America - Democracy or Republic?
- Auteur de la discussion JustinNed
- Date de début
Forkbender
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 23/11/05
- Messages
- 11 366
@restin:
A way for people to act less selfishly is a new system of money without interest (and that actually depreciates over time). Check the articles by Charles Eisenstein on Reality Sandwich dot com. Since money is so all pervasive, new concepts of money would work like a mind bomb.
Teaching philosophy in kindergarten would be good too. I think kids are freeer in their head than adults, so when they are allowed to think about things from an early age, there will be less obstacles later on.
Another thing would be to gradually implement some sort of Voucher system, where everybody gets the option to give a part of their taxes (say 10 % to start with) to the things they feel are important (but not their own pocket). I would spend most of my money on education, environment and foreign aid, others perhaps on roads and business, etc. If all hell doesn't break loose (and I think it wont), we can gradually increase the amount of their taxes people can distribute. I would certainly feel a lot better if my taxes wouldn't be spent on the military and on building roads through natural reserves. This gives people the power to use their money in a way that makes them feel good about having an influence and is an incentive to do the right thing. It is, of course, optional, some people won't want to choose.
As to the question of progress, I don't think progress or technology necessarily equates a bigger domination of nature. Look at developments like Cradle to Cradle, in which smart design harmonizes human effort with nature and has only positive effects (0 waste). There is a lot of technology that can be used right of the bat to make this world a more harmonious place, but they aren't used because people don't want it.
A way for people to act less selfishly is a new system of money without interest (and that actually depreciates over time). Check the articles by Charles Eisenstein on Reality Sandwich dot com. Since money is so all pervasive, new concepts of money would work like a mind bomb.
Teaching philosophy in kindergarten would be good too. I think kids are freeer in their head than adults, so when they are allowed to think about things from an early age, there will be less obstacles later on.
Another thing would be to gradually implement some sort of Voucher system, where everybody gets the option to give a part of their taxes (say 10 % to start with) to the things they feel are important (but not their own pocket). I would spend most of my money on education, environment and foreign aid, others perhaps on roads and business, etc. If all hell doesn't break loose (and I think it wont), we can gradually increase the amount of their taxes people can distribute. I would certainly feel a lot better if my taxes wouldn't be spent on the military and on building roads through natural reserves. This gives people the power to use their money in a way that makes them feel good about having an influence and is an incentive to do the right thing. It is, of course, optional, some people won't want to choose.
As to the question of progress, I don't think progress or technology necessarily equates a bigger domination of nature. Look at developments like Cradle to Cradle, in which smart design harmonizes human effort with nature and has only positive effects (0 waste). There is a lot of technology that can be used right of the bat to make this world a more harmonious place, but they aren't used because people don't want it.
Forkbender
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 23/11/05
- Messages
- 11 366
^yes.
Free Information.
The question people always ask after I say something like this is: but why would companies spend money developing new techniques in such a situation?
What would be your reply? (I'll tell mine later).
Free Information.
The question people always ask after I say something like this is: but why would companies spend money developing new techniques in such a situation?
What would be your reply? (I'll tell mine later).
Forkbender
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 23/11/05
- Messages
- 11 366
But it costs a lot of money and if people can just copy it, it doesn't pay to develop.
(devil's advocate).
(devil's advocate).
That's the reason for non-competitive thinking - "So that people feel better" instead of "so that we can make more money".
Hmm. As I understand the philosophy of money, Interest is self-determinant, an automatic process.
Let's say, there's only the three of us, Fork, GOD and me and there are 21 Dollars totally, each one has 7 dollars.
If each one of us has enough food and enough to live, there is no scarcity, there is no problem --> money is futile.
If each one of us has not enough food and stuff to survive, there is scarcity and the person with most money will "win" - natural selection. Only then money is needed.
The problem now is, that one will dominate, one will maybe survive and one will die, as the one with most money will keep his own, so the others don't have enough. Therefore, there needs to be an artificial circle that keeps the money flowing, but how, if there are only 21 dollars?
Interest - you create money and each one of us is happy. Therefore, if I didn't make any faults, the system of money is automatically competitive and with interest. It will happen.
But hey, I didn't read your article yet.
I like this idea. But some people will think why should I pay if I don't have to - I'd rather keep it. Or did you rather mean: everyone needs to pay 10% but can choose where to?
That's a big topic. Who caused people to start thinking about environmental problems? The Hippies? Our human nature? The government? Al Gore?
Yes, maybe it doesn't, but it has the potential to...I don't know, probably you're right.
yes.
Forkbender
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 23/11/05
- Messages
- 11 366
Let's say every one of us is making 10 dollars a month and that money looses value, so you'd have to spend one of your dollars at the money office to keep it's original value and you have 9 dollars left. If, however, you have spent the money on something you need or borrowed it to someone who needed it, you have either the goods, or an outstanding loan. If the other wants to repay you, he, of course, pays the full 10 dollars. I can't explain it as well as the article, but in the end the result is that money flows to the place where there is the most need.restin a dit:
I meant: say you pay 1000 euros in tax. Under this system you can decide where 100 euros of it go to. This amount can be gradually increased (200, 300, etc.). If you don't want to make a decision, it will end up on the big pile of taxes that the government spends, thereby being spend on everything the government spends money on.
