Staredit Network

I've never been a liberalist from as long as I can recall into my early childhood. I supported Puerto Rico being the 51st state in the USA and I supported pretty much everything that the government said. Then came a stage when I slipped into neutrality, basically everything related to the government was said to be in "bad" shape, so I decided that my views would not coincide with policies and people that were corrupt, that no longer served their country, but only themselves. Afterwards, November the 5th happened, I read an article that talked about the current state of Puerto Rico's government, corruption and politicians. The only solution presented in said article was change, but this change was just to bring another political party to power, something that doesn't bring any improvement to a given situation.

Then today, November 9th, I saw CNN thinking it would be nice to acquire some knowledge about the elections happening in the USA, and Rumsfeld's sudden resignation. All these newly elect politicians talked about change and several ways to improve the current state in which our country is passing by. Afterwards it hit me, that one thought which got me thinking for 2 hours straight, which I analyzed over and over only to come to the same conclusion over and over.

The author from the article from November the 5th doesn't care for this country, neither do the politicians on the news. November the 5th sparked the day which I call November the 9th, the day which I disband from the Liberal/Conservative scale and move aside, to a revolutionary space that I have not acquired sufficient evidence if it exists or not, if there are others that think like me, and most greatly is if this is the next step in humanity's social evolution.

Democracy is obsolete.

Some thought has to be put around the situation and most definitely inside as well. What is the purpose of Democracy? How can an idea that has served us for over 200 years be deemed as obsolete? The answer is quite simple, but the means to get to the conclusion is not.

The creators of modern Democracy, 18th century philosophers of which some became the greatest leaders of our country, of which names we can find on a vast number of books and even our praised paper money, wanted to create a system by which power was given to the people, and away from the monarchies that reigned during that time. The system was quite elaborate; a select group of educated people will speak for the lower classes. At that time, lower classes had close to zero education and thus they would not have the knowledge, experience or means to have a saying in government. This is why we have had other people do it for us. Power couldn't be given to the people because they could not have had the facilitation to govern themselves.

During present days we can have a system by which the people themselves can govern. Close to 9/10ths of the population is educated enough to make a choice for themselves with sufficient knowledge of any given situation. This is where Democracy starts to crumble to pieces. We no longer need people to talk for us in government, there is no such reason for any given individual to conclude that we cannot draw our own conclusions about how to run our own country, not their country.

Now to point out the already occurring failures in the system. Have you seen your representative step up in your door, send you a phone call, a mail, an email or any other anything by any of the numerous means of communication that we have, asking you what you wanted? They have a reserved seat in Congress to speak out about what their representation is asking for, but sadly we never see that. You have an executive, which most of us hate to such an extent that astonishes me that he hasn't been assassinated yet, which keeps talking about how his deeds are for the good of the country. His job description is to serve the people, not the country. A country does not mean anything, a country is just a piece of land that is bordered by imaginary lines, recognized by a flag and an entity which socially divides it's residences from people of other countries.

We have 531(If I'm not mistaking) individuals that are supposed to talk for you. You have an executive branch which only serves the country, but not the people. Then you have a judicial branch which functions are to take away freedom and bang a hammer. The system no longer serves itself, but only those fortunate enough to have the system serve them.

You have these high government officials getting vast multi digit salaries that are extraordinarily out of place. Are not these people supposed to serve the people they represent? In doing so, they would only have to receive enough to live comfortably. You do not need a lavish mansion in which to sleep in, you do not need these extremely expensive automobiles and limousines with chaffers. They can drive, our Congressmen and women have driver's licenses, and there is no need to spend unnecessary money. Same can apply to other high government officials. Isn't our government supposed to bring equality to everyone? That there be no discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion or social class? Why does this select group of politicians get all these benefits?

