Can there ever be a true Democracy?

Question

Let's suppose that in 20 years from now everyone will have access to any type of information through the Internet.
Everyone will have the abilty to express his thoughts and positions through the Internet.
And anyone can vote directly about each seperate matter that conserns him.
Will that be a true democracy?

Answer 1

money is power

who has the money makes the rules

to have democracy the people have to have the money

even with internet voting, the bureaucrats and their masters would pursue their own agendas

money is power

the founding fathers said the republic would last as long as wealth didnt concentrate - wealth concentrated - end of democracy

why didnt the american people grasp this simple essential point?

money is power

money should be spread, in justice, since the work is spread, ie, wealth concentration is moneytheft

but spread money/power is essential to democracy

two good reasons for moneyspread: justice and democracy

the state built on injustice cannot stand

ie, with wealth concentration america cannot stand

ie, wealth concentration, as well as being theft, and violence-generation, is sedition, enmity to the state

no state built on injustice/wealth concentration has stood

wealth concentration is tyranny is not democracy is not survival

why did americans, and also all other people, fail to grasp this one simple essential vital point?

which is the core of patriotism?

americans escaped from tyranny - they hoped to avoid tyranny - they wanted to avoid tyranny - they planned to avoid tyranny

wealth concentration = power concentration = tyranny

aka fascism, communism, state terrorism, dictatorship, oppression, monarchy, slavery, misery, war, cannonfodder, warmongering, plundering, conquering, stealing, plutocracy, banditry, usurping, theft, injustice

why didnt americans remember this fundamental point?

why didnt anybody remember this?

why doesnt anyone know this?

are people still hoping they can get a benefit from overpay/ underpay, wealth/ poverty, power/ powerlessness, which means violence [war and crime]?

do people think they can get some wealth/ overpay/ overpower and still avoid all the violence?

do people think that the pleasures of wealth/power are worth the dangers?

do they remember that liberty for themselves to be overpaid/ overpowerful is liberty for others to be more overpaid/overpowerful?

that overpay/underpay means violence [war and crime] as both sides, the robbers and the robbed, try to win?

that violence is necessarily endlessly escalative?

that a huge range of overpay and underpay means that everyone except the top person is relatively less powerful than someone else?

and that the greater power of the top person is only slightly greater than that of the second most overpaid, and is far less powerful than the combination of many pairs of overpaid people? - is less powerful than large numbers of underpaid?

how many times have the people toppled plutocracies?

how many times have plundering nations/ empires been plundered? - every time

are we gods who come to earth for the hellraising?

do we come here for the war, the crime, the murder, the concentration camps, the suffering, the sex slavery, the landmine amputations, the blindness for lack of 4c of vitamin A per year, the starvation, the problems and stress, the anxiety and grief, the grinding poverty, the slavery, the wageslavery, the fall of empires, the fret, the torture, the fear, the terrors, the horrors, the madness, the folly, the stupidity, the waste, the destruction, the labours, the disappointments, the savagery, the sadism?

is there anyone who will argue that injustice tends to the health, the safety, the liberty, the order, the peace and quiet of the state and of humans?

and yet we have fortnightly pay from $1 to $1 billion - from 1000th to 1,000,000 times average/fairpay -

we have 1% doing less than 1% of the work and getting 90% of world income - US$70 trillion a year - stealing US$70,000 per family - stealing peace, future and 100 million lives a year

99% of people underpaid - 99 in thrall to one

who benefits? -

obviously not the 99% underpaid, who get underpay, poverty, underpower, slavery, and violence escalating to nuclear extinction soon

less obviously, but equally certainly, not the overpaid, who get very slightly more pleasure, very much more danger, and extinction soon

[fairpay [US$75,000 [2006 dollars] a year per family working average hard] meets all needs, all major wants, and millions of minor wants - therefore there is simply very little that overpay can do to increase pleasure - whereas overpay danger, loss of membership of the human tribe, is directly proportional to the size of the overpay [theft] - like a thief who steals everyone's wallets]

who benefits?

everyone loses bigbig - therefore everyone gains bigbig by justice in pay, by reducing the injustice of overpay/underpay

you cant enjoy unless everyone enjoys - life of robber and robbed are worse, much much worse

the present situation could hardly be worse - extreme injustice, extreme violence, extreme weapons, extremely close to extinction - and speeding towards extinction

we can have a true democracy as soon as we understand one vital thing

we stand on the brink of extinction and on the brink of 100-fold happiness

Answer 2

Theoretically, if we remove the government and replace it with a giant voting machine (we will assume that this machine is somehow perfectly secure), then yes, we could have a true democracy. Some problems do exist, however, with this scenario.

1) Laziness - Democracy depends on citizen participation. Many people would simply not vote, even if it were as easy as a checkbox on a webpage. Perhaps we would have to make this compulsory... Otherwise power voters would rule.

2) Tyranny of the People - Individuals are smart; people are dumb. One of the reasons that we went with a republic was to curtail decisions based on spontaneous public opinion rather than what is for the better good; the idea is that since the individual is smart they could weigh was is best with what the constituents want.

3) Sophists - Back in ancient Athens, one of the reasons for the fall of their democracy was the sophists. Sophists are kind of like a mix between a professor and a philosopher. Anyways, sophists were respected by the people and would often voice their opinions on the matters of the time. Unfortunately, some took advantage by making their opinion self-serving and people would go with this out of the inherent respect they have to the position. In modern times, the closest things we have to sophists are pundits. While they are not respected as much, they would gain considerable power under a true democracy.

4) Consistency - Would the voice of America have a consistent one? I think that many decisions would conflict with other ones. Policy would be rather chaotic.

5) Time - Politics is a full time job. The shear number of issues that need to be decided upon is immense. A democracy would require that everyone become a full time politician lest it fall into an oligarchy of power voters. To survive economically, we need people to work in industry and commerce; hence some people would need to have other full time jobs.

To bad reality ruins theory.

Answer 3

No. It doesn't even really work for the USA. Everyone has their own priorities and agendas. People are fallible. What's to say that those in charge are not? It works for us in the USA, better than anything else, but not perfectly.

Answer 4

No, since the majority will never be ready to care enough!