Prime Minister Dotcom?

[Akzle]

Not sure why we are even talking about freedom and , no, I haven,t been to Somalia. I am not that stupid. Been to all the neighbouring countries though and spent some time in Uganda a country that is NOT a democracy. Spent a bit of time talking to residents there too both black and white.
In comparison, NZ is the land of milk and honey.

so because some kid is having their eyes taken out with a hot soupspoon, and twenty thousand have died of starvation since morning wood:
we should be content to be only slightly enslaved for 6 decades?

[TheDemonLord]

help help! Im being repressed!
See the violence inherent in the system!

(beat me to it, and cant bling again)

Bloody Peasant!

As for Voting - at the moment, I decline to Vote - I do not believe there is a candidate worth voting for. John Key maybe the best leader of the bunch - but he is far from ideal and I disagree with National on far too many of their policies.

Some people say that if I don't vote, I can't complain about who is in power, but I prefer to think of my non-voting is a critique on an inherently flawed system - it may be the best system we currently have, but it is still flawed.

I personally feel more and more that because Voting is percieved as a right in the western world, it is abused (as opposed to it being a privledge to vote)

Maybe if you had to somehow pass a Test to prove you were worthy of Voting....

[Akzle]

Some people say that if I don't vote, I can't complain about who is in power, but I prefer to think of my non-voting is a critique on an inherently flawed system - it may be the best system we currently have, but it is still flawed.

i did a thread a while back, we're heading toward <50% of people who 'constructively' vote.
Once the oldies/believers like lava and oscar drop off, i think the system will find it hard to justify its existence.

Representative governance eh...

[Laava]

so because some kid is having their eyes taken out with a hot soupspoon, and twenty thousand have died of starvation since morning wood:
we should be content to be only slightly enslaved for 6 decades?

Haha you,re funny!

[TheDemonLord]

i did a thread a while back, we're heading toward <50% of people who 'constructively' vote.
Once the oldies/believers like lava and oscar drop off, i think the system will find it hard to justify its existence.

Representative governance eh...

Well, The oldies have a point - especially those that witnessed first or second hand what happens when a repressive government/dictator gets into power. But that does not make Democracy perfect, nor does it make it above criticism and nor should it make it immune to change to improve it.

If the system was better or more importantly, if the Candidates were better - I would vote.

but let me look at my current options:

National - I agree on some of their policies - but unfortunately as is the case with most conservative type parties, a lot of their social policies are about a decade or 2 out of date - normally resulting in desperate clinging to ideas that patently don't work

Labour - again, I agree with some of their policies, but their welfare and taxation policies are simply a pen stroke away from being criminal

The Greens - Fantastic public transport policies (and I am not being sarcastic here) but apart from that, what would a greens led government do - it would screw any form of business that used the environment in anyway and after they had done that they would sit around on their arses going 'We have saved the environment!' whilst we are going "well, yes, but what about the other things the Government needs to do?"

A vote for any other party will be by proxy (aka coalition) for the above 3

[Laava]

Bloody Peasant!

As for Voting - at the moment, I decline to Vote - I do not believe there is a candidate worth voting for. John Key maybe the best leader of the bunch - but he is far from ideal and I disagree with National on far too many of their policies.

Some people say that if I don't vote, I can't complain about who is in power, but I prefer to think of my non-voting is a critique on an inherently flawed system - it may be the best system we currently have, but it is still flawed.

I personally feel more and more that because Voting is percieved as a right in the western world, it is abused (as opposed to it being a privledge to vote)

Maybe if you had to somehow pass a Test to prove you were worthy of Voting....

i did a thread a while back, we're heading toward <50% of people who 'constructively' vote.
Once the oldies/believers like lava and oscar drop off, i think the system will find it hard to justify its existence.

Representative governance eh...

So what do you guys propose instead? Genuinely interested.

[Scuba_Steve]

In comparison, NZ is the land of milk and honey.

that's a bit racist, we have chocolate too

[Akzle]

So what do you guys propose instead? Genuinely interested.

youve dodged 3 of my posts but im expected to answer?

I can speak only for myself. I want the disestablishment of central government. I want whatever remains to aknowledge my previously stated rights.
I want legislation abolished, perhaps replaced with common sense common english T&Cs, either charter or constitution (ie formed by the informed consent of the people) at a 'council' level.
i want lawyers, judges and the old boys clubs put to the fire.
But righ nau, I want to smoke drugs, ride bikes and play with guns. So im going to go do that illegal shit.

[TheDemonLord]

So what do you guys propose instead? Genuinely interested.

The main problems with Democracy at the moment are:

1: Lack of Perfect information/perfect Undestanting

What I mean by this is, Idiots vote on things they have neither the information (and no the front page of the herald does not qualify as genuine information) nor the ability to comprehend, yet they are able to vote with equal weight as someone who does have the information and understands the issue.

2: Candidates are chosen based on popularity as opposed to actual leadership qualities.