The government can tell you why. Because they care more about themselves than they care about you. They think that saving one man's life, whose job is to talk for the people and serve the people, is more important than hundreds, thousands and millions of people that they represent. And proof of this is right in our everyday lives. My grandfather is a retired surgeon who now conducts research in his farm trying to discover several medicines made of natural ingredients that may cure disease, sickness and injury. He had stomach ulcer many years back, so he took leaves from his plantation from a tree of which name I shall not mention, boiled them, made a drink out of them and drank it. His ulcers were cured in 2 weeks. His gastroenterologist (I think that's the English name for it) said he had never seen anything like it, that they should test it some more. The doctor gave it to a few of his patients and was both very disappointed and excited. His patients stopped coming after 2 weeks, but they both knew that the medicine had worked. They later made a report about it and submitted it to the agency, which name I cannot recall at these moments, which regulates legal drugs. They received a letter telling them that such drug practices are not allowed and said drug practice will not be used in public practice and they will not promote any use of it. You have a new drug, which is natural, has not side effects and is very cheap to produce thrown aside in favor of expensive medications and operations that have many side effects.

They don't care for the people; they only want to maintain their reputation, their control. If they would care for the best of the citizens which they are supposed to server, they would've repaired the dikes that hold the lakes outside New Orleans, they would've made the cockpits in passenger airliners inaccessible by passengers before 9/11. They chose to sacrifice thousands of lives and heighten their reputation by making acts to prevent what happened in a time by which will be remembered. Terrorists have been hijacking airliners since the 1970's and 1980's, yet nobody in the government did anything about it or enforced the airlines and airplane manufacturers to do something. Scientists and engineers have had made studies that the dikes in New Orleans could not stand another major hurricane caused flood like that of Camille in 1969. Over 30 years passed and the government just sat there, waiting for it to happen.

This brings me to my second point; politicians are just people who are in the select group. To be a politician you need to be a successful politician first, and to be a successful politician you need to be part of a major political party. To be part of a major political party you need two things, money and the desire for more money for politicians. Why have actors been governors and presidents? What makes them fit to be able to run a country? Nothing, just a political party standing behind them. An executive needs to have knowledge in running large systems involving many people to become President of Governor. Some fine choices are a military General, Industrial Engineers, CEO's and high ranking Administrators, the dean or chancellor at your University. Not some rich fellow who studied history, political science or law. The Secretary of Treasury? You'd want a guy who has a PhD in financing and/or economics, not the richest guy you can find. Head of Transportation? An Industrial Engineering is to design these kind of systems for maximum efficiency. The head of road maintenance and construction? Definitely a Civil Engineer and not a guy who says he will fill the holes in our roads. A Senator or Representative, this is my favorite, you need a guy that represents the best who he represents, you need a rich guy, a middle classed individual with a loan, a job and a family to feed, the poor guy with no education and 3 jobs, and the drug dealer down the street. But it's not necessary, because we can represent ourselves.

At first, politicians where the best people suited for the job. The majority of the populace didn't know anything besides how to get enough to eat and someone educated needed to be elected. Those of course with the highest reputations, rich people, would easily get elected because they were well known. Now you have experts in the fields, with PhD's which would do far better than someone who has the right connections.

These are my points on why Democracy is obsolete, now to promote a revolution among government systems. To promote order! Equality! Justice! And most of all, to have a saying in our own lives.

Order Equality Justice Self-Representation

We have the technological means to have a voting system for everyone. We can make an electronic system which can be easily made, distributed and put into use. No errors. No surprises. No recounts. This easily solves the situation we have at Congress, we eliminate Congress. We speak for ourselves, we vote for our lives, not for the people who will dictate them for us. Need someone to have a saying, someone to propose a law, project or remove said things? You got 300 million of them, some the best experts in their field, why should it be limited to 531 people who are not experts?

The proposed system of which Congress used to function as has its flaws, but they can easily be fixed. Have a committee of experts in said field, for example all Civil Engineers with a PhD in that field would form part of Civil Engineering Committee which works with structures and such, have a preliminary vote on weather it should be allowed to pass to the nation wide voting in the first place. Then have the people decide whether they want it or not. There would be many different committees, some composed of civil engineers, one of industrial engineers, economists, medical doctors, professors, and so on. You have the best experts making sure that the people don't do anything stupid.

Now who to run the country? That is quite simple, put the best of the best of their field in the respective position and they are only allowed to do as the public has voted, but it is their decision on how to do it.

Creating a system of government is no easy task that any one man can handle, but the concept has been laid down for others, preferably experts to write on.

