hisich wrote: WTF is "a true democracy"?
You have some remarkably selective reading habits:
"TPTB hate a true democracy because it undermines their power. This would require the people be involved in drafting law / policy in addition to voting on it rather than delegating these fundamental aspects of decision making in a periodic fashion."
How did "extending democracy" work out for South Africa...? I suppose shamangitroll will claim its "not real democracy", LOL...
signature
shamangineer wrote: Oh the tyranny of having your voice heard!
Using the power of the state to force businesses to be run "democratically"...doesn't sound even a tad fascistic to you? Not to mention the ridiculousness of someone like a janitor or gardener having a say in how a auto-mobile manufacturing company is run...or a secretary/receptionist of a car-repair shop having say in that business...
signature
At this point, democracy (or whatever small remnant left) is the only reason you're able to post your views on this forum without getting jailed up, or worse, executed.
Let that sink in for a second.
shamangineer wrote: The average person is not as dumb as many would contend, they are merely brainwashed and focused on daily survival. Given a social structure that protected citizens rights, disseminated facts rather than propaganda, had opportunities for independent intellectual growth and exploration, and removed the threat of destitution, these same people would operate at a much higher level of intelligence on - the order of 20-30 IQ points in my estimate.
People operate according to incentives, self-interest, & usually seek the path of least resistance when attaining resources...in the long-run, esp. as the right to vote is extended to every idiot w/a pulse & more & more facets of life are subjected to interference from the collective/state, 'democracy' creates all kinds of warped incentives, as we're currently experiencing.
Its far too easy for demagogues to stir up jealousy, hatred, envy (just look at yourself, shaman, obsessed w/OPM)...its far too tempting for people to simply vote themselves 'free' stuff instead of working for it.
signature
hisich wrote: When I look at 'Progressive'-run Shitholes like Detroit, San Francisco, L.A., Baltimore, Chicago, etc.--which weren't always Shitholes--I wonder what excuse Democracy-worshippers have for their decline? If democracy is so great, why didn't the 'Progressive' electorate of these places recognize that things were going in a bad direction & change course? Why do they continue to re-elect the same regimes that wrecked their cities in the first place?
shamangiqueer...?
California is not as progressive as most would think, it is an at will state - which means you have little recourse for any labor issue. Most states are at will or right to work states which essentially strips any rights from the worker.
With regard to democracy:
A) The people didn't make the decisions, their representatives did - who are often chasing donors and doing their bidding.
B) If there were democracy in the workplace how many people do you think would vote to export their jobs?
hisich wrote: People operate according to incentives, self-interest, & usually seek the path of least resistance when attaining resources...in the long-run, esp. as the right to vote is extended to every idiot w/a pulse & more & more facets of life are subjected to interference from the collective/state, 'democracy' creates all kinds of warped incentives, as we're currently experiencing.
Its far too easy for demagogues to stir up jealousy, hatred, envy (just look at yourself, shaman, obsessed w/OPM)...its far too tempting for people to simply vote themselves 'free' stuff instead of working for it.
Do you think that the .1% has worked as much than the bottom 90%, is that why their wealth is equal? I have repeatedly addressed the fact that the majority of one's labor benefits their employer BEFORE ever paying a portion to taxes.
Contending that what we are experiencing today is a result of too much democracy is a complete mis-representation of facts:
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
hisich wrote: Using the power of the state to force businesses to be run "democratically"...doesn't sound even a tad fascistic to you? Not to mention the ridiculousness of someone like a janitor or gardener having a say in how a auto-mobile manufacturing company is run...or a secretary/receptionist of a car-repair shop having say in that business...
Mondragon Cooperative has been operating since the 50's, maybe not so ridiculous:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bcNfbGxAdY
shamangineer wrote: This would require the people be involved in drafting law / policy in addition to voting on it rather than delegating these fundamental aspects of decision making in a periodic fashion."
That doesn't really explain anything. I hear many people express a desire for "real democracy", but no one ever describes what it actually is.
