Direct Democracy - The development of a working model.

[Sheepy]

I will give you lesson number one; you are dealing with also very clever people who have a massive network at their disposal which they are not afraid to use against you and any who they might see as a threat, they also know we have a very large network who when come voting time we can use said network. You will just be another part of that network that they will want to infiltrate and close down if they deem it necessary. I am not trying to tell you how to set up your own fightback just giving you some pointers.

[Ween Dwijler]

3 minutes ago, Sheepy said:

I will give you lesson number one; you are dealing with also very clever people who have a massive network at their disposal which they are not afraid to use against you and any who they might see as a threat, they also know we have a very large network who when come voting time we can use said network. You will just be another part of that network that they will want to infiltrate and close down if they deem it necessary. I am not trying to tell you how to set up your own fightback just giving you some pointers.

I was already very aware of that. I've been chased after over various proxies in several occasions. It was fun, but scary in way. The power released was, ...almost overwhelming. But it was expected and I had my counter measures in place. Nevertheless, a reminder never hurts.

[Ween Dwijler]

I had a brief vision of the faces of all those political buffoons when they find out at the end of election day that nobody turned up to vote. Then what?

[DarianF]

@Ween Dwijler I should have added earlier that before the voting system is in place, there needs to be an established bill of rights which protects the non-negotiable rights of individuals, so the mob can't vote on anything regarding the core rights. They are off limits. For example, informed consent to medical treatment. You would not be able to hold a vote on removing this right. Without this protection from the outset, the system would fail because anyone could incite the mob to remove the rights of individuals. Some kind of protection would have to be built in.

[Ween Dwijler]

Are we going to allow political parties to exist within a DD system? Reading up on Switzerland, which by the way also has partly a representative democracy, these parties can create a problem by pushing their demands into the voting system.

 

If no political parties are allowed within the DD system, that problem of possible abuse would be non existent. And it also seems to indicate that any form of representative democracy must be avoided, even if it is only for a little part of the total system.

 

So, how are proposals brought forward in such a system? Can anyone propose something, no matter hoe crazy it is? Or will there be certain criteria, a kind of filter, through which the proposal has to go before it can be put up for voting?

 

I think that every individual should have the right to launch a proposal. It first has to go through a local voting round before it can be brought into the next level. And so on until world level , or as far as needed for that particular proposal. There is no need for a local issue to be brought into a higher level.

 

An other safety valve in DD can be the principle of consensus. One could say that a 95% yay or nay vote constitutes consensus and will therefor be accepted. Below that threshold, the proposal is simply not found viable and taken of the table. For example; the voting is needed for the build of a new nuclear power-plant that serves a whole nation. 65% yay, 30% nay, 5% abstained. Although a majority is for the build, the consensus threshold of 95% is not reached, so it will not happen. This prevents the will of the majority to overrule the voice of the minority as a first advantage of that rule, but it also prevents decisions that might be harmful for us in the longer run. Stupid decisions can be prevented that way.

[DarianF]

9 minutes ago, Ween Dwijler said:

Are we going to allow political parties to exist within a DD system?

 

I wouldn't even entertain that idea. Look at the shit we are in now because of the party system.

[Ween Dwijler]

2 minutes ago, DarianF said:

@Ween Dwijler I should have added earlier that before the voting system is in place, there needs to be an established bill of rights which protects the non-negotiable rights of individuals, so the mob can't vote on anything regarding the core rights. They are off limits. For example, informed consent to medical treatment. You would not be able to hold a vote on removing this right. Without this protection from the outset, the system would fail because anyone could incite the mob to remove the rights of individuals. Some kind of protection would have to be built in.

I agree with that. It already had my attention as an issue that must be resolved. I just read that in Switzerland the rule of law is decisive. It lays down rights that can't be limited or withdrawn. The Swiss can't reintroduce slavery or the death penalty. Also, a constitutional court can examine decisions before they are reached. Not afterwards, like in the US, when the damage is already done.

 

As guidance we can use the US constitution, the International Bill of Human Rights (consists of 3 separate bills), and other bills or declarations that make sense. A fair and honest justice system must also be in place. And lawyers should be limited in what they can bring up in court to prevent the hollowing out of the system.

 

Here in Thailand, the arguing room for lawyers is limited and judges take the literal law texts very serious and rule mostly according to the book. This is also a society of compromises, and the first 2 or more stages of a civil case is primarily aimed at trying to reach a compromise between the parties. I like it.

[Ween Dwijler]

5 minutes ago, DarianF said:

 

I wouldn't even entertain that idea. Look at the shit we are in now because of the party system.

2 votes yay. Imagine the social peace in society without these intrigants.

