Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

DooMAD

Members
  • Content count

    1635
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About DooMAD

  • Rank
    Bitcoin IS a religion.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Single Status Update

See all updates by DooMAD

  1. So feel free to tell me I've gone off the deep end here, but lately my views are becoming increasingly hostile towards centralised government. I see failings, abuses, lies, scandals, profiteering, cronyism and corruption. I see a complete inability to regulate for the common good. It could be partly due to the present party in charge in the UK being considerably more disgusting than average, but I feel the problem is bigger than that. The problem is systemic. I therefore hope to challenge a traditional mindset that we've held onto for far too long.

    If I only get the opportunity to convince you of one thing in this lifetime, I would like it to be this.

    Decentralisation will be a cornerstone of future governance because our current top-down, centralised system does not represent us. Projects are already well underway to decentralise money and we need to do the same for governance. As such, I invite you to visit the following website:



    The reason emphasis has been placed on what the site does -not- represent is due to the fact that one person shouldn't have the sole say on how things should be done. I don't have all the answers and wouldn't expect people to take me seriously if I claimed otherwise. But I think we can all recognise that things are getting progressively worse as a direct result of the career politicians pretending that they're trying to make things better, so I've chosen to highlight that aspect and explain how decentralisation will be a solution to represent everyone.

    1. Show previous comments  8 more
    2. myk

      myk

      DooMAD said:
      If I only get the opportunity to convince you of one thing in this lifetime, I would like it to be this.

      How? It's not clear from what you say that centralization is the cause, just something that's there at the same time as the issues. It may well be like a smoker who also runs, coughs after running and blames the running for his ailment instead of minding the cigs.

      I'd say that rather than centralization or a lack of it, what makes your government callous to its own people is that it caters largely to powerful and partly independent economic groups that far exceed your borders, such as huge leading businesses that invest abroad or liberalized financial entities in overseas territories that are linked to you local banks and markets. Those economic interests have their own global needs and are relatively alien to the interests of the local population, and push the government to act in ways that often clash with your wellbeing. In other independent countries where most of their economic weight lies within their own borders, the economic elite is more dependent on the local citizenship and must respond to their interests and welfare to a greater degree.

      After all, where do the abuses, lies, scandals, profiteering, cronyism and corruption come from if we don't consider these groups weighing on the government? Especially since Britain isn't like some other less developed countries where such negative influence comes mainly from outside.

    3. DooMAD

      DooMAD

      myk said:

      How? It's not clear from what you say that centralization is the cause, just something that's there at the same time as the issues. It may well be like a smoker who also runs, coughs after running and blames the running for his ailment instead of minding the cigs.

      I'd say that rather than centralization or a lack of it, what makes your government callous to its own people is that it caters largely to powerful and partly independent economic groups that far exceed your borders, such as huge leading businesses that invest abroad or liberalized financial entities in overseas territories that are linked to you local banks and markets. Those economic interests have their own global needs and are relatively alien to the interests of the local population, and push the government to act in ways that often clash with your wellbeing. In other independent countries where most of their economic weight lies within their own borders, the economic elite is more dependent on the local citizenship and must respond to their interests and welfare to a greater degree.

      After all, where do the abuses, lies, scandals, profiteering, cronyism and corruption come from if we don't consider these groups weighing on the government? Especially since Britain isn't like some other less developed countries where such negative influence comes mainly from outside.

      Think of it this way. If we had a decentralised system, who would the powerful economic groups be pushing on? At the moment it's easy to buy influence because a small number of individuals make the decisions in how things are run. It's easy to lobby powerful individuals, but it's hard to lobby many people. Less people equals less accountability and more corruption.

    4. myk

      myk

      DooMAD said:
      If we had a decentralised system, who would the powerful economic groups be pushing on?

      In line with what Gez noted, their own lobbies would then have greater clout on each of the decentralized fragments than on one more unified power. That's what happened here in Argentina in the 90s when the power of the Federal Government was diminished and the provinces had more faculties. Multinationals had an easier time bending the arms of each of the provincial governors than they had had in the past against the president.

      At the moment it's easy to buy influence because a small number of individuals make the decisions in how things are run.

      Mainly because they are open to it, unless you think Cameron and friends are poor victims of circumstance.

      It's easy to lobby powerful individuals, but it's hard to lobby many people.

      Check out US legislature. I'd say its generally more bought out and less responsive of popular concerns than the president.

      Less people equals less accountability and more corruption.

      Not always, because it also creates obscurity and indifference in complexity, while a smaller team that's widely seen as responsible is generally exposed to having to answer before the populance. The elite tend to hate populist leaders, after all.

      Both centralized and decentralized elements are useful and both breed flaws, which is why most governments have both more collective bodies and unified leaderships, In any case, how centralized a society is varies by the local culture, and no size fits all. Perhaps Britain in particular needs more decentralization, but whatever the political system, it can still be corrupted if there are increasing levels of inequity (extremes in wealth distribution) and irresponsibility (half the wealth exceeds national borders). That is, elites that have stopped responding to the population at large may find use in a junta-based dictatorship, but also in a parliamentary State.

      I think that a campaign that centers specifically on the political system is putting the fundamental problems on a second plane, as if they were a side effect that would get fixed once the system is perfected.

×