Define "the people" (are all 300+ MILLION Americans going to get together in a large room to "draft law/policy")? Are we all assumed to be experts in every single topic under the Sun?
Who gets to vote? Presently (USA) only like 40% of the total populace votes in Presidential elections (in state/local elections its less--oftentimes FAR less), w/about half that number deciding who runs the country. Does this change in "real democracy"?
How big of a margin is required to pass laws (50% + 1, super-majority, 2/3)?
Who will enforce the laws passed by the majority?
I know you support Debtor's Prisons for people who refuse to pay their tax debts...so I'm assuming you would also build lots of prisons to house people who refuse to go along w/the whims of the majority (which, in reality, will be a small minority of the populace)...?
signature
enjoypolo wrote: At this point, democracy (or whatever small remnant left) is the only reason you're able to post your views on this forum without getting jailed up, or worse, executed.
Let that sink in for a second.
You're confusing freedom w/democracy.
I can post here because I have the FREEDOM to. Because the whims of the majority are still, for the time being, fairly CONSTRAINED from interfering in this realm. Kind of like how gay-marriage is allowed everywhere, DESPITE many places (like California) democratically voting against it.
People in Europe have "democracy" too, but can be prosecuted for saying politically incorrect things.
signature
hisich wrote: That doesn't really explain anything. I hear many people express a desire for "real democracy", but no one ever describes what it actually is.
Define "the people" (are all 300+ MILLION Americans going to get together in a large room to "draft law/policy")? Are we all assumed to be experts in every single topic under the Sun?
No. Most people are not experts in _____. But if people are knowledgeable, or they have an interest (like environmental / health regulations) they would have a voice. If they do not have an interest or do not feel knowledgeable enough to vote on something they are free not to.
hisich wrote: Who gets to vote? Presently (USA) only like 40% of the total populace votes in Presidential elections (in state/local elections its less--oftentimes FAR less), w/about half that number deciding who runs the country. Does this change in "real democracy"?
All adult citizens would be able to vote, not that different from now. Right now voter turnout is about 40% because most people don't feel that voting will effectively reflect their interests and they have more pressing problems that require their attention like keeping their job when no time off is given to vote.
hisich wrote: How big of a margin is required to pass laws (50% + 1, super-majority, 2/3)?
It depends on what people vote for.
hisich wrote: Who will enforce the laws passed by the majority?
Milkmaids and mermen. What the fuck do you think? Are you going to jump up and down and call policing an artifact of a totalitarian dystopia? What would you favor for enforcement when people violate the rights of others? Mercenaries? Posses?
hisich wrote: I know you support Debtor's Prisons for people who refuse to pay their tax debts...so I'm assuming you would also build lots of prisons to house people who refuse to go along w/the whims of the majority (which, in reality, will be a small minority of the populace)...?
There are far too many prisons. Most people would vote to remove many laws and regulations meant to create rackets, favor large corporations, and limit the rights of the people for self-determination. The laws and regulations that people would favor would be those that increase personal sovereignty, health, and protect common resources for future generations. The opposite has been trending for quite some time.
hisich wrote: You're confusing freedom w/democracy.
I can post here because I have the FREEDOM to. Because the whims of the majority are still, for the time being, fairly CONSTRAINED from interfering in this realm. Kind of like how gay-marriage is allowed everywhere, DESPITE many places (like California) democratically voting against it.
People in Europe have "democracy" too, but can be prosecuted for saying politically incorrect things.
I suppose the bill of rights fell from the sky?
Feel free to keep convincing yourself that you are right, but I'm not going to bother responding any more.
shamangineer wrote: Feel free to keep convincing yourself that you are right, but I'm not going to bother responding any more.
Take care, shamangineer
signature
Have some self-respect, would you hisich? we all gave you the benefit of the doubt here, and yet you still insist on acting like a hyena cornered against a wall.
No one has the time to be dragged down by parasites in a world already drowned by controlled-opposition and ordo ab chao.
Trolls will be left behind into oblivion, while a new World is busy sprouting.
Good luck.
