Right, which is how you end up with tyranny of the majority. That's why the US is not a "real democracy", and neither are most other nations. Maybe you want a "real democracy", but I certainly don't. I've never heard about such a thing as a tyranny of the majority. Could you explain?
The ideal democracy, as I see it, would be one in which every little decision about what the law would be and how the law would be interpreted and applied (right down to the actual movements of arms and feet) could be made as fast as if by a single person (or even faster) and as fairly as if it was the result of a general election. This is obviously impossible to achieve, but it is the ideal, and so it is one of two extremes. The other end is a `democracy' with so many middle-men, that, effectively, is hardly a `democracy'.
The "somewhere in the middle" in this case may or may not involve parliaments, as there are quite a few `middle-men' already between the people, and... the people.:-) But don't simply throw any alternative to the trash.
Actually the best example is Alexandria. They were a VERY progressive society, allowing freedom of thought and religion. They had developed all sorts of advanced technologies, including advanced medicine, and figuring out not only that the earth is round, but it's probable size down to 99% accuracy. In the end, they were brought down by religious fanaticism when the Christian church consolidated it's differing factions under one authoritarian regime. The parallels to our own society are frankly quite scary. :-) Don't you just LOVE religion?!? It's all about LOVE, you know...:-P
Check out the book "Remembering Hypatia" if you're interested in that sort of thing. Hypatia was a very influential woman who was a big proponent of scientific thought, and pluralist society, but was ultimately barbarically and quite publicly murdered by a Christian bishop and his followers shortly before they seized power in Alexandria. I don't understand (I told you I don't read much history!). Did they invade or did they convert? If the former, then that doesn't say much. If the latter, then... WTF?!?
The answer is always somewhere in-between. What I am describing is one level above capitalism or communism. The answer is somewhere in between, so you're advocating something above?:) Good way to defeat your own argument. As long as you keep advocating something below, my argument will be just fine...:-P
Your argument assumes that: 1) People actually KNOW what they want. Don't they? I thought voting based on your (simple) personal interests mostly works OK. You don't have to bother (much) with what other people tell you they think you want.
2) People can make logical, intelligent choices, and can abstain from voicing their opinions when they do not have the relevant facts. ... or, at least, are able to ignore others' opinions if they are not backed by facts (like, for example, certain religious beliefs).
So, are you saying that people make stupid mistakes?
3) People understand the importance of casting a vote. Now, are you saying that people can't even learn from stupid mistakes?
Unfortunately, everything we know about ourselves suggests that all three of those assumptions are wrong. Well, if people are that dumb, then maybe they actually deserve the shaky republic they are living in. But let's not jump into conclusions. Things like that can't be simply right or wrong. They are much more complicated.
Well, if person A wants X which hurts person B, then person B will want anti-X, given that he hears about it and has time to react. You get the idea. But if X doesn't hurt anyone, then why not?
Unpopular (but `positive') legislation. Yes I know... I consider that a price to pay for real democracy. It comes with the package! If you want a government `by the people and for the people' you will have to accept the will of the majority.
Religious fanaticism. I don't read much history, but wasn't that one of the things that happened to ancient Athens? I know, people often don't listen to reason.
AFAIK, neither capitalism nor communism in their pure forms would work. The answer is always somewhere in-between. What I am describing is one level above capitalism or communism. These are the mechanisms with which people would choose between capitalism and communism (or among any other alternatives). Since some people would choose one and other people would choose another on a per-issue basis, we should end up with a nice, realistic and workable blend. I.e. communist-style education and research with capitalist-style free market.
I'm not saying that everybody should vote about everything. I'm not even sure that this is done in parliaments. Does every-single-one person need to be present for a vote? I'm not so sure. I'm not very well educated in politics (but I'll bet you are;-).
Yes, there will be a lot of decisions to be made at every level. However, there are also a lot of John Q Publics out there to make them! Whoever is already properly educated would simply sign up for receiving notifications about proposed laws in his own category.
We already have special interest groups and corporations that influence decisions. No matter what you do, no matter which political system you implement, there will always be special interest groups who will want to (and to an extent will) influence decisions. The question is to what extent!
