TED Conversations

David Hubbard

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Does anyone think that we can have an efficient, peaceful world?

I think it is possible for the population of the internet, which is over 38% of the population of planet Earth, to collectively design and demand a change in the manner that we are governed. We now have the ability to create a new system, by the people, for the people, worldwide.

+2
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Aug 2 2013: Yes the internet is a changer like any new method of communication and another source of information - telephone, radio, tv all changed society. I have concerns

    1. the lack of source - so long as anonymous sources are sited by anonymous people - the noise factor and bad information abounds.
    2. loudest shouters will be heard too much
    3. are we going to be governed by polls? though sometimes i think we are there now
    4. the dictatorship of the majority especially when they are wrong
    • thumb
      Aug 22 2013: The lack of source is a very valid concern. Secure communication is filtering out more and more of the lunatic fringe. IP addresses can now be seen at the receiving end. That alone will remove a good part. the schizophrenic input. It's getting better.

      The loudest shouters are always there, with their stories, trying to sell their wares. We're all wise to them, but we buy their stuff. All it takes is an ad budget and smart management can sell almost anything.

      Why not be governed by the polls? All we have to do is make them secure and able to control duplicate voting and we have government by the people for the people.

      The dictatorship of the majority changes presidents. By definition, a dictator is a person, an individual who makes the decisions and gives the orders. The majority is supposed to rule. The chances of better decisions from a majority of people is a lot greater than those of one single individual, with obligations to supporters.
      • Aug 22 2013: 1. you could always see the ip address on the receiving end. the problem is the validity of the ip - simple dhcp would allow someone to have a range of ips or simple spoofing can hide the ip without reasonable digging. If someone is good, a lot of digging is needed. How we control the sources is key, until then it is buyer beware.

        2. It seems clear after the last several elections the RNC, DNC, pac's and candidates assume they can tell lies, semi-lies, and even the truth loud enough people will believe them.

        3. most polls are done by sample groups - the unemployment rate is calculated on a sample of 60,000 for example. There was a SF short story where the elections, major decisions, etc was done every 4 years by selecting the common individual from the entire population and on his opinions base everything. the questions were not who to elect but on their leaning on topics. The final line of the story was the individual marching out proudly stating the People had done their civic duty of voting.

        4. Dictatorship of the Majority is another name for mob rule. One of the points of the Constitution is to protect the minority from the anger, stupidity, rape murder, etc of the majority. Just look at the US history and you will see examples of this - treatment of the American Indian, Spanish American War, Filipino concentration camps, Japanese Internment, etc. 5 presidents were elected without a plurality and 1 was not elected at all.
        • thumb
          Aug 23 2013: The whole idea of democracy is rule by the majority and is based in the premise that the voters know best. The concept of "dictatorship of the majority" is anti democratic. The US history you refer to is all evidence that the representative system needs replacing. Would the voters including the minorities have agreed to the abuses you mention? I doubt it. Would they have agreed to attack Iraq? The allegations of weapons of mass destruction was doubted by many, yet was not refuted publicly. We need to find a better way rather than just naming potential solutions and discarding them
      • Aug 24 2013: Saying that the concept of "dictatorship of the majority" is anti-democratic is only true if you are part of the majority. Tyranny/dictatorship of the majority has been noted as a problem within the democratic process since the beginning of the concept of democracy. It is been written about by Plato,
        Tocqueville, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, etc. There have been recent thesis on the topic

        Am I for Democracy, yes but it has imperfections and this is one of them. James Madison is considered one of the Architects of the Constitution and the Senate (a compromise) and the Supreme Court were designed to fight the dictatorship of the majority.

        On the abuses, the genocide of the American Indian race and culture was the wish of the vast majority, including both liberals and conservatives in some form.

        If you want, we can discuss the Iraq invasion later. 8>))

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.