 

Edited November 1, 2021 by Ween Dwijler

[DarianF]

1 minute ago, Ween Dwijler said:

I agree with that. It already had my attention as an issue that must be resolved. I just read that in Switzerland the rule of law is decisive. It lays down rights that can't be limited or withdrawn. The Swiss can't reintroduce slavery or the death penalty. Also, a constitutional court can examine decisions before they are reached. Not afterwards, like in the US, when the damage is already done.

 

As guidance we can use the US constitution, the International Bill of Human Rights (consists of 3 separate bills), and other bills or declarations that make sense. A fair and honest justice system must also be in place. And lawyers should be limited in what they can bring up in court to prevent the hollowing out of the system.

 

Here in Thailand, the arguing room for lawyers is limited and judges take the literal law texts very serious and rule mostly according to the book. This is also a society of compromises, and the first 2 or more stages of a civil case is primarily aimed at trying to reach a compromise between the parties. I like it.

 

I agree we don't need to reinvent the wheel, so to speak. There are plenty of internationally agreed conventions on inalienable human rights. It wouldn't be hard to agree on these.

[Ween Dwijler]

1 minute ago, DarianF said:

 

I agree we don't need to reinvent the wheel, so to speak. There are plenty of internationally agreed conventions on inalienable human rights. It wouldn't be hard to agree on these.

Yep. We just have to go shopping in them to get the best out of it. It would be a worldwide constitution. Maybe that is the part to start this whole process with? Laying the groundwork for it?

[DarianF]

2 minutes ago, Ween Dwijler said:

2 votes yay.

 

To answer your question on who could make proposals. Good question. Perhaps built into the voting system there could be a formal public profile for each citizen, where they could make a formal proposal that everyone else could see and vote on. Now I understand some people wouldn't want their proposals to be public for privacy reasons, and they should be given the option to make a public proposal anonymously. There could be some kind of encrypted verification process so we know this is a genuine citizen's proposal rather than a bot or something. But ultimately, either under their real name or anonymously, literally every single citizen could have an equal opportunity to make a proposal. Even if it is totally crazy, it doesn't matter. They should be able to use the system without fear or restriction, as long as the proposal does not violate the bill of rights of fundamental individual freedoms, or incite harm or violence.

[DarianF]

4 minutes ago, Ween Dwijler said:

Yep. We just have to go shopping in them to get the best out of it. It would be a worldwide constitution. Maybe that is the part to start this whole process with? Laying the groundwork for it?

 

It's a tricky one. Somehow this would need to be an 'organic' constitution voted on by the people of the world, rather than a top down decree from the usual globalist scum. If we allowed it to be created by the UN, or any other of these globalist groups, it could be corrupted. But yes, somehow we could use existing models and make a universally agreed upon new one. But anything universal is tricky, because we don't want to end up in some global government shite like we are now. I don't know exactly how it could be done, but it's worth considering. Then again, we could just organise it all locally within individual countries.

[DarianF]

PS. Perhaps just get rid of countries? An entire world made up of thousands upon thousands of individual communities. Even if they share the same physical land mass, why necessarily do they need to be grouped under a single nation state? There's no reason this must be so.

Edited November 1, 2021 by DarianF

[Ween Dwijler]

2 minutes ago, DarianF said:

 

To answer your question on who could make proposals. Good question. Perhaps built into the voting system there could be a formal public profile for each citizen, where they could make a formal proposal that everyone else could see and vote on. Now I understand some people wouldn't want their proposals to be public for privacy reasons, and they should be given the option to make a public proposal anonymously. There could be some kind of encrypted verification process so we know this is a genuine citizen's proposal rather than a bot or something. But ultimately, either under their real name or anonymously, literally every single citizen could have an equal opportunity to make a proposal. Even if it is totally crazy, it doesn't matter. They should be able to use the system without fear or restriction, as long as the proposal does not violate the bill of rights of fundamental individual freedoms, or incite harm or violence.

Yes. I just ran into something that could help to resolve this. As it happens in Switzerland, people with a proposal have to first go around collecting a certain amount of signatures. With the lists of signatures as support for the proposal, it than can be brought into the system for further processing. I.e. voting.

 

In this digital age, and assuming that locals have good contact with each other, this also can be achieved with the proposed block chain technique on mobile phones. All is collected on the phone of the proposer and when ready with the action, it is either deleted (not enough digital signatures) or send on to the system with the sufficient amount of signatures.

[DarianF]

2 minutes ago, Ween Dwijler said:

Yes. I just ran into something that could help to resolve this. As it happens in Switzerland, people with a proposal have to first go around collecting a certain amount of signatures. With the lists of signatures as support for the proposal, it than can be brought into the system for further processing. I.e. voting.

 

In this digital age, and assuming that locals have good contact with each other, this also can be achieved with the proposed block chain technique on mobile phones. All is collected on the phone of the proposer and when ready with the action, it is either deleted (not enough digital signatures) or send on to the system with the sufficient amount of signatures.

 

That sounds perfectly rational. Yes, something like this is at the very least on the right track.

