SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the secret-negotiations-are-always-good-for-the-people dept.
Apparently, Greenpeace got their hands on a version of the TTIP documents and plans to release them to the public at today, Monday 2nd of May, 11:00am (UTC+2) from Netherlands, while at the same time giving a press conference at the re:publica. While Greenpeace is apparently mainly concerned about the loss of the precautionary principle (in Europe, if a product is thought to pose a risk to the population or environment, it is prohibited until proven safe, as opposed to the US where it is permitted until proven harmful. According to Greenpeace (sorry, only in German), this is a reason that in US, 170 genetically manipulated plants are in the agricultural market, while in Europe it is only one.
While these mainly environmental concerns deserve some consideration, the more fundamental issue is that such a far-reaching contract, invalidating many of hard fought-for consumers rights in one coup and affecting half a billion people alone in Europe, is negotiated secretly. This is entirely unworthy of any democratic government system.
The documents are available for download.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @01:46PM
Have you entertained the idea that maybe it is time to put democracy to bed?
We've had several different incarnations of it and the result is always the same- oligarchy. I'm not certain which control needs to be tweaked, how much more vigilant the population needs to be this time for it to work as advertised. Maybe it's time to demand something more.
People might be willing to risk themselves, but not their families unless it looks like it's the endgame anyway. I don't see much of anything changing until it is the bloody end.
Best start thinking of a new institutions to replace the old. Have some course plotted that works at minimizing corruption from the get-go.
(Score: 1) by Bethany.Saint on Monday May 02 2016, @02:41PM
> Have some course plotted that works at minimizing corruption from the get-go.
Problem is that there is no form of government that prevent corruption from the get-go. As long as people want money, power (influence), and/or sex there will always be corruption.
If you optimize for sort terms (term limits) then those brought into power will corrupt quickly without thinking about the long term future of the country. If you optimize for the long term then you will get some thought to the long term benefits of action, but the corruption will be cultivated and entrenched making it much more difficult to remove.
The only true way to avoid corruption is to have algorithms making decisions. And the algorithms need to be able to modify themselves in order to remove the corruption of the programmers. Then we can give the algorithms a physical form. Then maybe human like features. A sliver body and glowing red eyes. That's the way to solve our problems.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @02:57PM
Obviously, I disagree.
And note I said minimize corruption.
And the tenets have been the same for a while now: you want to diffuse political power. You want a zero sum game between the governors and the governed. You want, as Aristotle put it, to rule and be ruled.
I have my own designs of what I think would work, but more importantly at this point is that people evaluate the long history of government, figure out what works and what doesn't, and progress from there.
Aren't people just algorithms making decisions?
(Score: 1) by Bethany.Saint on Monday May 02 2016, @04:20PM
Was kidding about the algorithms. Reference to AI/Robot uprising tropes. Should have put a grin.
If you have thoughts on how to achieve a less corrupt governing body, please share. Really.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @09:11PM
Actually, in the future, I see algorithms being....
Hold on. Getting ahead of myself.
First, I would like to direct your attention here:
arxiv.org/abs/0907.0455
Yeah yeah yeah, Ig Noble and all that. But the paper does prove a point- general selection (i.e.- elections) criteria are flawed, and as rule promote people to their highest level of incompetence (corruption). This probably more than anything else is why 99% incumbency in elections leads to disastrous results.
So term limits you say? Nope, the paper makes quite clear: you get the best results by choosing people at random.
Demarchy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition [wikipedia.org]
Now, I could go on and on in mind numbing detail (I've been thinking about this for a long time) of how many problems you solve by adopting at least some aspects of this (diminished the influence of money in politics, mitigated by a large degree the tyranny of majority rule, etc.), but I'm more than willing to defend my charges against criticisms.
And, best of all, I've figured out a way to easily transition to this without a revolution: create a third house of congress of three representatives from each state to serve. Give them the power to only debate and vote on bills. And give them essentially the line item veto to amend bills.
That's it.
Oh, and increase the number of elected officials by x% (this will require some finagling to get right, and the percentage will vary with population size) to make buying elections more costly.
You've maintained the better parts of a constitutional republic, but you have direct citizen oversight to stop bad legislation before it begins.
You've also made politics a zero sum game as it's possible for anyone to serve.
(Score: 1) by Bethany.Saint on Monday May 02 2016, @10:33PM
Very interesting. Didn't know about sortition/demarchy at all. It's going to take a bit of pondering. Thanks for the info.
(Score: 2) by https on Monday May 02 2016, @03:09PM
On occasion, yes, but it's a defeatist idea. If you are thinking of new institutions to replace the old, try credit unions instead of banks. If you're completely unable to get around the notion of lending institutions being needed or not in the first place, you can at least stop the profits from concentrating in the hands of an extremely small number of people. "The difference between having an account at a bank and an account at a credit unions? At a bank, things are set up to profit the owners. At a credit union, the owner is you."
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @03:30PM
Well, ideally you'd want a bloodless revolution, but I have doubts that those in the seat of power would be willing to share it without a fight.
Or that revolution looked like an inevitability and they were at least securing some seat at the table.
Always fancied the idea of public banks, but I'm not versed enough in economics to even be incompetent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @04:22PM
I think democracy is fine but we just need to bring back hangings in the public square of politicians who do not put their constituents first. It only takes one or two for the others to get the message.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @06:18PM
Fiiiiiine. I'll do it, i'll become the dictator of universe. You can stop asking. But i tell you, i'm not too happy about it. It's shitty job.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday May 03 2016, @02:52AM
Democracy is the worst form of government ever devised ... except for all the others. - Winston Churchill
Your basic set of options for government:
- Role by nobody (anarchy). This lasts until somebody is powerful enough to take charge, at which point it becomes ...
- Rule by one person (monarchy / dictatorship). This lasts until you get a bad or ineffective monarch, at which point it is usually replaced by ...
- Rule by the masses (democracy / republic / worker's councils / ...). This lasts until an organized cabal forms to take over, at which point it is effectively replaced by ...
- Rule by a relatively small unelected group (oligarchy / theocracy / plutocracy / ...). This lasts until the the infighting among the cabal causes it to effectively break apart, which leads to ...
- Rule by nobody (anarchy), and the cycle continues.
There are no known non-theoretical ways of breaking this cycle. The "western" world is mostly in the late stages of transitioning from democracy to oligarchy.
None of them are perfect. Democracy tends to be the least bad for the majority of people, because at the very least there's a chance for the majority of people to correct things if they go too far off course.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:30AM
There is a practical way to break this cycle - to stop playing the game. Stop respecting law and break all societal relationships.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday May 03 2016, @01:25PM
That doesn't break the cycle, that's part of the cycle (the anarchy stage).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Wednesday May 04 2016, @02:06AM
Not really. Even in the state of anarchy, a player is supposed to have babies and protect and provide for his family. What I am talking about is abandoning the idea of society itself.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday May 04 2016, @02:40AM
If you (and everybody else) reject the idea of society, then each person is deciding on their own what to do, with no social rules or laws or anything else like that. Which means that nobody is in charge, which is the definition of anarchy.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Wednesday May 04 2016, @04:36AM
I see what you mean.