Can we do better than Democracy?

[Parththakkar12]

My bad. I missed the specifics. My point is we'll voluntarily get rid of the bombs, cuz we'll see that we don't need them to live peacefully.

Edited September 1, 2020 by Parththakkar12

[Parththakkar12]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You are assuming people are well-behaved angels. But they aren't.

Well, I have to make this assumption to make a case against democracy! This is the only possibility I see where democracy could fail. And if people do evolve into well-behaved angels, my point is democracy will fail.

Edited September 1, 2020 by Parththakkar12

[Leo Gura]

@Parththakkar12 If all people agreed to live peacefully, yes, we would not need a government. (Although even this isn't true.)

And if all soccer players agreed to play fairly, we would not need referees.

But this is fantasy.

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

What does it stay about the current level of dumb fucks in America if Trump is now president?

Well, actually, Trump lost the popular vote by several million. So it says more about our antiquated and anti-democratic system.

In a proper democracy Trumpists would have no chance of holding power. Which is why they aren't strong supporters of proper democracy.

As many dumb fucks as we have, Trump still lost the popular vote. And so did Bush.

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

A 2% difference margin isn't enough for me to sleep correctly.

God designed the universe with such a narrow balance of good and evil that you can never fall asleep

Quote

The bipartisan system always offers two candidates that supports this status quo...

And yet, progress is always made.

We ended slavery

We got anti-trust regulation.

We got the 8 hour work day.

We got social security.

We got legal women equality.

We got legal racial equality.

We got legal gay equality.

We got coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Luckily the status quo is self-defeating.

[Forestluv]

2 hours ago, Parththakkar12 said:

My point is we'll voluntarily get rid of the bombs, cuz we'll see that we don't need them to live peacefully.

What percentage of the population needs to voluntarily get rid of bombs for all bombs to be gotten rid of?

[Parththakkar12]

7 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

What percentage of the population needs to voluntarily get rid of bombs for all bombs to be gotten rid of?

Everyone. If one person wants them, we'll have them!

For this, conflicts need to be resolved first. That's when there will be the possibility that people will actually trust each other enough to lay down their weapons.

This is the easy way to denuclearization. The hard way (which is more likely) is people keep playing zero-sum games and they escalate into WW3, where nukes will be used. Then, people learn from history that 'Maybe we should care about each other if we want to live peacefully.'

Edited September 1, 2020 by Parththakkar12

[Forestluv]

32 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

Everyone. If one person wants them, we'll have them!

And how realistic is it to get 100% of the worlds population to not want bombs? How much time and work do you think it would take to get 100% of the people in the world to voluntarily want to get rid of bombs?

 

[Parththakkar12]

Just now, Forestluv said:

And how realistic is it to get 100% of the worlds population to not want bombs? How much time and work do you think it would take to get 100% of the people in the world to voluntarily want to get rid of bombs?

Except that true anarchism isn't forced or 'brought about'. It is naturally evolved into.

It is realistic from the perspective of nature, or God, or the creator of humans. Nature can make it such that zero-sum games just stop working as a survival strategy. All the conflicts that were suppressed and hidden can come into plain-view. People, who have no idea how to resolve these conflicts, will inevitably pick sides and go to battle. Life with zero-sum games must get difficult enough for people to want a better way out.

It is possible for the greater universe to make human life incredibly difficult in response to zero-sum games. It would in fact be in alignment with the Absolute Truth of Oneness. It can be made such that unconsciousness has greater and greater consequences. Now of course you can't take away someone's free will cuz they are God too. But you can make the consequences worse and worse.

[Forestluv]

@Parththakkar12 I’m not disagreeing with the essence of the idealism. I’m questioning the realism of it.

I could imagine a world in which no dogs ever fight. Yet realistically, that would take a lot of work - lots of de-conditioning, training, breeding, scientific research, building infrastructure, education, etc. And to attain 100% peaceful interactions would be extremely difficult to attain.

How many humans today have 100% peaceful interactions? I suppose we could try cloning 7 billion Eckhart Tolles.

