Could Human Networking eventually replace the need for government?

More
15 Jan 2020 21:26 #348443 by ZealotX

JamesSand wrote:

nope. Everyone who votes would simply be a representation of interested parties. You can pick issues through the app you care about and want to vote on months ahead of the vote being taken. You can even have the app create a custom platform with all of your baseline support on various topics and issues. With you having your own platform that you can select or change at you leisure like changing a Facebook profile, it would be unnecessary to vote by proxy and pour resources into a proxy running to represent you. 1 person, 1 vote.


I'm already flat out. managing my insurances, registrations, safety inspections, qualifications and licences, and now I need to manage my brand and maintain a platform to exert my will (by right) onto every issue that affects me? (Not to mention whatever the job is that I do that benefits the greater population, and maintaining my personal relationships, hobbies, interests, and domestic environment, etc etc)

I’d really rather the option for someone else to manage that on my behalf…..


yeah... no.

All the effort you'd have to put into voting for that proxy and trying to make this one person align with so many of your ideas... is a little silly. They're never going to vote in favor of all the things YOU want. And the fact that they're representing more than just you means they can always claim that one of their constituents wanted them to vote different from you and so if they were corrupt and completely sold out to corporate interests you wouldn't be able to prove it.

So why you would choose this person, who represents many others, and who is an easy target for corruption because of this power you and others are giving them, over setting up a profile with yes or no positions on the same issues that you would have to go over on your proxy's website/platform or try and wait for them to communicate their positions in a 2-3 minute ad buy, or town hall where they actually have to come to your general area, spending hundreds of thousands to travel and rent the space, and hire security, etc. etc. and you want me to buy that this is easier and more convenient for you?

Sorry, not buying it.

Not to even mention, competing against other constituents for that proxy's attention to try and influence their vote when you could have your own...

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 Jan 2020 22:13 #348445 by Fyxe

ZealotX wrote:

Fyxe wrote:

ZealotX wrote:

OB1Shinobi wrote: Im trying to imagine what my life would be like if twitter activists had the power to determine my legal rights and social obligations.


They wouldn't have that power unless a majority of the people in your jurisdiction agreed to those changes. And if you polled people, I think you would find that the vast majority are somewhere between safety and freedom. It's not a binary proposition.


And what if a majorly white population voted that blacks could not own a business? (just an example)


Then black people could disallow ownership of white owned businesses in a jurisdiction where they are in the majority and those who wish to own a business (or simply not live in such a racist area), could move. A lot of black people would actually prefer knowing how racist their jurisdiction is, rather than being policed by it and constantly struggling with hidden racism).

Depending on how large jurisdictions are this actually wouldn't impact black people as much as you'd think. Many cities are already relatively segregated and the percentage of black business owners is already extremely low and they don't often expect to do well in areas heavily populated by Europeans. Most black owned businesses tend to be barbershops and beauty salons.

And actually, I wasn't trying to "go there" with race, but the scenario you are referring to has already happened. Read about "Black Wall Street" that was located in Tulsa, OK and how prosperous it was. That was partially due to racism and the fact that black people could not own businesses in the white community.

Interesting question to ask.



So you are saying that rampant racism would be legal in your system? Why would the membership of one jurisdiction care about what happened in another jurisdiction anyway?

Where ever you go, there you are. Make the best of it.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 Jan 2020 22:24 #348446 by OB1Shinobi
I think the underlying point is that open-sourcing important legal and social policies leaves us vulnerable to the unpredictable damage of trying to force bad but popular ideas onto society.

If you cant breath then none of us can.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Adder

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 Jan 2020 22:46 #348448 by ZealotX

Fyxe wrote:

ZealotX wrote:

Fyxe wrote:

ZealotX wrote:

OB1Shinobi wrote: Im trying to imagine what my life would be like if twitter activists had the power to determine my legal rights and social obligations.


They wouldn't have that power unless a majority of the people in your jurisdiction agreed to those changes. And if you polled people, I think you would find that the vast majority are somewhere between safety and freedom. It's not a binary proposition.


And what if a majorly white population voted that blacks could not own a business? (just an example)


Then black people could disallow ownership of white owned businesses in a jurisdiction where they are in the majority and those who wish to own a business (or simply not live in such a racist area), could move. A lot of black people would actually prefer knowing how racist their jurisdiction is, rather than being policed by it and constantly struggling with hidden racism).