Although not as bad over here (well, John Key is a classic example of this) - but look at the US and how many actors have held positions of power - not to say that their policies have been bad (I don't care enough about US politics), but it clearly shows people are voting based on who is popular as the primary metric.

3: The inherant corruption with public/privately donations

the corruption isn't explicit per se (as in, pass this law for me and I will slip you a couple mill in a donation) but it is very implicit - yes donations over a certain amount have to be declared, but even if they are declared, there is still an expectation that the party will make policy in favour of that individual/organisation.

4: implementation of short sighted policies in order to appease the Masses

Margaret Thatcher was actually a good example of someone who didn't do this - and people hated her for it, yet the reality of her tenure in the UK is that because of the policies she implemented, Britain ended up in a better off position.

5: Politicians

what I mean by this is people who have worked their way through a system and now operate in a way that maximises their standing in that system as opposed to benefitting the country. Sure occassionally the 2 intertwine and we get progress

There are other issues, but those are the main ones.

So how do we combat them?

First thing I would do would be to make donations to parties illegal - all campaign funding must be done on a set budget, yes this would mean that tax payer money had to go to a party, but the alternative is a legal form of corruption

Next we need some form of weighting system that means an Educated hard working, law abiding citizen has more weight behind his vote than a semi illiterate dole bludging criminal

Then we need some form of performance review for a politician, one that provides incentives to do things as requested by their constituents/keeping to their campaign promises and failure to meet these results in consequences.

The other issue I am not too sure how to fix them, but the above should certainly make some changes happen

[oldrider]

The party system is the biggest problem, there are plenty of worthy candidates up for election but this MMP system locks them into parties!

Good politicians are required to toe the party line or suffer the consequences of political oblivion and/or public ridicule! (A media protected system)

We don't need anywhere near as many politicians sucking on the public tit, majority decisions are driven by a few in the party caucus anyway!

We (the electorate) expressed dissatisfaction with FPP (with good reason) and got this MMP bullshit sprung onto us compliments of the (free?) press and media generally!

Democracy my ass, we go and do what we are told to do and bullshitted into believing that it was our own idea! ... Democracy by stupidity!

Politicians in power in NZ dance to the tune of the financial controllers .. I.E. he who pays the piper calls the tune ... "their tune every time" .. not ours!

[Akzle]

can yall stop calling it demoracy and call it for what it is?
:faux mob rule.

[Laava]

The main problems with Democracy at the moment are:

1: Lack of Perfect information/perfect Undestanting

What I mean by this is, Idiots vote on things they have neither the information (and no the front page of the herald does not qualify as genuine information) nor the ability to comprehend, yet they are able to vote with equal weight as someone who does have the information and understands the issue.

2: Candidates are chosen based on popularity as opposed to actual leadership qualities.

Although not as bad over here (well, John Key is a classic example of this) - but look at the US and how many actors have held positions of power - not to say that their policies have been bad (I don't care enough about US politics), but it clearly shows people are voting based on who is popular as the primary metric.

3: The inherant corruption with public/privately donations

the corruption isn't explicit per se (as in, pass this law for me and I will slip you a couple mill in a donation) but it is very implicit - yes donations over a certain amount have to be declared, but even if they are declared, there is still an expectation that the party will make policy in favour of that individual/organisation.

4: implementation of short sighted policies in order to appease the Masses

Margaret Thatcher was actually a good example of someone who didn't do this - and people hated her for it, yet the reality of her tenure in the UK is that because of the policies she implemented, Britain ended up in a better off position.

5: Politicians

what I mean by this is people who have worked their way through a system and now operate in a way that maximises their standing in that system as opposed to benefitting the country. Sure occassionally the 2 intertwine and we get progress

There are other issues, but those are the main ones.

So how do we combat them?

First thing I would do would be to make donations to parties illegal - all campaign funding must be done on a set budget, yes this would mean that tax payer money had to go to a party, but the alternative is a legal form of corruption

Next we need some form of weighting system that means an Educated hard working, law abiding citizen has more weight behind his vote than a semi illiterate dole bludging criminal

Then we need some form of performance review for a politician, one that provides incentives to do things as requested by their constituents/keeping to their campaign promises and failure to meet these results in consequences.

The other issue I am not too sure how to fix them, but the above should certainly make some changes happen

Thanks for your serious answer. So it would seem you are happy with the present system tidied up a lot?
We all want that tho don,t we? Problem with and answer to a democracy is you vote in who appeals to you the most and then if you are entirely unsatisfied, you must lead by example which, rightly or wrongly is what Dotcom is hoping to do.
Axle just wants anarchy. Which has been achieved but longterm is a big backward step.
Why don,t you put your money where your mouth is Rob and form an Anarchy party?
Oh yeah. Cos no-one who supports you will vote! Catch 22 eh

[Laava]

can yall stop calling it demoracy and call it for what it is?
:faux mob rule.

Yeah there will always be an element of that in a democracy. Better than them having a dictatorship tho.

