3 ms·

> "So ultimately the concept of democracy makes sense as something that ordinary people have actually done, and continue to do when they can create spaces of po

by ofou 5y ago

> "So ultimately the concept of democracy makes sense as something that ordinary people have actually done, and continue to do when they can create spaces of possibility in which they can act as equals to solve their common problems." I agree you your comments, btw I think is still an open problem how to deal with political parties in real-world democracies.

secondaryacct 5y ago
It s a balancing game with changing rules - a sane democracy accepts to change (I dont think the american system is a democracy fwiw, as a French). For instance, sometimes an election with 13 parties will have open primaries in 5 of them binding the entire population to each candidate who will end up similar to each other, and the next time parties change the rule to avoid this risk and end up with a wide pentagram of mainstream extremes, and some revert back etc. As long as you have more than a binary split, anyone can join parties militant groups and local officials approve the national election candidates (so you have a soft gatekeeper), you open up to arbitrary mutations that prevent rotting fixtures. The GOP/Dem eternal fight in the heavens is distracting people from their duty to elect people to solve problems imo. Elections are a duty to manage the country, not a right to choose between two sides of the same coin.
c21h30o2 5y ago
To me it seems obvious that we will get technological solutions to voting that can make direct/local democracy more competitive against representative democracy. I think we won't need national governments as much anymore, instead we need a global "lightweight" government that does as little as possible, and much more diverse and bespoke local city/community level governance where the governed mostly govern themselves. Shared resources such as fishing quotas, forests, mineral deposits etc. should be governed by smart contracts where the incentives of the voters are aligned with long-term sustainability. It shouldn't matter which country a person is from or how big their boat is, if they extract X tons of something they need to buy X tons of quota for it on the open market.

by ofou 5y ago

secondaryacct 5y ago

It s a balancing game with changing rules - a sane democracy accepts to change (I dont think the american system is a democracy fwiw, as a French). For instance, sometimes an election with 13 parties will have open primaries in 5 of them binding the entire population to each candidate who will end up similar to each other, and the next time parties change the rule to avoid this risk and end up with a wide pentagram of mainstream extremes, and some revert back etc. As long as you have more than a binary split, anyone can join parties militant groups and local officials approve the national election candidates (so you have a soft gatekeeper), you open up to arbitrary mutations that prevent rotting fixtures. The GOP/Dem eternal fight in the heavens is distracting people from their duty to elect people to solve problems imo. Elections are a duty to manage the country, not a right to choose between two sides of the same coin.

c21h30o2 5y ago

To me it seems obvious that we will get technological solutions to voting that can make direct/local democracy more competitive against representative democracy. I think we won't need national governments as much anymore, instead we need a global "lightweight" government that does as little as possible, and much more diverse and bespoke local city/community level governance where the governed mostly govern themselves. Shared resources such as fishing quotas, forests, mineral deposits etc. should be governed by smart contracts where the incentives of the voters are aligned with long-term sustainability. It shouldn't matter which country a person is from or how big their boat is, if they extract X tons of something they need to buy X tons of quota for it on the open market.