Original Post
You aren't being represented
Most of us live in a representative democracy. We elect people to represent us, and they fight for our interests in parliament (or whatever the equivalent is). At least, that's what they're supposed to do. Instead, our representatives are co-opted by corporations and special interest groups through campaign financing. They fund our representatives' campaigns and in return, our representatives push their agenda when they're elected. This means they're representing the corporation and special interest groups, rather than us, everyday people.
Of course, often what they want is something along the same lines as what we want, but that isn't always the case. When it isn't the case, what they want beats what we want - think corporate welfare, net laws, interventionism. Popular opinion says we oppose these things, and yet, because our politicians have vested interests in continuing them, change is impossible.
In 2010, Justice Kennedy of the US Supreme Court ruled that corporations being able to finance our representatives was not only legal, but a feature of representative democracy. Free speech, he argued, is not restricted to individual people - it extends to corporations and groups of people as well. Donating money to campaigns is a form of political free speech, he argued also. Money = free speech.
It begs an obvious question - doesn't this mean that some people have more free speech than others? If freedom of speech is partly dependent on your capability to fund political campaigns, then doesn't that mean that corporations who have tonnes of money to donate to campaigns have more free speech than you do? Their voices are much more louder than yours and they have much more influence in decision-making, all because they have much more money than you.
Many of the companies that donate to campaigns aren't even from the same country as you. Transnational companies, through campaing financing, are lobbying their foreign interests into our political system. The main point I'm trying to make is that you are not being represented and our governments, rather than seeing this as a problem, recognise this situation as being a feature of our constitutions and part and parcel of representative democracy.
We aren't being represented and the people in power don't care. More and more of us are becoming aware of this and I believe if things continue the way they are, we'll see a populist revolution. It could work out and we could achieve change, or the govts. could clamp down and destroy it. It's a hard problem to solve because it's an institutional one that, perhaps, is, after all, a feature of representative democracy.
Maybe we switch to a different model of democracy then, instead? Direct democracy puts the power into the hands of the people, as opposed to representatives of the people. How could this work? One way, it's been suggested, is to employ the internet. You'd vote for a bill the same way you fund a Kickstarter campaign. Once the bill gets however many votes it becomes law. You crowdsource initiatives, reforms and policy and then vote on it. This type of direct democracy is called electronic direct democracy.
The question I want debated is, given that we aren't being represented in our representative democracies, how do we go about changing that?
Of course, often what they want is something along the same lines as what we want, but that isn't always the case. When it isn't the case, what they want beats what we want - think corporate welfare, net laws, interventionism. Popular opinion says we oppose these things, and yet, because our politicians have vested interests in continuing them, change is impossible.
In 2010, Justice Kennedy of the US Supreme Court ruled that corporations being able to finance our representatives was not only legal, but a feature of representative democracy. Free speech, he argued, is not restricted to individual people - it extends to corporations and groups of people as well. Donating money to campaigns is a form of political free speech, he argued also. Money = free speech.
It begs an obvious question - doesn't this mean that some people have more free speech than others? If freedom of speech is partly dependent on your capability to fund political campaigns, then doesn't that mean that corporations who have tonnes of money to donate to campaigns have more free speech than you do? Their voices are much more louder than yours and they have much more influence in decision-making, all because they have much more money than you.
Many of the companies that donate to campaigns aren't even from the same country as you. Transnational companies, through campaing financing, are lobbying their foreign interests into our political system. The main point I'm trying to make is that you are not being represented and our governments, rather than seeing this as a problem, recognise this situation as being a feature of our constitutions and part and parcel of representative democracy.
We aren't being represented and the people in power don't care. More and more of us are becoming aware of this and I believe if things continue the way they are, we'll see a populist revolution. It could work out and we could achieve change, or the govts. could clamp down and destroy it. It's a hard problem to solve because it's an institutional one that, perhaps, is, after all, a feature of representative democracy.
Maybe we switch to a different model of democracy then, instead? Direct democracy puts the power into the hands of the people, as opposed to representatives of the people. How could this work? One way, it's been suggested, is to employ the internet. You'd vote for a bill the same way you fund a Kickstarter campaign. Once the bill gets however many votes it becomes law. You crowdsource initiatives, reforms and policy and then vote on it. This type of direct democracy is called electronic direct democracy.
The question I want debated is, given that we aren't being represented in our representative democracies, how do we go about changing that?
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Freedom is a binary, there is no degrees of freedom. Either you have freedom of speech or you don't. Having more influence is not the same as having more freedom.
When freedom of speech = money, as Justice Kennedy suggested, then yes, some people (or groups of people) do have more 'freedom' than others. And yes, their 'freedom' stifles ours.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Democracy was always going to fail.
You could say that about any political system, ever. It means nothing.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Just like any other specialist field on the planet, most people have no clue about how it works. Maybe they know the basics or they have an abstract understanding about how it works, but to have a direct democracy would be as bad or worse than a representative democracy.
People are too dumb to vote is your argument against direct democracy. What if we enforced a sort of 'civic literacy test' to ensure a minimum standard of knowledge among voters? The Greeks did something similar. They required that you had to own land, because that means you're 'better' (for lack of a better word) and you were more likely to be invested in producing good governance.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
An authoritative government is the way forward. Who should be making decisions about the economy? Economists. Who should be making decisions about the budget? Accountants. Who should be making decisions about global warming? Scientists.
