Direct democracy - the only true democracy? | Page 5 | INFJ Forum

Direct democracy - the only true democracy?

There's a big problem with that. Several actually. Let's ignore whether there is logistical problems or not for now.

1. A lot of people don't want it. Either because they're afraid of it, or they just plain prefer a representative republic. We'd have to tear down the system they prefer and that is definitely not democracy.

I'd be very interested to see the poll from which you got this impression

2. People here are lazy and they don't like change. A lot of people aren't paranoid. They simply don't care.

many do care and more and more will care as the environment changes around them (take note of the increased grass roots political agitation)

3. Our government wants to keep us in check. You think they're going to just hand over the keys to the citizens? That's just asking for indictment.

peaceful non-cooperation by an awakened and motivated public with a clear vision

4. They're already corrupt. I see no reason our government would switch to a new system without leaving a way to keep their hands in it. They are too used to running the country and direct democracy would greatly diminish their political careers.

Indeed which is why the power needs to be taken off them...they will not share if left to their own devices

But what people need to realise is that things are not static at the moment...things are changing all the time; new laws are being passed all the time and it doesn't take a genius to see that what the powers that be are trying to do is to intrude further and further into our lives

Where do people think that process will end? Do they think the government will draw a line at intruding into your home? Do you think they will draw a line at intruding into your body?

If you are realistic and have ben following events then you will know that they will not draw a line and will keep going until we are utterly controlled

It's not a question of whether we should do anything anymore, the only questions now are: 'what should we do?' and 'how should we do it?'

I'm heartened to see forumites now begin to discuss these questions; this shows a progression in the public consciousness

5. Even if by some miracle they did it and did it honestly, they'd switch to even more hard lobbying and campaigning. Especially since they're no longer incumbent which would exempt them from a lot of the rules about political lobbying and donations. They'd be able to use their free speech like citizens. Citizens which happen to have a lot of money.

No they won't do it....we the people must do it just as was done when the US gained its independance

We learned here in the UK that you can't negotiate with these people back in 1381 during the peasants revolt when the people marched en masse to London to demand more rights from the king

The leaders of the rising rode forward to meet the king and his representatives under a flag of truce but despite this the kings reps murdered the leader of the peasants Wat Tyler and then the king sprung his trap with his troops moving forward and taking aim at the people with their crossbows

YOU CANNOT NEGOTIATE WITH THESE PEOPLE...THEY ARE NOT TO BE TRUSTED

The people need to peacefully but strongly take power off them and then implement their own system
 
[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]

That's great. All I'm going by is intuition and the people I actually know personally. And I can say they're not with you.

Less than half of our citizens vote. We kind of have two kinds of people - those who REALLY care about politics and those who don't care at all. There's almost no in between. Everyone I know cares more about their job or Facebook and the state of the nation is little more than a passing thought.

I think you underestimate the number of people who are 'awakened' due to the vocal nature of those who are. I assure you they're still a minority.
 
@muir

That's great. All I'm going by is intuition and the people I actually know personally. And I can say they're not with you.

I speak to a lot of people and the idea is popular and growing by the day

The younger generation are more in favour of such things and as the demographics change with the older generation dying off and the younger generation who have inherited the 'age of austerity' taking over they will be more open to ideas of change

This is not down to my intuition this is down to clear and seismic shifts occuring across the world whether it is various youthful protest movements around the globe or the rise of new political parties with a youthful flavour such as pedemos in spain (where there is 50% unemployment in the 18-25 year old range), the five star movement in italy or the pirate party across the western world

People across the world are crying out for more voice; don't take my word for it just look into the various protest movements and new political parties

Less than half of our citizens vote. We kind of have two kinds of people - those who REALLY care about politics and those who don't care at all. There's almost no in between. Everyone I know cares more about their job or Facebook and the state of the nation is little more than a passing thought.

It's not that people don't care about politics it is that they don't believe their vote makes any dfference

Here in scotland we had very low voter turnout until we had a referendum on independance and because people knew this was something in which their vote mattered they turned out in record numbers

The vote was rigged in the end and 'yes' votes have been found in sacks in bins but even the rigged vote was narrow. An independent body has declared the british voting system is totally open to fraud and suspiciously there was no exit poll for the independance vote

The lesson in this is that when people think they have a stake they get involved; so if we had direct democracy people would be more involved

I think you underestimate the number of people who are 'awakened' due to the vocal nature of those who are. I assure you they're still a minority.

Growing by the day
 
[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]

You have to realise that there are also those who tendentiously try to divert people from taking matters into their own hands.

As Goebbels said:"If you repeat a lie often enough it will become truth."

