| http://www.livescience.com/18706-people-smart-democracy.html According to the article above, the general populace is not smart enough to select the best possible leadership, because they are unable to recognise a better candidate for leadership than themselves. Personally I find the logic in the article somewhat dubious, as it seems to make a fairly sweeping assumption that no-one is able to identify a leader who is better than themselves... which seems to me to make the result given as a no-brainer. I also fundamentally disagree with the idea that democracy should not be extended to all, as such practices have historically led only to the formation of a ruling elite. Regardless, I am interested in hearing what others have to say on the issue, so let's hear it. |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
| short term answer: the media will make up any kind of fake stories and lies and make things sound worse than they are just to get viewers and readers, and anything they write or broadcast should be taken with a grain of salt. people are way more than capable of selecting a leader/PM, people just want one that wont just be in it for the money and actually do something beneficial for the public for once. |
 if i have the grass to lay on and the wind to stroke my cheek, i dont need anything else, sleeping with a contented smile. |
| Some percent of people are able to judge candidates by what they say, do or were doing. Problem is that this group is very small. Not to mention that in many cases they are so dissapointed in what the politicians are doing that they don't even bother to vote. Most of people don't care. They may follow fashion, what they friends say, TV or act upon believe that all politicians are lazy, stealing bastards. Last group will follow anyone who will say that they will fix it. Not to mention good old fear - why to choose some other people when we have those who were ruling - they are bad but at least we know what they are capable of. So to sum things up: Some people are able to do it, but they are always in minority. |
| Yes, democracy cant work for several reasons that Platon listed over 2000 years ago. But democracy will prevail, for the very same reasons. |
heidurzo said: Most people aren't smart enough to choose a good candidate, although I'm not so sure about thinking they'll be the best leader thing. Democracy is a flawed system to start with it's just better than all current alternatives. Better watch it. The MAL communists will invade this thread and they're impossible to reason with. |
FatherAndersonFeb 29, 2012 11:48 AM
| The problem lies in the fact that the vast majority of people don't actually bother to find out about things beyond the information that the media feeds them with. For example in the UK there was recently (well, it was a fair while back now actually) a big furore over changes to tuition fees for universities. Ask around this country what impact this change will have on prospects for the poor at university and you could expect the vast majority of people to start ranting about how it will make universities inaccessible for the poor people. But if you actually look at the contents of it, the very poor are unaffected (as they wouldn't have had to pay their fees back in the past and won't now either) and the poor actually gain from it (as they would have had to pay them back before but now don't). As the fees are low enough that the rich don't care about them anyway, the ones who stand to lose are those on slightly above average income. But the press successfully painted it into the public's minds that this bill was an attack on the rights of the poor to get education, and so now the voters will go into the next election (if they care about it still when that comes along) thinking that the government damaged the ability of poor people to afford to go to university, when the reality is actually the exact opposite. |
| There is no such thing as shit taste. Only idiots who think everyone should have the same taste as they do. |
The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens (the majority of them, at least) can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea, when they see it. But a growing body of research has revealed an unfortunate aspect of the human psyche that would seem to disprove this notion, and imply instead that democratic elections produce mediocre leadership and policies. Haha, I'm sorry, but that made me lol. A growing body... Hahahaha. Wow... The research, led by David Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell University, shows that incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people, or the quality of those people's ideas. Lmfao, is this shit seriously? ...I'm sorry, I can't take any of this seriously XDDDD This is like when there was a study to prove that men and women were different XD For example, if people lack expertise on tax reform, it is very difficult for them to identify the candidates who are actual experts. lolomg, I can never take anything livescience says seriously again. This is what they report on? They might as well say, "people who struggle in math may find it difficult to perform mathematics later in life." Okay, I'm done with this article. Annokano, next time try to use one that doesn't make itself look like a 3 year old trying to validate his "no fuck" opinions. No political gait works perfectly. All of them have issues. Socialism and Communism have been bastardized by countries like China and the former CCCP. That doesn't mean Socialism and Communism don't work, just that the governments of these countries haven't executed the two political ideologies well. In America's case, our representative-democracy is dependent upon the common individual's awareness of his or her political surroundings. Not many are aware, and this, in turn, results in corrupted political figures reining hot lava down our throats. I don't know, I feel like a direct-democracy might have been the more appropriate way to approach America in the beginning. But whatever. We're lax, we're paying for it, tough shit. |
 |
