Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: A Digitalized Revolution Needs A Digitalized Government

Posted 12 years ago on Sept. 24, 2011, 1:30 a.m. EST by theOnlineGovernmentDotcom (97)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Since I have heard about the occupation of Wall street I have been very excited and made some substantial donations since I cannot physically be present. As I put it, I put my money where my heart and mind are. One reason I got so excited is that many of the quotes I saw in the news made it sounded like they came straight from my website www.theOnlineGovernment.org. Before I thought I was an outlier, but now I know others feel the same things I do and see through the smoke and mirrors as I do.

I have a flaw in that I can’t tune out the news and what’s going on in the world. These problems spin around in my head sometimes and I often theorize ways to solve them - really bad for my emotional well-being. One day an idea popped into my head at a moment like this that made me understand what an ‘Ah hah moment’ is all about.

I hardly have to tell you what the problems I see are all about. I would like to tell you about my vision though. Like the occupation one of my mantras is ‘99% will always be stronger than 1%’ - this has been on my website for over a year. I combine this with the basic concepts of fight fire with fire and missing checks and balances. The basic epiphany I had was that if everyone threw in a buck we could have as much lobbying power and campaign contributions as the ‘good ol boys’ do. The core concept is that simple.

I also realized that for the first time in human history, a large-scale, DIRECT democracy was possible thanks to the digital age. It is just recently that computer hardware and software has been sophisticated enough to take on such a task. At the same time, currently no computer system could be large enough to take on ALL the task of government. What IS possible though is for this system to provide an input into our existing democracy and to have some ‘teeth’ with financial backing and the simple fact that it directly reflects the will of the people.

At the most basic explanation for theOnlineGovernment is that it’s a giant opinion polling system that allows the users to exercise exactly one vote (no extra votes for the wealthy) to vote on organically grown or existing issues of government, eventually at all levels. The output is monetary and physical pursuit of the opinions of the system’s users. Just like the big corps we use lobbyists and campaign contributions to get our way – until at last we minimize their strangle hold on government. The input is you!

The ironic thing is that now that I see the occupation unfolding across the country, this type of system seems like it could be an integral part of collecting the combined opinion of the GA and providing the networking / communication tools needed for the group to introduce and solidify the solutions that can bring the democracy we read about in text books back to life.

The size of this project is mammoth although some initial core features can be implemented first. In it’s ultimate form it would have requirements like built in collaboration and networking tools, transparency tool, voting tools, organic issue growth tools, existing bill summary tools, summary fairness evaluation tools and have to be very secure.

I am reaching out to this group because we have the same vision for a democracy that represents the people and not just the rich and powerful people. I see what is being done in NYC, and for the first time in a while have glimmer of hope that balance can be restored. If anyone would be interested in working on this project or has ideas of how to make it happen please reply. This is a project that I definitely cannot do alone. Questions are welcome although I don’t have all the answers.

One last thing - I thought they always said the revolution would NOT be televised?



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by Laurenceofberk (16) 12 years ago

There is a role for large scale on-line democracy, but it won't work unless it is built on a framework of small group direct democracy. Why? Because without more direct personal contact than we have now in this society, there won't be enough human solidarity to make wise and compassionate decisions electronically.

The average American watches 4 hours of TV a day, plus internet, and spends 20 minutes talking to a husband or wife. One of the main reasons that democracy in America in increasingly failing. A revolution that doesn't get people dancing together again is not my revolution, and, fortunately, it won't work.

In Solidarity, Laurence of Berkeley

[-] 1 points by theOnlineGovernmentDotcom (97) 12 years ago

Laurenceofberk - I thought about what you said and I had a great idea. I'm going to post it as a new forum as digitalGA requirements specification

[-] 1 points by theOnlineGovernmentDotcom (97) 12 years ago

Keep in mind that this would not be a full government, but only input into government. I'll have to think about this one - I feel pretty involved in NYC watching the feeds and writing the best ideas I think of - Not as good as being present I'm sure, but not bad. I wonder if there could be a video conferencing feature or something. Great point though. A similar challenge is that people too often seem to not care about what's going on.

[-] 1 points by takeTsquare (77) 12 years ago

Hi, greetings from Spain. This discussion is VERY interesting. We have been discussing the issue since all this burst last May. Gunnar Sigurðsson, the actuator of revolution in Iceland (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM5GjkaU-IM) visited my assembly last July, he mentioned that there will always be people who is not interested at all in participating of a democracy, they want to be "left alone" We should address that before the on-line democracy gets instated 'cause then it would not be a democracy for all, it would be a Plutocracy of us, the ones who participate. I would not want that either I personally don't want to bear that responsibility.