[Ween Dwijler]

2 minutes ago, DarianF said:

 

It's a tricky one. Somehow this would need to be an 'organic' constitution voted on by the people of the world, rather than a top down decree from the usual globalist scum. If we allowed it to be created by the UN, or any other of these globalist groups, it could be corrupted. But yes, somehow we could use existing models and make a universally agreed upon new one. But anything universal is tricky, because we don't want to end up in some global government shite like we are now. I don't know exactly how it could be done, but it's worth considering. Then again, we could just organise it all locally within individual countries.

The process should be drafting at first a constitution to put up for voting by the people. Some articles might pass, some don't. The good ones we keep and the others we just drop, or if they are essential reformulated in a way that everyone can agree on. In the end there should be a complete and proper global constitution.

 

The DD will rule out the existence of any form of government. Every decision made, will be a project in itself. Like the example of the local street to be build. When the project is finished, accounts are presented by the assigned managers of that project. Everything ok, fine. Any sign of corruption or other weird stuff, the responsible people will somehow be punished for misconducting the project.

[DarianF]

2 minutes ago, Ween Dwijler said:

The process should be drafting at first a constitution to put up for voting by the people. Some articles might pass, some don't. The good ones we keep and the others we just drop, or if they are essential reformulated in a way that everyone can agree on. In the end there should be a complete and proper global constitution.

 

The DD will rule out the existence of any form of government. Every decision made, will be a project in itself. Like the example of the local street to be build. When the project is finished, accounts are presented by the assigned managers of that project. Everything ok, fine. Any sign of corruption or other weird stuff, the responsible people will somehow be punished for misconducting the project.

 

That seems like a good direction.

[Ween Dwijler]

3 minutes ago, DarianF said:

 

That sounds perfectly rational. Yes, something like this is at the very least on the right track.

In addition to that, if a proposal has a broader impact (outside local community for example) more signatures are needed, from the communities or areas that are affected by that proposal. So, a global initiative needs to collect globally signatures. I guess that rules out easy proposals, because it will cost a lot of effort to get all those signatures. Only the really important proposals will be carried by the people.

[Ween Dwijler]

1 minute ago, DarianF said:

 

That seems like a good direction.

I will start at its draft and pm you the text if you like. Back and forth until there is something workable, and then we can put it forward here for scrutiny of others. Eventually something substantial should come out, and we can take it to the next level. And with that I don't have the UN or such in mind, but more like some really great thinkers of our time (not Chompy!) from various relevant disciplines in the sciences. Sounds like a plan to you?

[DarianF]

7 minutes ago, Ween Dwijler said:

In addition to that, if a proposal has a broader impact (outside local community for example) more signatures are needed, from the communities or areas that are affected by that proposal. So, a global initiative needs to collect globally signatures. I guess that rules out easy proposals, because it will cost a lot of effort to get all those signatures. Only the really important proposals will be carried by the people.

 

Maybe some kind of tier system. Tier 1 proposal (local); Tier 2 proposal (state wide); Tier 3 proposal (national); Tier 4 proposal (global). The individual making the proposal nominates in advance which Tier is the most appropriate in their opinion. Obviously, if you want the local footpath fixed, you nominate Tier 1.

[Sheepy]

All sounds like a good starting point, well done all positive stuff. 

[Guest]

May I ask how you intend to :

 

• Use the internet/mobiles when this can be cut off from you rather simply (in the UK there are only 8 ISP's).
• Get the mass to interact with your DD when they have shown themselves to be utterly based within fear and willing to do whatever media tells them.
• On that .... how will you change the main stream media .... how would you stop it when you have zero control of it.
• Your new DD will be made a 'terrorist group' and outlawed .... how will you overcome this.
• Those you wish to remove will not walk away quietly .... they will burn this place before losing control .... you have plans to 'peacefully' remove the 'keys' from them.
• 15-18% of 'humans' are born sociopaths or psychopaths .... how will you deal with them (you are talking about over 1 billion).
• If you won't deal with them (point above) then you will return to this current point in time .... so are you happy to remove over 1 billion.
• Has the vote of an imbecile the same right as all others .... if people are 'paid' (in whatever form .... their labour lessened etc) do those votes still count.
• If you use computer systems to 'vote' .... how do you trust those who made the system.

 

This is just a few quick and simple considerations .... it can go on and on!

 

All this is a 'nice' thought experiment (I did the same about 15 years ago and got things down to one penny on all goods to pay for all which was required, no other tax) but to do it peacefully just will not happen.

They will not let go that simply and the mass will not join you.

[Nobby Noboddy]

Is this a mental masturbation thread? I could do with an intellectual wank.

[Sheepy]

I was thinking it was fairly obvious bypass the bastards which we have become rather good at. Exactly what this thread is about. 

[BlueSky]

Good luck to Tom Barnett & Byron Bay:

 

Edited November 1, 2021 by BlueSky