Feb 17 2013: Yeah you got it! I explained a bit about the selection of the council members below for
Krisztián. I think you're totally right when you say that not every country should be democratic and I don't believe neither that every country should adopt my proposal neither. What works for you doesn't necessarily work for others.
Well I think there is a contradiction of visions that doesn't need to be or perhaps can't be resolved. You see the people responsible for their own fate and decisions while I see them unqualified to make their own path.
Feb 17 2013: Well like any other job, you have to study in college for it and earn a degree in order to work. So there will be a managing debates major where all the graduates are able to apply for the job. There will be a competition (like an exam) and the first five scores fill the seats of a council.
One of the rules of the debates is that when a council makes a decision he should back it up with arguments. What will always be under examination is the council's objectivity and there will be agents investigating any breach of such objectivity. If a breach occurs, it will jeopardize the council's position. We should understand that these councils don't have any decisive power. They are just a medium between the debate and the debaters.
I think now that the best way to judge this system is through trials. It has a rigid structure and it isn't fast when it comes to deciding but at least we now that their decisions are more correct than other systems.
You're right when you say this can't be miraculously implemented. If it were to be executed, a proper transition should be planned ahead.
Concerning the competition of choices, I think my system makes the best competition. Imagine different engineers or architects or doctors... debating their projects in order to get them executed. The decision will be much more rational and will be eventually justified with concrete evidence.
Again, popularity doesn't matter at all. If a really unpopular case such as increasing taxes had the proper arguments and showed more advantages than disadvantages, it will succeed in debate and eventually be executed despite popular rejection.
Feb 16 2013: Well I never said there will be no rule. There will always be police, FBI for the US or intelligence and armies and an actual system based on laws, punishment, rights and duties... The idea seems too abstract but debates will actually rule not governments.
The biggest flaw the system I proposed has, is the fact that it takes much more time to make decisions. Dictatorship breaks the record for the fastest decision maker and democracy follows. When I try to theoretically apply this system on my country where every municipality has a voting council of about 5 people, I see the numbers not really changing. The council that used to vote, now organizes debates (obviously not the same people).
I admit the system is still theoretical and needs further and further studies and trials before being executed. Now, when it comes to a national debate, people ask me how are you going to make a whole population participate (even with a priority for specialists it still would be huge). The point is, there will be representation but not a formal one done by a congressman or a councilman...
To make things more concrete you live in Los Angeles and in one week there will be a national debate about legalizing marijuana. Basically what happens is all private communities in the US interested in the issue assemble and choose one person or many (could be by voting I don't really care how) and write their arguments and send this person to Washington where the debate happens. If one representative got on stage and listed all the supporting arguments, there is no need for anybody else from the same opinion to say it again. If he missed a point or two or whatever, another representative will fill the gap.
Feb 15 2013: The basic rules will be have flaws, and I have set some of them. Flaws will be taken away by debating each rule. Everybody is authorized to change any rule he or she wants. The decision is granted to the cause that is supported by more arguments. Majorities aren't involved.
The extreme case explains how this works: If you are one person and all the other people in your country are against you and you present more arguments supporting your cause than they do, your proposal gets executed.
The system has nothing to do with numbers of people. It rather deals with numbers of advantages.
e.g: If a plumber proposes a change in a law, he should take his case to the local municipal council where it will be debated. If his proposal shows more advantages than disadvantages, it will be taken to the council of the district. If it succeeds again, it will be debated in the council of the governorate. If it makes it, the national council will debate it and if it succeeds, it will be executed. If it fails at any stage, the issue will not be debated for another number of years set by the laws.
Each argument should be supported by a fact, statistic or study from a credible source in order to be valid.
Feb 15 2013: Ok, but a government by nature is subject to mistakes. And if it made any mistakes the people shall elect another government. This is democracy in its best shape. What I am proposing is a system that takes our human faulty nature into account thus, dodging most wrong decisions that could be taken. (maybe I am repeating myself, sorry for that)
Constitutions are mandatory and should exist everywhere, but do we have to have a government? I don't really see why we should have an executive power and a constitutional power. Various debate councils can dig into both types of issues and still make better decisions than republics (in theory).
Feb 15 2013: Can you please explain how this applies on the proposed system and tell more about these problems?
Freedom without limits isn't a stable system at all. And I tell you this from one of the most chaotic countries on earth. Freedom is essential but an overdose of it may be fatal. And our civil war, the Lebanese civil war stands witness to such statement.
Feb 15 2013: The way I see it, I share ideas with Socrates (and I am not sure about Plato) but the context and the practicality are different. Their method of debate wasn't regarded as a ruling system. It was merely regarded as a way to solve philosophical debates. It was a debate between two hypothesis about love for example. The one that generates contradiction is eliminated. I am proposing a different approach but yes you could say it is the same basic idea. And debates in this system are between engineering projects or external policies... rather than theories.
Well I don't know if you want to call it plagiarism, because I think you are partly right.
Feb 11 2013: Your proposition concerning taking absolute power from governments makes a lot of sense actually and when I think about it being done in my country it seems a good plan.
