3 ms·

Sweden? The country trying to illegally force EU countries to extradite Julian Assange in clear violation of EU law?[1] That Sweden? [1]http://cjicl.org.uk/2

• logfromblammo 12y ago
  I do not claim that those governments are not in any way corrupt. They are simply the least corrupt of an inherently corruptible tradition. The point is that we should be following our hopes rather than fleeing from our fears. Comparing yourself to the worst of your peers and patting yourself on the back because you are still somewhat better is blinding yourself to the absolutely unacceptable backsliding that has been occurring. Even comparing yourself to the best of your peers and dreaming about surpassing them is not enough. The ultimate, unattainable goal is zero corruption and perfect transparency. Effort required increases asymptotically as we approach that limit. So it would seem that the only way to avoid having corruption in your government is to not have one at all.
  • grecy 12y ago
    Thank you for saying that better than I can.
  • gdewilde 12y ago
    We could have made the participatory government 20 years ago. I always explain it like this (try to): Our ancestors did not have Internet, direct participation was not possible. We therefore cant expect those ancestors of ours to have seriously considered it - at any stage. Arguably, before the Internet, everyone did his best to participate as much as they could. The new ingredient our generation introduced is for voters not to have influence on par with the technical possibilities. If we would be overly modest we could allow that single vote to be changed when the voter wants to change it. If the voter cant change his vote the election program is not legally binding. One can say whatever he likes to get elected and enjoy 4 whole years without any consequences. Technically we should be participating in the debate about specific issues at hand. Our officials would have little to do beyond the organization of that information (a feat easily automated) If we can do social networks and we can do flash trading then we need very little beyond a tech team and a few symbolic figure heads to make a kick ass democracy. We can do considerably more than vote 1 time, ideas from citizens are a type of resource, value waiting to be extracted. Extraction will help it grow faster. Clearly we are missing out on incalculable riches, just sitting there, expiring while waiting for exploitation.
    • logfromblammo 12y ago
      It would be more accurate to say that direct participation was not scalable past a certain population size. But now, well... Nintendo even made a free Wii amusement called "Everybody Votes Channel". If people are willing to waste time voting on silly things just to see what other people in their tribe and around the world selected, they can certainly vote on things that actually matter to them, like taxes and laws. The difficult problem nowadays is not the technical ability to get everyone participating, but how to avoid the pitfalls of democracy, such as an arbitrary majority tyrannizing an arbitrary minority, or a focused minority advancing a specific agenda over a relatively apathetic majority. There would almost have to be a submission petition with a certain number of supporters, an initial 50% majority of those who care to vote to trigger spending development resources on the issue, then a funding round, where supporters have to supply the required budget directly, and finally a ratification round, where a supermajority, perhaps 67% of all possible voters, where non-voters automatically vote to reject, determines whether to proceed to implementation or not. But that's all irrelevant detail when it is likely that those who currently hold power would use it to prevent a new system from taking it away from them. The status quo likes where it stands now. The system is ripe for disruption, but it is also quite good at retaliating against existential threats.