Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: The Future of Democracy

Posted 5 years ago on Feb. 8, 2013, 11:45 a.m. EST by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Let’s allow every person, who within the scope of his work has an ability to make decisions on our behalf, to do it freely upon their will. We do not even have much choice because we cannot interfere with the work of presidents, doctors and mechanics, or any other worker, nor do we have the ability, nor the time, perhaps not even the desire to do so. However, all these people through their work duties may create advantages and disadvantages to individuals and society. We certainly have developed the ability to sense whether or not the work of a president, doctor, mechanic, or any other man, brings some advantages or disadvantages to us. And on the basis of it we should have the right to award a man who through his work creates convenience to us and punish a man who does inconveniences to us. Such a right would certainly direct all people to perform the least inconveniences and the greatest conveniences to other people. Such an orientation of society would certainly follow the will of all the people in the best possible way and therefore would present a developed democracy.

My philosophy is based on the equal rights of people because it is the only proper orientation of society. In this regard, let each person have an equal right to punish let’s say three individuals who hurt him the most in any month and to award let’s say three individuals who realize the greatest benefits to him each month. This is the essence and the rest is a technical matter about which I won’t bother you much here. I propose that the rewards and punishments have an equivalent value of one dollar. In that manner all people will become equal authorities who have a small direct power in society. Given that all people will have equal rights and the power of evaluation, and that they can give their assessments regardless of any written rules, such a democracy will present the form of anarchy. That is the reason why I have called such an evaluating system a democratic anarchy. I am confident that this is the only possible path towards full democracy and good society. A democratic anarchy will direct each member of society to respect other people. People will become values to other people. They will create the greatest possible advantages for society, and diminish or abolish the creation of all forms of disadvantages. Such a measure will definitely decrease uncontrolled or insufficiently controlled individual power originating in a privileged social status. I have to stress that the privileged status of individuals causes the greatest inconveniences and problems to a society. In this extremely simple way, the populus will for the first time in the history of humankind realize a great direct power in society, which will result in highly harmonious and constructive social relations. Many people, including university professors, have given me remarks in the sense that people are not able to objectively judge other people. I have answered them that objectivity is desirable but not essential. People will judge others the way they feel and every person is obliged to take into account the consequences his actions may have on other people. By adopting this system that will happen and that is exactly what will bring huge benefits to society. Furthermore, a system that supports the equal rights of people will develop objectivity in society and when that happens, people will certainly objectively judge other people. Individuals will not have much power in society, but their evaluations joined together will be very powerful. A person who receives a large number of negative evaluations would try hard to avoid doing anything inconvenient to other people. Besides, the person who receives bad evaluations would never know who has evaluated him negatively so that he would try to improve his behaviour towards everyone. As a result, bullies will not harass children at school any more, bosses will not abuse their employees at work, neighbours will not produce noise at night, salespeople will not cheat their customers, politicians will not lie to people, etc. They will all try to please other people in the best possible way. This is what will take privileged powers from all the people; this is what will eliminate social evil and form a good society. The system of democratic anarchy will especially affect authorities. The higher the position an authority has in society, the greater the responsibility he would bare to society. For example: The President of the US might get 100,000,000 bad evaluations from the American people for bad policies, lies, and for criminal aggressions on countries. That would cost him 100,000,000 dollars in only one month. On the other hand, I doubt that his supporters would certainly evaluate him positively because they might easily have higher positive evaluation priorities and would spend their positive evaluations elsewhere. Non-privileged presidents would no longer dare perform bad policies anymore. And if it happens somehow, they would run away from their positions very fast. Only the most skilful and brave individuals would dare lead countries. They will not be authorities anymore, but our servants. People will judge other people freely. In this regard, I have received many complaints in the sense that people may evaluate other people maliciously because of spite or envy. I answered that such a risk exists but I would add that individual assessment in the amount of one dollar might not cause significant harm to anyone. Damage that an individual can make is insignificant compared to the damage authorities can make because they often pull back the whole society. Take again the example of Hitler and Bush. In the system that I have proposed these individuals would get so many negative evaluations from people from the very beginning of their careers that they would no longer dare to cause evil. It is possible to forbid people who receive a large number of negative evaluations from governing society. In this way, authorities will no longer dare to carry out aggression and wars. Is it worthwhile to allow individuals to wrongly judge others in the amount of one dollar if such trials would abolish all forms of destructiveness in society? Sure it is. In addition, the new system will develop objective values and the conscience of the people where malice and envy would hardly exist. If something like that would still exist, each person would be able to correct a possible wrongful assessment that he gave to another individual by instigating a correct evaluation even many years later when he experiences an enlightenment under the influence of the new system. And he will.

