A country without Money how it's work?

Discussion in 'General Trek Discussion' started by Brainsucker, Dec 13, 2012.

  1. The Castellan

    The Castellan Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Location:
    The Plains of Cydonia
    Actually, I think the opposite of what he said, our society right now is stagnant. When money is talking, advances are slowed down or downright ceased. Plus look at what competition brought us: Arguments, conflict, war, lying, cheating, stealing, killing.....just to be/stay #1. Plus I am sure we'd have better energy, medicines, and so on if competition and money were not the focus....since I feel there's more to gain by NOT advancing than advancing. Big oil's making billions in profits....you think they'd congratulate whomever brings out a superior energy source and kindly step down? I doubt it. You think big pharma would allow a cancer cure be known if it was something as simple as a mixture of a few herbs or minerals, something that you can't patent? I doubt it. Also, one day of war is a lot more profitable than an entire year of peace time.

    Now I might be called a loony, but if I was to discover something like free energy or some miracle cure, I would only patent it to keep big business from exploiting it and post the design or formula on the internet, on TV, on printed media so everyone and anyone could get it. I'd not make a cent off it and the greedy power mongers could not legally touch it. If I were to make such a discovery, I'd not want a single penny from it, I don't put progress/salvation on a check book or whatever, it's to be used by everyone and no one has ANY rights to them whatsoever, not me, not you, not politicians, especially not military, no one....it's to be used by everyone.
     
  2. Deks

    Deks Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Human beings advanced most when they cooperated, not competed with each other.
    The monetary system is slowing us down in terms of technological advancement because, instead of doing things that are doable from a pure perception of 'resources and technology', we ignore that, and go on to apply fictional notion of 'cost'.
    No one asks themselves: 'do we have the technology and resources to do it?'
    Instead they ask: 'who's going to pay for it and how much does it cost?'

    Money stopped representing resources well over 100 years ago due to our ability to produce material abundance through technology.

    If something is 'cost prohibitive', is means that its technologically possible to pull off (in abundance no less) for everyone, but its deemed too expensive for a given company to put it out, because, when you are in a market-system, your primary goals are to 'remain in the game' and accumulate profits.
    What you see in the market is not innovation at all.
    Its usually decades old technology that just became 'cheap enough' for the manufacturer to make and sell.

    Take mag-lev trains for example.
    They were invented a LONG time ago.
    By 1972, it was well known that we could create vacuumed mag-lev trains that would achieve speeds of 6500km/h, and the non-vacuumed versions would go at speeds of 450km/h... requiring little to no maintenance, and being up to 100x more energy efficient.
    The ENTIRE GLOBE could have been connected with this technology (with every city) in 10 years (by 1982)with the technology at our disposal at the time.
    Did we (and do we still) have the materials and the technology to do it?
    Of course... only now we can do it in less than 10 years.
    Only... from a monetary point of view... this kind of undertaking is not 'practical' because it's EXPENSIVE.
    Technology and resources are NOT the problem to do it... money is.

    The market system is obsessed with 'cost efficiency'.
    Cost efficiency = technological inefficiency (because we use cheap/outdated/inefficient materials and means of production).
    We also intentionally design technology/tools to break down and to be inefficient from the start, because that allows companies to create revisions of existing products once every 12 to 24 months so they can have future profits - however, that's not innovation.
    We already had the ability to create 22nm CPU's (or lower) in the 1990's with existing materials and technology.
    It wasn't done because it was deemed 'cost prohibitive' and why would they bother to do so?
    Companies stand to make huge profits by simply creating less advanced technology and making revisions to it as time goes on, instead of creating the 'best' of what we can do.
    And that is with inefficient materials - imagine what would happen if we created our technology from superior synthetic materials that can be made in abundance that actually reflects our latest scientific knowledge.
    Scientific knowledge and practical application of it are at least 60 to 100 years ahead of presently used technology.

    In a system where EVERYONE are exposed to relevant general education, are free to pursue their interests and CHOOSE to work if they desire, where they can communicate/cooperate with each other and where they don't have to worry about basic necessities of life... where we focus to use technology for betterment of everyone creating the BEST of what is possible in a sustainable capacity... you would see a literal explosion of technological advancement on a regular basis.

