Re: This is the future of mankind anyway

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "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.


Of course it would be much more secure than voting in a booth. Also I agree
nothing is 100% safe. But who would try to brake the security in order to
change the voting result for value of 0,000.001 or less? Also the vote
holder may find that his vote is changed and report it to the administrator
and to police that my find an impostor and punish him.


> > > 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".


I have to repeat myself, nothing is 100% safe. However, the system I
proposed will drastically diminish a space for manipulators manoeuvres. And
by the time the system will teach the people to recognise manipulators. Then
I would not like to be in their position. As the final result I don't
believe manipulators of those kind you mentioned will have bright future in
the system I proposed.

Aleksandar Sarovic
www.sarovic.com

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