Lack of similar enemy for Federation

[Bryan Moore]

It´s like the communist utopia, impossible.
by the way, UFP looks more like communist utopia than true democracy.

I was hoping to avoid this issue in this thread, thus my clarification about the assumption of a representative government for purposes of this thread. This is brought up any time the UFP form of rule comes up in conversation. Would it be possible for the mods to merge some of those discussions into a large single thread? It seems every time the UFP government gets mentioned, commie-stuff comes up =)

[Lazar]

To address that question, though, it might be that it's really just Earth that's pseudo-communist, and the other Federation members are allowed to pursue their own socioeconomic systems. If you listen to the various money-related infodumps that characters have given, they tend to say things like "the betterment of humanity" or "your species", implying that it's a human thing.

[SomosFuga]

I was hoping to avoid this issue in this thread, thus my clarification about the assumption of a representative government for purposes of this thread. This is brought up any time the UFP form of rule comes up in conversation. Would it be possible for the mods to merge some of those discussions into a large single thread? It seems every time the UFP government gets mentioned, commie-stuff comes up =)

Sorry, it was just a loose comment.

I think the ISC is a very good example of a UFP like nation.

[Bryan Moore]

I was hoping to avoid this issue in this thread, thus my clarification about the assumption of a representative government for purposes of this thread. This is brought up any time the UFP form of rule comes up in conversation. Would it be possible for the mods to merge some of those discussions into a large single thread? It seems every time the UFP government gets mentioned, commie-stuff comes up =)

Sorry, it was just a loose comment.

I think the ISC is a very good example of a UFP like nation.

Nothing to be sorry about. More a general comment than a criticism of you.

[Tsukiyumi]

Technically, this is EVERY issue. Amendment to subsection 6 of paragraph 3 of part two of the emergency federal farm relief program, changing "In case of" to "in the event of" = VOTE. It's 100% impossible for a direct democracy to exist on a national level with any sort of success.

You're a teacher?

Qualifying statements is sort of a requisite for that, in my opinion. Example: "It seems impossible" or, "It has proven impossible in the past."

Unless you're omnipotent, and can say with "100%" certainty that such a thing is "impossible", of course.

Personally, I've never cared for that word for exactly that reason.

I posit that if the population were educated sufficiently, voting on at least whatever issues they cared about would be easily doable. I can elaborate, if people want to continue this line of debate.

[Bryan Moore]

Technically, this is EVERY issue. Amendment to subsection 6 of paragraph 3 of part two of the emergency federal farm relief program, changing "In case of" to "in the event of" = VOTE. It's 100% impossible for a direct democracy to exist on a national level with any sort of success.

You're a teacher?

Qualifying statements is sort of a requisite for that, in my opinion. Example: "It seems impossible" or, "It has proven impossible in the past."

Unless you're omnipotent, and can say with "100%" certainty that such a thing is "impossible", of course.

Personally, I've never cared for that word for exactly that reason.

I posit that if the population were educated sufficiently, voting on at least whatever issues they cared about would be easily doable. I can elaborate, if people want to continue this line of debate.

*WAS* a teacher. Never will be again. Its impossible with the amount of bureaucracy. On a local level, yes, but things would have to be simplified greatly. I'm saying logistically, it's damn near impossible. Apologies for trying to pass off fact with opinion.

[Tsukiyumi]

Sorry, man. People failing to qualify statements is a peeve of mine.

On the logistical point: the internet has made secure exchange of information as easy as inputting a code, and pushing a button.

If I can conduct secure bank transactions via the internet, why not voting?

[Bryan Moore]

Sorry, man. People failing to qualify statements is a peeve of mine.

On the logistical point: the internet has made secure exchange of information as easy as inputting a code, and pushing a button.

If I can conduct secure bank transactions via the internet, why not voting?

More to the fact that every single issue in a direct democracy must be voted on. Think of how many decisions are made on a daily or even hourly basis.

[Tsukiyumi]

I'd really prefer a system that allows people to vote on issues if they choose to. I imagine military affairs would still have to be handled internally for security reasons; we couldn't vote on whether a tank column charges the enemy's left flank or performs a feint maneuver, for example.

We could vote on whether to go to war in the first place, of course.

IMO, the entire concept depends on extremely high education levels for the entire populace. Would such a system work with the current population? I don't believe so, given that 9 of 10 are idiots. Could it work in the future? I certainly don't see why not, given the right conditions.

[Sionnach Glic]

The only true democracies that ever existed were some of the old Greek city-states. They could do that because they had such a small population. Now imagine getting the 300 million inhabitants of the USA out to vote on something virtualy every week. People would eventualy just say "fuck it" and stop voting. And what happens if 50% of the populace don't vote on a certain bill? Does it still go through? What happens if bills are defeated again and again purely because people don't give a shit about voting?
More importantly, how can you trust people to vote inteligently? Stuff like tax cuts would always get voted in, but at what cost to the country itself? People simply don't have the knowledge to safely have such a high level of input in how their country works.

Now, regarding a democratic enemy for the UFP, perhaps a capitalist democracy could be a good enemy for the pseudo-communist Federation. It'd be like the Cold War again, but with us seeing it from the other side's point of view. Could be interesting.

[Tyyr]

Ohhh, I like that. I like that a lot. That's something I'd love to write.

[Mikey]

On true, Hellenic-style democracy: I think the only way it's even possible as a topic of thought for a modern nation is if we qualify the referendable issues as ones of state policy. It's obviously ridiculous to have a true democratic vote on motions of order, or the semantics of a possible regulation, etc. In other words, the only feasible modern system would be a more heavily-democratic republican system. There still has to be a representative body, if only to write and order the issue on which the populace is to vote.

The Greek democratic states were possible because of their small size, as Rochey said; but also because they further limited the size of the voting bloc to that of the "citizenry;" in their case, that meant ONLY landed males (i.e, at best one-third of the entire adult population.)

[Sionnach Glic]

Indeed, there were a shitload of groups that couldn't vote, meaning that the actual voting numbers were quite small.

Basicaly, Hellenic (or "True") democracy only really works on a small scale. Hell, there are a load of systems that work on the small scale, but are terrible when you try to apply them on the big scale. Communism is a good example.

[stitch626]

So the US could become a true democracy if the law changed so that only those who currently vote on things are citizens...
Ew.

[Sionnach Glic]

Well, it'd be more like "change it so that only white Protestant males who earn X amount per year can vote".