I may say you are a dreamer, yet you are not the only one. I hope someday others join you and we can live as one. . .

[Parththakkar12]

28 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

@Parththakkar12 I’m not disagreeing with the essence of the idealism. I’m questioning the realism of it.

I could imagine a world in which no dogs ever fight. Yet realistically, that would take a lot of work - lots of de-conditioning, training, breeding, scientific research, building infrastructure, education, etc. And to attain 100% peaceful interactions would be extremely difficult to attain.

How many humans today have 100% peaceful interactions? I suppose we could try cloning 7 billion Eckhart Tolles.

Some may say you are a dreamer, yet you are not the only one. . . 

There is only one way we really see the damage of zero-sum games to humanity as a whole. We have a third world war. We will have to see massive bloodshed as a consequence of zero-sum game style survival. We will have to physically see this survival strategy backfire. I'm sorry, but I don't see any other way. I wish I could say I see a peaceful way of getting there.

Human beings don't want to lose each other. No matter how bad a relationship, losing it doesn't feel good. Human beings have evolved to want to be together under all conditions. If we have a third world war, this will cause humanity enough pain and suffering to admit to each other - 'I don't care how many problems we have, I don't want to lose you.'

If you wanted realism, this is what I realistically feel will happen. It sounds very New-Agey and idealistic on paper, but the process to get there looks very dark and scary, and maybe even not worth it.

Edited September 1, 2020 by Parththakkar12

[ItsNick]

 

[Forestluv]

5 hours ago, Parththakkar12 said:

There is only one way we really see the damage of zero-sum games to humanity as a whole. We have a third world war. We will have to see massive bloodshed as a consequence of zero-sum game style survival. We will have to physically see this survival strategy backfire. I'm sorry, but I don't see any other way. I wish I could say I see a peaceful way of getting there.

That is one model of systemic destruction. Clare Graves offered three potential future possibilities based on his SD model. Your ideas seems aligned with possibility #1. My impression is that the U.S. is stuck in possibility #2 right now (with the addition of some red).

1. The chance that we might fail to stabilize our world, and regress through successive catastrophes, as far back as when humanity started.

2. Another option could be that there will be a fixation on the BLUE/ORANGE/GREEN social complex. For Graves, this combination would
promise a tyrannical, manipulative government with a glossy veneer of humanitarian thought and moralistic rationalizations.

3. The last possibility was that we could emerge into the Second-Tier YELLOW level, and proceed toward stabilizing our world so that all life could
continue.

[Leo Gura]

8 hours ago, Etherial Cat said:

Way, way too slowly.

Only from the ego's perspective.

The Earth is 4 billion years old.

Once you take that into account, we are making progress at warp speed.

Perspective is everything.

[Yahya]

@Leo Gura Agreed

 

Edited September 1, 2020 by Yahya
Incomplete response

[Leo Gura]

53 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

Human politics is only interesting from our ego's perspective.

No?

But the ego's perspective can be expanded to God's perspective.

That's what I'm trying to get you guys to start practicing: Conscious Politics -- politics as God would see it.

[Milos Uzelac]

An insightful quote, I thought was useful in sharing here given the question posed about alternatives of democracy in this thread, from a German 20th-century sociologist Robert Michels, who wrote a widely scientifically acclaimed social study on Political Parties, titled, ,,Sociology of political parties in modern democracies and oligarchical tendencies generally in the life of social groups",  regarding prospects of the constraints of democracies and democratic-decision making in political organizations, the general limits of democratic decision-making in contemporary structures of government and alternative way of looking at the advancement of democracy through a spectrum model of its presence:

,,The tendency towards a formation of oligarchical elites at the top, governing the rest of human societies, compromises a historical necessity, it constitutes an iron law of historical progression, which up until this point no society, even the most democratic and modern were unable to avoid. However, even though full democracy doesn't exist, there is exist gradients in a spectrum of its presence in oligarchical orders, and the historical progressivism in the development of the rest of society lies in advocating and fighting for the degree of that presence to constantly widen, more and more."

[r0ckyreed]

15 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Peace requires monopoly of force and strong regulations.

