New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: As a reader of NewMars forum, we have opportunities for you to assist with technical discussions in several initiatives underway. NewMars needs volunteers with appropriate education, skills, talent, motivation and generosity of spirit as a highly valued member. Write to newmarsmember * gmail.com to tell us about your ability's to help contribute to NewMars and become a registered member.

#26 2002-02-11 13:47:59

clark
Member
Registered: 2001-09-20
Posts: 6,278

Re: Monarchy? - WHy not a Constitutional Monarchy?

Is this not obviously a case of mass delusion? The people who desired to be the master race obviously felt their position in society was inadequate, else they would have had no psychological reason to dominate.[/quote:post_uid0]

Who cares what you call it, the point you are failing to address is that the system you propose has nothing built into it to prevent such manipulation. Anarchy, and the form you propose specifically is open to abuse without any menas to correct any imbalance.

'I will make you better than everyone.’ ‘But then, what follows, is that I am not good enough?’ Even clark is suggesting that people can't vote for themselves![/quote:post_uid0]

No, everyone is quite capable of voting for themselves- I am suggesting that it is in societies general interest to NOT have everyone voting for themselves. The number one reason is that every individual cannot be effectievly educated on all proposals, and to try an attempt at such an endeavour is ultimeltly futile. Direct Democracy and/or anarchy formulated on the premise that individuals make all the votes will perpetuate a system whereby large groups or organizations form to raise money to campaign their "cause"- this means that in order to make policy changes, groups will run ads, they will run marketing campaigns- which will develop into the commercialization of the democratic process whereby money and "airtime" decides the ultimate viability of getting legislation passed.

You want proof? Look at the US process for electing represenatives. The best predictor of wether or not a canadite will win is funding- those who spend more tend to do better Couple this system with a 24/7 voting mechanism and it is utter ####!

I mean, I don't think it would be hard to show, scientifically, that people are relatively equal in psychological capacty. As such, our society would probably  be best off taking that into consideration. By not assuming that people who are ‘weaker’ are also psychologically inferior.[/quote:post_uid0]

Umm, define "psychological capacity". There is not such thing as "equal"- there are Norms, which are derived from distribution of measured behavior (like wearing socks to bed, eating right handed, etc.) but that is not hard and objective- it differs from group to group depending on how you define your base population.

I agree, but that does not mean that the people who are subordinates are unable to exist outside of a heirachy. The formation, however, is often done outside of a rational sphere of thought.[/quote:post_uid0]

Actually, the formation of a hierarchy is very rational- groups can do more than an individual- ordered groups can do more than groups with no internal order becuase of efficiency. If you want the psych slant- order allows for planning- if you know your place in a group, then you have a foundation to work from ( you also know what you can expect and what is expected from you).

Imagine a group of people trying to get something done when no one has any responsibility nor does anyone have any expectations of anyone else.

Offline

#27 2002-02-12 12:04:31

Josh Cryer
Moderator
Registered: 2001-09-29
Posts: 3,830

Re: Monarchy? - WHy not a Constitutional Monarchy?

Anarchy, and the form you propose specifically is open to abuse without any menas to correct any imbalance.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI5.html

The number one reason [people cannot vote for themselves] is that every individual cannot be effectievly educated on all proposals, and to try an attempt at such an endeavour is ultimeltly futile.

How many proposals to you ‘forsee?’ They will be intuitive and long term, not ad hoc like they are currently. That's why it takes time to analyze the proposal on a larger scale, and that's why more voices are better than few.

Like I said, direct democracy isn't fast. There will be few proposals because there are only so many things you can do in a system that is well planned. Whole towns will be designed with the long term in mind.

[...] define "psychological capacity."

Umm, mental capacity. You could take a human from anywhere in the world, insert him into whatever culture, and it would act as though it was its natural environment (assuming of course that it wasn't already contaminated by another culture). Sure, there are some areas of the world where human genetics have been somewhat broken by lack of nutrition and so on, but generally speaking, we are close enough in respect to mental capablity (genetically speaking, we are identical- which is another argument for human equality).

Actually, the formation of a hierarchy is very rational- groups can do more than an individual- ordered groups can do more than groups with no internal order becuase of efficiency.

The formation of a hierarchy is rational if you're willing to give up certain individuality. Ordered groups can do ‘more,’ I conceed, but noramlly, ordered groups do things in an ad hoc fasion, to serve the wants of the master. A corporative effort would consider the long term, and would serve the needs of the group.

Imagine a group of people trying to get something done when no one has any responsibility nor does anyone have any expectations of anyone else.

Imagine how much responsiblity you'd have if your voice was exactly equal to your fellow human. You have no subordinate to blame if you make a mistake, and you have no boss to go to if you're uncertain what to do. Anarchy isn't ‘easy.’

By far.


Some useful links while MER are active. Offical site NASA TV JPL MER2004 Text feed
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.

Offline

#28 2002-02-14 11:10:54

clark
Member
Registered: 2001-09-20
Posts: 6,278

Re: Monarchy? - WHy not a Constitutional Monarchy?

I am going through that link you provided on your last post, interesting take on politcal theory...

However a few questions:

The "vision" of anarchy is a direct democracy based communal grass-roots effort at engaging peoples based on an "association" which would engender leagues and confederations which would then join in larger confederations. It seems that the "anarchy vision" is one of self-defined commonwealths who would maintain soverigntigy over their direct geographical location, and that individuals would make decisions for their communities.