    Leonardo Da Vinci, Nikola Tesla and Albert Einstein (to name a few), were not motivated by money to develop ideas, theories and practical models for much of the tools/technology currently in use.
    Most scientists today do NOT pursue their goals because they think there's good money to be made in it.
    A lot of people who became teachers are doing that job because this is something they want to do and not because there's huge monetary gain in it.

    The current system does a bang-up job in distorting values.

    This notion that 'competition' is better than cooperation is a byproduct of a system which effectively works AGAINST nature.
    Nature demonstrated that its effectively based on symbiosis and ALL biological systems working together (not each system working for itself).
    Our human bodies wouldn't be able to survive if independent organs were 'competitive' and 'greedy' - it would cause a systematic collapse that would create a shortage of resources to other organs and cause severe impairment (such as death).
    Balance and sustainability is how nature and our bodies work - otherwise, through competition alone, such biological systems would collapse a LONG time ago (and so would our civilization - such as it is).
    If Human behavior couldn't be altered, we'd still be living in caves.
     
  3. KamenRiderBlade

    KamenRiderBlade Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    You do realize that my previous posts were all in agreement with you effectively.

    The current society is screwed up because of the socioeconomic structure that is ingrained. Because of the financial system and power grabs, we aren't leveraging techology to it's fullest potential and making life better for everybody.

    All sides want power.

    Russia / China / Iran / etc. wanted more control by writing in rules in the ITU conference for more control over the internet.

    I'm not saying America is better, USA has plenty of flaws in capitol hill and the sheer arrogance of just killing what we don't like instead of truly trying to work things out.
     
  4. Longinus

    Longinus Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Yeah, probably. So?

    There is a reward, just not material one. There is acclaim and appreciation of the society, the exitement and feeling of accomplishement.

    To me this doesn't seem like a hard thing to crasp. Material rewards have been all of the human history just one of the many motivations for doing things.
     
  5. Deks

    Deks Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    I think what Brainsucker may not take into consideration that civilization as we know it... especially for a technologically developed age as we live in today, requires VERY FEW people to actually work and drive technology forward at faster rates - because most jobs are unproductive to society as is and only serve to 'move money around' for the sake of monetary based economy - actual production is automated/mechanized to a large degree (and we can automate so much more with existing technology alone).

    Besides, the notion that 'most people would simply choose to live a luxury life' is an assumption without basis.
    It depends on the environment.
    If you simply transposed people from an existing system to a non-monetary one without exposing people to relevant general education, informing them of sustainability or how it all works, you will end up with the same problems we have today.

    Exactly.
    'Rewards' - if people really need to look at life like that - could be seen as a sense of accomplishment.
    The realization you completed a task using your knowledge/skills to help others (for example).
    I did this on many occasions without asking for money or compensation of any kind.
    Money was demonstrated to be ineffective and cause a detrimental effect on people when they needed to actually think, use creativity, and problem-solving skills.
     
  6. Brainsucker

    Brainsucker Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2007
    an Asian, and Kamen Rider fan? Nice to see you here.

    I think a country like Trek's Earth model is do-able. But... with those lazy people who just enjoy luxury and leisure life, and only some virtues people choose to work for the community, I don't know how this country will develop.

    Well yes, there are only a handful of inventors who successfully develop new technologies. And what jobs are unproductive to society as is only serve to "move money around? Tell me some example of it! Gambling den? Whore House? Oh yes, You're right. Banking system? Trading (export - Import) ? Manufacture (clothes? electronic? vehicle? cigarette (oh for Cigarette, I agree with you, it is unproductive for society))

    You know, the drive of monetary based economy is capitalism. Well, maybe it has many flaw, but with capitalism, there are competition. And with competition, ideas and innovation are born. Apple won't develop I-pad, I-Phone, etc, if it's not because of monetary reason. Our cars won't be like we know today if there is no monetary reason from the producers. The industries would be the same as 19th century if there is no monetary reason to improve it. It is not because they are too greedy like the Ferengi (although still greedy), but because of the competition. They improve, and innovate because they want to become better than their competitors.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2012
  7. Deks

    Deks Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Most people who don't want to work today do so because they don't want to get stuck doing jobs they don't like (and options to get a chance at working on jobs they might like are next to non-existent).
    So... most of the time, this is actually their way of 'rebelling' in the present system.

