Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Green Libertarianism

FREEDO
Posts: 21,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2019 6:33:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
There is a certain organic order of things.

The Green Party is not only wise for it's environmental stance"And that is very wise for our peace and security and the way of life that we hold dear"It"s stance on direct-democracy also comes in handy. We can no longer rely on the rule of politicians to dictate our lives. Our trust in them is a history riddled with betrayal. The People themselves should make their own voice heard and their wishes executed.

Under Green Libertarianism we would have a natural rule of law based on Libertarian principles. And where those principles become confused we can resort to direct-democracy to continue the natural order.

People should live in harmony with themselves and the environment.

We should secure our civil liberties and institute change that directs us away from environmental catastrophe. Towards brighter days and greener pastures.

Libertarian law still applies in a limited environment but there are certain logical steps to take into account. It is the organic structure of things to be in accordance with this law.

It rings a bell & blows a whistle.
Grand Poobah of DDO
omar2345
Posts: 145
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2019 4:11:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"It"s stance on direct-democracy also comes in handy. We can no longer rely on the rule of politicians to dictate our lives. Our trust in them is a history riddled with betrayal. The People themselves should make their own voice heard and their wishes executed. "
Who would replace politicians? More politicians? People require somewhat an authority figure to be on charge or lay the burden on them so that they can go on with their daily lives. Aren't politicians people? I think so why not improve standards instead of removing them entirely. What specifically do wrong and what would replace them that would improve the situation?

I would have liked to know these laws but I will leave my comment at that.
Leaning
Posts: 2,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2019 3:00:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
FREEDO, Just delete the old post when you're typing your reply, And avoid hyperlinks if you can. 'Probably let you post then.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2019 3:03:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
~~~omar2345 wrote:
Who would replace politicians? More politicians? People require somewhat an authority figure to be on charge or lay the burden on them so that they can go on with their daily lives. Aren't politicians people? I think so why not improve standards instead of removing them entirely. What specifically do wrong and what would replace them that would improve the situation?

I would have liked to know these laws but I will leave my comment at that. ~~~

The way things are going now for direct-democracy, Politicians will still remain in power. But more public referendums could be in place than usual.

Going beyond this, There are two primary foreseeable routes that I see for direct-democracy to take effect in the future.

1. Zero politicians. Create a digital platform for enacting policy over the web. Every person has one vote & every person has the ability to crowdsource new laws and the way they are written.

2. Actor politicians. We will still vote people into office to write the laws, But the way they vote will still depend on a public vote. Politicians will be bound to represent their constituents.

Direct-democracy is important because there"s a lot of important issues that the public has a different mindset on than the two-party system. Everything would be different if the public were in charge. Things would be better. The two-party system is an imaginary ideological game we used to play. But things are changing. This is a hurdle we face to truly bring us into the age of peace & democracy.
Grand Poobah of DDO
FREEDO
Posts: 21,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2019 3:04:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
~~~Leaning wrote:
FREEDO, Just delete the old post when you're typing your reply, And avoid hyperlinks if you can. 'Probably let you post then. ~~~

Thank you! What is up with that?
Grand Poobah of DDO
Leaning
Posts: 2,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2019 3:06:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
FREEDO wrote:
~~~Leaning wrote:
FREEDO, Just delete the old post when you're typing your reply, And avoid hyperlinks if you can. 'Probably let you post then. ~~~

Thank you! What is up with that?

I think they tried tweaking the code so that the spam apocalypse posters would not be able to post as easy. Also ended up tweaking it poorly for the regular users, I think.

There are things you can do other than delete the entire post, I just haven't bothered experimenting with it much, Or remembering what other people do.
omar2345
Posts: 145
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2019 11:27:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Freedo stated:

"1. Zero politicians. Create a digital platform for enacting policy over the web. Every person has one vote & every person has the ability to crowdsource new laws and the way they are written. "
The problem with this is that it will be under fire with hacks. I don't expect the government to understand the internet let alone keep up with the demands. That is why mostly the internet is free. I don't find the democracy the best option but I like a meritocracy better. The problem would this would be who says who is the best candidate? The positive is that we do not have people like Trump and Hillary in charge instead we have people who actually know what they are doing.

"2. Actor politicians. We will still vote people into office to write the laws, But the way they vote will still depend on a public vote. Politicians will be bound to represent their constituents. "
Instead of rich people buying their favour they will instead go on to their social media and tell their followers to vote for the person they want. The amount of power celebrity rich people have can influence votes. Meaning it doesn't actually fix the problem of voting instead people who want to change other people's result will just use another way to get the vote they want.

"The two-party system is an imaginary ideological game we used to play. "
If we don't have two parties instead we have one. Corruption would be much easier to do since there is no opposition. Meaning if most of the politicians agree that we are in it for the money then there is nothing people can do to stop them whereas people can in a two part system can vote the other side. If you don't want it to become a revolution.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.