Globalized Decentralization - a Brave New World.

[wulos]

Before I start, let me make it quite clear. Whilst this thread will touch on political ideas, making the discussion 'pro' this, or 'pro' that will result in it's closure. It is hoped that this discussion stays positive, free of personal insults, or political grandstanding. It can, and will be closed should the "extremists" wade in with guns a blazing....

Looking around on the internet, watching television, reading the papers there is an 'increasing' awareness of societies problems, and inequalities. Global financial Crisis, Global warming, Global Terrorism, Disproportionate distribution of wealth / resources, the list continues...

Many are quick to judge, happy to blame specific individuals or groups for the problems. Some problems get blamed on governments, or religious affiliations, others point at specific businesses(banking industry for GFC, auto / manufacturing / power industries for global warming etc)

For the last century? or so there has been a massive development in technology. Over the last 30-40 years, nowhere has this been more evident then in communications, and IT.
A century or so back, if you wanted to get a message to someone on the other side of the world, the message would have been hand written, and hand delivered. Quite a time consuming process, but one that gave the writer time to develop their ideas and the message they were going to send.
Nowadays it is possible to send a message instantaneously. Information can be accessed at similar speeds. Speeds that far outstrips our human ability to read, comprehend, and store in our memory banks, or make a decisions upon.
Along with this increased communications, is the improved ability to conduct business(both legal, and not so legal), over great distances.
Up until recently? these "affairs" would have been controlled by the governments / policy makes / law enforcement agencies, within the geographic borders in which these transactions took place. Different Geographic locations, meant different 'localised governments', anddifferent ways of solving these 'domestic' problems within their own borders. Governments set up rules, and policies to accomplish the better good(?) for their own 'local' consituents, with little real regard for what happens elsewhere.

As members of a far larger 'global' community, we are expecting of governments, and policy makers to come up with solutions to issues that are no longer confined within old traditional 'geographic' borders.
These policies of the governments / policy makers we turn to, are ultimately limited by juristictional borders. Borders which as a result of modern day technology, we individually believe no longer apply.

Clearly these issues are important to us all. With the speed of communications, we are continually bombarded with information, and as a result, major issues are quickly focused in our thoughts.
This increased awareness, allows us to interpret events, and come to a conclusion as to the importance of a particular issue. Once the conclusion is made, these issues take on their own personal significance, & import. Once important to us, we are become expectant of effective solutions being found, and then implemented.
Nothing here has really changed, just the speed.
Our expectations are that 'officialdom' (those same underpowered? ones as mentioned above) find speedy solutions, to these problems, and implement effective policies in a similarly expedient manner.

The information to make these decisions upon is no different to that available to us. It is in a constant state of evolution, and change, and from above, changes far quicker then it is humanly possible to accurately process. The amount of information(and misleading disinformation) to make change has increased at an extremely rapid rate, but the decision making process is still very much a 'slow' consultative process, conducted in person by a relatively tiny group of overworked?(information processing) individuals.
Is it little wonder that government policies, are often poorly developed, and often fundamentally flawed.


The internet & modern technology is unquestionably provided some great opportunities, but it is also contributing to some very complex social, and economic issues?

Heading into the future, how do you believe these issues can be better handled?

[sarrge2001]

I believe the basic problem with the speed of those decisions is that "the public service" is a large group of people of whom many long termers are unwilling to make a decision for fear of looking bad, or having it overturned and looking bad, or upsetting the relevant minister and looking bad.

You then end up with departments that appear unable to make a decision, often to the frustration of the people who have actually done the groundwork and made the recommendation.

And please, I'm not having a go at government employees here - just the ones that dither about!!!

There needs to be a complete overhaul with performance based employment for Government employees.

It needs to be driven from the top down - get some decent private sector managers and bring them in to sort things out. And give competant people the authority to make decisions, not just senior managers who are far removed from the coalface.

In a perfect world maybe.......

[wulos]

Even IF they could make the necessary decisions 'instantaneously' would it truely make a difference? The rules made within one particular government area, doesn't have teeth outside of its own borders..

[Raptor]

So perhaps we are long overdue for some global authority that has real teeth. A global governmnet for want of a better term.

The private sector has been globalised for decades. Multinational companies operate across geographical boundaries (driven by profit), yet with no equivalent public sector to apply the checks and balances for the benefit of the global citizens.

