internet democracy
Ew no, Kill it with fire
Paper is harder to hack
Comment on How would an anarchist society work?
GardenGeek@europe.pub 2 days ago
Open source, direct internet democracy.
Let anyone vote on anything basically.
My hope is voters tend to vote on matters relevant to them providing initative to get/beeing informed on the matter they vote on.
I see representative systems as root of corruption so my solution calls for a system with direct decisions without political representatives.
DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
GardenGeek@europe.pub 1 day ago
I basically agree with you.
However, the slowness of paper-based administration is the reason why we’ve ended up with the (increasingly) poor solution of representative systems and the corruption that goes hand in hand with them.
In an age where fake news and propaganda spread in real time, I believe our democracies must also find a way to react more quickly… The internet allows anyone to communicate with anyone else in real time; in my opinion, it’s time to use this FOR rather than AGAINST our societies.
ageedizzle@piefed.ca 2 days ago
Yeah paper also beats rock, and computers are made out plastic and minerals, and minerals are kind of like rock. Therefore paper beats computer.
But then of course scissor beats paper so maybe the ideal democracy is a scissor democracy
Deceptichum@quokk.au 1 day ago
Lesbian democracy is a tempting solution.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 days ago
No thanks, people are fucking stupid
GardenGeek@europe.pub 1 day ago
f that is the premise, then any form of anarchist society is obsolete.
I was responding here to a question about a blueprint for an anarchist social order. That presupposes a reasonably positive view of human nature… which, in my opinion, is actually the more realistic one.
Otherwise, we’ll always need an authoritarian system that patronizes “the stupid people” and looks after them… a narrative that is used to justify domination over others and is deeply rooted in our societies today.
fizzle@quokk.au 2 days ago
Nah.
People (yes including me) are pretty much lazy idiots who tend to believe whatever plausible thing was told them most recently, without really investigating supporting arguments and comparing them to counter arguments.
Imagine if you had any vote that might effect an industry or a large corporation. That industry would influence the narrative and hence the outcome.
You may as well just form government by having your largest 500 companies nominate a representative from their board.
GardenGeek@europe.pub 1 day ago
I would argue that neither you nor most other people like making bad decisions, right?
If, after the vote, there’s no representative—aka “those up there”—to blame for your own bad decision, that probably sets off a learning process where you either do better research next time or, if you’re too unsure or not interested in the topic, stay out of it and leave the choice to people who think they know more about it.
Without fixed terms, you can vote again in six months if you realize that your decision isn’t solving the problem and enough other people feel the same way… whereas now you have to rely on a representative to make decisions in your best interest (and not in the interest of their own wallet), and, if the decision turns out to be bad for you, hope that another government will revisit the law in 20 years.
You may as well just form government by having your largest 500 companies nominate a representative from their board.
That’s basically the case right now, so it wouldn’t even constitute a deterioration?
In the system I’ve proposed, however, this would only work until enough resistance to corporate practices builds up because the business model harms the majority. Since there are no legislative terms, such practices could be stopped more quickly than in today’s system, where industry simply buys off the newly elected representatives and can then carry on as before for another four years…
fizzle@quokk.au 1 day ago
I would argue that neither you nor most other people like making bad decisions, right?
I might have thought that a decade ago, but it’s become very, very obvious in the interceding years that people vote against their own interests all the time for a variety of reasons, and do not engage in any kind of self-criticism regarding their previous decisions.
GardenGeek@europe.pub 1 day ago
I understand exactly what you mean.
But at the same time, I also believe that the inherent problem with our representative democracies is this: Voters are asked about EVERY issue all at once every four years and then vote for ONE representative party. So, in the end, everyone ends up voting on a whole bunch of issues that neither interest nor affect them. Worse still: when checks and balances are undermined, as is currently the case, the elected representatives can do whatever they want for four years.
In the best-case scenario, the majority of today’s voters inform themselves about the current campaign promises and forecasts a few weeks before the election and then lose interest again for four years. Or, to put it another way, the system actually provokes the “I don’t do politics” attitude among a majority of voters.
However, if the effects of their own decisions were transparent and immediate, I believe there would be a greater willingness to actually inform themselves.
And on the topic of demagoguery and populism: If people had the opportunity to vote against immigration (even if you don’t agree with that position) without undermining democracy through a corrupt bunch of politicians, we as a society would still be better off than in the current situation, where emotionally charged issues are used to make dictators and shitty politics palatable to people.
Paragone@lemmy.world 2 days ago
So, passengers in an airliner decide on managing the airliner, because they outvote the pilots!
Democracy!!
Democracy’s still a kind of “boss”, a kind of “archy”.
I hold that, exactly as vertebrates all show, you have to have a brain, & you have to have COMPETENCE & RESPONSIBILITY & ACCOUNTABILITY based brain.
Pilots, not majority-on-the-aircraft, fly the aircraft.
Those who reject how immune-systems work, including immunization/vaccination ( done right ), ought be prevented from voting on immunization programmes.
Those who aren’t living with the ability to get naturally pregnant, don’t have any business voting on women-specific health issues, including abortion.
Etc.
Not accountable in that domain? no vote.
Not responsible in that domain? no vote.
Not competent in that specific domain? no vote.
Period.
This makes me intolerable among many ideologues/ideologies.
Which is good.
_ /\ _
GardenGeek@europe.pub 1 day ago
That’s a framework for a technocracy. The question here was for a blueprint for an anarchist society.
And if we take your line of thinking further: At what point do you stop denying people the right to vote?
Should only those in a particular industry have a say when it comes to regulating that industry? In that case, issues like environmental and consumer protection would become unenforceable… because why would a CEO or worker care about the impact their own actions have on the rest of society if regulation can be framed as a threat to their own job?
bufalo1973@piefed.social 2 days ago
No. It means the airline is a cooperative business.
Anarchy means the laws are made by everyone nor by a small group of people. And nobody can have more power than the rest. It’s, to simplify it, the end of “because I say so”.
GardenGeek@europe.pub 1 day ago
Thank you!
That’s my point.