@krazy kaju,
krazy kaju wrote:So you're saying that we should implement direct democracy via electronics now, as long as we can have methods of confirming who a person voted for, that the person voted, etc., am I correct?
And then there should be the question of: If we can vote on any issue why do we need to elect people to vote for us? I can imagine that people might be nominated to bring questions before the people, but the people could do this as well. The thing is, that people expect something from their government, and I think it is what they generally expect from all forms, and that is resistence to change, which is great if you have the situation as you want it, which is what we started with for example. But when government does not kick when you kick it, when you do not get from government what you feel you pay for, when you are left out of the process, and given what you don't need in exhange for what you need and do not get then the form has outlived its usefulness. Aristotle says Good is the aim of government so you better practice your dodging. I mean, when government no longer supplies the good it promises, it is time to reconstitute it. The thing is that no government should have such resistence to the will of the population that it cannot be changed. Now I state the obvious to say we could have a direct democracy. The next question is how much authority such a government would have, and how much would be necessary. Ultimately, I will not decide what ever form people might choose for themselves, and it is best if they are not presented with much in ideals. I think it would be great if we were not locked into an unresponsive government at this point in the life of the nation, and yet I see it as inevitable given our start. I think there is common agreement that government as it stands does not give enough. Isn't it time to start thinking of after the revolution, and what can we, who consider ourselves philosophers, offer to people in the way of advice in the way of just and effective government?