[-] 1 points by theOnlineGovernmentDotcom (97) 12 years ago

There are people that don't participate in every democracy. Most people I know have little interest in politics and have just a surface level feel of what's going on, on a daily basis. Many don't vote and others vote without much depth of knowledge. When you get your news 10 minutes in the morning watching Fox news it makes it far too easy to brainwash - just appeal to some emotional or religious sentiment and you can win the election and do whatever you want. For instance use the bible and homophobic fear and then you can win and go bomb for oil. One part of my vision is tools highly interested people to condense and summarize complex political information such as bills into easy to understand key points in a fair way. Other interested and motivated individuals can rate the fairness of the interpretation and also provide their own interpretation.

[-] 1 points by wallstreet (-1) 12 years ago

I live on Wall Street. Get the FUCK off of Wall Street you fucking douchebags. I live here.

[-] 1 points by rickied (31) from Worcester, MA 12 years ago

The word is "digitized". Use a fucking dictionary before you try to speak on my behalf or on the behalf of hundreds of millions of others, idiot.

[-] 1 points by jezz68 (9) 12 years ago

Why don't you articulate a little further your thoughts on the topic rather than resorting to profanity? Or is that all you have in that brain of yours?

[-] 1 points by rickied (31) from Worcester, MA 12 years ago

Why don't you articulate a little further your thoughts on the topic rather than resorting to petty insults? It goes both ways, dear.

The topic itself doesn't require further elaboration. The original poster apparently thinks they know how the country should work, but doesn't know how to spell. It's pathetic.

Signed, college graduate with a focus in writing and rhetoric

[-] 1 points by Alex (79) from Rhoon, ZH 12 years ago

Stop wanting to impose authority on others, and leave them with their own authority given by birth. No other human has any right to exact authority over another unless it happens willingly. With a democracy or any other government it will never happen willingly for all, just for a few.

Forget governments and for sure forget a global government. Live and let live that is what we all should aspire. I sure don't need others to tell me what to do.

I don't want democracy. I don't want others to dictate (not even a mayority) how I live my life and how I have to pursue my happiness.

[-] 1 points by theOnlineGovernmentDotcom (97) 12 years ago

I think with anarchy (which I'm interpreting this comment as being) would be far worse. It's the lack of rules that allowed the banks to run free with no regulation and harm the whole world. Anarchy is proven to fail in human history. People will always want more than the next guy and suddenly someone scrambles for power, gets it and you end up with a king. Democracy is exactly what you seek - protection from control. The control is in your hands. It is the flawed implementation of democracy that causes people to feel controlled when the government is not reflecting the will of the people. That is what we have in the US with so many of the laws in place limiting personal freedom so that the biggest corporations can always win and stay on top and crush the dreams of would-be competitors.

This is outside the vision and scope of theOnlineGovernment and a great topic as a starter vote, but it is my feeling that most controlling laws inside the realm of social issues have no business being written into law or being leveraged in campaigns. They make the puppet shows of election possible and in the end only create feeling similar to yours. For instance gay right and biblical 'family values' are a great way for republicans to win an election and take the eye off the ball of topics that are actually important - then once in office go bomb for oil - that's family values. So, to some degree I agree with you in this point, but not to the point of lawlessness. I think anarchy is immature and unrealistic. It's already been proven in human history to only exist in a vacuum.

(also just personal opionion here) Many people can't handle being a part of a diverse and free society so they attempt to force their religion and views on everyone else. To them I say go somewhere else - to a homogeneous society that shares your religious views. As for the rest of us who can handle the fact that not everyone is a just like us, let's implement the more pure democracy without so many personal limitations and puppet show campaigns exploiting our feelings and religion.

[-] 0 points by Alex (79) from Rhoon, ZH 12 years ago

Sorry, but 6000 year of man ruling over another man and failing to do so every-time, and you tell me anarchy failed? When was there an anarchist society for you to know it failed everytime? Looking back in history it's the state that failed everytime, that fought wars every time, that crumbled every time. Exactly because others covet what others have they will eventually abuse any state to get the laws/regulations to get whatever they want, and eventually fail that state.

We inherently already know what is good or bad, excluding the few that doesn't. These few trive during statehood, because it's them that will flock to the statemanship. Look at the gross of the politicians, a great deal (if not all) are borderline sociopaths. Those are the kind of man that seek to rule another man. It's crazy to think any other human has authority over you. They can only force it.

