kulu,

You are right that words alone are not enough and that action is required - but that is what participation is about. Protest is about opposing. Participation is about cooperating.

We are not being ignored - we have not had a voice. As a species we are limited by our biology to a few personal interactions with which we can cope. It is not physically possible for our politicians to communicate with all their electorate and so they have to filters through which to work. This means we have many lobby groups trying to get the ear of the "filters".

This form of hierarchical organisation is no longer the only way we have of communicating. The electronic and communications revolution now means you and I can communicate directly - and that changes everything.

The so called six degrees of network connection comes into effect. You and I are only six connections from Obama or Rudd and there are many routes for the message to get through.

I have been promoting a couple of simple changes to the way we organise our economic system to permit more economic cooperation at the individual level. It also turns out that it is likely to solve the ghg issue, the financial crisis without going into debt.

This is such an outlandish notion that most - quite rightly - ignore it as too good to be true. However, a few will not and they will pass on the word. Have a look at http://stableproductivemoney.wordpress.com/2009/05/18/amasset-an-economic-tool-for-managing-economies/ and if you think the idea is worth passing on then do it.

Good ideas will get through the network. If this is a good idea then it will get through to Rudd and he will pass it on to Obama.

I think the idea is a good one and will survive the network filter so I communicate the idea to as many as I can with the knowledge that if it is 'worthy' and explained well enough it will get through.

That is just one of the ways networks are changing the world.

some very insitefull posts are here, im not sure about protesting either, i did it for 10 years,and protests often are only an outlet[set up by the exploiters to control the affect of those who become aware of and sek to resist thier vile practices]

if media does come it will not ask you..[but the organiser,who presents the groups public face according to their own adgenda[or for their master[but usually that camera filming the protest..is owned and controlled by the group being protested against]..

yes there are many good ideas out there,but by and large govts are powerless,so easilly controled by the need to get re-elected and the adgenda of those who run the systems[media,law,medicine,education,industry,who run everything,including the unions,protests,security agencies and law enforcement, who cleverly vet out any real change,as well as any real change agents

Democracy, along with all other current political systems don't work, every one is designed to support elitists and suppress the people. Most of the comments here are spot on and no amount of discussion or involvement will change anything, we need a completely new system of government.

The only form of government which is fair, is where the people have a direct optional say in every major policy decision and people are elected to operate certain portfolio's for which they have applied and submitted a legally binding business plan for that department. Our countries leaders of both business and government should be paid on actual results which help the entire population and not for just being there and supporting their vested interests.

We need to ban political parties, introduce optional referendum style voting for elections, policies and decisions. To be elected it should be first past the post and not the current preferential voting which always results in the major parties getting your vote. Until we change or entire system, we are doomed to the same failing methodologies and disenfranchising outcomes we are suffering now

Dear Adam,
With regard, your reasoned paper, your summary
I agree with what you say however cannot begin to understand how something can be reclaimed from ‘sheepish group conformity’ since clearly, as well as being sheep, most of this population revels in having the wool pulled over its eyes.

Without entirely resorting to ‘Animal Farm’ tactics it is quite difficult to illustrate some of the characteristics of peer group conduct in Australia.

A fair indication might be some of the wolf pack tactics used in these forums.

The falsely created barriers you mention cannot be dismantled since there are too many amoral ‘maintenance personnel’ insinuated throughout our society able, prepared and equipped well enough not only to rapidly repair any breach, but also to exterminate any rodent silly enough to try undermining the edifice.

It is the shame of this ‘democracy’ that not only do those temporarily elevated (see, difficult to avoid speaking from an apparently inferior position) by their winning a popularity raffle soon begin believing themselves superior but also their attributes mirroring those of the peer groups who chose them.

A great excuse – “The people deserve the government they choose.”
Or – “It may not be perfect but it’s the only government we have.”
These and a few trite others are pinned for easy reference on every bureaucrat’s office wall.

I would expect if something drastic enough happened warranting them being reprinted in another language – that once the new regime was ‘stabilised’ nothing much would be different for the peasant.
Mind you, it would for the oligarchy.
And there’s the rub. History proves the old guard would either be liquidated or be left to live in terror.
Its time the tontine worked out that if they want someone to do their fighting they need provide an excuse to do that fighting.
Surely that would be at least some ‘excuse of a nation’ worth fighting for?

Fickle, Stormbay

But even if citizen 'engagement' were increased to its maximum, what difference would it make? How would we be better off?

Try this thought experiment. Each citizen has the right to vote on each proposed law and policy, by a secure online connection. No need for parliament any more, whose original excuse – to send people to a central place to ‘represent’ the views of the people – is now gone. People can represent themselves directly – online. Once a proposed law gets 50 percent of the possible votes, it becomes law. Any citizen can propose, amend or vote on any law or policy. The executive and judicial arms of government remain, but the legislative function returns to its origin in the people.

Probably a lot fewer laws would ever get passed, but this would only prove that the bulk of laws that are now being passed do not *in fact* represent the will of the people.

But what would stop the oppression of minorities? What would stop people from using their votes for mutual plunder?

Nothing. But the problem is, there is nothing stopping that now!

Therefore increasing representation will not solve the problem, because even if it were increased to its maximum, we would not be better off.

The problem is not that government is unrepresentative, it is that, whether representative or not, there is nothing to stop its being abusive by legalising theft.

Dear Wing Ah Ling,
“There are two things in life that are certain; death and taxes” – Wellington, I believe.
He caused quite some of the former, abhorred the latter, yet as Prime Minister had to allow the latter in order to pay for the former.

Yes. Income tax had to be levied to pay for the Napoleonic wars.

On line mass legislature – a fine ideal.
Would, unfortunately be easier to corrupt even than the present shabby turnout.
Of course we could all mass vote the day we all do our dole form; Nyet?

If it were possible to cut the Gordian Knot contained within your scenario would it not be best to look at what is the thinnest part of the societal rope?

You ask – “But what would stop the oppression of minorities? What would stop people from using their votes for mutual plunder?”
Well, Wellington couldn’t answer that because he was a mortal soul and a man of his times.
Myself, I’d go for the managed redistribution of wealth and maybe an assured roof over each little Aussie head.
Once that’s achieved we can get into the incidentals health, the arts, entertainment, etc. with infinitely more vigour.

What? The finance sector, lawyers, judges and their ilk?

I’m open to suggestions.