lucjan said: Okay, I'm done with this article. Annokano, next time try to use one that doesn't make itself look like a 3 year old trying to validate his "no fuck" opinions. Well I didn't post the article not because I agree with it. I actually posted it because I have encountered several regulars here arguing that many people are simply too dumb to be allowed to vote, and that these people are the cause of many of societies problems. It's a discussion which has concerned and interested me for some time, and given the relavence of this article to those people, I decided to post a topic about it and explore the issue further. lucjan said: Lmfao, is this shit seriously? ...I'm sorry, I can't take any of this seriously XDDDD This is like when there was a study to prove that men and women were different XD While the observation that people who are incompetent have difficulty assessing the competence of other is hardly surprising, I think the implications of it are whats interesting here, particularly in a democracy. lucjan said: No political gait works perfectly. All of them have issues. Socialism and Communism have been bastardized by countries like China and the former CCCP. That doesn't mean Socialism and Communism don't work, just that the governments of these countries haven't executed the two political ideologies well. In America's case, our representative-democracy is dependent upon the common individual's awareness of his or her political surroundings. Not many are aware, and this, in turn, results in corrupted political figures reining hot lava down our throats. I don't know, I feel like a direct-democracy might have been the more appropriate way to approach America in the beginning. But whatever. We're lax, we're paying for it, tough shit. I don't see why having a direct democracy would solve this problem; direct democracy existed in Ancient Greece, and as Shirato said, Plato noted many problems with it which exist now, even though the system of government we use now is much less direct. In fact, direct democracy would surely make the problem brought up in the article even more significant, as we would be using the flawed judgement of the 'common man' at all times. |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
| Is there even a country thats a true democracy? America is a Democaratic-Republic not a true democracy. The general point is true but I would not consider myself the best leader. I think i have good ideas on some things but not a solution to everything since i am aware of what i do not know. The easy solution for things is limit what someone can vote for based on their knowledge of the subject. If that cant be done then simply base your choice on the character of the person not their ideas because if you know nothing of a subject you shouldnt pretend you do thus relying on if they are of good character and trustable or not is a easy way. |
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
traed said: Is there even a country thats a true democracy? America is a Democaratic-Republic not a true democracy. The general point is true but I would not consider myself the best leader. I think i have good ideas on some things but not a solution to everything since i am aware of what i do not know. The easy solution for things is limit what someone can vote for based on their knowledge of the subject. If that cant be done then simply base your choice on the character of the person not their ideas because if you know nothing of a subject you shouldnt pretend you do thus relying on if they are of good character and trustable or not is a easy way. Direct democracy existed in Ancient Greece, in city states. It would be impossible for a country like the United States to be run as a direct democracy because of the sheer size of the populace. Imagine granting everyone the right to discuss an issue in congress or making everyone vote on every individual law. It just isn't feasible. I hear the closest thing to a direct democracy now is the Swiss government, although I am not certain about this. |
AnnoKanoFeb 29, 2012 5:25 AM
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
| Forget democracy being selected out, I am a firm believer in Wizard's First Rule. People are stupid. The people in power are not necessarily brighter than you, they are merely willing to accept that most of society is dumb enough to believe crap that will get them put in power. It's all about, 'do you want to be in power?'. If you said yes, the next question is the deciding one. 'Are you willing to play the game?'. Politics is a game of influence peddling, careful manipulation and give and take. You don't need to be a liar, but you DO have to have something to offer those you would like to influence. I myself could easily go far in politics, if I was willing to do what is required and to play he game. The thing is, I am NOT willing to 'play the game'. But my IQ is high enough I can get what I need when I need it. And I am educated enough to know bullshit more often than most will. |
| While not technically anime, currently I am a big fan of Hatsune Miku. At least I can go see her in concert. |
AnnoKano said: Well I didn't post the article not because I agree with it. I actually posted it because I have encountered several regulars here arguing that many people are simply too dumb to be allowed to vote, and that these people are the cause of many of societies problems. It's a discussion which has concerned and interested me for some time, and given the relavence of this article to those people, I decided to post a topic about it and explore the issue further. You stated you found the information in the article dubious, but you never made a rebuttal against it, nor did you provide any other supporting source. It was a pretty bad article. While the observation that people who are incompetent have difficulty assessing the competence of other is hardly surprising, I think the implications of it are whats interesting here, particularly in a democracy. The results of all their "research" is the issue here. It's not surprising, democracy or not. People who are incompetent can't assess the competence of others? In other words, people who aren't intelligent can't relate to the intelligence of others. This is... This is obvious. And the fact that they needed a study done on this... I don't see why having a direct democracy would solve this problem; direct democracy existed in Ancient Greece, and as Shirato said, Plato noted many problems with it which exist now, even though the system of government we use now is much less direct. In fact, direct democracy would surely make the problem brought up in the article even more significant, as we would be using the flawed judgement of the 'common man' at all times. I know it existed in Ancient Greece. You don't need to tell me that. I also know the issues Plato highlighted. I agree with them. Note, however, that I didn't say America should be a direct-democracy now, just that it should have started off as one. lucjan said: I feel like a direct-democracy might have been the more appropriate way to approach America in the beginning. America started off as a small, poor country that was in dire need of unity. If we began as a direct-democracy, and had given everyone power, the unity that resulted could have, and hopefully would have, prevented many of the issues America had suffered from in the beginning. Throughout the first half of the 19th century, America was slowly cleaving into two separate hostilities, which resulted in the civil war. Would this have happened if we had, from the beginning, been unified? Anyways, I don't support democracy of any kind. I just think if America was going to start off as one, a direct-democracy would have the more beneficial of the two. |
