🕒 פורסם בתאריך: 16/02/2021 11:37
I recently watched a conversation between Daniel Schmachtenberger and Bret Weinstein, where Daniel said something along the lines of voting being a failure state of democracy.
With representative democracy we get to pass off the responsibility of governance to people whose interests are supposedly vaguely aligned with ours, assuming they'll be better informed of the issues because they devote their full time to them.
And of course there are a lot of issues with that, populism, tribalism, abuse of power for personal interests, general fallibility of individual human reasoning.
Then there's direct democracy, where the people make the specific decisions themselves, wisdom of the crowds and all that, that may work for some things that are intuitive, but would fail miserably in others, because you can't expect the whole populous to be well informed on all subjects, and it ends up being just another illusion of the people being responsible for how they are governed without much good coming out of it.
So I think the point Daniel was making, because he was talking about the dialectical method, is that his ideal form of governance would be a discussion of the issues until a consensus is reached and there's no longer need to vote.
Not quite sure how practical that is, but seems like a good ideal to strive toward.
Anyway, I think what governance is lacking is some sort of scientific evidence-based framework where broader goals can be set by the governed, but the actual execution is done in a way that can be tested and corrected.