Genuine question. I feel like there’s too much division and that people should find common ground. I really don’t like the two-party system in the US either.
Genuine question. I feel like there’s too much division and that people should find common ground. I really don’t like the two-party system in the US either.
Not quite. Liquid democracy lets you delegate your vote to someone who either has the same love of skiing as you do, or same preference to give as much cash as dividend to citizens (UBI/freedom dividend) and a bias to reject frivolous spending without a ROI for your future dividend.
You can change your delegation after disappointment with vote on an issue, and can choose to not delegate your vote on a mandatory military draft proposal.
There is no concept of a parliament majority leader being able to block a proposal from being voted on.
None of those are close to what we have right now.
I didn’t get what this is referring to. Is it some Canadian or US-American concept? I’d be happy if you could elaborate a bit!
I am already able to change my delegation after disappointment. Luckily I’ve never had to exercise that right. Also, another thing that flew far over my head: why is an exception specifically regarding mandatory military drafting important?
Liquid democracy is crypto voting from phone or computer. There is no majority winning parliamentary representatitves. You directly choose your own representative, if you want to. That representative has as many votes as the number that were delegated to them. No necessary parliament means no parliamentary restrictions (based on limiting volume of bills to manageable amount)
Liquid democracy lets you change it every day. Even if you live in a system where recall elections are possible, it is a lengthy process that requires significant cooperation and agreement.
You could directly vote against being sent to die. You might not care about a ski hill funding request.
Uh, people choose when they are 18 whether they want to go to civil service or army. If they choose army, they will obviously be drafted if the Russia ever attacks, unless they have later had themselves removed from the drafting lists. To make a decision on how many soldiers we’ll need for the defence is actually an extremely good example of what kind of decisions absolutely cannot be made by a broad public vote. You need a military person relaying secret strategical information to the Ministers of Parliament. It cannot be relayed to all 5.6 million people without compromising the information. If such an amount of people knows about our military strategy, so does the Russia.
So, at least for that kind of decisions something else must be at place. Maybe there could be a restricted set of representatives that are allowed to vote in case we are attacked and you could then choose which one of those will handle your vote in this precise case – before they have talked with the military specialists.
Paid young adult mandatory military training/service is an entirely reasonable policy where if pay is high enough, enough old people will force the young to do it. Even mandatory “go die in vietnam because domino theory will destroy capitalism” can have more old people force the young into draft. Though obviously, exposing those reasons to kill our youth makes the vote less favourable.
Our military slave numbers are public.
The extreme cost of maintaining offensive and diminishment operations is the first thing likely to be eliminated in favour of cash dividends to voters. There can be constititutional limits on what can never be voted against. Legitimate defensive needs/preparation of the nation would be covered. Funding a proxy war on Russia or Palestine or Israel would come from personal individual donations rather than forced social budget support. Constitutional limits against offensive war propaganda are just as important as defense preparation.
There needs to be an administrator (President) to respond quickly to emergencies. Review of adminstrator behaviour after emergencies is a liquid democracy process. You’re right that genuinely required secrets (as opposed to frequent national security classified corruption and evil) would require private judicial review, but liquid democracy would select the judges.
I don’t think we could implement your suggestion. Our wartime maximum strength is about 700 000 soldiers and our population is around 5 600 000. That means, in wartime, one out of 8 inhabitants will be in different forms of military service. There’s no way we could pay an adequate salary for that many soldiers. And, that number is still a third less than how many soldiers Ukraine has, and Ukraine is just barely able to keep the Russia from advancing.
I’m not sure why you’re taking Vietnam war as an example, as it’s an offensive war and for example Finland has no plans to do anything like that.
Yes, but the speed at which one can recruit soldiers in an emergency is not public.
This is irrelevant, because most countries do not have any offensive operations to maintain in the first place.
You may not know what the phrase “proxy war” means, because in this context it’s rather insulting. And I do not think you meant to insult me or others. But do tell, why and how would Finland wage an offensive war?
Yeah, this is getting a bit off topic, but you’re making wild claims that would really need some clarification.
The US instituted a mandatory draft to fight that war.
Finland joining NATO is joining offensive military operations to diminish Russia. Finland was much much safer before. That media propaganda is permitted to claim Russia is not defending itself, or has no right to object to demonic supremacist attitude that it needs to be destroyed/divided, and privatized for pittances to US dominated financial interests, is an extreme affront to reality and humanity. Any Finnish media that says anything to the contrary could be nationalized for more pro human pro Finland prosperity mandates, and it is only liquid democracy that has a chance to not allow CIA bribed/threatened politicians to not pillage or suicide Finland for CIA diminishment value. The only threat to Finland exists from joining axis of evil against Russia. Liquid democracy offers chance to appeal to non suicidal/stupid to preserve Finland and citizen prosperity.
Yes, Finland security does require citizen training in guerilla sniper tactics for self defense. No, that security is destroyed by joining axis of demonism. CIA can compromise every politician and media in your country ultra cheaply. Not possible under liquid democracy.