Linked by David Adams on Mon 27th Apr 2009 22:59 UTC
The internet has heralded in a whole new era of citizen engagement and the latest innovations in social networking have just intensified the enthusiasm for creating a "virtual town square" where people can speak up, join together, and make things happen. And that's really happening! We're using the net to organize politically, communicate with other people who share our interests, and connect with long lost friends. But what about when people use the strengths of the network to undermine the collaborative process? You get tyranny of the minority. Update: Read below for an update on the bike-naming contest.
Thread beginning with comment 360830
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-12-02
"What would be the opposite of letting these fools decide for their futures? Letting an elite (e.g. educated, rich, intelligent, wise, good intenting, perfect DNA etc) decide for the fools' future."
We already had this happen in Germany in the 1930's. We all know how well that turned out...
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-02-10
I see "freedom" and "democracy" as two seperate things, at least in theory. You could in principle have a "benevolent dictator/monarch" that would care for the people's needs and desires, or at least be able to guess them. But this wouldn't last for long I think, because a power's first obligation to itself is to keep itself in power.
Then you have democracy, which is simply a way to give feedback to government. Is the government still in touch with reality? If not, down with its head! It doesn't mean that the people "know best" what's good for them, that's populism. It's more like asking e.g. a small child if it liked the food and would like some more vs. stuffing the child's mouth with the food "you know" is good for it. Even if it cries and pukes.
What would be the opposite of letting these fools decide for their futures? Letting an elite (e.g. educated, rich, intelligent, wise, good intenting, perfect DNA etc) decide for the fools' future. Might sound good at first. But as I said, it wouldn't be long before the elite's self-presevation and own interests came before anything else.
Anyway, I think our diffrent oppinions are shaped by different domestic politics. As much as I dislike populism I see it as something to live with like the seasonal flu (eventually, you develop immunity to *a* kind of flu).
"Let me be wrong, don't try to play God" goes an old song here in Greece