[cs123]

How do governments effectively collect taxes on e-commerce?

It's all a bit of a hoot now to be able to save GST from online purchases bit this will eventually become an issue. Perhaps the taxation system will need to be overhauled to cope with it.

[Serial_Fool]

The internet is a tool in which the spread of ideas and knowledge is almost instantaneous. This enables us to look beyond what our government officials tell us and the 6:30 news tries to repeat.

For example: would we have really went into Vietnam if the documents proving that nothing happened in the Gulf of Tonkin was leaked onto the internet? Probably, given the power that our executives have, but we would have been out a lot sooner.

All that being said, the knowledge is only as good as the people that access it. You can have the most intricate understanding of global finance and politics but it would mean nothing if you didn't practically apply it.

Of course...this information is easily corrupted...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...ocial-networks

[Serial_Fool]

Originally Posted by cs123

How do governments effectively collect taxes on e-commerce?

It's all a bit of a hoot now to be able to save GST from online purchases bit this will eventually become an issue. Perhaps the taxation system will need to be overhauled to cope with it.

Maybe taxation shouldn't take place.

[cs123]

Originally Posted by Serial_Fool

Maybe taxation shouldn't take place.

OK then, how does the government pay for stuff we need?

[Serial_Fool]

Originally Posted by cs123

OK then, how does the government pay for stuff we need?

By either reducing what they provide or raising income through other ways.

[69Mach1]

In this increasingly litigious society the decision making process further delayed by one's need to cover one's **** (backside)!

[wulos]

Quite interesting that thoughts point towards introducing yet another tier of control (a global government) to "limit" the very freedoms that the new technologies make available?

[mik]

yes it almost seems like a creeping world communism, in years to come we may have a central government, very little in the way of disposable income, the powers that be trickling out enough funds like a welfare society, the carbon tax was the first step imo, media domination is much the same, gradually creeping up, those in power can easily use influence to cloud issues, provide disinformation and discredit legitimate sources of information, the world is becoming a scarey place.

[SILENT_RAPTOR]

Unfotunatly people cant control themselves within the current laws and then wonder why the government make knee jerk reactions, i dont blame them but it does leave room for power mongers to miss use that power.

Why should the government get a bite of the apple from net sales?, all the current taxes should be enough to run bare minimum services.

[Geez Louise]

Wow Mark that is some post you got happening there...very interesting reading though.

To me it appears that common laws and the people involved in the law making process are so bogged down with old laws and traditions that command which way certain things in society happens, that the process, even without the benefits of modern technologies, still takes far longer than what it should.

It would be good to see if a "common" solution to age old laws could be resolved first, as in, get rid of some of the process...streamline it, so implementing changes happen faster but herein lies the issue...

There is a case of too many cooks spoil the broth. Everyone wants to be "the" one that saves the day and no-one gives in without a fight.

So where does that leave the common person? Still stuck with age old traditions and ways in which things must be done.

If things are going to change, then change needs to be accepted first.

Modern technologies are great, unfortunately, not all parts of society have moved at the same pace and until they catch up...The wheels will still grind as slow as they always have.

Cheers
Col

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by wulos

Quite interesting that thoughts point towards introducing yet another tier of control (a global government) to "limit" the very freedoms that the new technologies make available?

I don't advocate yet another level.

I think that country and regional (state) boundaries are probaby past their use by date.

We live on one planet but have local issues. 2 levels of govt should be plenty IMHO.

[wulos]

Speaking of "media control" - this also has been one area of HUGE change over the past few decades.
Once upon a time the media industry was a law unto itself. Quite capable of influencing society, and government alike. Printing only what it wanted (or was 'told' to put into print, for mainstream consumption.
With the development of technologies, having access to photos, videos, or "eye witness" accounts instantaneously, does away with the role once controlled by mainstream media. Take a look at circulation numbers for newspapers(and magazines) Print runs have been on a noticable decline. My thoughts are that the decline in print runs would reflect, and are a direct result of people seeking more honest / truthful? information through other channels.
The problem there is how do we differentiate truth from bias? What "new" means will governments / mainstream media turn to in order to put out their messages. How will they best influence public opinion, when the greater public is listening/reading elsewhere?
Honesty, & integrity perhaps??