These authoritative representatives needs to be elected by peers of their respective fields, not by laypeople who know nothing about the subject, let alone who would be a good representative.
There should probably be a pool of elected experts for each subject who will make decisions.
Remove the people entirely from decision-making. I can't think of a better impetus for a populist revolution.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
It is a huge mistake to think that hundreds of millions of people can reach a consensus with any kind of cohesion or meaning.
You wouldn't need a consensus and I'm sure there's plenty of measures that could be implemented to facilitate this process.
Originally Posted by protonitron
As immortal pig said, the people don't always know what is best for them as a whole. It is easy to assume that an online counsel of millions of people can make decisions which are a thousands of times more intelligent than a counsel of ten elected representatives could make, but it is important to remember that they could also make a decision thousands of times less intelligent.
Perhaps bad decisions being made from time to time is the price you pay for living in an egalitarian society where the people make the decisions, as opposed to corrupted politicians co-opted by whoever gets money for them?
I'm not responding to other parts of your post since a lot of what I've said to Pig applies to your post as well.
Originally Posted by protonitron
I am sure there is an alternative to the current representation system but it would not be a simple one. I hope that you realise that.
Of course. I'm not saying I know the answers - that's why I've put this thread up in Discussion.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
He doesn't say that in what you paraphrased. Of course, I didn't read his entire speech, but I don't see any reason why "well Kennedy said so" is a good argument in anything other than a legal sense.
'Well Kennedy said so' is perfectly legitimate, seeing as how he's the guy that made the ruling that makes it so.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Sure, but it's still impossible for every voting citizen to be an expert on every topic at hand.
We don't need every citizen to be an expert. All we need is for them to be informed enough to make responsible decisions.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Really? You think it's a better impetus than the current situation where citizens are lied to and manipulated and decisions are made by random corporations?
No, you're right. Your proposed idea, and the current situation, are probably just as bad.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
What a meaningless statement. What is the point in democracy if consensus or meaning is not required? You are simply making decisions for the sake of it then.
Thought you meant a unanimous type deal. Obviously not.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
This is a false dichotomy, as above, we could have trained professionals make decisions in their area of expertise.
You're proposing to remove the people from decision-making. You're divesting the people from the state. This is not a good thing. It's a bit wanky, but bringing up the Greeks again, they recognised this too. Aristotle wrote, "To take no part in the running of the community's affairs is to be either a beast or a god".
Originally Posted by protonitron
He said that money donation is a form of free speech and expression, not that without money free speech is inhibited.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
According to what you said he didn't make the ruling on the basis of "money = freedom" he made it on the basis of "freedom means being able to use your money as you see fit".
So to say that he said "money = freedom" is very much incorrect, and is very much outside his job description -- he is an authority on law, not semantics or philosophy.
No. You've both missed the point of his ruling. His point isn't simply that freedom of speech means being able to donate money to political campaigns. His point is that this same freedom extends to corporations. They're allowed to give money because giving money is a part of their freedom of speech. Giving money = freedom of speech. What happens when you don't have money to give? You have less freedom. Contrary to your belief Pig, freedom is not a binary.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
I guess what we consider to be "enough" differs. Imagine if you had some unknown illness, would you be comfortable with medical decisions being made by democracy of average citizens? What minimum level of qualification would you want a person to have to be allowed... blah blah blah
Having experts decide on something within their field of expertise is as bad as having laypeople decide on something they at best have a basic understanding of?
Please, do elaborate.
I'll rephrase your question and cut to the bottom line. Having a system where the people don't determine how they want to live is as bad as having a system where people don't determine how they want to live.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
When Aristotle walked the Earth the entire population of the world was barely twice that of Tokyo today. His sentiments are really only valid for very small communities, they don't scale to countries with hundreds of millions of citizens. It's absurd to say the least.
You're telling me Aristotle would argue for a system in which the people don't determine how the want to live? That's not only absurd, it's ridiculous.
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
You are confusing "freedom" with "influence". EVERYONE is free to donate money to campaign funds. Just that corporations are able to donate more.
If they're using a freedom that most other people can't, then yes they have access to more 'freedom'. They have more influence also, but that's only because they have that access to that freedom.
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
Also, just because someone has a lot of campaign funding does not mean that person is guaranteed to get elected. I could have all the funding in the world and still not get elected because I'm an asshole and only my mother would vote for me. Every politician has a company behind him. It's just a matter of which ones pick the right people to back.
Yeah, obviously not everyone gets elected. Those who do get elected, like you said, have companies behind them - which is the problem.
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
It's always better for people who are experts in a subject to make decisions on that subject. That is not to say that laypeople are barred from voting for anything because they don't have a degree, but perhaps the experts' votes count for more than the average person.
Better decisions would probably be made, yeah. I'm not disagreeing with that part. But in the scenario Pig is proposing, your average guy isn't voting on anything. It's no less oligarchic than the current situation - it doesn't fix the problem of power not being in the hands of the people.