Forkbender
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 23/11/05
- Messages
- 11 366
@GOD
I always take the example of pharma industry. They spend 4 times more on advertising than on development of new medicine and within the research department, most of their money is spend on tweaking their older products so that they can patent them again, for another 50 years. Only about 5 percent of their total expenditure goes to development of new medicines and about 80 percent of the worlds new medicines are discovered outside of big pharma. They then go on and buy these patents from the discoverers (often university researchers) just to make the money at the highest rate possible. Clearly, in the current situation, where products are copied anyway by pirates and in third world countries that cannot afford the original, the product is still profitable, so why would that change? Furthermore, innovation still gives you the edge: if you have 6 months of experience making a product, it will still be beneficial to develop it, because you are better at it than other companies.
I always take the example of pharma industry. They spend 4 times more on advertising than on development of new medicine and within the research department, most of their money is spend on tweaking their older products so that they can patent them again, for another 50 years. Only about 5 percent of their total expenditure goes to development of new medicines and about 80 percent of the worlds new medicines are discovered outside of big pharma. They then go on and buy these patents from the discoverers (often university researchers) just to make the money at the highest rate possible. Clearly, in the current situation, where products are copied anyway by pirates and in third world countries that cannot afford the original, the product is still profitable, so why would that change? Furthermore, innovation still gives you the edge: if you have 6 months of experience making a product, it will still be beneficial to develop it, because you are better at it than other companies.
D
dacuhnaa
Guest
Whats the difference between an indirect democracy and a republic? what confuses me is that when we elect senators to vote for us, we call it a democracy, but when romans do it, we call it a republic. when is it used incorrectly or are they both the same thing?
__________________
yahoo keyword tool ~ overture ~ traffic estimator ~ adwords traffic estimator
__________________
yahoo keyword tool ~ overture ~ traffic estimator ~ adwords traffic estimator
It absolutely does not matter what the 'proper' definition is because sheer weight of the numbers insures that democracy, even practiced 'properly' is still going to SUCK.
If you lived in a village of fifty people, then you could probably find a consensus agreement on whatever issue that would allow everyone to be satisfied.
When you have a city that has 500,000 individuals in it that have a vote, then, you got this;
150,000 ppl don't vote at all, because of apathy.
(what created this apathy? Could it be the heartless, impersonal system of democracy IN THE FIRST PLACE? hmmmm)
180,000 ppl vote 'yes' on whatever issue
150,000 ppl vote 'no'
20,000 ppl feel their position is not represented ('No taxation without representation' ???? riiiiiighhhhttttt.......Representation FOR WHO??? The cconstitution didn't say. The ppl that wrote it are, surely, spinning in their graves at about 5500 RPM)
Democracy only works well on a small scale.
If you lived in a village of fifty people, then you could probably find a consensus agreement on whatever issue that would allow everyone to be satisfied.
When you have a city that has 500,000 individuals in it that have a vote, then, you got this;
150,000 ppl don't vote at all, because of apathy.
(what created this apathy? Could it be the heartless, impersonal system of democracy IN THE FIRST PLACE? hmmmm)
180,000 ppl vote 'yes' on whatever issue
150,000 ppl vote 'no'
20,000 ppl feel their position is not represented ('No taxation without representation' ???? riiiiiighhhhttttt.......Representation FOR WHO??? The cconstitution didn't say. The ppl that wrote it are, surely, spinning in their graves at about 5500 RPM)
Democracy only works well on a small scale.
K
kebracey
Guest
Why has democracy and human rights failed in islam? If not is it because democracy and human rights have failed in most parts of Asia, Middle east, eastern Europe, Africa and latin america?
___________________________
yahoo keyword tool ~ overture ~ traffic estimator ~ adwords traffic estimator
___________________________
yahoo keyword tool ~ overture ~ traffic estimator ~ adwords traffic estimator
I think the answer to your question is that the highest religous authorities would argue that democracy and human rights are man made and that the word of God(Be it the Koran, The Bible or Any other text) is supposed to be the word of God. A devine force that is perfect and man is a mere human being subject to the will of the ever envious and controlling evil forces that run havoc down here on Earth.
In places like China, They understand that if one is connected to the spirit they do not long for the material and have no drive to strive in the economical and technological markets of the world to which in the past 5 years China has dominated. China have a hardcore policy, Live and Work OR Die.
Also they introduced Falun Gong in 1992 and promoted to all the people and then in 1999, In a space of 2 days decided it was illegal and any one practising it was to be detained and "re-educated". Re-education really means Beat, Tortured, Humiliated and often killed. For practising a few peacefull exercises while cultivating a new frame of mind and gaining a new perspective on life???
Communism makes machines out of countrys, People are merely spare parts. Being born in China makes you a drain on the economy and surplus to the communist macine...
In places like China, They understand that if one is connected to the spirit they do not long for the material and have no drive to strive in the economical and technological markets of the world to which in the past 5 years China has dominated. China have a hardcore policy, Live and Work OR Die.
Also they introduced Falun Gong in 1992 and promoted to all the people and then in 1999, In a space of 2 days decided it was illegal and any one practising it was to be detained and "re-educated". Re-education really means Beat, Tortured, Humiliated and often killed. For practising a few peacefull exercises while cultivating a new frame of mind and gaining a new perspective on life???
Communism makes machines out of countrys, People are merely spare parts. Being born in China makes you a drain on the economy and surplus to the communist macine...