    Society would be just fine even if 'most' of the global population were so-called 'free-loaders'.
    Look at today's society and most jobs. Most aren't contributing to society in a productive capacity at all - they are utterly useless to Humanity's needs and development at large.
     
  8. Brainsucker

    Brainsucker Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2007
    Now I understand what you want to tell me. Yes, I agree with this. Monetary based economy system is indeed make people selfish, and think only for themselves rather than contributing to their society

    Everything have their own positive and negative effects, I think.
     
  9. KamenRiderBlade

    KamenRiderBlade Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Secretary's, Insurance agents (the entire insurance system), Reality TV stars, stock broker's, most CEO's and upper management. The list can go on about who isn't being a truly useful member of society and just occupies a job for the sake of it.

    There is also monopoly's and holding technology back for the sake of greed. The Apple global lawsuits in the smartphone market and various other markets. You've got to admit that "Rounded Edges" on a smartphone is a silly thing to patent. "Swiping" at the edge of a webpage and have it snap back has been done by others. There are countless things wrong with current system, apple is just one of the causes of it.

    Competition is all well and good, but most companies out there aim to become monopolies and stifle competition. Look at all the industries who have become 2 company races or 2.x company races and watch how progress has slowed.

    Commerical Graphics card is now limited to AMD / Nvidia
    Commercial CPU's are limited to Intel / AMD
    Sound Card's have Creative / small no names
    Hard Drives have Western Digital / Seagate / small names
    The entire US ISP infrastructure is limited to regional monopolies of Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, Cox.
    PC OS options: Microsoft (by a large margin), Linux, Apple

    Competition is good, but capitalism aims for monopolies.
     
  10. Brainsucker

    Brainsucker Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2007
    Power grabs doesn't require financial system to be happen. Even in a non existence monetary system country, power grabs can be happened.

    The bold one : Insurance Company guys will not agree with you. But I won't waste my energy to defend them. And I hope Star Trek Series and this website Admin are not in your long list. Or else, why would you here in the first place?

    Yes, monopoly is indeed one of the Capitalism negative effects. The question is, why Capitalism Countries like USA generally richer and more advanced technologically than a non capitalism country like Nepal? Even China grabs Capitalism System now, and looks at how they improve.

    Ah, I realized now. Our debate has gone into which is better between socialism and capitalism system. It has already has gone too off topic. And back to topic, Trek's Earth economy model is indeed an extreme socialism system.
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2012
  11. TheRoyalFamily

    TheRoyalFamily Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    All of the lazy people died in the aftermath of WWIII (you don't work, you don't eat - there's no welfare in the apocalypse!), so there were no lazy genes to pass down.
     
  12. Deks

    Deks Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    What would be the point?
    If Humans have access to all necessities of life and most (if not all) wants on-demand... what is the point of 'power grabbing'?
    The reason that power grabbing happens today is because we live in a socio-economic system that actively promotes such a way of thinking in the first place and creates a setting where it is actually possible.

    'Grandiose desires' of domination, etc. stem from a distorted value-system and society that promotes such behavior.

    A technologically developed society such as ours without money would realistically do away with governments and people in positions of power because of automation (even governments are delegating decision making to machines to a large degree already - or basically, you arrive at decisions by relying on the information that is accessible via technology) and exposure of the population to relevant general education.

    There is simply no point to having a government if an entire population is exposed to relevant general education, because, the more you know, you are less prone to being manipulated/used, are capable of governing yourself, and can even think in a critical capacity along with being a problem solver (industrial education as we have it now does NOT expose you to generalized information in all fields that is actually IMPORTANT, nor does it prompt people to think critically or be problem solvers).
    Politicians and bureaucrats are useless - they are NOT problem-solvers.
    They don't create change - they mostly serve to perpetuate the status quo and keep things as they are.
    They 'might' make some token changes in an existing system, but that is nothing more than 'patching' or 'treating the symptoms', whereas the underlying cause is never addressed, hence we end up with even bigger or that much more problems down the road.

