What is a properly functioning democracy?

I'm not sure what you mean by it's already done that way in america.
Actually we now fill government positions that we think are important by lottery, buying tickets in hopes of winning influence.

No technical functionary is not status quo, the status quo is elected representative. The government should be staffed by managers and technicians, not visionaries. We have our own vision for life.

 

:lurk5:

 

These people are not visionaries, they all run claiming they will "fix" something which has nothing to do with visionaries though they present it that way as it makes for great campaign rhetoric. The only thing that is democratic about this country is the ability to elect our rulers through voting by use of a democratic process to choose the people who are going to do those jobs, representatives or elsewise, and your idea of a democracy is to completely remove the democratic process and replace it with some sort of corporate personnel department? Explain how you feel this gets us moving toward a "functional democracy" when what you are proposing is essentially the antithesis to democracy and jumping from the quasicorporate frying pan to the corporate fire? Otherwise your proposal makes no sense.

 

furthermore an elected representative is nothing more and identical to hiring an attorney to re-present (and speak for you) you in a court. People who know nothing about law hire attorneys and pray their attorney does a good job for them, just like the representatives you "jointly" choose to hire for those government duties. You presumably choose an attorney based on their knowledge and technical abilities however today elections are based on the ability to put on a good show.

The real problem is that no matter who you put in the legacy of the previous rulers is a roadblock to any substantial change since the rules are in writing and any newcomer has to at least somewhat follow the preexisting rules ultimately approved by a supreme court NOT THE PEOPLE.

 

I agree that those elected are not visionaries although they purport themselves to be. So you have a position to be filled and you fill it with a qualified applicant matching job requirement to skill. Those people design laws and public programs which are then voted up or down by the people, instead of electing people who's only real criteria for success is how they play to hero worship and taboo and then expecting those who are all smoke and mirrors to present something substantial. Hiring technical functionaries instead of electing leaders does away with peddling influence, cronyism and other conflicts of interest. As far as discerning the will of the people polling is probably more accurate than voting. Obviously it will take innovation and talent to grow into a system that is more representative and able to significantly address our concerns. Government is best apprehended as a social science as opposed to a sentimental longing.

And my suggestions are antithetical to democracy how?

 

The thing that makes innovation conceivable on these issues is the current proliferation of information. More people in the know than ever before. I would like to see more social experiments like the space station or biosphere 2, maybe have entire municipalities be engaged in research into governance.

 

Our highly developed cortex tells me "everyman is free and born with inalienable rights, while my lower brain systems and instincts say I'm part of a pack and need to ascertain and take my position among the group.

Democracy is an evolutionary byproduct of our frontal cortex and the capacity for self awareness and self-reflection it affords.
Monarchies and dictatorial type governing systems are much more in line with our instinctual tendencies.

 

there is nothing new in these realms, every system tried several times, not even what I proposed is new, which unknown to most, is ancient and works. No grand experiments required. You people enjoy the shell game which would be fine and dandy if you did not have people with guns forcing me to play the game with you.

 

I agree. We have all sorts of primitively developed instincts that are being shown obsolete as we grow in understanding. Also contrary to zzaps calculus human history is fluid as is human potential.

 

Like I said if you posited something worthwhile i couldn't see it because I couldn't get past your distorted view of personal contribution. For instance who put a gun to your head ever?
Who is forcing you to have this discussion with me?

As for nothing new in these realms, increased understanding has fundamentally changed patterns of living. What recycled system have I presented and could you give an example of where it had been tried?

What ancient system did you suggest?

 

As far as the courts which were mentioned, genuine personal cognition abrogates the need for a mechanism to settle disputes. We don't need people to decide on our account but to become accountable.

 

What you describe is similar to the existing jobs of city manager, city engineer, and professional employees of federal regulatory agencies. Some of the benefits you list of selecting people in this way are for real, but human flaws still present significant problems. There is plenty of cronyism at all levels of city government.

With OSHA in particular, the lack of accountability to those being governed often results in heavy-handed, unrealistic regulations that destroy too many jobs outright and send too many other jobs overseas. There is no one who can tell OSHA that the cost of a regulation greatly exceeds the potential benefit.

I'd like to see more social experiments on the earth's surface. Voluntary, of course. Theory always needs to be tested before it is trusted.

The past is what it is, but we select what is emphasized and what is forgotten.

I read that three times, just to soak it all in fully. Flawless summary of fact. :cheers2:

Expanding on this, we need to feed democracy by feeding the part of the brain that processes higher order thinking stills. In other words, take education far beyond memorizing facts and providing marketable job skills.

 

And no matter how hard we try, or how much we want to pretend, we are never going to be able to do away with those instincts. Nor should we. They serve just as vital of a purpose as our cortex.

 

Homo sapiens means both tasting man and knowing man. Truth has no designs on taste, and there is no accounting for taste. Taste is traffic control for the unintended, that is animal instinct is a purely sensational realm. There was a time when murderous instinct furthered the cause of extension of the species. We have a very time tested animal who's good purpose is for us but we must learn to master it. For example, you can't go around murdering people because the instinct compels you.

 

True, but we humans are still guided and prompted much more by instinct and genetic conditioning then we like to admit.
All we have done is layer "civilization" on top of them and ultimately have arrived at codes of conduct that when really examined still reveal their origins in our primal instincts.

 

We are growing. I agree that our motives are not clearly understood but they are upon serious inspection, conscious and therefor amenable to change of mind or reconsideration.
The animal is essential to the functioning of our autonomous nervous system but it has no exclusive claim on the abstract constitution of mind.

I agree that penal code is an attempt to satisfy hardness of heart but the end of it comes when cooperation becomes more compelling than defense. I try to demonstrate this principle when having conversations on this forum. Point is I seldom end up being chased out of town even tough contention is frequent.

 

you posit the status quo, I told you that already, apparently you familiar enough with the american system to recognize that fact.

In a word and only "one" of the "required" many I posited invoicing instead of taxing which works out really well.

 

I am familiar enough with biology to know and look out for my own skin.
You are the first person I've met on here that hasn't found some reason to call me a heretic but then I am condemned on the basis of the same old shit. I don't find your silly complaint of misrepresentation to be compelling.

A change in the tax system only, which you think accommodates your interests only.

 

wrong, apparently I am a huge threat to you since you continually misrepresent my posts