So what if powerful people who own mass media unfairly accuse someone of evil in society and thus prompt people to give bad evaluations to the wrong person? Such things are easily possible in today's society. However, there is a proverb that says: "Lies have short legs." One day the lie will be revealed and then I would not like to be in the skin of these individuals who lied because they will be punished by the people for sure. A democratic anarchy will finally and unconditionally create a good society and therefore it presents the greatest invention of all the time.

The whole article is available here http://www.sarovic.com/future_of_democracy.htm

Aleksandar Sarovic www.sarovic.com



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by DSamms (-294) 5 years ago

Your premise is that all people are, or will become, "good"?

And those whom are not "good" initially will experience a transformative "enlightenment" or epiphany at an unknown point in the indeterminate future?

That this system works because "unfair accusations" in mass media "might" be publicly revealed at an unknown point in the indeterminate future?

[-] 1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 5 years ago


[-] 0 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 5 years ago

The point is, society will became much better immediately after the implementation of the system, or even earlier when people find it is coming.

[-] 1 points by DSamms (-294) 5 years ago

That is the realm of belief... and faith.

[-] 0 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 5 years ago

Nothing about that. It's about anyone having power to kick you the same you have to kick them, so that you would have to respect them the same way they respect you. Or in another words: "Do not do to others what you do not do yourself." That is the path to good society.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 5 years ago

I'll read yours if you read mine!

Back to Topic References: http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/conglomerate-and-dgrc-topic-references/

It's cool that you mention Evaluations. I did a browser find and Highlight all, and the word Evaluations appears many times.

I don't have time to read much tonight, but we might be on the same wavelength. I'm thinking about a system without voting, but evaluations to determine our leaders.

I look forward to discovering what you have to offer, thanks for the motivation!

[-] 1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 5 years ago

I would suggest you to work on essence. This is the best way to find valuable conclusions and readers may find reading you easier and more enjoyable.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 5 years ago

Not sure what you mean or how much you read. Can you show me where essence was lacking? Can you elaborate?

[-] 1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 5 years ago

Your article presents a general statement. Then you put link for some specific problem and when I opened it still talks generally. The solution is needed sooner in the article.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 5 years ago

It sounds like you read part of the beginning so far. Please scroll down to the 99% Conglomerate section.

Actually, here are the links for that section.

Beat them at their own game: The 99% Conglomerate






Inception-phase planning links:

P1: http://occupywallst.org/forum/p1-incorporation/

P2: http://occupywallst.org/forum/p2-presence/

P3: http://occupywallst.org/forum/p3-consumption/

And then there is the Departmental Governance part. Far from complete, but I believe the start is enough to get a taste of essence.

[-] 0 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 5 years ago

You request way too much reading. You better take step by step and try to be strait forward as much as you can. I believe there is only one form of socialism and that require every worker having access to every work position. Let the best offer get the job. Let make the worker very responsible to do it in the way he would never dare to offer something he could not do. That is it. If interested, here is more detailed description: http://www.sarovic.com/marxism.htm

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 5 years ago

I request too much reading?? I bet you are linking to 500x as many words as I've linked to. Your pdf is almost 160 pages! And I didn't notice any in-text citations or references.

[-] 0 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 5 years ago

I've had an intention to tell you what is in my opinion problem with your writing and you should not get mad because of it. I point the attention of readers to short articles and not to complete work. Anyway I do not want to discuss it here anymore because it has nothing to do with democracy.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 5 years ago

I've been reading a bit and come to the conclusion that I will use any good ideas you may have, if any, to advance mine.

Maybe you are a genius (self-proclaimed and a retarded thing to proclaim), but you are seriously lacking in many areas. We have nothing further to discuss.