So, lets take a look at what a minister has backing her.
The bit that follows is the most frightening thing I have read in a long time. The impression I got was that of a huge steamroller, the sort that's bogger than a building, hard to brake, hard to steer, that runs at a breakneck speed, that is full of complicated machinery that no-one fully understands, least of all the pilot.
... The potential for abuse. It's staggering. It's all committees, and analysts, and experts... people who care more about keeping their positions (or getting promoted) than about getting the right information to the right people. If
they manage to find the right information in the frightfully short time given.
Do you know at what point I stopped trusting representative democracy? When the European Constitutional Treaty got passed, by parliaments against the will of the population, and by the EU against the will of some of the countries where the referendum resulted in a NO, by changing its name and hushing the affair.
You know, on that thing, a europolitician was quoted (I'm sorry that despite my searches I can't find a source, it's an old article from Le Monde Diplomatique
, probably 2006) "We don't know who's negotiating what in the name of whom".
When things get out of control like that, I feel like we're one of those ants species that (if I remember right) build up in a big ball and just roll on, having no idea where they are going. While the Queen and her court, at the center, are the safest, but even them will be in danger, if and when the living snowball crashes. What the hell are we doing?
Zamfir wrote:Come on, don't whine. You are proposing to overhaul the basic system of governance of the arguably best-governed countries in the world, with a computer game as example. You have to admit, that's fairly arrogant.
Azrael wrote: And based on a poor understanding of both systems, to boot:
Are mods on this board in the habit of flaming their contributors? You know, it shouldn't be me telling you to keep things civil. The term you're looking for is naive. I'm not the one who's talking down to people and calling them names. Also, judging the quality of an idea by its origin is fallacious thinking, and, as for the well-run part, I think every single person you ask will tell you that they could be run better. Of course, if you're content being the one-eyed kings of the blind, suit yourself, but don't lash out at me for speculating about dangerous surgeries and implants, or ask me to become an MD to earn the right to speak. "Better" can indeed be the ruin of "good", but I for one think the questions "Can we do better, how could we do it, and should we" are worth asking.
I have no idea what Nation-states is
There's a link right on the opening post. Please follow it. Worst case scenario, you'll discover a fun game.
It certainly wouldn't reduce the influence of lobbyists. It means we'd spend less on nice lunches, and I wouldn't have to make 10 cups of coffee every time a politician brings his staff in. We'd switch from lobbying individual politicians (which we often do by saying "this will win you tons of votes!" or "if you do this, you'll get lets of money to win tons of votes!") and start lobbying people directly, who are probably easier to manipulate than politicians. California has an incredibly professional industry revolving around getting signatures for referendums and influencing the vote on them. Even in Maryland, the firm I work for specializes in pressuring politicians by building up popular support for the political positions of our clients. Would be perhaps even easier if politicians were cut out.
That's a frightening point your bring up (except for the lunches). On principle, I'd say "let the voters be idiots: the idiocy would be theirs
at least", but my guts are telling me that that would be stupid. All I can say is, I notice that I am confused. So I'd love to hear more about your California and Maryland lobbies and the way they operate. The floor is yours.