    Genes are responsible for physical traits.
    Behavior is environmental - starting from the early stages while we develop in the womb.
    And while Humans might be born with certain 'tendencies', whether or not those tendencies manifest depends on the environment you grow up in, along with information/knowledge you are exposed to.
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2012
  13. Brainsucker

    Brainsucker Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2007
    Are you aware that human are multi dimensional creature? 100 Human will have 100 different thinking. Even 1 book that we call bible has been interpreted by uncountable people. So how could a community, even it is in 24th century and more advanced than us could stand without a government? Or maybe you don't know about what we call "Anarchy?"

    And as long as I aware, humanity has government in Trek's 24th century.

    And btw, have you watch Star Trek Voyager season 3 episode 22? Are you sure that your way of thinking about human in Trek's 24th century is not the same as the Doctor to his "Perfect Virtual Family"? Because the series told me otherwise, that human are still the same as us today.
     
  14. Deks

    Deks Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Oh I know that Humans are multi-dimensional, but that doesn't mean that people will turn to anarchy without a government, that things will intricately fall apart that (or that society couldn't function without one).

    The reason governments worked in the past and today is because the general population was not 'educated' properly.
    Education today is limited to industrialization for the purpose of following orders, getting a job, and contributing to the economy like a 'good little consumer'.

    Exposure to relevant general education of the global population would eliminate governments and people in positions of power due to the individual's ability to contemplate notions in a variety of subjects and think critically without being subjected to 'take the word of a governing body' (which interestingly enough almost always distorts information to suit the vested interests in the present system).

    When you live in an advanced setting, your decision making is also bound to be switched over to machines (I already gave examples of how this has already been happening in reality on an increasing basis in previous posts).
    The only reason Star Trek never went that far is because they wanted to create a show that was 'relate-able' to the audience.
     
  15. KamenRiderBlade

    KamenRiderBlade Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Some people are control freaks, so they have a tendency to want to impose their will on others.
    Easiest way to do that is to get into some form of power and force change, whether it's for good / bad.
    Other people had traumatic experiences happen to them, ergo they find a way to get into power or influence power to effect change based on what they believe / want for the sake of their cause.
    Our entire world is full of this from every sort of lobbying group to private organizations around the world. Some for the general good like the EFF (Electronic Freedom Foundation).
    Some for selfish reasons like corporate/industry lobbyist like RIAA / MPAA trying to create SOPA/PIPA for their personal gain at the cost of American civil liberties.
    Then there will always be people who strive for power for personal gain, even if they don't think they're doing anything wrong or have good intentions.

    Even in a UFP like society without money, there would still be a need for government.
    Not everybody is going to think exactly alike.
    Since we are individuals, we are bound to see issues from a unique and different viewpoint.
    Because we have different viewpoints, we need a government to organize the thoughts of the people and make careful analysis of cause / effect while making laws to create a orderly society.
    Not having a government is a very unwise decision, people will interpret things differently and have no consistant response towards actions that may be ok with one set of people and wrong with another.
    This has the potential to lead to bloodshed or worse.

    Exposure to more education is very good for the public, I don't disagree, however delegating to machines is a faulty premise.
    Machines are a tool to help make informed decisions, not do the work for us.
    Since we the people program the machines, it is fallible.
    Ergo we must never relie on machines to do the important work that comes with making decisions.
    Machines are only as capable as the one who programmed it.
    It is far from a perfect system and should not be completely relied on to make our decisions.

    I agree, relevant general education will make everybody smarter / wiser / informed / less likedly to be tricked / able to think critically / etc.
    Current Politicians / Bureaucrats are useless because they exist only to sustain themselves and their self interest.
    The current political systems in most governments have been manipulated into making rules that protect the politicians into letting them get away with lots of obviously corrupt actions.
    Ergo campaign financing is ok in the form of donations from corporations / inviduals which are obviously bribes.
    Fundamental rules about how a government position needs to behave, how they work for qualifying for any position, how campaigning should work, how lobbying should work, how terms should work, etc all need to be re-written so that there is no way they can do things for self gain.
    They need to be rewritten so that they are only answerable to their constiuents.