@Leo Gura  But we have to look at where these rules and regulations come from.  Our government is corrupt and controlled by corporations and what George Carlin calls "The Real Owners."  Democracy is a lie.  The government has always pulled all the strings, and government cannot be trusted to make the best decisions for everyone.  Government is easily influenced by corrupt people, and it is controlled by corrupt people.  The ideal is to have a better government, but corruption is inevitable when it is run by Devils.  

15 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

But libertarians are not such humans because they don't believe in the collective responsibility necessary to create such a society. 

You cannot have a healthy peaceful society of 7 billion people who all act like individualists.

That kind of attitude will result in a bloodbath.

It is like you are trying to form a worldclass soccer team with people who are ideologically opposed to team cooperation. Effective teams require individual sacrifice for the collective.

A libertarian doesn't even want to pay taxes, for fuck's sake.

 

@Leo Gura  

I don't know whether I am libertarian or not, but I distrust the government.  We need to have a balance of freedom and responsibility.  People need to be free, but also be free enough to consider the freedoms of others.  "With great power comes great responsibility."  For me, I believe in collective freedom.  When I talk about freedom, I mean freedom as in the freedom of the whole.  Freedom is the most important thing to me, but not at the cost of exercises my freedoms to enslave others.  You could say that is freedom, but deep down, a libertarian would be dumb if they did not include the freedoms of the collective community.  It would be a bloodbath.  We need to cut down our horseshit self-bias and include everyone as a member of our family.  What a family would be is community, not genetics, and I think this is our problem is that selfish Devils wanna inflict their will onto others and enslave the freedoms of others be that it is (1) passing drug laws, targeting Black communities to restrict their voting rights; (2) vaccination ID requirements; (3) loitering; (4) eminent domain; (5) redlining; (6) gentrification; etc.  Government is both part of the problem and part of the solution because government is run by Devils with agendas.  The good part of government is the order aspect of legislation, enforcement, and judicial system are essential services even though they are corrupt.  People cannot be trusted to use their freedoms responsibly, which is why we "need" a government, but we also have to consider that the government does not use their power responsibly either so I guess government is a necessary evil that should not be trusted.

The problem of government is who is it the oversees that the government is operating fairly, and who oversees the overseer, and the overseer of the overseer of the government's checks and balances, etc. etc. to infinity.  Government is substrate for oversight which as we can see is a problem because a corrupt government will produce more corruption.  It just seems like there is no way out of this problem of how do we build a better government because who is to judge and track this process?  How do we know when we have a "just" government and system?

 

 

[Gidiot]

I agree the ideal is no government because of consciousness, but how do you get there from where we are now? Well it starts with giving the people more power than any other entity, we will need guidelines and laws and morals and ethics for a while, but I don’t even think a turquoise society would be able to progress past a government, I think maybe you can transition from written explicit laws to implicit laws like a moral code or people uniting under one purpose that you can interpret from your own way, but yes bottom line is there has to be collective responsibility, and compassion, it’s hard to achieve that without some pushing because the ego is a challenging force to that, but next thing better than democracy?

 

id definitely say an elder/expert system that is also held accountable by voting and decentralization, politicians in such system would need to dedicate their life to public service (degree and relevant experience like college admission) and also be held accountable and transparent to the public(better)  also if you have to pass a citizenship test to become a citizen, and prove your driving skills for a license, there should be a recommend politics history  course taught free to all citizens and if you can’t pass you keep taking it until you pass, after you pass you earn a verification as an educated voter like Twitter haha you gotta market these things better, so everyone can vote but not everyone is a verified voter.  And we should encourage all voters to be verified, this solving the problem Socrates had with the Population being uneducated  

 

only after a few thousand years of something like this would it be possible to have no government, I think also a big part of having a system better than democracy would be having no countries and borders so people didn’t feel so alienated from other people, Beau of the fifth column had a great point that the us already had open borders in its own country and there is no reason why would couldn’t establish this throughout the world, yes it would take amazing amounts of diplomacy and consciousness but i don’t see how you could have a non government system without a globalization of the world without individual states