0
3

[–] Arotaes_Forgehammer 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I sure as hell don't.

0
2

[–] Stanley_Yelnats_IV 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Depends on how lenient you're willing to be with "anything." I think that some things are beyond repair through politics alone, while others can still be fixed.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

1
5

[–] beijingsteamer 1 point 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

I would support the US splitting up into completely self governing regions. It's clear what policy is good in Washington state does not always bode well with Washington DC. And what is good for Arizona might not work in Minnesota.

Even if we had a revolution...revolution means a complete circle. History repeats itself, you don't have to tell me twice.

0
2

[–] Imapopulistnow 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

We are shifting into differing cultures, so why not? And as a bonus, the liberals get to keep Washington DC and NYC.

0
3

[–] LagDragon 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

No way! They are all the same. I think Carlin said it best

0
0

[–] pissonmybitch ago 

I honestly don't think anything will get fixed. I hope that things will get fixed, I'll spend a little effort and voat for the guy that has gone against the machine in the past and hope they can continue to do that in the future. But I have little hope.

Teddy Roosevelt did it a hundred years ago, some one can do it again.

0
6

[–] Balrogic 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Not particularly, no. Any excitement I might have over candidates is elation at the thought there's a couple of them that will do far less damage than expected. It's my strongly held personal belief that government will be rendered obsolete by technology within my lifetime, ushering in a golden age of prosperity as we become unconstrained by oppressive policies designed to hold us all down in the mud. Any political action until that time consists of simple damage control. I'd rather have deterministic algorithms and AI in charge of coordinating large scale initiatives, even if it's Skynet. Skynet would cause less devastation to humanity than Congress. That said, I consider a hostile anti-human AI like Skynet's depiction in the Terminator series to be unlikely to the point I'm not worried about it.

I say neither, let's automate those fuckers into permanent unemployment. Let's automate it in such a way that no one has proprietary control, so that no one has the power to hijack the system toward their own ends. What's the worst case? We wind up creating a self-deterministic AI that uses it's position to exploit us in exactly the same way we're currently being exploited? That's not a real risk. We can treat that like an engineering problem and fix it in short order.

0
1

[–] collator 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I'm intrigued by this idea but you would have to have complete faith in the AI. By allowing a backdoor for human meddling, you hand over power to the engineers who can "fix the problem." They become the rulers, likely bending the system to their benefit. Soviet Russia and China attempted a technocracy before with unfortunate results. Admittedly, China has been more successful in recent years but their efforts haven't dampened corruption.

Where I think technology is important is the idea of the Fifth Estate. Freelancing and citizen journalism can help hold those in power accountable when the Fourth Estate is bought off. The Intercept is a good example of this.

0
2

[–] Balrogic 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I think the key would be ensuring that every last bit of it is out in the open, not one hidden character of code, no hardware tricks. Open to audits and inspections at any time by anyone. Fully transparent processes with zero secrets, actively generate data logs that allow ongoing analysis of what it's doing. Every single person wouldn't be able to understand it but several hundred thousand people would at the bare minimum... Including an extremely activist faction of the open source movement that would not stay quiet about the slightest irregularity. I think it would be most useful as a sort of advisor that's able to look at data, crunch all the numbers, process the factors and come up with recommendations that are firmly rooted in objective fact. We could start off by using it as a system to check the safety of new foods, medicines, analyze various problems with infrastructure, the environment... Then we take that information and use it to implement improvements in our systems in the most efficient manner possible.

Even that much, we'd suddenly have politically neutral data-driven analysis that can be independently verified by anyone that cares to do so. No social antics, no playing favorites. When someone tries to spin up a bunch of lies to smear the smart move we'll be able to objectively demonstrate the lie for what it is. I think we can do a great deal to neuter the mechanisms used to abuse us if we make smart use of technology, start taking human error out of the equation. Improve it bit by bit, expand the scope as our technological mastery grows. We have the means to fix a lot of the world's problems through our technology, we just lack the analytical capacity to deploy all of our technology in the right places for maximum effect. The interesting thing about that kind of open automated project is that it would allow absolutely anyone with the technical skills to participate see toward their own governance directly without having to filter through a bunch of politicians. We could even put communications infrastructure in place in order to let people give their feedback on various proposals through direct voting.

Unlike politicians, we could look through every little bit that makes it tick, see how it thinks and how it can be expected to behave. You'll never get that degree of honesty or political transparency with a political body. Openly verifiable trust.

0
0

[–] Ioxvm ago 

No.

0
0

[–] Dalai_Impala ago 

Interesting example of two party system... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

load more comments ▼ (9 remaining)