When arguing against their current government, people are often resistant to change because they’re afraid of a change in their lives, even if they know it’s for the better. Complacency. They refuse to do anything about any system until you come up with a perfect one, often using the verbatim phrase, “No system is perfect.” Which, in saying, they inadvertently argue that no system is the answer. No system is not perfect, obviously, but no system is still closer to it than any system.
The point of this new series is not to claim that any of the proposed systems are perfect, or even good, but just explain how some untested systems that may seem ridiculous to a lot of people are still considerably better than any government in existence. Which, of course, should shine light on the ridiculosity of systems that actually exist. I hope that to be the case, anyway, but it wouldn’t be the first time some idiot got the wrong message and won’t be the last.
Most of the developed world uses some variation of the representative democracy or republic, ironically purporting it to be the foundation of freedom. They give the masses a say in the goings on of the system, and then turn around and use mentalism (magic where the illusion involves manipulation of the mind – usu. a large audience at once) to make the people authorise exactly what they would have done anyway.
So, one could suggest that you only be allowed to vote on the goings on of a system if you are educated and understand the implications of the vote.
One might also protest this suggestion by saying, “You mean you only be allowed to vote if you agree with you!” The people that would suggest this are obviously the idiots that would be barred from voting, grasping at one last straw to silence this idea.
Analogy: A household exists with six children. They all want ice cream for dinner. The two parents ignore the children’s votes for ice cream and just vote amongst themselves. The children accuse the parents of ignoring their votes, simply because they disagree.
The parents are the few thinking people in the world. The children are the masses. The children have no logical reason for wanting ice cream for dinner. They didn’t think it through. They just want the ice cream and they’re going to claim that it’s unfair for their opinions not to count.
Now, it’s unlikely, but entirely possible, that the children have enough intellectual capacity to start with the conclusion of ice cream for dinner and work backwards to come up with what sounds like a reasonable argument. However, the parents will probably see right through and disregard it.
So, by taking the say away from the non-thinking people, you take it away from the easily manipulated, and you take it away from the politicians. They can no longer use mass manipulation to get what they want.
And, this would be better than traditional representative democracy, but then, no system is perfect.