Democracy

I love America. We are a country of values and ideals, of rich history and great beauty, and of diversity and tolerance. Our people through hard work, diligence, genius, talent, and any other virtue you could assign have persevered and triumphed over some of the most devastating crises to face any people in the history of humanity. And yet we must preserve these qualities in the times to come.
Hard times are ahead, my fellow countrymen. I know that now, all but economic hardship seems small in comparison with that most pressing need. However, we must look the future as this, our beloved America, falls to corruption and mistreatment while we watch on blindly.
Did you know that corporations can and do donate money to political campaigns in America? Do you understand the gravity and seriousness of our sitting back and allowing them to do this?
Political campaigns are run on millions of dollars. It takes a great deal of money to ship your candidate around the country, to put his face everywhere, and to provide his slogans and signage to his supporters. And yet, while this is an important fact to take into account, claiming that corporations could have little influence on elections because of it is failing to take into account a far more important fact.
Corporations make billions. Even with only a billion dollars, though, how many campaign donations of possible millions could they make?
Quite a few, actually. See, a billion isn’t just the next step up from a million. It’s 1,000 millions. Meaning a corporation could donate, say, 30 of those millions to fund an entire political campaign (thereby assuring that their views are represented in congress- theirs rather than yours), and still have 970 millions leftover. That’s a lot of millions.
Of course, these numbers are wholly fabricated, products entirely of my thought. Yet the thought experiment is valid, and we see the enormous buying power of a corporation in politics. What if they’re a multi-billion dollar corporation? That’s thousands more millions for them to spend making sure their views are represented in legislature.
And how do you get to express your views? You can donate $15 if you can afford it. You get to write letters to your elected officials- as if it will change their minds. Even donating a few bucks hardly seems worth it in the face of the buying power corporations.
I’m here to tell you, it’s not worth it. It’s not worth writing letters and it’s not worth donating your hard earned money, when the politicians are practically bought and paid for. As depressing as this sounds though, we are on the cusp of a new alternative that we have brought ourselves to by our own amazing technological advancement and by the ideals on which this country was founded.
In fact, when I said new alternative, I lied. What I propose is called Democracy.
If you think America is a democracy, you are sorely mistaken. America is and has been since its founding a republic. We elect people to serve our interests in government rather than serving those interests ourselves.
Yet they persistently fail to serve our interests, as they are in the pocket of wealthy corporations that take the sweat and work of millions and spend it on the interests of some few. Why rely on them at all, then? Why not stretch back further for inspiration, to the society that inspired even those men who so wonderfully engendered our own beautiful nation?
Indeed, it was not in Philadelphia but in Athens that democracy was founded, and then meant what the word says in Greek: Rule by the people. Despite stringent citizenship requirements based on race, birth, sex and creed that would be intolerable today, the government nonetheless allowed each and every one of its citizens the right to vote on the issues that faced the community, rather than forcing them to trust some few, easily corrupted politicians.
But of course this system was practical for their smaller city-state. Wouldn’t it be impossible to even get a consensus on issues in time to react if the whole nation must be gauged for reaction?
Perhaps 50 years ago. Perhaps 25 years ago. But today, through our own labor, hard work, and technological aptitude, we have discovered the secret to instant communication amongst all our citizens: the Internet. What need is there for our voices to not be heard and reverberate throughout the task of legislature?
We have the technology at our fingertips and all the impetus we need to act in what is swiftly becoming an oligarchy dominated by the interests of the wealthy. We must save our country, and the only people we can trust to do it are ourselves. We are still the same people who won two World Wars. We are still the same people to survive a time of both economic and ecological disaster during the Great Depression. And with the same tenacity with which we survived those challenges, we must now face the challenge we have made for ourselves by our indolence. Yet who better to govern us than us? And what better time to demand better for ourselves than now?

-Cleisthenes

“Above all we must avoid sacrificing our freedom for convenience to he who asks the lowest price for our loyalty.”

cool story bro

I did not expect glowing praise in response. I understand that you don't care. What you must understand is that the time for action is now, before we come too oppressed, spoon fed our information from a mass media owned by those who seek to control us.