But, the people shouldn't take their own decisions since they aren't mature enough or into technical details as much as specialists and scientists... This might sound crazy but governments and parliaments shouldn't exist at all. They vote and voting as I believe doesn't produce necessarily a healthy choice.
Of course my ideas are still theoretical and need a lot of testing before being implemented. And if proven successful a proper transition should be provided.
Feb 9 2013: The problem is that we stop looking for problems that we already have solutions for. This sounds dumb but actually the technological solutions we are making have down sides. When we try finding new solutions for already solved problems we may make better ones.
We stopped thinking about effective individual private transportation since cars were invented but, in fact if we made other solutions, we wouldn't probably suffering from pollution, or obesity...
That is why solving a problem in one way shouldn't stop us from looking for another solution.
TEDCred score: 0.00 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: Alternative for Democracy
Krisztián. I think you're totally right when you say that not every country should be democratic and I don't believe neither that every country should adopt my proposal neither. What works for you doesn't necessarily work for others.
Well I think there is a contradiction of visions that doesn't need to be or perhaps can't be resolved. You see the people responsible for their own fate and decisions while I see them unqualified to make their own path.
A reply on Conversation: Alternative for Democracy
One of the rules of the debates is that when a council makes a decision he should back it up with arguments. What will always be under examination is the council's objectivity and there will be agents investigating any breach of such objectivity. If a breach occurs, it will jeopardize the council's position. We should understand that these councils don't have any decisive power. They are just a medium between the debate and the debaters.
I think now that the best way to judge this system is through trials. It has a rigid structure and it isn't fast when it comes to deciding but at least we now that their decisions are more correct than other systems.
You're right when you say this can't be miraculously implemented. If it were to be executed, a proper transition should be planned ahead.
Concerning the competition of choices, I think my system makes the best competition. Imagine different engineers or architects or doctors... debating their projects in order to get them executed. The decision will be much more rational and will be eventually justified with concrete evidence.
Again, popularity doesn't matter at all. If a really unpopular case such as increasing taxes had the proper arguments and showed more advantages than disadvantages, it will succeed in debate and eventually be executed despite popular rejection.
A reply on Conversation: Alternative for Democracy
The biggest flaw the system I proposed has, is the fact that it takes much more time to make decisions. Dictatorship breaks the record for the fastest decision maker and democracy follows. When I try to theoretically apply this system on my country where every municipality has a voting council of about 5 people, I see the numbers not really changing. The council that used to vote, now organizes debates (obviously not the same people).
I admit the system is still theoretical and needs further and further studies and trials before being executed. Now, when it comes to a national debate, people ask me how are you going to make a whole population participate (even with a priority for specialists it still would be huge). The point is, there will be representation but not a formal one done by a congressman or a councilman...
To make things more concrete you live in Los Angeles and in one week there will be a national debate about legalizing marijuana. Basically what happens is all private communities in the US interested in the issue assemble and choose one person or many (could be by voting I don't really care how) and write their arguments and send this person to Washington where the debate happens. If one representative got on stage and listed all the supporting arguments, there is no need for anybody else from the same opinion to say it again. If he missed a point or two or whatever, another representative will fill the gap.
A reply on Conversation: Alternative for Democracy
The extreme case explains how this works: If you are one person and all the other people in your country are against you and you present more arguments supporting your cause than they do, your proposal gets executed.
The system has nothing to do with numbers of people. It rather deals with numbers of advantages.
e.g: If a plumber proposes a change in a law, he should take his case to the local municipal council where it will be debated. If his proposal shows more advantages than disadvantages, it will be taken to the council of the district. If it succeeds again, it will be debated in the council of the governorate. If it makes it, the national council will debate it and if it succeeds, it will be executed. If it fails at any stage, the issue will not be debated for another number of years set by the laws.
Each argument should be supported by a fact, statistic or study from a credible source in order to be valid.
I hope that answers your inquiries.
A reply on Conversation: Alternative for Democracy
Constitutions are mandatory and should exist everywhere, but do we have to have a government? I don't really see why we should have an executive power and a constitutional power. Various debate councils can dig into both types of issues and still make better decisions than republics (in theory).
A reply on Conversation: Alternative for Democracy
Freedom without limits isn't a stable system at all. And I tell you this from one of the most chaotic countries on earth. Freedom is essential but an overdose of it may be fatal. And our civil war, the Lebanese civil war stands witness to such statement.
A reply on Conversation: Alternative for Democracy
Well I don't know if you want to call it plagiarism, because I think you are partly right.
A reply on Conversation: Alternative for Democracy
But, the people shouldn't take their own decisions since they aren't mature enough or into technical details as much as specialists and scientists... This might sound crazy but governments and parliaments shouldn't exist at all. They vote and voting as I believe doesn't produce necessarily a healthy choice.
Of course my ideas are still theoretical and need a lot of testing before being implemented. And if proven successful a proper transition should be provided.
A comment on Conversation: Are we wise enough to use technology without it biting back?
We stopped thinking about effective individual private transportation since cars were invented but, in fact if we made other solutions, we wouldn't probably suffering from pollution, or obesity...
That is why solving a problem in one way shouldn't stop us from looking for another solution.