Forum Post: The Future of Democracy 2
Posted 11 years ago on Feb. 8, 2013, 2:50 p.m. EST by Aleksandar
(43)
from Toronto, ON
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Continues from The Future of Democracy
Under the pressure from democratic anarchy, an elected government will surely follow the needs of the people. If the authorities are not sure what the needs of the people are then their responsibility, clearly defined by the fear of peoples’ evaluations, directs them to discover love towards peoples’ participation in decision-making processes through referendums. In this regard, they will develop a simple, fast, and efficient method for direct decision-making of the people, most likely over the Internet. The authorities would certainly not dare to make most important decisions for society alone because they can easily make mistakes that might bring about the wrath of the people and a large number of negative evaluations.
The macroeconomic policy of the society will certainly be directly created by the people, because it is the foundation that directs the economy and that means a complete society. How? Quite simply, one first needs to enable every person to decide how much money from their gross income they want to pay for taxes. The average values of all the peoples’ expressions will determine what percentage of salaries each worker will put aside for taxation. Furthermore, in the same way, each person can decide on how tax money is spent. Each person will decide how much tax money they would set aside for: the defence of the state, public safety, education, health, housing, recreation, infrastructure, etc.
Theoretically, the people can decide on a collective consumption within the consumer groups as much as they want. All these groups of shared consumption will have a far greater overall impact if they are democratically allocated. Following the living experience, the people will learn how much money should be collected for taxes and what the best way to spend it is. Thus, this spending will follow the needs of people in the most efficient way because it will no longer be alienated from the society. In such a way, the people will become active members of society and so; they will accept their community a lot more. Given that the new system offers stable and good relations among nations, people will no longer allocate money for the needs of armies and armies will cease to exist. In the democracy I have proposed, war will no longer be possible.
The people must directly make strategic decisions in society, because that is the only way the policy of society certainly follows the interests of people. All other decisions could be made by professionals and they will be directly responsible to the people for those decisions. Once people get the power to participate in the decision-making process of their own interests and when they have the power to judge those who make decisions on their behalf, that will present the most developed form of democracy. There's no better political way. Such a democracy will realise all the dreamers’ dreams in the history of mankind. Once such a democracy is accepted, people will become so satisfied with it that they will not allow anyone to seize it from them.
The whole article is available here http://www.sarovic.com/future_of_democracy.htm
Aleksandar Sarovic www.sarovic.com
That sounds like an absolute nightmare!
I'm so tired of hearing utopian systems. Just like snake oil salesmen, they make everthing sound easy and perfect.
But, it's to much of a time suck to be of any use. And do we really want everybody involved in making decisions.... Sounds terrible.
How do you know, this system hasn't even been put into practice yet. Magician talking out of his hat again?
Nah, 99.7% of them will stop participating because it's a major time suck. The resulting .3% will become de facto leaders, just like representatives, but without having been elected and without a term limit.
What is utopian here? You think people would not be interested to decide how much taxes to pay and how the money would be allocated?
I didn't say that. Read above. The idea of no armies is utopian.
The nonexistence of armies today would be utopian because governments and congressmen measure their muscles with armies, not to mention corruption. Once people decide how much money from their pocket would go for armies the armies will became smaller. At the end they will cease to exist and you are right that sounds like utopia. But that is the armies’ future for sure.
For sure, for sure...
Basically there are two types of society: good and bad. The first one is the product of equal rights among people which have never existed. The second one is the product of privileges among people which have always existed.
Why such a simple minded analysis? Are you a robot limited to 1's and 0's?
Societies are very complex systems. There are good and bad aspects in each one. You can't dumb it down to two choices like you're doing, that simply takes out all the colors. It's not black and white my friend. Of course, conspiracy theorists always think in black and white... people = good, government = bad. End of story. Ah! The joy of being simple minded.
You have just read the essence for how to build a good society but did not get it. By being cynical you would never get it.
I simply pointed out that your analysis is too simplistic. You fail to see depth and complexity because you only scratch the surface. Dig a little deeper.
This simple analysis has lasted for 30 years and the essence presented here is well documented in my book Humanism.
You're backing up your opinion by saying it's well backed up in your own book? Perhaps, but your short description here (what I'm able to read and criticize) is simplistic and thus meaningless. If your book is amazing, then you didn't do it justice on this website.
May I ask, what is your field of expertise?
I ask because your analysis is extremely naïve. Almost childlike.