Re: This is the future of mankind anyway

"Aleksandar Sarovic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> >
> > Aleksandar, I'm essentially an idealist so I like the concepts you
> > have proposed but there still seems to be some stuff I'm not sure
> > about.
> 
> 
> Nice to be an idealist but I am a rationalist.
> 
> 
> > 1) Having every person in the world vote on every descision would be
> > great but I think that placing that much trust in the internet is a
> > bit nieve.  It will never be completely secure and not everyone can
> > afford access.  Plus if a cable or a main hub is overloaded, it is not
> > just a communication problem but also a political one.
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say every person around the world will vote on every decision.
> That would be to much to work. I believe voters should decide only about
> strategic decisions. Once the system is established we are talking probably
> only about four decisions. And each voter will be able to check his votes
> every day and to change them as many time as he wants daily. I cannot see
> any problem here and I am an IT kind of guy. I've already bought a lot of
> things through internet which requires much more security than voting.
> 
> 

I'm a software engineer and I do know a lot about the types of
technologies that can be transferred through the web.  I guess that
just makes me a little synical as I know that most security measures
can be broken.  128bit encryption with username/password is the best
we can have but I guess that is more secure then going to a voting
booth with a fake ID and voting as someone else.


> 
> 
> > 2) You said that if one party was to not pay taxes then all other
> > parties must also agree.  If that is the case.. nothing with get done
> > cause there will always be someone who disagrees.
> 
> 
> 
> First, everything will be the same as it is today unless the political
> parties agree upon changes. Second, I am talking here about municipalities
> that have from 1,000 up to 1,000,000 inhabitants. Third, I am talking about
> the best possible system that will bring fast progress to the people of
> first commune around the world that accept such a system and agree about
> their policy. Conclusion = Those communities that will not agree fast will
> lose many benefits and conveniences that the previous one will get and they
> will see it and after that they will work hard to find agreement about their
> policies and they will do it. 2+2 = 4
> 

Without getting too philosophical I just have more faith in man's
ability to care more about individualism then the whole.  I think that
whatever political system you create, there will always be those that
will find a way to manipulate it to their own advantage (and I don't
mean by working harder or adding more to society).  I think it is part
of evolution and "survival of the fittest".

> 
> > Cheers,  Andrew
> 
> 
> I like your post.