Depending on how large jurisdictions are this actually wouldn't impact black people as much as you'd think. Many cities are already relatively segregated and the percentage of black business owners is already extremely low and they don't often expect to do well in areas heavily populated by Europeans. Most black owned businesses tend to be barbershops and beauty salons.

And actually, I wasn't trying to "go there" with race, but the scenario you are referring to has already happened. Read about "Black Wall Street" that was located in Tulsa, OK and how prosperous it was. That was partially due to racism and the fact that black people could not own businesses in the white community.

Interesting question to ask.



So you are saying that rampant racism would be legal in your system? Why would the membership of one jurisdiction care about what happened in another jurisdiction anyway?


well that was your suggestion. You're assuming that's what the people would choose as a majority. I think that would be highly unlikely unless, including all minority votes, there was still a majority that supported a racist agenda. And there is rampant racism below the surface in our current system which is why certain people got caught denying housing to "colored" buyers. Your suggestion also assumes that there are enough whites who would actively vote for that, who'd want to live in that exact kind of system.

So if the combination of all minority voters plus whites who don't support racism, are not enough to defeat the suggestion of a racist policy agenda, IN THAT JURISDICTION, then I'm fine with that. I just wouldn't live there. That's democracy. If the jurisdiction wanted to they could subscribe to the same US constitution and Bill of Rights. These jurisdictions do not need to be completely separate or sovereign territories to that extreme if that's not what people want. They could also decide based on trade relations, that its better not to be racist as the non-racist jurisdictions could basically "sanction" them, economically. So while I'm saying it may be possible, I would doubt the likelihood as there would checks and balances.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 Jan 2020 23:01 #348449 by Fyxe
I dont see any checks and balances. All I see if the end of human rights and freedom.

Where ever you go, there you are. Make the best of it.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 Jan 2020 23:02 #348450 by ZealotX

Fyxe wrote: I dont see any checks and balances. All I see if the end of human rights and freedom.


how is voting not a check and balance?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 Jan 2020 23:15 #348451 by ZealotX

OB1Shinobi wrote: I think the underlying point is that open-sourcing important legal and social policies leaves us vulnerable to the unpredictable damage of trying to force bad but popular ideas onto society.


but again... you couldn't "force" anything that the majority didn't want.

And as far as our current system, I could argue it is a bad idea that we have simply acclimated to because there wasn't a better solution at the time of inception. But now, people are literally suffering and dying because of failures in our representative government often overlooking the plight of many Americans. It moves too slow. It is too congested with red tape, bottle necks, and bureaucracy. It spends way too much money on everything and all the middle men involved raise the cost which is then forced upon tax payers.

We argue over insurance when it is so expensive because of the profit margins both hospitals, drug manufacturers, and insurance companies are all trying to maintain. We're still trying to figure out what is going to work when other countries are trying different ways of doing things. But at the end of the day it is our intelligence that separates us from other animals. So why do we think our current system is better than using technology to allow everyone to vote on everything? And why does this automatically get equated to authoritarianism?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 Jan 2020 23:41 #348452 by Fyxe

ZealotX wrote:

Fyxe wrote: I dont see any checks and balances. All I see if the end of human rights and freedom.


how is voting not a check and balance?



Because its majority (mob) rule without representation of the minority opinion. Its might makes right without regard for human rights.

Where ever you go, there you are. Make the best of it.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
16 Jan 2020 13:14 #348456 by ZealotX

Fyxe wrote:

ZealotX wrote:

Fyxe wrote: I dont see any checks and balances. All I see if the end of human rights and freedom.


how is voting not a check and balance?



Because its majority (mob) rule without representation of the minority opinion. Its might makes right without regard for human rights.


how is the minority currently represented?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
16 Jan 2020 16:45 #348461 by Fyxe

ZealotX wrote:

Fyxe wrote:

ZealotX wrote:

Fyxe wrote: I dont see any checks and balances. All I see if the end of human rights and freedom.


how is voting not a check and balance?



Because its majority (mob) rule without representation of the minority opinion. Its might makes right without regard for human rights.


how is the minority currently represented?



Through our representatives and senators in congress and in the electoral college. The US is not a democracy, it is a representative republic.

Where ever you go, there you are. Make the best of it.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: EdanKobosBrick