If they have enough money to hire full-time representatives then they have lots of money indeed! You have to look at actual figures to see just how much they would be able to influence decisions that way. Meanwhile, why not buy a few?
Attempting to influence the decisions of others (without brainwashing, truth testing, money etc.) via `legitimate' means can only be healthy. People talk. Bosses pressure. Politicians even put things on TV. They also use every little dirty trick they can. People already do all that. That's democracy, already. The need to define `legitimate' already exists, and defining it is already quite tricky.
However, defining `special interest groups' is also tricky. Just when is a set of people a `special interest group' and not just ordinary people who accidentally happen to have a common interest? And why should this be bad? Isn't democracy about the will of the majority?
Finally, if we end up with big organisations that want X, then we should also end up with big organisations that want anti-X. It is (or should be) already like that with political parties.
The only problem is, what happens if a large number of like-minded voters suddently and unexpectedly appears from nowhere, before an opposition can be formed. Things like that should be easy to work around though.
I Am Not A Lawyer, but, hey, since communication is so easy that all of the population can vote directly for each and every law, it should be equally easy to notify all of the population (or, at least, whoever is interested) that some new legislation has been proposed which belongs to a particular category and that there will be a vote! Just like what is done in internet forums.
BOTH of your questions can be asked, and by different people. IMHO, the controversial part is figuring out exactly how they conflict and what it would mean if BOTH were answered with `no' and `yes' as you said. Maybe deny all other public services except health and education?
If what you say happens a few times with a few issues, I believe the people will learn (the hard way) that it's not a very good idea to just forget about issues you voted on.
Some time ago, I was thinking about sending somebody the MD5 hash along with a message of mine (via different means) so they know that they have my original message (I don't do this very systematically). However, after reading the Wikipedia article about MD5 hashes I know that this is not such a great idea.
The reason is that somebody can APPEND a block of data to their fake message so that the result gives the same MD5 hash. So the message would look more like this:
"This is a message from Me to You. Send some $$$ to Foobar! Oh and, by the way, I have a problem in my software, so don't mind this junk data: weesunooaixooyootohphiyiahraiwotvutizaendieghuquah zeingoahzaephu"
Of course, you could argue that it is enough for people to look for seemingly random `junk' data in their messages, but I don't think most people who only need to use encryption simply in the context of their work (via some user-friendly GUI-based programs trusted by their _employers_) should have to bother with such things.
I haven't read any research yet, but if SHA-1 has been `cracked' in this way too then what am I supposed to use? And if I use it, I would like to KNOW that it cannot EVER be `cracked' like that. Can something like this be PROVEN, once and for all?
Slashdot Mirror
They will probably put it into `reduced functionality mode'...
... or it doesn't.
Only on slashdot...
All right then, what would be truly `scientific'?
Nope. I'm afraid you're not in my tribe...
The ideal democracy, as I see it, would be one in which every little decision about what the law would be and how the law would be interpreted and applied (right down to the actual movements of arms and feet) could be made as fast as if by a single person (or even faster) and as fairly as if it was the result of a general election. This is obviously impossible to achieve, but it is the ideal, and so it is one of two extremes. The other end is a `democracy' with so many middle-men, that, effectively, is hardly a `democracy'.
The "somewhere in the middle" in this case may or may not involve parliaments, as there are quite a few `middle-men' already between the people, and... the people.
1) People actually KNOW what they want. Don't they? I thought voting based on your (simple) personal interests mostly works OK. You don't have to bother (much) with what other people tell you they think you want. 2) People can make logical, intelligent choices, and can abstain from voicing their opinions when they do not have the relevant facts. ... or, at least, are able to ignore others' opinions if they are not backed by facts (like, for example, certain religious beliefs).
So, are you saying that people make stupid mistakes? 3) People understand the importance of casting a vote. Now, are you saying that people can't even learn from stupid mistakes? Unfortunately, everything we know about ourselves suggests that all three of those assumptions are wrong. Well, if people are that dumb, then maybe they actually deserve the shaky republic they are living in. But let's not jump into conclusions. Things like that can't be simply right or wrong. They are much more complicated.