I also understand that I sounds like a crazy conspiracy theorist. That notwithstanding, the fact of the matter is that most major media outlets can trace ownership back to a single person who ultimately controls the message and goals of their entire organization. Our information is already carefully filtered according to their whims, and we are often not party through our mass media to major news events concerning those media outlets.

You can dismiss me for now as much as you like, but I will return with the same message, and it will be no less true then than it is now.

Democracy is for faggots. FASCISM IS WHERE IT'S AT.

>>3
If your message has any merit then you should be able to make it concise and logical and logical people don't read enormous walls of text on some random forum on the internet without good reason. That's just the way shit be, unless you start being realistic your fruity little ideology will never take off.

Then how's this for concision: Electronic Direct Democracy to avoid the corruption engendered in our politicians by making ourselves the politicians. I'm sorry you felt I rambled, but asking you to make change without providing good reasons seems far more unreasonable than expecting you to read.

>>6
This is a great idea but I don't think you shoult take any merit for it. This is democracy - not your invention. I've heard EXACTLY what you said many times before on the net. In fact I've said it myself in forums.

You do deserve merit for bringing it up and pushing it through though. Don't listen to people calling it 'wall of text'. Your text was quite brief for what it said. If you had made it any shorter you would have ruined it.

Keep spreading the word.

I considered electronic direct democracy some 15 years ago....

How wonderful it might have been.
Government of the People, by the People, for the People....

In Reality, if 85% of the _people are truly ignorant_ of:

*the issues
*the contributing factors to issues
*the consequences of legislation: societal, ethical, economic, etc
*the cost of legislation/implementation
   (despite the reduced cost of a non-representative base)
 
The only people truly fit to govern are those that are on the verge of suicide.  The ones who are clearly aware of how misguided and flawed our world is.  The ones who have all but given up, fighting the torrent of shortsighted whimsical self-indulgent trends of the world at large.

The ones we would be most fearful of electing, because they would have "THE BOMB" at their fingertips.

In the futility of it all, it might be too tempting to just think: " Ker-Flushshshh,  dump this cesspool right into the cosmic toilet"

>>6
Why does direct democracy have to be electronic? What if someone haxes the computer system and controls all the results (in a manner such that no one gets suspicious)? The voting system should be a physical act which is merely logged by computers and can be logged by either the government or private enterprises like a newspaper.

What would people do with the ability to vote on every issue? I believe people should have access to direct democratic powers but I do not think voting on every single issue is practical and practicality is a significant factor because practical considerations are why we are discussing this in the first place instead of living in a utopia.

The system should work like this.

People have a vote they can withdraw or give to another representative at any time, the representatives then use these votes to vote on complex issues, people still vote at elections because elections are a useful tool for representatives to form a new government/opposition but if the representatives start to displease their voters mid-term then people can withdraw their votes and give their voting power to another representative. At the same time any citizen can make themselves a representative at any time and start a petition, other representatives can then join the petition to prevent their voters from withdrawing their votes to give to the petitioner.

>>8

A few ideas you've probably heard before:

Tests on the issues at the voting booth. Nothing too hard, just to make sure you've seen the news sometime since the last election. Temporary disenfranchisement for those who fail.

A constitution of some sort to limit the harm the majority can inflict on the minority.

Ultimately, I would rather elect the man who want the job least than a man on the edge of suicide. I'm a nihilist and yet I don't consider suicide. That said, I would likely be unfit to rule.

I am trying to consider the issues with EDD, but more than that I am simply trying to spread the word and to provide a viable alternative to the corrupt, warmongering politics we have now.

>>9

Even with a system similar to this currently, we have to trust major corporations like Diebold with the safety and security of our entire voting process.

There are secure things and places on the internet, as much as 4chan might not want to believe that. Internet security for the vote would obviously be the very first issue to tackle in truly implementing this system, meaning more thought must be given to it before the time comes.

>>4

Interesting because the most famous "fascist" leaders: Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler were democratically elected.

http://demokratias.blogspot.com/

Fellow Americans,

Our government barely avoided shutdown yesterday. Many of you likely breathed a sigh of relief, thankful that government services- or maybe even your job- would remain open for another week. However, anyone with eyes can see that this shutdown is merely symptomatic of an issue tearing our government and our people apart: partisanship.

Indeed, our government has been torn asunder, ripped in two by their own ideologies. Rather than see the similarities in the other party’s desires (Freedom, Democracy, and what’s in the best interests of the country and its people), each party insists on vilifying the other over policy decisions with unknown outcomes, claiming hypothetical situations as facts and attempting to assassinate the character of their opponents.

Yet their attempts to destroy each other are not limited to each other, though it may seem so to them. Rather, their partisanship is ultimately destroying the Democratic ideals of our nation. Indeed, our republic was conceived as a way for all viewpoints to be heard and for the best solution to any problem to be debated over and found by taking every opinion.

But instead we have only two views on any issue. There is no such thing as political moderation anymore. You are a Democrat or a Republican. The only other possibility is that your political views aren’t even legitimate enough for consideration. You must be an insane libertarian, or an evil socialist. Indeed, in the current political climate, politicians deviating from one of the two political bastions are essentially viewed as having something wrong with them.

This is a totally illegitimate form of government. Indeed, it is dividing our entire nation down lines of ideology, to the point where different ideologies deliberately expose themselves to different media than their supposed rivals, thus further entrenching the divisions between them as each side is propagandized,  each vilifying their opponents.

Yet what solution do we have? Both parties are so financially entrenched as to be impossible to overthrow. Both parties are worth essentially millions of dollars, and those parties and their media outlets convince many people now, that those parties, or even only one of those parties, have the only set of legitimate political views. This is, as we all know, a fallacy. We must refuse to buy into it.

And ultimately, we must refuse to buy into two party politics. The sort of ideological division they create is destructive for us and for the nation. And there is an alternative, a solution. Indeed, I doubt it will surprise you when I propose it.

Electronic direct democracy would undo partisan politics by undoing parties entirely. Indeed, by removing the politicians and their need to campaign, we undermine the financial political structure that upholds these parties in their power. Any third party has as much a chance of passing legislation when it has less to do with how much money they can funnel into electing officials to support them and far more to do with convincing people of their ideals, their opinions, and their policies.

We must eliminate those who seek only to hold us back, even if they are totally unaware of their attempts to do so. Even if there were a politician who thought he had the interests of the people at heart, as unlikely as that sounds, were he a Democrat or Republican, he too is contributing to the downfall of America.

Should partisanship threaten to shut down the government again, it will become only more apparent how destructive it truly is for our livelihoods, for ideological freedom, and for the safety, security, and future success of America. We need to make a change before the government refuses to offer us those important services we need. We need to make a change before the livelihoods of thousands are ruined by bickering parties, neither of which truly has our best interests at heart. The time is now. It’s up to us.

-Cleisthenes

“We stand now with a choice, not between Republican and Democrat, but between ideological freedom or self-imposed imprisonment of the mind.”

>>14
>Freedom, Democracy, and what’s in the best interests of the country and its people
LOL, you are clueless as hell(and probably a liberal) if you think that the US government has had any interest in that for over a century.

In fact nowadays the government is explicitly HOSTILE to the people, most especially the white protestant.

There are many structural problems in real democracy, other than the voting system. I do support direct democracy but there is part of democracy that's hardly ever discussed. The democratic dialogue and the information the subject have in order to vote. Voting is absolutely pointless if not dangerous if the citizens are not well informed or deliberately misinformed.

This part might actually be of greater significance than the actual voting mechanism.

Secondly, in Athenian democracy there was a period when they used the method of 'εξοστρακισμος' or ostracism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism). This is a good method for the people to keep the leash on politicians.

>>15

I have never heard a claim further from the truth. If you want to play the martyr and claim oppression, you have to actually be oppressed. Affirmative action isn't oppression. Most of the government is still white protestants, affirming fundamentalist white protestant values. The Tea Party movement that essentially makes the political decisions these days is composed almost entirely of white protestants.

I guess all I can really say is that I hope you're trolling. Trying to claim racism as a member of the oppressor is just wrong and misguided. Obama does NOT in fact have a "deep-seated hatred of white people," nor did any of the white protestants before him. Or JFK.

That notwithstanding, you present an interesting point I have to address: how to protect each individual in EDD from movements like the Tea Party. How will we ensure that gays can marry and that every minority is ensured equality?

Our founding fathers give us a strong solution that must, however, be accompanied by a specific form of government: a Constitution. Indeed, those founding fathers actually warned against direct democracy, as they felt it would allow the majority to run roughshod over the minority. However, it was after they made these comments in the Federalist papers that they conceived of and enacted a constitution to enumerate the rights and powers of government and to protect the citizens from it.

Yet their government has essentially failed. It is run by corrupt politicians and corporate interests, and has been since at least Harding. Indeed, rather than their fear confirmed of the careless majority, they would now see their people put upon by corrupt government.

And indeed we should remedy this problem they failed to foresee with the safeguard that they used to try and maintain government after their passing: a Constitution. A document to enumerate the powers of the voting body, of the few elected officials they might have, and the rights of the minority. We must establish safeguards for those groups, ethnic or ideological, which do not form the majority so that the majority may not, out of malice, spite, and pure racism enact whatever laws they choose against those who have not the voting power to protect themselves.

I understand what I'm advocating for, but something must be done. At this point, the problems seem so systemic that fixing the problem would cost us more than just buying a new one. A new government, that is, with a new constitution.

The situation is dire. We must act.

-Cleisthenes

"We must in Democracy protect from ourselves those who cannot protect themselves."

>>17
>Most of the government is still white protestants
blatant lie.

There is in fact, NO white protestants left in any position of power of the government, supreme court is 3 jews and 6 catholics. Obongos cabinet has no white protestants,(hillary doesn't count).

>Trying to claim racism as a member of the oppressor
Oh, are you a fucking nigger?

>How will we ensure that gays can marry and that every minority is ensured equality?
Gays shouldn't be able to marry, and "minorities"(non-whites) should not exist in our countries.

>The situation is dire. We must act.
More like "whites still exist, we aren't genociding them fast enough!"

Good thread bump

>>4 yeah you see how well it turned out for those germans! hitler turned that country into a fucked to death pile of burning shit. And I think your a faggot. just like hitler.

did you know hitler fucked his cousin? I even heard he liked it when she took a dump on his chest

>>20
>>21
Yes, I've heard many times people saying things like "hitler was a poo poo head" as though hating hitler is something shocking and they are morally righteous for doing so.

>>22 only if your talking to somebody whose still a white surpemacist.

>>23
>whose still a white surpemacist.
Which is an absolute evil thing and composed of anyone who doesn't just rollover and die when a non-white demands what you have?

Of course being a black supremacist, or a mexican supremacist, or an asian supremacist or a jewish supremacist is perfectly ok. Mexicans deserve their own nation, asians all deserve theirs, blacks deserve africa to themselves, and on top of all that, they deserve our nations too!

>>24 <--- Please excuse him. Not many braincells left...

Op is a moron, Democracy is outlawed under article 4 section 4 of the US Constitution. Which clearly states that we are a "constitutional republic" A republic based on the rule of law.  Please learn the difference....

>>23
Maybe but it doesn't accomplish anything because they heard it all before. If you're trying to convince someone of something you need to think a few steps ahead.

No one is telling Korea "Diversity is our strength so we're going to create a blended humanity in only Korea"

No one is telling Uganda "Diversity is our strength, so we're going to create a blended humanity in only Uganda"

EVERY white country and ONLY white countries are told to immigrate and "assimilate" their own race out of existence, ONLY anti-whites are pushing it, only white children are being robbed of their home countries, it is genocide.


Often we hear the term "visible minorities" used to refer to Africans, Indians, Orientals etc...

This is a strange term because these groups have the largest populations in the world. Africans, Indians and Orientals each have larger population than whites. So why is this this term "visible minority" used as a euphemism for non-whites?

It is used in order to obscure the truth. Whites are not a majority, on a global scale we are a tiny and vanishing minority. Not only are we a global minority but we are poised to become a minority in our own homes.

In 1900 my people, white people, comprised 33% of world population, today we are at 9% and dropping like a rock. Not only are we a minority in the world but because of immigration & assimilation in EVERY white country and ONLY white countries our children are poised to be minorities IN THEIR OWN COUNTRIES within a few decades.


Strange how "Multiculturalism" is being forced in EVERY white country.

No one says Korea needs to become more "multicultural".

No one says Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Israel, or Egypt should be flooded with massive foreign populations to demonstrate how "moral" they are, or to "enrich" their sorely lacking cultures.

It's a program to eliminate my people, white people from existence. it's genocide.


No one is forcing Japan to bring in Non-Japanese and telling everyone to "assimilate".

No one is forcing Africa to bring in Non-Africans and telling everyone to "assimilate".

Only citizens of White/European Countries like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and all the countries in Europe are having uncontrolled immigration forced on them.

This "assimilation" or blending is nothing more than an attempt to wipe out the White race. It's genocide.

Those pushing this call themselves "anti-racist" What they are is anti-white.
anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.

There's nothing in common between a wealthy white and a poor white. In fact, a poor white has much more in common with a poor african or asian than with a wealthy white.Class-ism, not racism is the real issue.

But that's not your only mistake.

>>It's a program to eliminate my people, white people from existence

We're not YOUR people bitch! Speak for your self. Or at least don't pretend you're doing this in OUR name.

>>No one is forcing Africa to bring in Non-Africans and telling everyone to "assimilate".

a) africa is a continent with many races. It's not a country. A map should help...
b)Non africans go there themselves(without anyone asking them), steal all the resources and in the past have taken everyone as slaves. A history book should help...
c)White people DO make africans assimilate to their culture.

You couldn't have been more wrong in a single sentence.

>>Only citizens of White/European Countries like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and all the countries in Europe are having uncontrolled immigration forced on them.

Wrong again. Turkey has immigrants from iraq, syria, iran, pakistan, afganistan, you name it. In fact if europe is having a migration issue it's because the number of immigrants in turkey is so large they cannot provide them with decent living conditions. Also, it's very natural for immigrants to migrate to wealthier countries. They have more chances of finding a job there. After all these countries are rich from the resources they have stolen from the immigrants' countries of origin. Whites (as you personaly prefer to generalise people who otherwise have little in common), have somehow ended up with all the riches in the world. It makes sense for anyone who owns less to move there. Plus, it was white people who first went to the immigrants' countries and (chic) took their jobs.

>>This "assimilation" or blending is nothing more than an attempt to wipe out the White race.

Wouldn't the other race involved in the 'blending process' have the same exact fate? What a hot pile of bullshit for an argument is this. Do you call yourself a bright example of white supremacy with this kind of argument? Please, stop making a fool out of yourself mate :p

>>Those pushing this call themselves "anti-racist" What they are is anti-white.
anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.

The same poor display of understanding simple terms...

PS. I know, I'm either a non-white or a marxist or a traitor. You told me last time. Whatever, grow up...

>>In 1900 my people, white people, comprised 33% of world population, today we are at 9% and dropping like a rock. Not only are we a minority in the world but because of immigration & assimilation in EVERY white country and ONLY white countries our children are poised to be minorities IN THEIR OWN COUNTRIES within a few decades.

That's probably because we don't have enough births. An average white family has up to two kids. In some countries women have that many kids by the time they're 20. A result of wanking instead of fucking I guess :p

Also, for your information, the term 'minority' refers to a group within a country. Comparing the amount of people in the world by color is a rather pointless task. Compare them by income and you have a very important number on your hands.