because they say things like "Human brains aren’t built for self-rule, says Shawn Rosenberg. That’s more evident than ever." :'). popular with the rich / power greedy westerners :D meanwhile ±85% of earths population disagrees while they take care of themselves as they have for centuries or longer.. but i suppose they don't tweet so they don't count for science! :D
The irony is that it never occurs to our elites that perhaps they are incompetent. No, the narrative is always that the ignorant masses are going to burn the house down, despite the heroic efforts of the educated, level-headed elite. Newsflash: preventing the masses from burning the house down is the primary job of the elite. When a fire nevertheless starts, that means that it’s time for the elites to be replaced by those who can prevent fires.
It is obvious that we do not live in an actual democracy.
Consider this:
Do you actually get to vote on anything?
Do you get to vote on major national issues? Did you get a referendum on any issue, e.g. Gay marriage? Iraq?
Do you get to vote on local issues that affect you? Did you ever get a choice on where the new community center would be built?
Do you get to vote at work? Did you ever get to vote on an acquisition, a new corporate direction, a new office layout, or anything important?
We cast only a handful of ballots throughout our entire lives, and we rarely get a direct choice on any issue - we only vote for a candidate that has already been selected by the élite.
We can have direct democracy now thanks to technology. Citizens and workers should be empowered by technology to vote daily on issues that affect them at work, locally, and federally.
Yes, the system is broken. I, myself, have cast four ballots in my life. I've had nearly no say in anything that has happened in my adult life, and ergo I'm certain that our collective voting history is not the root cause of our problems. Nor are the élite themselves the cause - the fault in our system is of course systemic and material.
We are living in late capitalism, and the contradictions within western liberal countries are beginning to tear them apart. The dialectical materialist (Marxist) analysis of our system is becoming more correct as we move forward in the 21st century.
"...Thus we are left with the inescapable conclusion that democracy became the dominant political form of the modern world not through human choice but because of an objective fact, namely, the association of democracy, since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, with economic and technological success."
--Theodore Kaczynski, "Technological Slavery", Revised and Expanded Edition, p. 297
The naive view is that we "chose" democracy because it was a freer and more humane system. That's a total farce. On the contrary, modern democracy arose out of a process of natural selection because it was the social arrangement most conducive to technological and economic success given the environment. As the world environment changes (due to technology) there very well may be other social arrangements that will out-compete and replace democracy because they will be technologically and economically stronger.
9 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 26.9 ms ] threadThe term is more adequate than it looks.
Psychologists that do politics.
Now that it's pretty clear that psychology is as much fraud as marxism why those people are still in the public arena puzzles me.
Consider this:
Do you actually get to vote on anything?
Do you get to vote on major national issues? Did you get a referendum on any issue, e.g. Gay marriage? Iraq?
Do you get to vote on local issues that affect you? Did you ever get a choice on where the new community center would be built?
Do you get to vote at work? Did you ever get to vote on an acquisition, a new corporate direction, a new office layout, or anything important?
We cast only a handful of ballots throughout our entire lives, and we rarely get a direct choice on any issue - we only vote for a candidate that has already been selected by the élite.
We can have direct democracy now thanks to technology. Citizens and workers should be empowered by technology to vote daily on issues that affect them at work, locally, and federally.
Yes, the system is broken. I, myself, have cast four ballots in my life. I've had nearly no say in anything that has happened in my adult life, and ergo I'm certain that our collective voting history is not the root cause of our problems. Nor are the élite themselves the cause - the fault in our system is of course systemic and material.
We are living in late capitalism, and the contradictions within western liberal countries are beginning to tear them apart. The dialectical materialist (Marxist) analysis of our system is becoming more correct as we move forward in the 21st century.
* anyone can choose to make their votes public
* anyone can "give their votes" to anyone else, provided that person makes their votes public
Then you can have rules like:
* Nominate Al Gore to be my proxy for all votes tagged with #environment
* Nominate my friend Scott to be my proxy for all votes tagged with #taxes
* Everything else I'll vote myself using the mobile app
--Theodore Kaczynski, "Technological Slavery", Revised and Expanded Edition, p. 297
The naive view is that we "chose" democracy because it was a freer and more humane system. That's a total farce. On the contrary, modern democracy arose out of a process of natural selection because it was the social arrangement most conducive to technological and economic success given the environment. As the world environment changes (due to technology) there very well may be other social arrangements that will out-compete and replace democracy because they will be technologically and economically stronger.