Naturally you have to expect Reuters to launch a massive anti-democratic campaign in which various people will be interviewed while expressing their opinion about how representative democracy is the only true democracy and that we can't have a "tyranny of the mob" (or a similar artificially created term), etc. Then you will have people spreading lies on the internet as well, trying to undermine the will of those that are determined to actually change something.

Media is a strong tool for the flock, unfortunately. Imagine implanting RFID chip under your skin. Of course you would object it, but the younger generation would become bombarded with super-ultra cool commercials saying "I am cool, are you?", etc. So that kids would beg institutions to chip them in order to be on a track with other "cool kids". That's how it works. No one will tell you that the GMO apple is mixed with a gene of a wine fly or that those hydroponic tomatoes are mixed with the gene of a fish. They will start to ramble about how we can't feed enough people because there are billions of us in the world. No one will say hold on, we have enough land to feed country twice of our size, why do WE need the GMO food? People in Somalia starved before GMO and they continue to starve, so obviously that's not the reason. Why do I have to eat a corn whose genes are mixed with a gene of a grasshopper?

Why does Bill Gates, a humanitarian, finance sterilisation through vaccines without people even knowing that their legacy dies with their kids?

Are we really going to let ourselves be reduced to the golden number of 500 mil souls?

Everyone wants to participate in the decision making process, especially if their future is at stake.
 
Not at all. Swiss made it abundantly clear that they won't tolerate mosques in their country. Perhaps some would call it sauvinistic, but their soldiers won't get stabbed in the broad daylight by disgruntled religious fanatics. Majority, contrary to popular belief, does know what is best for them. If privatisation and GMO benefits a selected few then it is only natural for the people to opt against it. We can't let selfish interests to be in a way of well being of the entire nation. Privatization of water brought 300% higher bills for the same tap water that people used to drink before. We can either have a country or a corporation, but the Reagan/Thatcher doctrine is unsustainable. Wealth of the country is measured by the quality of life of its poorest citizens e.g. Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, etc.

I dont like majoritarianism or minoritarianism, I dont believe that democracy is a simple counting exercise or numbers game, it has been in the (very) limited exercises in democracy which the world has known.

I'm not a fan of either privatisation nor nationalisation per se, personally I believe either could be necessary for a desired outcome but not sufficient, the same as any particular policy or reform. My point was that any policy or reform, despite its popularity, could be obstructed by measures considered or nominally or formally "democratic", such as decentralisation or high qualifying mandates because of inertia or difficulties, quite normal difficulties, mobilising people or sustaining that mobilisation.

For instance, do you want to know a perfectly legal and "democratic" means of installing a dictatorship? Create a norm or legal qualification for any election result to only be considered legitimate if there is a 97% or higher turn out of the electorate/voting population. There are never turn outs in those numbers. Referndums or highly charged single issue campaigns may have that many voters turn out at the polls but these are the exception and not the rule.

This is not simply public apathy and inertia, which is normal enough, but peoples priorities and devotion to things other than politics, which I think is fine too, the only societies and political orders which aim that constant and consistent political mobilisation have been totalitarian ones which dread the public having idosyncracies, personal and private occuptions or interests, family lives etc. that could compete for their attention.
 
@muir

You have to realise that there are also those who tendentiously try to divert people from taking matters into their own hands.

Yeah but unfortunately they are much more cunning than presenting things in such a black and white manner

When things are black and white it becomes very easy for people to work out which side of the line they want to stand on; this is why the neo-con prophet the philosopher leo strauss used to love watching old westerns. he taught his neo-con students like paul wolfowitz and donald rumsfeld and dick cheney that they need ot present all conflicts to the US public in a black and white manner like in the old cowboy films where the good guy wore a white hat and the bad guy wore a black hat.

This is why the corporate media presents the US as fighting a war against 'evil' with themselves as the brave world policeman fighting against the 'evil axis' etc

They present everything in black and white terms in a complete distortion of reality.

So there are ways of fucking with peoples heads to confuse them and dissempower them as a political force

So one thing they do is they constantly tell people contradictory things. They do this with lots of things but perhaps one that people can really relate to is how they do it with food. So for example they'll tell you for a while through their media that eating eggs are bad for you and that it will create cholesterol and that cholesterol is bad for you lol and then later on they will tell you that eggs are good for you and that cholesterol is natural. then they will tel you that saturated fats are bad for you and then later they will tell you that they are good for you. They'll tell you that red meat is bad for you then say its good, they'll do the same with carbs etc

But basically what happens is eventually people don;t even know what to think anymore. They develop cognitive dissonance in their minds and their rational mind shits down; they lose the ability to make conscious decisivie decisions and they are then in a susceptible state where they are more likely to obey authority figures

Another way they mess with peoples minds is through Hegelian dialectics or what Icke has called 'problem, reaction, solution' where they create a problem but blame it on someone else to create a reaction in the public who then demand that their government take some sort of action so that they can then present their pre-prepared solution to the now willing and accepting public

They do this with false flag terrorist attacks all the time...in fact it's all becoming a bit hackneyed for those that are awake to this; for example the recent shootings in canada are all a bit predictable as they are the only NATO partner that hasn't been provoked by ISIS to enter the conflict in syria.

