The word democracy derives from the Greek words that literally means "people govern." Generally, it is assumed throughout the world that the democratic way of decision-making is the best possible and therefore the most acceptable. The only problem is that nobody knows what exactly it means. It would be ideal if people mutually agree and create rules on an equal basis that would be valid in their collective, but it is impossible to achieve because every society brings an unlimited number of decisions about which all people cannot decide on either due to lack of interest, knowledge, or time.
Therefore, today an indirect form of democracy where people elect at the polls their representatives in government is generally accepted. Candidates who win the most votes of the people receive the mandate to govern on behalf of the people in a given period. The peoples' representatives in government should represent the interests of their electors, but they cannot successfully do it, because they have insufficient insight into the wishes of the voters who have elected them. It goes without saying that an elected government has no desire at all to meet the needs of those people who did not vote for them. Besides that, representatives of the people are quite privileged, and as such they more often represent their own interests or the interests of a privileged class of people who help them in elections rather than the interests of the people. So that in practice, indirect forms of democracy cannot adequately follow the will of people and therefore they are not satisfactory. Also, the democratically elected leaders can cause significant harm to the people of which there is not an adequate defence. For example, democratically elected Adolf_Hitler and George Bush are remembered mostly by the destructions they initiated "in the name of the people."
The will of people may be followed to a greater extent by a direct form of democracy through referendums, where people directly decide on issues of self-interest. The intention of the majority of people accepts or rejects the proposed decision. This form of democracy also has significant disadvantages. Firstly, I would mention that a majority of people might outvote a minority and thus cause inconvenience to the minority, which is unacceptable. The principle of consensus among representatives of people on issues that people should vote about, make such a form of democracy more acceptable. But direct democracy is rarely applied, primarily because governments do not like people messing with their businesses and then because the organization of referendums is not a simple process. Finally, each society brings a vast number of decisions about which one could not call for referendums because people do not have enough knowledge about making all the decisions or are not interested in it or do not have time to participate in them. And so decisions in society are always brought by privileged authorities that do not follow the will of the people sufficiently.
Does this mean that the will of the people cannot be carried out? That democracy cannot be developed? Scholars of social sciences do not see a solution to the problem of democracy and cannot establish any consensus on how a developed democracy should look like. The establishment of a developed form of democracy requires the discovery of a new pathway that will effectively implement the will of people. To reach it one needs to think outside the box. I have managed to create a straightforward and original way, leading to a fully developed democracy.
Let's allow every person, who within the scope of his activity can affect us in any way, to do it freely upon their will. We do not even have many choices because we cannot interfere with the freedom of activities of presidents, doctors and mechanics, or any other worker, nor do we have the ability, nor the time, nor the right, perhaps not even the desire to do so. However, all these people through their actions may create advantages and disadvantages to individuals and society. We indeed have developed the ability to sense whether or not the activities of a president, doctor, mechanic, or any other man, brings some advantages or disadvantages to us. And according to it, we should have the right to award a person who through his or her acting creates convenience for us and punish a person who does inconveniences to us. Such a right would certainly direct all people to perform the least inconveniences and the greatest conveniences to other people. Such an orientation of society would undoubtedly follow the will of all the people in the best possible way and therefore would present a developed democracy.
My philosophy is based on the equal rights of people because it is the only proper orientation of society. In this regard, let each person have the same power to punish let's say three individuals who hurt him the most in any month and to award let's say three individuals who realize the most significant benefits to him each month. This is the essence, and the rest is a technical matter about which I won't bother you much here. I propose that the rewards and punishments have an equivalent value of one dollar. Each award a person receives from somebody will bring them one dollar and each penalty will take away one dollar from them. In that manner, all people will become the same authorities who have a small direct power in society.
Given that all people will have equal rights and the power of evaluation, and that they can give their rewards and punishments to other people regardless of any written rules, such a democracy will present the form of anarchy. That is the reason why I have called such an evaluating system democratic anarchy. I am confident that this is the only possible path toward full democracy and good society.
Democratic anarchy will direct each member of society to respect other people. People will become values to all people. They will create the most significant possible advantages for the community, and diminish or abolish the creation of all forms of disadvantages. Such a measure will definitely decrease uncontrolled or insufficiently controlled individual power originating in privileged social status. I have to stress that the privileged status of individuals causes the greatest inconveniences and problems to society. In this straightforward way, the populus will for the first time in the history of humankind realize a great direct power in society, which will result in highly harmonious and constructive social relations.
Many people, including university professors, have given me remarks in the sense that people are not able to objectively judge other people. I have answered them that objectivity is desirable but not essential. People will judge others the way they feel, and every person is obliged to take into account the consequences his actions may have on other people. By adopting this system that will happen and that is what will bring considerable benefits to society. Furthermore, a system that supports the equal rights of people will develop objectivity in the community, and when that happens, people will certainly objectively judge other people.
Individuals will not have much power in society, but their evaluations joined together will be very powerful. A person who receives a large number of negative assessments would try hard to avoid doing anything inconvenient to other people. Besides, the person who receives bad evaluations would never know who has evaluated him negatively so that he would try to improve his behaviour towards everyone. As a result, bullies will not harass children at school anymore, bosses will not abuse their employees at work, neighbours will not produce noise at night, salespeople will not cheat their customers, politicians will not lie to people, etc. They will all try to please other people in the best possible way. This is what will take privileged powers from all the people; this is what will eliminate social evil and form a good society.
The system of democratic anarchy will especially affect authorities. The higher the position an authority has in society, the greater the responsibility they would bare to society. For example, The President of the US might get 100,000,000 bad evaluations from the American people for bad policies, lies, and for criminal aggression on countries. That would cost him 100,000,000 dollars in only one month. On the other hand, I doubt that his supporters would certainly evaluate him positively because they might easily have higher positive evaluation priorities and would spend their positive evaluations elsewhere. Non-privileged presidents would no longer dare perform bad policies anymore. And if it happens somehow, they would run away from their positions very fast. Only the most skilful and brave individuals would dare lead countries. They will not be authorities anymore, but our servants.
People will judge other people freely. In this regard, I have received many complaints in the sense that people may evaluate other people maliciously because of spite or envy. I answered that such a risk exists but I would add that individual assessment of one dollar might not cause significant harm to anyone. The damage that an individual can make is insignificant compared to the damage authorities can make because they often pull back the whole society. Take the example of Adolf_Hitler and George Bush again. In the system that I have proposed these individuals would get so many negative evaluations from people from the very beginning of their careers that they would no longer dare to cause evil. Their followers would receive negative assessments as well so that organized evil would hardly rise in such a society. It is possible to forbid people who receive a large number of negative evaluations from governing society. In this way, authorities will no longer dare to carry out aggression and wars. Is it worthwhile to allow individuals to wrongly judge others for one dollar if such trials would abolish all forms of destructiveness in society? Sure it is. Also, the new system will develop objective values and the conscience of the people where malice and envy would hardly exist. If something like that would still exist, each person would be able to correct a possible wrongful assessment that he gave to another individual by instigating a correct evaluation even many years later when he experiences enlightenment under the influence of the new system. And he will.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