With such system, we no longer have a bunch of masked people thinking what the politicians want us to think about. The government knew there was no reason to invade Iraq, Congress could have easily stopped the war, but they pursued on for personal gains. It’s like a game of baseball. The politicians are batting and the population is out in the field working. They keep getting runs in, things which we do not need or want, we didn't want the war in Iraq and we don't need a raise in minimum wage, we need a balance with prices and wages. The problem is that there have not been 3 outs yet, and the politicians are still in power.

Now the philosophical question is, how can Democracy, an ideal created over 200 years ago still stand today? Society has changed way too much now and it was impossible for any of it's creators to foresee these changes therefore theoretically making it obsolete at one point. That point in time has long passed by. Monarchy was a system used to create order after times which there was no order, and the best way to do so was by installing fear to the populate and absolute power within the few. The system was then rendered obsolete and revolution came by and went. The time for the next major era of revolutions draws near.

Democracy was created for those educated enough to govern to say how things were going to be, but now we do not need representation by politicians, we have the best in the field and the entire populate to make these decisions. We do not need the bureaucracy to govern us. We cannot return back to the times when titles where inherited by family, like the Bush family has. We cannot be enforced by people who know not what we need and want, people who don't do their jobs correctly for the people, but rather for themselves. The time for change is here. Take off your mask; share your face, your mind, your thoughts and knowledge with the rest of us. Go out and create a better life for us all.

Order Equality Justice Self-Representation

Can we get a rough meaning of what your thinking now?

It will probably be so great and foreshadowing of our government it will blow your mind.

Actually you learn this in 4th grade of elementary.

Government is here to serve the people in anyway they can.

Posted.

I see what your saying and I have a few questions:

What about times of war and war making decisions?
-How will the intelligence of another country be distributed to the major population?

Forgien policy?
-Intelligence and what other countries are doing, how will it be showed to the people?

I do have more questions but no time to write haha, anyway just think that if decesions are made by the population, how will information based on the voting topic be massed advertised? What if a decesion needs to be made fast?

Theres some statistic that says 80% of the population knows more about Dancing with the Stars TV show then who Dick Cheney is. Some type of ridiculous figure...

I would go for something that is not quite as extreme as Beer's proposal. The direct democracy he is advocating is almost absurd because it would, it seems, be quite chaotic.

I would propose a national referendum system of the electronic style mentioned by Beer, but Congress would remain virtually unchanged. What would happen is that every so often, the people in each electoral district would be presented with a questionnaire asking them what issues are most important to them at the moment. Congress then gauges public opinion and proposes legislation on which everyone can vote electronically.

I think that we do need politicians - they're good at what they do, which is hopefully to manage a country with the care needed to prevent it from falling apart.

But when the politicians are only their serving the needs of the constituents who represent them? If you listen to some of the victory speeches made by the winners of either party, they barely mention imporving the country as a whole. The entire job of each congressman is to promote the ideas that are specific to each ones individual state.

A country that is too large can not realistically represent the public.

Well we need reform thats for shure, but were shall we start? I would have to say getting rid of the senate and make the president have less power and give more representitives at the house so you can actually meet your representitive, and so we can try to eliminate the evils of mass partys like we have now. Lower their wages so there less a postition of power and a more noble position.

That is one thing that I tried to address in my topic on freedom, but nobody seems to have gotten the meaning I was trying to convey.

Politicians are a public servant to the people. The people being a ceo that wants to make his stock holders happy by getting them more money through lobbying.

However, for the issues that people pay most attention to, the politicians will go with their voters so they can keep their job. Which is just sitting on your ass, and talking to people that just want to buy you off all day.

Your critique on freedom is tackling the subject to indirectly, and you should spell it out in plainer words. Exp. SHOULD YOU BE ABLE TO MESS WITH OTHER PEOPLES BUSINESS FAR AWAY?

If America attempts to reform into another government, I guarrenty that it will be torn into several tens of pieces.
America is a fedral government, not a republic as you learn. If classified so examinefully its a mixture of somewhat republic, somewhat democracy, and a powerful governing force. The people of america is spoiled to say in their glutonous hunger for more freedom.

BeeR_KeG, what you're talking about installing is called a 'true democracy'. The current system, often simply called 'democracy', is actually a representative democracy.