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by Raptor

So perhaps we are long overdue for some global authority that has real teeth. A global governmnet for want of a better term.
.

Global government?

where does one start?

Ok... Hitler tried it...

And how would our overlords control the planet?
Yes we are one planet, but every country is unique, every region is unique, different religions, different languages...

Are you saying we must all conform to one rule world wide?

How would this world government be installed?
A world vote?

We already have a "world" bank who controls just about everything because of all the money which is owed to them.

The UN barely operates as it is because of the differences in every country and what they believe in.

[Resurrection]

Originally Posted by wulos

Before I start, let me make it quite clear. Whilst this thread will touch on political ideas, making the discussion 'pro' this, or 'pro' that will result in it's closure. It is hoped that this discussion stays positive, free of personal insults, or political grandstanding. It can, and will be closed should the "extremists" wade in with guns a blazing....

I don't see much chance of a thread started by a forum director being closed.

[wulos]

Jim - I wouldn't be laying too much blame at Raptors suggestion.
Rather then pointing out what "doesn't" or hasn't worked in the past. I am curious to know what possible 'solutions' people have to this problem?
If we all know what, & why stuff doesn't work, surely someone has a solution that will???

[wulos]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

I don't see much chance of a thread started by a forum director being closed.

Trust me when I say, that if it is warranted, then I myself will be more then happy to see it closed. I sincerely hope that this doesn't need to happen, but I'm quite prepared to close it myself it it does.

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by wulos

The problem there is how do we differentiate truth from bias? What "new" means will governments / mainstream media turn to in order to put out their messages. How will they best influence public opinion, when the greater public is listening/reading elsewhere?
Honesty, & integrity perhaps??

Originally Posted by wulos

If we all know what, & why stuff doesn't work, surely someone has a solution that will???

Honesty is the answer. However, it (honesty) is related to the soul, not the mind ("information"), so as long as we remain a secular society, where there's not even the realisation of the soul, there's no way man can fix his problems.

Originally Posted by Serial_Fool

All that being said, the knowledge is only as good as the people that access it. You can have the most intricate understanding of global finance and politics but it would mean nothing if you didn't practically apply it.

(In general terms) you hit the nail on the head.

Originally Posted by Serial_Fool

Of course...this information is easily corrupted...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...ocial-networks

A particular "country" that is well funded by the US has been doing this for years.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by wulos

Jim - I wouldn't be laying too much blame at Raptors suggestion.
Rather then pointing out what "doesn't" or hasn't worked in the past. I am curious to know what possible 'solutions' people have to this problem?
If we all know what, & why stuff doesn't work, surely someone has a solution that will???

The solutions are "easy"... but because of human nature impossible to impliment.... by that i mean honesty and integrity. Both in politics and big business... but we know that will never happen.

The only thing we can hope to do is to pressure those people in power to do the right thing. Look at the USA and the now spreading "occupy" movement aimed at big business and banks.

I found it quite interesting to see the guy faulks mask being used by people (V for Vendetta.. a brilliant movie about how just one man can make a difference). Its time we forgot about greed, money, party politics and concentrate on whats right and wrong.

The more we get together and shout the better... the internet and technology in general today has been used to great effect in the middle east, look at Eygpt where the mobile phone and internet systems were shut down because it was being used to organise an uprising.

Civil disobedience becomes the only option..

[wulos]

You are right in saying that modern technology was a driver for change. The shutting down of the mobile phone, & internet netwroks was attempted by the government in Iran. It was done in an attempt to regain control and make their 'authoritarian voice' heard.
From your previous post

we are one planet, but every country is unique, every region is unique, different religions, different languages...

What is the point of advocating civil disobedience if there is nobody there to disobey? Wouldn't civil disobedience be akin to discrimination against at the least those ideals you are protesting against, and therefore no different to the abuse of power, from those who are currently "in charge"?

[Franco Cozzo]

Nothing is ever really going to change, because people say what everyone wants to hear to get in, then they just try and stay in, hence not wanting to rock the boat.

You see it everywhere in Australia, look at where you work, no doubt there will be problems, even in your family, people up in arms, talking about how they should do this, do that, teach this person a lesson, we'll all do this, then when it comes to the crunch, only one person does something then gets crusified because there was no backup.

