11 ms·
There appears to be some merit to what you're proposing. But what about long-term issues, such as climate change, etc. How are a group of people going to conv
by ceejay 10y ago
There appears to be some merit to what you're proposing. But what about long-term issues, such as climate change, etc. How are a group of people going to convince a large enough group to pay money for it, and who is going to enforce it?
Also, things that don't affect majority of people will probably never get enough funding. For example blindness. How many blind people do you know? And do you think anyone is going to be convinced that a single kickstarter-type campaign is going to solve it? I imagine even the most motivated donors will start considering dropping out after 2 decades of spending money when they've produced no measurable results to curing blindness (or paralysis, cancer, etc).
EDIT: In fact, the more I think about it, the more it becomes obvious this sort of system couldn't work on a massive scale (such as a scale necessary to do what a government does). Each person is probably only going to be able to comprehend the need to address perhaps hundreds of specific issues. But my guess is that governments, in total, deal with probably 10's of thousands if not more different types of issues on a daily basis. Not only that but those issues that a citizen does comprehend, will he / she need to keep up with how each issue is being addressed? After all, otherwise I'm potentially just throwing money down a rat hole. Sounds like more than just a full-time job on its own. How would one find enough time to do that and still make money to bring home to their families, etc..
- smokeyj 10y agoOP was making a principled stance for a more direct democracy. When you argue against a more direct democracy, doesn't that make you scratch your chin and wonder if you really support democracy at all? Do you really support your fellow man and his pursuit of happiness, or do you know what's best for him and wish to dictate how he lives. Based on what you wrote, you don't support democracy at all - which may possibly be a valid view.
- wav-part 10y agoDemocracy is socially-accepted extortion from successful. So any proposed Democracy 2.0 that reduce welfare spending, will be met with opposition from people. This predicts quite many behaviours of people that supposedely support Freedom/Independece/etc.
- ceejay 10y agoI guess I see things in shades of grey, not black and white. I think dogmatic positions are almost always wrong :)