NATO have been doin this for decades through their 'stay behind armies' known as 'operation gladio' where they carried out terrorist attacks and then blamed it on the left to justify the government creating new laws which stripped the public of their civil liberties (which is what the canadian government is trying to do)

They called this a 'strategy of tension' and if people can understand this and the history of the NATO gladio underground armies then so much of what is going on right now in our world will make sense

As Goebbels said:"If you repeat a lie often enough it will become truth."

Yes the 'big lie'....well at least the Nazis called it 'propaganda' but the US euphemistically calls it 'Public relations' and they have made an entire industry out of it!

Naturally you have to expect Reuters to launch a massive anti-democratic campaign in which various people will be interviewed while expressing their opinion about how representative democracy is the only true democracy and that we can't have a "tyranny of the mob" (or a similar artificially created term), etc. Then you will have people spreading lies on the internet as well, trying to undermine the will of those that are determined to actually change something.

Snowden has told us that without a doubt there are government agents online trying to shape public opnion; when you listen to the kind of crap some people are saying where they are defending the centralisation of pwoer in the hands of the murdering corporations you really do have to wonder what is motivating them.......you know because either they're being paid to be a **** or they just are a heartless **** incapable of empathy...either way it's pretty disturbing to see people behaving like that (but some backstabbers will sell their soul for a bag of silver)

But zbigneu bzrezinski who is part of the globalist clique has publically acknowledged that a global mass awakening of political consciousness is occuring so the ptb know that the people are waking up so what they'll do now is what they always do which is to try and infiltrate, co-opt and steer various movements

So for example here in the UK we have a guy called russel brand who is making a lot of noise about 'revolution' but who gets to say that stuff on the BBC? NO ONE!

His girlfriends (jemima Khan, previously Goldsmith) family is intermarried with the rothschilds and clearly he is another fabian socialist who wants to steer us to a centralised state-socialist system where the economy will be centrally run by the banksters who hide behind a totalitarian police state (and you can see that police state being built around us)

So i think they'll try to steer things through controlled opposition. Brand is there to make the right noises so that the public jump on the bandwagon and walk blindly into a trap

Media is a strong tool for the flock, unfortunately. Imagine implanting RFID chip under your skin. Of course you would object it, but the younger generation would become bombarded with super-ultra cool commercials saying "I am cool, are you?", etc. So that kids would beg institutions to chip them in order to be on a track with other "cool kids". That's how it works.

Absolutely!

As you say they will sell it as cool and they'll have brad pitt and hollywood stars using the new tech in films in really cool ways and they'll sell it to people as being evolution; they'll say: ''remember how you used to have a card or carry cash but it was bulky and sometimes you forgot your wallet/purse or lost it? Well now you can have access to your money at anytime, no bulky items or inconvenience ever again...bla bla bla'' (cue the influence of the public relations industry to market it to the public as a good thing)

No one will tell you that the GMO apple is mixed with a gene of a wine fly or that those hydroponic tomatoes are mixed with the gene of a fish.

In the US they don't even label GMO food thereby robbing people of the chance to make a conscious decision over what they put into their bodies!

Free will is a cosmic law but it is being totally breached in the US

Considering tests have shown GMO's to cause cancer that alone should be enough to turn the US public against monsanto (cue obamas new health system to profit from the coming health epidemic)

They will start to ramble about how we can't feed enough people because there are billions of us in the world. No one will say hold on, we have enough land to feed country twice of our size, why do WE need the GMO food? People in Somalia starved before GMO and they continue to starve, so obviously that's not the reason. Why do I have to eat a corn whose genes are mixed with a gene of a grasshopper?

GMO food is failing and destroying the land and the people. We have plenty of god soil and we should be planting organic food using natural fertiliser and permaculture to farm sustainably

If people think there is not enough land then they should plough up the golf courses and football pitches. if people think golf or football is more important then giving kids clean nutritious food then they need to wake the fuck up

Why does Bill Gates, a humanitarian, finance sterilisation through vaccines without people even knowing that their legacy dies with their kids?

Bill gates is anti-human

He is a conniving manipulative mass murderer and manufacturer of computing spytech. Funder of monsanto, funder of GMO's, funder of geoengineering, funder of toxic vaccines...really...what an sob

Are we really going to let ourselves be reduced to the golden number of 500 mil souls?

Everyone wants to participate in the decision making process, especially if their future is at stake.