All states force their authority and often at the point of the gun. Just look what will happen to you when you don't pay your taxes, or if you shoot photos at a rally and they don't agree with you. It's crazy to think a piece of paper drawn by another human will ever give you any protection, it will only give the illusion of protection. The thought that rules, laws, and a government protects you, that is naive. Wanting freedom is that what is natural in this world. That's why we live unnatural to this world and why there is no harmony.

Democracy failed. There is no one other than me that knows what I want, and there is no one other than you that knows what you want. Everybody else guesses or assumes. Having a democracy a lot of people will be dissatisfied, and all will end like how the USA is now, devided and subjugated.

[-] 1 points by jezz68 (9) 12 years ago

If you are to live in anarchy you had better be well armed.

[-] 1 points by theOnlineGovernmentDotcom (97) 12 years ago

There is no part of the world that is anarchist because it only exists in a vacuum. Otherwise you would see some countries with no government - this is like parts of Africa. How great is their anarchy working? War lords form in anarchy, that's why it never exists.

[-] 1 points by Alex (79) from Rhoon, ZH 12 years ago

War lords is not anarchy. I got an impression you're not sure about what anarchy or libertarianism really is.

Why keep doing something that has proven for 6000 years to have gone wrong?

While anarchy has not really existed, yet you wipe it of the table with rhetoric like "There is no part of the world that is anarchist because it only exists in a vacuum". Don't you have something smarter to say why it wouldn't work? You say it doesn't exist, and you say it failed many times. Faulty logic? Because how can't it exist, but have failed many times? Do you see your problem? And you want to form some digital world government where people vote stuff, and enforce it on those that do not agree. The digital world that is hack proof, ruled by humans that never make mistakes, or go corrupt? More of your logic here?

Your likeness with the current politician in what you want is staggering. You just want another way to control the masses, a fairer way you say. I say what you want is the same. You want to force people to do what you and your majority wants. What will you do if a large group doesn't agree with the majority wants and goes to protest? I imagine much the same what is happening right now at wall-street.

You can turn it anyway you want, it is morally wrong to force others to do what you want and the way you want it. The number of people wanting to do the forcing doesn't make it better.

[-] 1 points by theOnlineGovernmentDotcom (97) 12 years ago

Whatever go to South Africa if you want to see what happens when you leave part of the world to Anarchy. I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything. I'm trying to kick around some feasible ideas. If this group is about anarchy then I don't want anything to do with it and won't support it. Anarchy is for teenagers who don't understand why it's impossible for it to exist for more than 5 minutes.

[-] 1 points by Alex (79) from Rhoon, ZH 12 years ago

It's clear that you have nothing of any substance to counter with, and that my diluted friend is a show of weakness. How you react hence shows that any other idea you may present is one of weakness and suspect to begin with.

You know deep down (or should at least) that you don't have the moral high-ground and that's why you can't give answer the many questions presented, and that's why you can only reflect with redirection. You are the same as the politicians. Eyes closed for everything but their own interest, in this case a digital world democracy. (Isn't that akin to the NWO Bush wanted so much?)

That something seems an impossibility for you, doesn't mean it is. For you to wipe something away based on erroneous logic is a show of childlessness. It then isn't that strange that you want to promote a democracy, a proven flawed system and a highly immoral on at that. (Just look at the double speak the politicians done for more than a century now in name of democracy.)

[-] 1 points by theOnlineGovernmentDotcom (97) 12 years ago

Like I said if Anarchy is what this movement is about then I don't support it. I won't sign the petition or donate any more money or ideas until I find out if the movement is about anarchy and whether you are an actual organizer and participant or a troll. I have no interest except to improve the existing system to actually reflect the will on of the people on real issues and not just the wealthy. I'm not going to waist my time to explain to anyone why anarchy won't work. Just read the lord of the flies.

[-] 1 points by Alex (79) from Rhoon, ZH 12 years ago

Show really how short sighted and narrow minded you are. This protest attract a wide variety of people. You just showed your true colors.. a borderline bigot.

[-] 1 points by theOnlineGovernmentDotcom (97) 12 years ago

Yeah you are totally right alex. The best thing is just to get rid of all rules. I was just trying to take control of the world

[-] 1 points by Alex (79) from Rhoon, ZH 12 years ago

See... you finally admit it. So please be gone.

[-] 1 points by theOnlineGovernmentDotcom (97) 12 years ago

Just like a river that has worn a path for water to flow through this idea would utilize every 'loophole' and back door deal that the elite created for themselves, only it would be used to disarm their disproportionate representation.

[-] 1 points by theOnlineGovernmentDotcom (97) 12 years ago

By the way the beauty here is that you get to vote directly on ISSUES, not just on an old guy lying on tour who is going to do the bidding of big business once in office.