    But as with my comments on the previous question, there always needs to be a government IMO.
    Just not the current form of government with it's current rules.
    A new form of Constitutional Representative Democracy mixed in with Direct Democracy along with new forms of checks and balances need to be installed IMO.
    Anything that is a direct port of an existing government is not ok IMO, every aspect of Government would need to be analyzed for weaknesses in forms of how you can corrupt the people / system and rules placed to limit such corruption.
    The system must be constently checked / revised / updated to limit / prevent corruption for the benefit of the people / country.

    I agree that Gene's are responsible for physical traits.

    I generally agree on this.
    Behavior IMO is mostly environmental, but certain personality tendencies are genetic, it's a small factor, but it's there.
    Doesn't mean you can't change as a person or cancel out your genetic pre-disposition, I know I did for a fact.
     
  16. KamenRiderBlade

    KamenRiderBlade Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    In small populations of probably 4 digits or less worth of people, lack of government might work without much of a hitch.
    However when you get into billions to quadrillions when you have a country as big as the UFP, conflict based on differing opinion will occur.
    Anything short of mass brainwashing, you're bound to have conflicting opinions.
    Government's purpose is to give focus and drive the people in a specific direction for the benefit of the people / country.

    I've already covered the education topic in my previous post.
    I generally agree with you Deks, so I'll leave that alone.

    I've already mentioned my thoughts on machines in my previous posts, so I will no regurgitate.

    As far as ST being 'relate-able', yes there is that, but it also probably stems from Gene's View Point along with any of the other creative staff that brought in contributions.

    Ergo a Constitutional Representative Democracy is the government structure they use to represent the UFP.
    The way the government is structured is what I don't agree with.
    The creative staff didn't put enough thought into creating a government that has the least likely system to prevent corruption.
    If there is a future series, there would need to be change to the rules / structure of the UFP government that needs to be covered IMO.
     
  17. Brainsucker

    Brainsucker Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2007
    thank you for your commenting all. But now I realized that "this kind of Perfect Government" and "less human behavior is actually possible in the world of Trek. But don't think that I will give the credit to human. No, humanity changed not because they realized their mistake after WWIII. The reason is too naive.

    I think, the most logical reason is that because they are being exposed to many Alien cultures. Look at us, we love to copy other people behavior. So, what prevent us to mimicking Vulcan?

    Come on, who can resist Vulcan? Look at them. Even with nerd hair cut and naive eyes, Vulcan is actually a bad ass. They can kick their enemy around with only touch their shoulder. And they clever like hell. No human children could win a science competition against Vulcan. That's why Vulcan can become the role model of some people.

    And because they interact closely for more than three centuries, it is possible that some human has become more "Vulcan" than their ancestor. I think, it is the most possible answer for this problem.

    Why human is so weak and easily to exposed by more advanced cultural entity? We have some examples in real life. Look at Japanese. They are more American than their ancestor now. And not only them, there are a lot of cultural transfer and change of behaviors in our world. Some because of culture, other because of religion. That's why the human in 24th century is also exposed and maybe influenced by the foreign culture, like Vulcan, or Klingon, or Romulan, or the others. It is a natural way of life in our universe.
     
  18. Deks

    Deks Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    One thing I might have neglected to mention about a society without government is that it can work if its automated to a large degree (or should I say, a Cybernated society).
    We shouldn't be afraid of technology (this fear mainly stems from the idiotic Hollywood movies written by people who have little to no understanding of how technology actually works).
    We aren't infallible, yes... BUT, we also don't make our technology for betterment of everyone, nor are we creating it to LAST (to not break down).
    Planned obsolescence is intricately designed into the current system because it drives profits... other than that, we've known for a LONG time how to make technology that requires little to no maintenance and doesn't break down.
    We already have machines that build other machines, that are self-maintaining, etc...

    Machinery/robotics/computers SHOULD be used to do 'the dirty work'.
    We also delegate decision making to machines in exactly the manner that you described... to arrive at informed decisions - however, this is expanding at a large rate to other areas.

    You don't need governments to organize thoughts.
    Governments CANNOT represent EVERY person on the planet because there are simply too many people who think for themselves and have their own ways of thinking.
    Governments can only generalize - and with people in positions of power, you ALWAYS create a setting that is subject to 'power grabs' (regardless of how 'noble' an individual may be).

    To create a system without government, you'd need global communications... which we already have had for some time (though it would require some minor modification to allow for direct democracy of sorts).
    If you would like something done, you can set up a proposal in an area you wanted it to be made, and see how the people in that area will react.
    How will this benefit their lives or influence the environment, and is it sustainable - those are the kinds of questions that people should be asking.
    People don't need governments to voice what they need/want be done... they can do that themselves.
    And once the global population is exposed to relevant general education, along to notions of sustainability - their behavior will quite likely change as a result.

    As for power grabbing behavior... as I said earlier, that kind of behavior is not generated out of nowhere - it needs an environment that prompts this kind of thinking and has a setting where it is actually possible.

    In a cybernated society... this kind of behavior would be extremely unlikely to manifest (especially if its NOT encouraged)... and even if it did, there would be no 'power' for anyone to grab a hold of.
    Imposing ones will onto another is a behavior based on the present-socio economic system that prompts notions of 'ownership'.
    Access abundance (or a system of on-demand usership) could easily do away with 'ownership' type of behavior.

    The transitional period to a resource based economy in the real world WOULD require a government an usage of money - but only for a limited amount of time (about 10 years) - after which, both would be dissolved intentionally (as it would be known its only temporary).

    The only reason Trek decided to keep governments (and other things that still exist) and superimpose them to the Federation, is because its something 'relate-able' to the viewers.
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2012
  19. KamenRiderBlade

    KamenRiderBlade Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Just curious is English your primary language?

    I wouldn't give Vulcan's that much credit, sure they open our eyes, but even in ST:ENT, they clearly stated humanity changed itself after "First Contact" happened.
    Vulcan's were a inspiration as to what is capable for a civiliation / species potential.
    However, the change happened because humanity was determined to improve so they can move on past all the old problems and deal with new issues regarding space exploration and the possibility of spreading human kind into the stars.
    All Human's on Earth would have learned that it needed to not place it's species all on 1 planet after WW3, ergo fixing basic problems and readying themselves for colonization would be a huge priority for the human race.
     
  20. KamenRiderBlade

    KamenRiderBlade Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    I agree technology will be used to help humanity, just not to automate decision making when it comes to governing people. There are way too many things that can fall through the cracks with that kind of thinking.

    I agree that most technology is made with planned obsolescence, but even the most durable of products will eventually break from regular wear and tear. That is a fact of all technology. Nothing is indestructable or unbreakable. Everything will break, it's just a matter of time, wear, stress, etc.

    I agree, machines should be doing most of the "Dirty Work". That's the only efficient way for our society to improve.
    Imagine how much better FOXCONN would be if they got rid of all their chinese slave labor for robot automation.
    The sheer consistancy / quality improvement from that alone would be huge.
    Now if they wouldn't skimp on design / materials, but that is a different problem to solve.

    You don't need government to organize thoughts.
    However not everybody is going to care to participate either whether out of apathy or lack of time to invest in a subject matter.
    Of course you can't represent everybody's opinion.
    Not everybody will submit their opinions either.
    Representative democracy is there so that hopefully the guy you voted in / won will represent the will of the majority of his constituents, whether or not that happens in reality is a whole different problem.
    Government is supposed to make rules to solve a problem that majorly affects society.
    Current government is far from that.

    In your view, everybody would be connected via the internet and spend their days discussing everything until something had to be done.
    Sounds like way too much talking and not enough doing IMO.
    The problem with everybody contributing is that there will be too many cooks in the kitchen.
    Even with the most well rounded / educated / critical thinking people, this problem of too many differing view points will happen.
    Direct Democracy may not work if it's just pure voting on the internet on a subject.
    There will always be the issue of somebody rigging the votes and switching out what is the real vote count and what the results are.
    Anytime there are hidden votes, this classic con of "Two sets of books" will always be a problem.
    If you keep votes open, especially on the net, it will lead to influencing of others.
    Keeping count of millions of votes openly on the net will also be problematic.
    What government should be doing is creating rules that everybody can abide by and leave all the minutiae(sp?) of everyday life to the people.

    I've seen people power grab even if they were raised in the best of environments.
    I'm just going to have to agree to disagree with you Deks on that issue.
    Power Grab will always be an issue, no matter the environment.
     

Share This Page