Now, the problems I see right now: If you reduce the level of "soverigenty" down to this community level, what recourse is available to other communities when they have a disagreement with another community? What if community A is stealing from community B? It seems that what is actually being offered is a city-state ideal of self-governing.

SOunds great until we start to extrapolate from this point. The rise of the nation state was to ensure domestic tranquiility by reducing the threat of outside aggression. In other words, the nation state is the direct result of economic and military alliances formed to ensure that participants could maintain their liberty and their way of life from outside ussuption by either commercial manipulation or outright invasion.

While i sympathize with your goal, I find fault with your logic on humanities ability to easily choose this avenue of politcal development. How does anarchy as you define it fill the role of the nation state by preventing outside aggresion or economic slavery by larger commercial interests or larger groups of "confederations"?

You are reducing everyone to individual untis, you are DIVIDING people- not uniting. As such, larger groups that are able to unite will have a greater advantage, those that fail to unite will be at a disadvantage.

Unless you have a plan that will somehow fundamentaly change human behavior- ie resource aqusition and accumulation, this cannot work. Unless you have a plan to resolve all wolrd conflicts (which are ultimetly based on resources), anarchy will not work.

Offline

#29 2002-02-16 16:25:03

Josh Cryer
Moderator
Registered: 2001-09-29
Posts: 3,830

Re: Monarchy? - WHy not a Constitutional Monarchy?

I am going through that link you provided on your last post, interesting take on politcal theory...

I'd suggest reading the whole FAQ, starting with: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI4.html since that basically answers all the questions you had this time around.

If ya can't tell, I'm getting lazy responding to these discussions. I have my theories, you guys have yours. Plus, this is a bit off topic to the inital thread (not my fault, either! I just wanted to show that direct democracy is nice).


Some useful links while MER are active. Offical site NASA TV JPL MER2004 Text feed
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.

Offline

#30 2002-03-31 22:57:25

RobHazlewood
Banned
Registered: 2002-03-20
Posts: 19

Re: Monarchy? - WHy not a Constitutional Monarchy?

Shaun,
you mentioned this in your post:

"I should, in fairness, point out that many Australians support
the notion of a republic, though they are in the minority at present."

Actually, 90% of Australians support the notion of a republic.
We don't hate the queen, and we are all sad to see the queen's mum die. The british monarchy is just left over from the past, and has no relevance to any everyday australian.

Recently there was a referendum asking australians whether we should become a republic or not. Basically, the federal government worded the questions in such a way that would encourage people to say no. The no case won, but only because people wanted to adopt a republic in a different manner than was being offered.

The Australian PM spends too much time thinking about the past. He never looks toward the future, except in the short timeframe of 3 years.

He is encouraging racism, and is basically trying to get into bed with America. Its not like alot of americans even know where australia is!

'nuff said.
-Rob

Offline

#31 2002-04-01 09:52:55

Bill White
Member
Registered: 2001-09-09
Posts: 2,114

Re: Monarchy? - WHy not a Constitutional Monarchy?

<<He is encouraging racism, and is basically trying to get into bed with America. Its not like alot of americans even know where australia is!>>

Hmmm - I always thought Australia was somewhere near the Malvinas Islands - you know - the Falklands? Or maybe the Galapagos Islands?

Am I Right or wrong?   ???

Anyway, I do know that Australia is a long ways from Y'urp - so there!

Signed -

Just another daft Yank   big_smile

Offline

#32 2002-06-12 02:38:39

Ares
Member
Registered: 2002-06-12
Posts: 12
Website

Re: Monarchy? - WHy not a Constitutional Monarchy?

But the Swiss system might satisfy MOST of Alexander's requirements for fair government. As I understand it, if a particular issue catches the attention of the public, they can instigate a referendum on it by gathering a certain number of signatures on a petition (100,000 from memory but I am ready to be corrected on this). <snip>
   What do others think about it?

   I suspect, though, that after the initial novelty wore off, a lot of people would abandon voting in favour of other pursuits. It would mostly be such boring statutory stuff that all but the most politically motivated people would just give up.

<mine>  Isn't that pretty much the way it works now. smile </mine>[/quote:post_uid3]
I would advocate a sort of representational referendum (the Swiss system sounds similar, but I don't know much about that).  I imagine a weak legilature with mostly suggestive powers, except for on perhaps less important, boring matters.  The legislature places bills on a regularly occuring ballot, and the public at large votes for them.  Private political concerns (i.e. parties and such) could then advertise supporting one side or the other.
     The public should also have the power to initiate bills (probably through petition) or to "yank" the vote on an issue away from the legislature -- similar, it sounds, to the Swiss model.
     I would also advocate greater public involvement in the judicial system.  The public, and not "the courts" should interpret the laws.  Now the mechanism for this is not clear, as it would probably be unpracticable to have a referendum for every cases -- I reference again the boredom syndrome mentioned in the previous post, but perhaps having a jury (maybe even a grand jury) decide such issues is interesting.
smile  smile


A non-profit effort to establish  The Ares Concordant
a permanent, human colony     info@aresconcordant.org
on Mars.                                 www.aresconcordant.org

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB