I don't agree with global level. Nations has different wealth, different technologies, etc. You cannot apply same rules for US or India
with traffic rules i meant the general stuff, like on which side to drive on, the colors of traffic lights, the design of street signs. those are pretty much already a global standard, and rightly so. because it does not make sense to have those work differently in different countries. of course there should always be carveouts for regional specifics. we don't need kangaroo warning signs in austria.
other examples are things that are for the most part already global standards. like the metric system. yes, the US should literally be forced to change here. it's become the laughing stock of the world on that issue. also copyright law. etc. money should be global. we don't need different currencies. maybe punishment for serious crimes. human rights. but on the other side there are many things that are global or almost global now, that should not, or need not be.
Same for pollution. For example US made huge capital on pollution in 20th century. Would you ban developing country to obtain their capital from pollution today and made similar wealth as US previously?
well, yes and no. i agree with you that it is not fair to just stop everyone from polluting when their economy depends upon it. but as pollution is destroying our climate, we have to do something about it. we can't just allow some areas to pollute the world while other areas don't. it would not work. what would, and does happen is that that those countries that decided to limit their pollution just export their production to pollute elsewhere.
what we do need to do however is to then enable other ways for these countries to prosper. we need to invest into those countries and build them up much like we built up some countries in asia and europe after world war 2. see more discussion on that in the thread on chocolate here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38073378
I would like to free ourselves from the idea of needed rulers above our lives
agreed. partly i see this as a historical problem. we started out with rulers being absolute, like kings, etc.
eventually some started to elect their kings. etc. you know the history. that history is the reason we look at elected leaders as rulers above us.
so we need to change the understanding. that those elected representatives are there to serve us. not we serve them. their responsibility is to take care of our problems, and find and propose just solutions and rules for us to be able to live together.
there are a few things we can change to make the election system fairer:
first of the whole party system is designed for conflict and not cooperation. get rid of it.
each representative should be independent. no more toeing the party line. make decisions only based on your conscience.
next point is a bit harder: get rid of the concept of candidates. don't allow election campaigns. don't allow media to promote certain people. let people get elected only based on their reputation as good citizens. this prevents influence of the elections by those who have more funding.
but that only works in small communities, where people have a chance to know each other. for big cities that practically means elections per neighborhood.
elect multiple people per neighborhood. also give each person multiple votes. maybe as many votes as the number of people to be elected. multiple votes avoids that a majority of votes concentrate on a single person. because everyone has to still assign the other votes they have.
these are then the community/neighborhood representatives, and they make decisions for their neighborhood.
elections on a higher level are made from those elected at a lower level. all the way to the top. this levels the playing field and it allows good people to become elected without financial resources.
i don't think a perfect system is possible. but this system would remove a lot of friction, combined with favoring decisions at a local level, it would be a lot better than anything we have currently.
...we need to invest into those countries and build them up much like we built up some countries
I find investment like this quite a problematic. It makes places, that would be naturally inhabited, artificially alive with huge cost. It's not sustainable approach.
Generally all kinds of grants makes inequalities in society. Either, you have free market that naturally shape possibilities. Or you brake it by investments and grants. Learning process how to obtain a capital and manage it is more valuable than giving sources to dilettantes. Sure, we have mechanisms that control, how well is grant spent but then you invest time to control, instead of developing.
we started out with rulers being absolute, like kings, etc.
Kings, in history, has much less impact to personal life than politics nowadays. Due to globalization, technology and overall amount of laws, restrictions and regulations spread in it. 2020 is great example how fear that has been spread in mass media, lockdown almost whole world.
so we need to change the understanding. that those elected representatives are there to serve us. not we serve them. their responsibility is to take care of our problems, and find and propose just solutions and rules for us to be able to live together.
They will serve to power. Because being elected in democracy means being a populist. It's not about serving to people at first place. You cannot win elections with this in democratic system.
no more toeing the party line. make decisions only based on your conscience.
While I agree, I'm not sure if individualism is a way to go. Conscience is shaped, mostly in childhood by your parents. If you grow up in pathological environment, later you spread same behavior. Notice that normalization of being a victim, unstable and a deviant is strong nowadays. I prefer dialogue, going out from comfort zone and cultivation of mind by active socialization. Note that this is not rhetoric we can observe today with amount of time spent affront of screen. Alone in our safe bubbles.
also give each person multiple votes.
There are some methods, that could improve voting system, like D21 (1.) Basically it operate with possibilities of voting with two plus votes and one negative vote. That negative vote could eliminate populism in political campaigns. I'm not saying its perfect, but idea of giving one vote to someone, who is chosen by party or promoted by public opinion polls is just an illusion of free vote.
i don't think a perfect system is possible.
