]

That is not a good idea, as many, many people today are very gullible and uninformed about politics, in general.

Seems to work swell in Switzerland.

[TZK203]

Not to be a dick but "Do differences in thinking cause problems in the world?" is kind of, well...

Indeed, which is why you should put on the thinking cap that I mailed to you on your head.

It totally won't allow me to take control of your mind or anything. Nah, it's perfectly safe. Trust me.

[Deleted]

Indeed, which is why you should put on the thinking cap that I mailed to you on your head.

It totally won't allow me to take control of your mind or anything. Nah, it's perfectly safe. Trust me.

what happens if you put tin foil OVER the thinking layer? will it block the mind controlz?

[Deleted]

Soon? No. Sometimes in the future? I believe so, at least if we don't destroy ourselves first.
Once computers become integrated into the lives of each and every individual, a true democracy can be attained. How? Well, once over 95%+ of the people will own a device they can carry with access to internet, the current generation will have died and a call for more participation from the people is called for, you might be able to vote on every law or decision in your country through your personal computer you carry with you. You could be informed of the benefits and problems associated with the decision in easy terms and decide on the spot on your choice.

Would this create problems? Initially yes, as not everyone is educated on matters on... how the economy runs for example, yet we also have to link this with a better educational system. For example, 100 years ago you were considered educated in the high elite with a highschool. Today you need at least a master's university degree to be considered in the high elite education wise. In 100 years... maybe a doctorate will be like a highschool today, something mandatory for everyone so people might understand these aspects of society better.
Of course, in the case they won't, they will once they start voting for dumb things and the state starts functioning badly, they'll learn by trial and error... kind of how our entire society learned stuff along the centuries.

Of course, we won't see this in our lifetimes, or if we do, at best we'll only see if when we're closing to our ends as elders.

- - - Updated - - -

That is not a good idea, as many, many people today are very gullible and uninformed about politics, in general.

They are only gullible since many focus on a single aspect of a party/candidate in elections and ignore others (for example, the people who wanted a return to the USA of old economically wise, but did not vote for Obama despite his major points pointing in that direction because he's black).

That being said, once people feel that they control something, they become more caring to it. For example, you buy a phone. You're careful with it not to drop it, you take care of it, it's yours. On the other hand, the state gives you a phone. You sometimes drop it say "it's ok, it's not broken yet", sometimes scratch it, install shit on it and even go to sites with viruses... because, from your point of view, the phone is not yours, it belongs to the state... even if it is yours because you payed your taxes for the state to give you this phone...

Alternatively, they do not become more caring, and here trial and error comes in. You think those filthy farmers don't need state subsidies, I mean why would they when your food is so expensive? So you and others vote against them and win. Next year there's a drought and the markets are empty and you're forced to feed of imported food that's even more expensive or starve. So you gather people again and give farmers their subsidies back, because now you understand how it affected you.

[Powerogue]

It was inevitable at some stage due to our habit to try to boil down any issue to two sides for simplicity's sake, so each political party takes one.

[apepi]

I don't think government is the probelm. We are. We created them, it is a manifestation of us. We need to make out government more living, more simpler, have more of ease of access, and get as much people involved with it as possible. That is how a government and its people succeed. You could have many ways to achieve this with many different kinds of governments, it is not a solution of how we can make governments better, but how we can make ourselves and human kind better. When we get stronger it will get better.

[Mistame]

I actually hope for an Earth like Star Trek - A world where people have given up the quest for material gain in exchange for the betterment of the species. A world where exploration and knowledge is more important than profits. It's a pipe dream and probably what our Right would call extreme Marxism but we actually got off the planet and did some good out there in the universe.

I saw a place like this once in Diablo III, called "Whimsyshire". Rainbows, unicorns, etc. Utopianism is impractical by definition.

[Captain N]

I saw a place like this once in Diablo III, called "Whimsyshire". Rainbows, unicorns, etc. Utopianism is impractical by definition.

Impractical maybe but not impossible.

[MikeBogina]

There was this one, but it didn't benefit a certain group, like Capitalism and socialism did, so it was put down.


Am not of the current parties, or parties in general. The democratic and Communist systems or so corrupt. And George Washington did say that parties were bad.

[prwraith]

Republicans and Democrats are like a cancer that will never go away unless you torch the whole system, and even then they're so infectious they may grow back.

The short version is we're pretty much stuck with political parties and all the damage they do.