The only reason someone might not want to is because they are too ignorant to realise that their future is at stake
 
Last edited:
As well as we live in a world where we are constantly bombarded with subliminal messages, marketing tricks, propaganda, etc. Ultimately, if they want to compromise the results, they will do it either way, but even they can't mask their electronic signature entirely which offers at least a way of controlling their actions.

You realize that marketing and propaganda won't go away if we switch to a 1 vote system. You just get both the propaganda and the hacking.
 
You realize that marketing and propaganda won't go away if we switch to a 1 vote system. You just get both the propaganda and the hacking.

The speed and dynamism of a direct democracy system is such that the cost of marketing over each issue is prohibitive and there isn't enough time to mount an effective campaign

Also as the system evens out education will improve, the alternative media will grow, the corporate media will die and the public will become more literate, numerate and politically savy
 
The speed and dynamism of a direct democracy system is such that the cost of marketing over each issue is prohibitive and there isn't enough time to mount an effective campaign

Also as the system evens out education will improve, the alternative media will grow, the corporate media will die and the public will become more literate, numerate and politically savy

Having 1.25 billion people voting on an issue will not be fast, and I'm sure that any political or corporate entity will have enough foreknowledge to produce some kind of marketing campaign, politicing isn't even done in the campaign season, they be doing that way before an issue of any variety is brought up to vote on.
 
Having 1.25 billion people voting on an issue will not be fast, and I'm sure that any political or corporate entity will have enough foreknowledge to produce some kind of marketing campaign, politicing isn't even done in the campaign season, they be doing that way before an issue of any variety is brought up to vote on.

That would be a global community issue

There would be regional issues and issues within towns and cities too

These are all layers of 'community'

So a village is a community but it is also part of a wider regional community and that in turn is part of the global community

So accompanying this move would be 'localism' and 'degrowth' (decroissance)

So food production would come closer to home as would energy production through renewables.

It wouldn't just be a change in how we vote, circumstances are dictating that we must also change how we live

So most of your concerns would be local but there might be some issues that would need to be decided at a regional level and some even at a global level

So someone from your local community could be voted to act as a delegate who would take forward your democratic mandate to a regional council of delegates. If the delegate does not carry out your mandate he/she is INSTANTLY revocable (unlike modern politicians who can renege on promises and stay in office)

In turn regional councils can put forward delegates to carry things forward to a higher level

This way power is exercised form the bottom of society upwards and not from the top down
 
That would be a global community issue

There would be regional issues and issues within towns and cities too

These are all layers of 'community'

So a village is a community but it is also part of a wider regional community and that in turn is part of the global community

So accompanying this move would be 'localism' and 'degrowth' (decroissance)

So food production would come closer to home as would energy production through renewables.

It wouldn't just be a change in how we vote, circumstances are dictating that we must also change how we live

So most of your concerns would be local but there might be some issues that would need to be decided at a regional level and some even at a global level

So someone from your local community could be voted to act as a delegate who would take forward your democratic mandate to a regional council of delegates. If the delegate does not carry out your mandate he/she is INSTANTLY revocable (unlike modern politicians who can renege on promises and stay in office)

In turn regional councils can put forward delegates to carry things forward to a higher level

This way power is exercised form the bottom of society upwards and not from the top down

That's not a direct one vote democracy, that's another republic.
 
That's not a direct one vote democracy, that's another republic.

There are various options which imo people should be discussing at this critical time in history

The cryptographic BLOCKCHAIN upon which bitcoin is based could be used as a fullrpoof and tamper proof way for people to vote using the internet

The blockchain is a foolproof public ledger
 
Yes, definitely.

What we have now is a system where we elect people to go and participate in direct democracy for us and they fucked up (and us) repeatedly.

However, I think the process of campaigning would have to be simplified and uniform to keep the focus on the issue being decided upon.

If the psychological manipulation that is allowed in advertising and campaigning now were allowed to run rampant it would go to shit quickly.

The internet could make this work magnificently but so much more would have to change. Global capitalism to start hahaha.
 
Democracy doesn't work if the majority is dumb. I would make voting a privilege you have to earn by doing an IQ test or some other basic knowledge test.
 
Democracy doesn't work if the majority is dumb. I would make voting a privilege you have to earn by doing an IQ test or some other basic knowledge test.

Then its not democracy anymore as certain people will become the IQ test gatekeepers deciding who gets to vote and who doesn't

I agree though that a politically empowered public also needs to be a mentally empowered public in order to be able to make informed decisions

but the input needed to help the population become informed will not occur fully whislt the el-ite are able to block it because the el-ite fear a well informed populace because an informed populace is empowered and will assert itself

They want to keep the public ignorant and distracted

So we have to break the cycle and that can only happen by taking power off the elites who will block educational progress