While I agree with you that our representative democracy has failed to live up to our expectations, and should be replaced, I don't think true democracy is the way to go. Do you know just how many issues there are out there? Well, have you ever seen one of those signs that says 'No dumping, $1000 fine, city bylaw #12704'? Yeah. Do you really want to spend your time voting on 12704 bylaws for your city alone? True democracy worked fine about 10000 years ago, when society was not yet very complex. And while I agree that electronic voting makes things much easier, I still think there are too many issues for everyone to have their say. Delegation of the decision-making process has become a necessity.

And that's not the only problem with true democracy. Another, perhaps even more important problem is that of bias. There are lots of people out there with lots of money and some very specific (and often harmful) interests. Right now they pay the government to give them favors. Change the political system to a true democracy and they'll pay the media for advertising and insertion of bias. Is the next issue up on cruelty for animals? $50000000 comes out of the hands of the meat industry and into the pockets of, say, CNN, and everyone starts hearing about how it isn't a problem. Industrial pollutants causing cancer? Another $200000000 from various companies and you start to see on the news how sparkling clean America's atmosphere, rivers and soil are. Don't kid yourself that blatant, obvious advertising is the only way that corporations and other private interests can make their voice heard.

Where have you been? It's been like that for a long time... democracy cannot effectively govern so many people. Minorities simply reach a point where they're too large.


Wrong. Two senators (assuming you live in one of the 50 states) and the one representative from your district (assuming you live in one of the 50 states).


People will always care for themselves, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. There isn't much shock value for me here.


You left everything relating to money out of this. What's the future of capitalism?
Smart people can still be corrupt - and they're smart, so they'd be better at it.

But the government caring for itself is most certainly a bad thing. That's not what it's there for.

For all their education, people are still stupid. It's just a pity that our politicians are stupid too, though I'm hopeful (vainly, probably) that this new batch won't be as stupid, though the expectations are low (after all, it's not hard to beat the last Congress), so maybe it's not so wild a hope after all.

My option would be the best that way you can go closer to true democracy and you get to know your representivie more so you can tell if he's a crazy capitalist looking for money while in office or a nice person who cares about your community. The guy who represents an area near me voted to close a few government run businesses and everyone flamed at him he did whats bad for his community he is inept and now we have a new person.

Democracy is failing because every single person can vote. And a lot of people who vote, shouldn't really be voting.

My own mother did not the know difference between the two major political parties in the country that we live in, until I pointed them out to her when she was 50 years old. And the real scary thing is, she's been voting her entire life.

Agreed. Personally I opt for a more meritocratic system. If not a true meritocratic oligarchy, then at least a democracy or representative democracy in which the more educated and intelligent people get more voting power. Careful control of bias in the media would also be beneficial (in fact, it would no matter what the political system used).

I say that, people should be required to read all the candidate's sayings and be taken a test of essay, and then pass the test to be able to vote in the part of voting every 3 years. I say, "Voting License", a right based not on age but on intelligence and the ability to decide on the good choice. Should a man fail in the test, he is able to take it until the voting; and if he fails, he won't be able to vote for three years.
We should also run a campaign on "Listen to your candidate's message carefully!" That would actually make alot of votes go on the good choice because nobody ever listens to both sides carefully and make their own decision; rather, the people let the politicians choose it for them more likely.

- I will write a essay on this.

Yeah, we tried having literacy tests and such. Unfortunately, this disenfranchised all the freed black slaves who were uneducated. Such a motion would be identified as "racist" and "discriminating against the uneducated poor".

Of course. You can identify almost anything as racist these days. Hell, given this whole Affirmative Action thing, it seems that not giving blacks extra privileges is being racist! I still think the pros of getting intelligent, educated people outweigh the cons that would result if they didn't include certain minority groups. People need to understand that being unusual is not always the same as being superior.

Those tests were created to stop blacks from being able to vote. The tests were ridiculous, sometimes even impossible to pass.

The test of today should be along the lines of, people born of the year 2000 are required to take more classes in government and economics in order to get a highschool diploma. And have the GED test have a new section on the baby basics of our government. And in order to vote, you must have either passed the government section on the GED test or have a Highschool Diploma.

This can not be considered descrimination against class, since it involves free public education. And if in the extreme circumstance a 16 year old must drop out of hs in order to help feed his family, then he still has the ability to take the GED any time he wants.