[TheDemonLord]

Thanks for your serious answer. So it would seem you are happy with the present system tidied up a lot?
We all want that tho don,t we? Problem with and answer to a democracy is you vote in who appeals to you the most and then if you are entirely unsatisfied, you must lead by example which, rightly or wrongly is what Dotcom is hoping to do.
Axle just wants anarchy. Which has been achieved but longterm is a big backward step.
Why don,t you put your money where your mouth is Rob and form an Anarchy party?
Oh yeah. Cos no-one who supports you will vote! Catch 22 eh

Well, Democracy is the best system we have currently (when compared to the other alternatives) so I am all for improving the best we have.

Maybe a completely new system would fix the inherant issues with Democracy, but I cannot imagine a system that would be bother fair and equitable whilst also accounting for Human Nature (in short to say, People like Power and Money and any system needs to account and balance for that - Democracy does the best job compared to its peers, but it still does a pretty shitty job)

I will say this - when someone comes along who I believe to be worthy of my vote, I will exercise it.

as for your Anarchy party - give me the Budget of the 2 big parties to campaign with, and I reckon I could create a party to compete with them - except it wouldn't be called the Anarchy party, it would be something that included Buzz words to make the drooling idiots vote for it (so NZ, something to do with progress etc. etc.)

[mashman]

I want the disestablishment of central government.
I want whatever remains to aknowledge my previously stated rights.
I want legislation abolished, perhaps replaced with common sense common english T&Cs, either charter or constitution (ie formed by the informed consent of the people) at a 'council' level.
i want lawyers, judges and the old boys clubs put to the fire.
But righ nau, I want to smoke drugs, ride bikes and play with guns. So im going to go do that illegal shit.

"My" NOW will give you all of the above... apart from the old boys club being put to fire. Obviously you could do that, but then you;d be up on a murder charge.

The main problems with Democracy at the moment are:

1: Lack of Perfect information/perfect Undestanting

What I mean by this is, Idiots vote on things they have neither the information (and no the front page of the herald does not qualify as genuine information) nor the ability to comprehend, yet they are able to vote with equal weight as someone who does have the information and understands the issue.

2: Candidates are chosen based on popularity as opposed to actual leadership qualities.

Although not as bad over here (well, John Key is a classic example of this) - but look at the US and how many actors have held positions of power - not to say that their policies have been bad (I don't care enough about US politics), but it clearly shows people are voting based on who is popular as the primary metric.

3: The inherant corruption with public/privately donations

the corruption isn't explicit per se (as in, pass this law for me and I will slip you a couple mill in a donation) but it is very implicit - yes donations over a certain amount have to be declared, but even if they are declared, there is still an expectation that the party will make policy in favour of that individual/organisation.

4: implementation of short sighted policies in order to appease the Masses

Margaret Thatcher was actually a good example of someone who didn't do this - and people hated her for it, yet the reality of her tenure in the UK is that because of the policies she implemented, Britain ended up in a better off position.

5: Politicians

what I mean by this is people who have worked their way through a system and now operate in a way that maximises their standing in that system as opposed to benefitting the country. Sure occassionally the 2 intertwine and we get progress

There are other issues, but those are the main ones.

So how do we combat them?

First thing I would do would be to make donations to parties illegal - all campaign funding must be done on a set budget, yes this would mean that tax payer money had to go to a party, but the alternative is a legal form of corruption

Next we need some form of weighting system that means an Educated hard working, law abiding citizen has more weight behind his vote than a semi illiterate dole bludging criminal

Then we need some form of performance review for a politician, one that provides incentives to do things as requested by their constituents/keeping to their campaign promises and failure to meet these results in consequences.

The other issue I am not too sure how to fix them, but the above should certainly make some changes happen

1. The only real reason that happens is because things are done for political reasons and not because it's the right thing to do. Akzle's "I want the disestablishment of central government" and bringing decision making locally would give more visibility of that.

2. You can't stop people seeking power. You can only sack them should you be upset about it. This should not take 3 years. "My" NOW will treat positions of power as just another job. You can remove them should you have enough votes.

3. "My" NOW removes the financial system, therefore removing the incentives and mechanisms that are associated with corruption and expedient policy.

4. See 1 & 3. (especially doing things for the right reasons)

5. See 2.

As for how you would combat the above:

Why let money get in the way of real progress. Remove the financial system and there are no donations, the tax payer doesn't have to pay, and minimal corruption will exist.

Weighting human beings: that's exactly what happens and is directly responsible for class systems, poverty, the under privileged etc... What you perceive as a dumb person may well be an absolute fuckin genius, but they may not be at the point where they wish to apply themselves in a manner that you see fit. What you mentions has been tried, tested and failed and is not successful policy imho.

Incentives will open politicians up to the highest bidder... which is exactly what happens now. Holding politicians to account? That hasn't worked thus far. Much better to get rid of them and put a job in the place where the politicians would have been?

Other issues: Try looking at them without a financial system in place. You'd be surprised at how much more effective that would be in regards to your "wishes".