It's sound realistic, that all citizens cannot rule their country at the same time. Otherwise, that will be mean, that considering of every law will be like referendum every time, when somebody will decide, that hats shouldn't be above 43.27 cm, and every time citizen will have to go and vote. But progress does not stand still, and humanity gets its advantages, that were unimaginable before, like internets, which give reason to reconsider this situation. Is it possible already to, at least, imagine, that people can vote not for elites, who represent their interests, but for their interests directly, using the system, they can completely trust somehow, where everyone can express an opinion, which is similar to an endless referendum, in which only the current state of voting matters?
>>1386977
So, democracy? You're asking if it would be possible to have a democratic system using today's technology. It could be. You would have to go back 2000 years and learn what actual democracy is like, not this representative government bullshit we have today. You pick a representative at random and make it work creating laws, then you make people vote for those laws. You could use some kind of electronic ID in order to vote from your computer or even your mobile phone. Though I guess most of the people would grow tired of it and would stop voting after a while, unless you somehow manage the voting process.
You could have voting periods in which the people would be able to vote, in this way, maybe you could catch their attention and make more people vote than compared to always throwing laws at random and expecting them to check the voting system every day.
However, you would have a problem, and that is that people are just fucking stupid. Even if you tell them that raising taxes is beneficial because the state has run out of money, they would probably vote against a raise of taxes and stuff like that.
All in all, the good old democracy is hard to implement into the current world because today's countries are too damn complex. So, to answer your question, no, people directly voting for their interests is unfeasible and would result in anarchy.
"Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy"
"democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property"
>>1388243
>You pick a representative at random and make it work creating laws
I suspect, that everyone could creating laws. Laws just should be shown to a small group of people at the beginning of its existing and then - depending on the situation.
>people would grow tired of it and would stop voting after a while
All people shouldn't vote at every law, that gets in their sight. Only interested people, who understand this particular law, maybe specialists. Most of regular people should just to track upcoming changes to prevent some sudden trash to become a reality.
>people are just fucking stupid
Unfortunately, still could be worse without this system, I think. But, of course, I cannot assert this without looking at the implemented system work.
>>1386977 (OP)
I would say this sort of thing sometimes. Be it written differently.
An interesting crux of this sort of thing is that the real worth is not that all must vote all the time. But a more powerful allocation of power and money and possessions.
Of course also a good allocation of decision making. Not in some burdensome way.
Because something is interesting and favourable does not mean there HAS to be a burdensome catch. Or does anyone have any view on why this would have to be? So: ''''There will always be this unacceptable burdensome thing''''. ''''Even though everything was done in a way to avoid just that''''.
>>1388448
>I suspect, that everyone could creating laws.
Then it will become what John Adams said: an anarchy. But since you say that those laws would be checked and/or voted by an elite, then I guess it won't, because they will stop laws like "I want to be able to murder my annoying neighbor". Still, wouldn't that defy the notion of the OP, that we should have no elites?
My take on this is that we still need elites. When discussing economic matters, the opinion of a person who is a specialist in economics is worth more than the opinion of somebody who has no idea about economics. We just need to fix this system of representative governments we have today and make it look a bit more like democracy. Today, the only time people have power is when they need to give their power to somebody else: their representative or the representative's political party. We just need to find a way to take back some of that power so we could do as you said:
>Most of regular people should just to track upcoming changes to prevent some sudden trash to become a reality.
And in the process, it would be even better if we abolish the need for political parties to begin with, since they segregate the population (liberals, conservatives, republicans, etc.) and create the need to make promises to the population in order to win their vote, promises which they are not forced to maintain in any way, shape or form. This did not happen in the democratic system because those chosen representatives were chosen at random, so making promises was useless because nobody voted for you.
>>1390086
>wouldn't that defy the notion of the OP, that we should have no elites?
I am OP. Sorry, my english is not very good. When i said: "All people shouldn't vote at every law, that gets in their sight.", I didn't mean, that they can't. I mean, that they not required to vote to make system to work. But they can. Like they can to change Wikipedia articles they don't understand. But Wikipedia is still alive, and I think, we do not need any specialists to prevent an anarchy like "I want to be able to murder my annoying neighbor", because regular people, I believe, will vote against, when this law will get in their sight, what is unlikely, but some little group of people will see this.
>>1390318
I see what you mean. But then that hypothetical state would have laws that would not have been approved by the majority of the population. If only 10% of the population votes in favor of a law, what if, later down the line, that law proves to be harmful to the state or to the other 90% of the people who haven't voted? They would change the law or eliminate it by vote again? That sounds very messy, especially for the lawyers, policemen, accountants, and other people who need the law to do business.
Sounds like a fucking spook. Thread over.
>>1390361
As I said:
>Most of regular people should just to track upcoming changes to prevent some sudden trash to become a reality.
Maybe, there can be situation, when big group of trolls try to harm, and this will be obvious only for a small amount of people. Maybe, it will help, if people could trust their vote power to other people they trust in order of priority (their own votes must have top priority still), so when popular specialist vote against something, other people, who trust him, vote same automatically or get offer to vote same.
>They would change the law or eliminate it by vote again?
Vote again? Voting is endless.
>where everyone can express an opinion, which is similar to an endless referendum, in which only the current state of voting matters
the elite should be chosen by lottery and serve for 1 year
>>1390547
I can get behind that, but isn't one year too short of a time? Maybe 2 or 3 would be better.