It never will be. But more dangerous is a thinking, that we have perfect democratic system and there are no other options. Usually those who are afraid of changes comes up with communism. Well... I live in post-communistic country and we still face communistic rhetoric in democratic state, usually from those, who name themselves as anti-communists. So again, we came back to circle, where political system tend to put individuals to categories and let them fight each other.
...we need to invest into those countries and build them up much like we built up some countries
I find investment like this quite a problematic. It makes places, that would be naturally inhabited, artificially alive with huge cost. It's not sustainable approach.
i agree that there are problematic investments, but the statement as it is is way to generic. consider some african megacities, like kampala in uganda that i was able to visit recently. the city has literally no public transport infrastructure, roads are in a bad shape and growth is uncontrolled.
it will take a massive investment to make that city livable. ideally, that investment comes from local sources. i am not suggesting that foreign funds should just swoop in and spend money without cooperating with locals to consider their needs. but a better infrastructure is definitely needed.
i am also not talking about grants. that's charity. an investment is something that has the expectation of a return of some form. i agree that learning how to obtain capital is important. what i was thinking of is to do more trade with those countries. fair trade, not the kind of exploitative trade that i referenced as example.
They will serve to power. Because being elected in democracy means being a populist. It's not about serving to people at first place. You cannot win elections with this in democratic system.
that is something that we need to change. the only way i see that this can be achieved is education. it will take decades, but it is not out of reach to teach us how to build a society that fosters unity and cooperation instead of competition.
If you grow up in pathological environment, later you spread same behavior.
this too can only be counteracted with better education.
I prefer dialogue, going out from comfort zone and cultivation of mind by active socialization.
i agree. this is part of it.
giving one vote to someone, who is chosen by party or promoted by public opinion polls is just an illusion of free vote
exactly that is how i see it too. which is why i conclude that the current systems are not democratic.
more dangerous is a thinking, that we have perfect democratic system and there are no other options
i agree with every point in that paragraph.
I don't agree with global level. Nations has different wealth, different technologies, etc. You cannot apply same rules for US or India
with traffic rules i meant the general stuff, like on which side to drive on, the colors of traffic lights, the design of street signs. those are pretty much already a global standard, and rightly so. because it does not make sense to have those work differently in different countries. of course there should always be carveouts for regional specifics. we don't need kangaroo warning signs in austria.
other examples are things that are for the most part already global standards. like the metric system. yes, the US should literally be forced to change here. it's become the laughing stock of the world on that issue. also copyright law. etc. money should be global. we don't need different currencies. maybe punishment for serious crimes. human rights. but on the other side there are many things that are global or almost global now, that should not, or need not be.
Same for pollution. For example US made huge capital on pollution in 20th century. Would you ban developing country to obtain their capital from pollution today and made similar wealth as US previously?
well, yes and no. i agree with you that it is not fair to just stop everyone from polluting when their economy depends upon it. but as pollution is destroying our climate, we have to do something about it. we can't just allow some areas to pollute the world while other areas don't. it would not work. what would, and does happen is that that those countries that decided to limit their pollution just export their production to pollute elsewhere.
what we do need to do however is to then enable other ways for these countries to prosper. we need to invest into those countries and build them up much like we built up some countries in asia and europe after world war 2. see more discussion on that in the thread on chocolate here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38073378
in particular this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38079451
I would like to free ourselves from the idea of needed rulers above our lives
agreed. partly i see this as a historical problem. we started out with rulers being absolute, like kings, etc.
eventually some started to elect their kings. etc. you know the history. that history is the reason we look at elected leaders as rulers above us.
so we need to change the understanding. that those elected representatives are there to serve us. not we serve them. their responsibility is to take care of our problems, and find and propose just solutions and rules for us to be able to live together.
there are a few things we can change to make the election system fairer:
first of the whole party system is designed for conflict and not cooperation. get rid of it. each representative should be independent. no more toeing the party line. make decisions only based on your conscience.
next point is a bit harder: get rid of the concept of candidates. don't allow election campaigns. don't allow media to promote certain people. let people get elected only based on their reputation as good citizens. this prevents influence of the elections by those who have more funding.
but that only works in small communities, where people have a chance to know each other. for big cities that practically means elections per neighborhood.
elect multiple people per neighborhood. also give each person multiple votes. maybe as many votes as the number of people to be elected. multiple votes avoids that a majority of votes concentrate on a single person. because everyone has to still assign the other votes they have.
these are then the community/neighborhood representatives, and they make decisions for their neighborhood.
elections on a higher level are made from those elected at a lower level. all the way to the top. this levels the playing field and it allows good people to become elected without financial resources.
i don't think a perfect system is possible. but this system would remove a lot of friction, combined with favoring decisions at a local level, it would be a lot better than anything we have currently.