Well, if person A wants X which hurts person B, then person B will want anti-X, given that he hears about it and has time to react. You get the idea. But if X doesn't hurt anyone, then why not?
Unpopular (but `positive') legislation. Yes I know... I consider that a price to pay for real democracy. It comes with the package! If you want a government `by the people and for the people' you will have to accept the will of the majority.
Religious fanaticism. I don't read much history, but wasn't that one of the things that happened to ancient Athens? I know, people often don't listen to reason.
AFAIK, neither capitalism nor communism in their pure forms would work. The answer is always somewhere in-between. What I am describing is one level above capitalism or communism. These are the mechanisms with which people would choose between capitalism and communism (or among any other alternatives). Since some people would choose one and other people would choose another on a per-issue basis, we should end up with a nice, realistic and workable blend. I.e. communist-style education and research with capitalist-style free market.
I'm not saying that everybody should vote about everything. I'm not even sure that this is done in parliaments. Does every-single-one person need to be present for a vote? I'm not so sure. I'm not very well educated in politics (but I'll bet you are ;-).
Yes, there will be a lot of decisions to be made at every level. However, there are also a lot of John Q Publics out there to make them! Whoever is already properly educated would simply sign up for receiving notifications about proposed laws in his own category.
We already have special interest groups and corporations that influence decisions. No matter what you do, no matter which political system you implement, there will always be special interest groups who will want to (and to an extent will) influence decisions. The question is to what extent!
If they have enough money to hire full-time representatives then they have lots of money indeed! You have to look at actual figures to see just how much they would be able to influence decisions that way. Meanwhile, why not buy a few?
Attempting to influence the decisions of others (without brainwashing, truth testing, money etc.) via `legitimate' means can only be healthy. People talk. Bosses pressure. Politicians even put things on TV. They also use every little dirty trick they can. People already do all that. That's democracy, already. The need to define `legitimate' already exists, and defining it is already quite tricky.
However, defining `special interest groups' is also tricky. Just when is a set of people a `special interest group' and not just ordinary people who accidentally happen to have a common interest? And why should this be bad? Isn't democracy about the will of the majority?
Finally, if we end up with big organisations that want X, then we should also end up with big organisations that want anti-X. It is (or should be) already like that with political parties.
The only problem is, what happens if a large number of like-minded voters suddently and unexpectedly appears from nowhere, before an opposition can be formed. Things like that should be easy to work around though.
I Am Not A Lawyer, but, hey, since communication is so easy that all of the population can vote directly for each and every law, it should be equally easy to notify all of the population (or, at least, whoever is interested) that some new legislation has been proposed which belongs to a particular category and that there will be a vote! Just like what is done in internet forums.
BOTH of your questions can be asked, and by different people. IMHO, the controversial part is figuring out exactly how they conflict and what it would mean if BOTH were answered with `no' and `yes' as you said. Maybe deny all other public services except health and education?
If what you say happens a few times with a few issues, I believe the people will learn (the hard way) that it's not a very good idea to just forget about issues you voted on.
Well, pretty often, neither do elected representatives...
Some time ago, I was thinking about sending somebody the MD5 hash along
h zeingoahzaephu"
with a message of mine (via different means) so they know that they have my
original message (I don't do this very systematically). However, after
reading the Wikipedia article about MD5 hashes I know that this is not such
a great idea.
The reason is that somebody can APPEND a block of data to their fake
message so that the result gives the same MD5 hash. So the message would
look more like this:
"This is a message from Me to You. Send some $$$ to Foobar! Oh and, by the way, I have a problem in my software, so don't mind this junk data: weesunooaixooyootohphiyiahraiwotvutizaendieghuqua
Of course, you could argue that it is enough for people to look for
seemingly random `junk' data in their messages, but I don't think most
people who only need to use encryption simply in the context of their work
(via some user-friendly GUI-based programs trusted by their _employers_)
should have to bother with such things.
I haven't read any research yet, but if SHA-1 has been `cracked' in this
way too then what am I supposed to use? And if I use it, I would like to
KNOW that it cannot EVER be `cracked' like that. Can something like this
be PROVEN, once and for all?