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

Honesty is the answer. However, it (honesty) is related to the soul, not the mind ("information"), so as long as we remain a secular society, where there's not even the realisation of the soul, there's no way man can fix his problems.

To find solutions to problems we probably need to agree what the problems are.

Things are certianly changing at the moment and will change more, but do enough people think it is a problem?

[mik]

honesty and integrity is a tuff one, i`d pay money to see it happen at certain area`s, hehehe (you know what i mean)...... just to make it all more interesting on the global scene we have multiculturalism and religion.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by wulos

What is the point of advocating civil disobedience if there is nobody there to disobey? Wouldn't civil disobedience be akin to discrimination against at the least those ideals you are protesting against, and therefore no different to the abuse of power, from those who are currently "in charge"?

Ok.. as an example, your country is ruled by a dictatorship... no elections.
What choice does one have?

Another is your invaded... and the defence forces of your country cant subdue the enemy...

Or... you have the perception of democaracy... you have 2 polictical parties which everyone votes for, both parties are much the same, neither of which makes any different when in power.

At the end of the day what choice does the population have?

You could try the approach which ghandi did against the British.. Peaceful sit ins etc... non-violence. But that takes a stronger will to sit there and not fight back when your being shot at with rubber bullets, or gas, or water cannon.

Im not saying its the "right" thing to do, but more like.. the only thing to do when you run out of options?

Change can happen, but it seems our spirit have over the year diminished to the point where we shrug our shoulders and go back to work.

Look at the Qantas strike as an example.. how many travellers all whinging about ME ME ME... im late for work, i missed my holiday blah blah blah...
But watch them whinge when a QANTAS plane is delayed because it breaks down because its servicing is shoddy because they go overseas now.
But still the CEO of Qantas got a 78% pay increase just recently?

Look at QLD health... 2 yrs down the track and nurses and docters still dont get paid correctly... where is their support from the greater public? There isnt any.. no one cares.
Its a sad fact.... And just last week a senior fat cat public servant in QLD health left the job with his $200 000 hand shake!

Protesting in Australia is a thing of the past, unlike the 70s wheres thousands would show up, you barely see any huge protests anymore about anything.

At the end of the day... what choice do you have?

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

I don't see much chance of a thread started by a forum director being closed.

The T&C applies equally to admins, mods, DMs & regular members and this thread will not be treated any different to any others in this forum regardless of who makes the posts.

[SSD-85]

What we are seeing today is a lack of "triumph in adversity".

As Jim pointed out, everyone would simply just be told what to do & get on with life as opposed to fighting for what they may believe in.

Ill be first to admit my hypocracy here, but the loudest voice isnt necessarily the "best" or "right" voice.

We are being forced into a position where we are "given" options to accept, as opposed to creating options, something like this has happened before & it was called the middle ages; "Accept or die".

What the world needs is a new Renaissance. Where cultural norms are questioned and rejected to the point of becoming majoirty. But how do you acheive that in a world such as this? I cannot answer that question without evoking "extremism" points of view. Perhaps the inability to voice those ideals without reprimand in these very forums is a case-in-point.....

No offense to those that run & maintain these wonderful forums, im merely raising an interesting point...

[wulos]

Even the extremist, has their place, and role in society.
The issue here is that AFF is, and always has been a forum for discussion.
It has been proven time & time again that the 'extremists' tend to destroy discussion by overwhelming and killing the thoughts of other members that are not identical to their own. The extremists have already tabled their opinion, leaving no ambiguity as to where they stand on a particular issue. They are characterised by constantly going over the same ground, rarely bringing any new ideas, or insight to 'stale' arguments. When they get to the point of regurgitating the same old, same old, that is when they are asked to move on, to allow others the chance of airing new ideas.
Some of the ideas that they shout down may well hold the key to solving long term issues.
There constant soapbox posturing may be scaring away, preventing other members from having the chance to develop ideas through to fruition.

There are always options available. The question is how to make the most out of what we have available to us.
The issue that I take with the 'civil disobedience' being the only option idea, is that it immediately assumes that there is absolutely, positively, the only mechanism for change. It rules out the idea that the opposite party may have part of the answer, and that the 'protestors' solution is the ONLY solution. Replacing one 'dictatorship', with another 'dictatorship' is no real solution.