|
| Note: direct democracy existed in indeed Greece, but only in Athens, in the other states there was either a monarchy/tyranny or oligarchy (ruled by the rich). But I don't know who said it first, but I agree with the idea that Democracy is the least bad way for a government. Other ways to rule are horrible as well, but democracy isn't a good way either. The problem is that we don't know a better system. |
Assassin9399 said: Note: direct democracy existed in indeed Greece, but only in Athens, in the other states there was either a monarchy/tyranny or oligarchy (ruled by the rich). Sparta was also a direct-democracy, even if 75% of their citizens were slaves. And after the Peloponnesian wars, the two territories pretty much swallowed Greece up. Anyways, it was short-lived, so none of it lasted. |
|
| ^ Wasnt Sparta part of Ancient Greece? |
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
| Yes. |
|
| Ancient Sparta as democracy. Christ alive. |
 |
lucjan said: Assassin9399 said: Note: direct democracy existed in indeed Greece, but only in Athens, in the other states there was either a monarchy/tyranny or oligarchy (ruled by the rich). Sparta was also a direct-democracy, even if 75% of their citizens were slaves. And after the Peloponnesian wars, the two territories pretty much swallowed Greece up. Anyways, it was short-lived, so none of it lasted. Though even the ancient Greece claimed that democracy was too tough for them to handle. I once saw this sentence somewhere" humans can never be free as what we imagine freedom is, they will ultimately destroy themselves should that happen" . Democracy is complicated thing easy to exploit. More likely in a democratic state it is the media that holds the ultimate power as they control the masses. |
kain361Feb 29, 2012 6:44 AM
| Are presidential elections even about leadership qualities? Don't people just choose between two candidates, based on what the media made them out to be? I get the impression being a good actor, holding motivational speeches and radiating confidence is what makes you the winner, along with having the bigger advertisment budget. We haven't come far since Rome, the mob still wants to be entertained and fooled. Political parties already know that people are bad at this, so they try to avoid openly attending problems or directly giving you a choice. It's always about vague ideals that might appeal to you and not the actual solutions they offer. As long as there's no right or wrong answer, every decision is just personal preference. So I tend to agree with the authors, yet I don't think it's a reason that even applies to today's democracies. If we had an utopian dictatorship with a directly elected leader, it might become a problem. |
| Democracy: Two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner. Pretty shitty form of government. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Metty said: Democracy: Two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner. Pretty shitty form of government. To put it very simply, this. A lot of people are unable to decide what is best for themselves and their country. The situation we're in is ridiculous. A lot of goverments don't even have control of their country: mostly the people with the most money, the media etc. Well, it doesn't really matter. In the end, democracy is usually the only way since people want do decide who rules their country (or think they do). China is doing pretty well even though they aren't a democracy, but they do far too many things wrong. In the end though, they have led their country very well. I would love to have a great one-party government, but then you have the problem of corruption. In the end, all types of governments can be shitty and good (most of the time shitty), so we simply have to make the best of it and hope that people wlll realize that social-capitalism is the future. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capitalism This, people, this. |
| I see dead people. |
Lesley_Roberta said: I myself could easily go far in politics, if I was willing to do what is required and to play he game. The thing is, I am NOT willing to 'play the game'. But my IQ is high enough I can get what I need when I need it. And I am educated enough to know bullshit more often than most will. Politics is not just about making the right decisions; it's also about looking like you will make the right decisions. You are not blessed with either of these qualities. lucjan said: You stated you found the information in the article dubious, but you never made a rebuttal against it, nor did you provide any other supporting source. It was a pretty bad article. I did not post any rebuttal against it because: 1. The observation is correct, perhaps even mathematically self-evident. 2. I am less concerned with the observation itself than I am with the implications made in the article; in other words, that democracy may not be the best form of government because some people make bad choices. 3. I wanted to hear other people's opinions on the subject before providing my own arguments. However, I did make some criticisms and noted that I found the source dubious. lucjan said: America started off as a small, poor country that was in dire need of unity. If we began as a direct-democracy, and had given everyone power, the unity that resulted could have, and hopefully would have, prevented many of the issues America had suffered from in the beginning. Throughout the first half of the 19th century, America was slowly cleaving into two separate hostilities, which resulted in the civil war. Would this have happened if we had, from the beginning, been unified? Anyways, I don't support democracy of any kind. I just think if America was going to start off as one, a direct-democracy would have the more beneficial of the two. What do you support then, as opposed to a democracy? LolitaDecay said: Ancient Sparta as democracy. Christ alive. My sentiments exactly. Everyone, Sparta was a Timocracy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timarchy And yes, it was a part of Ancient Greece. Metty said: Democracy: Two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner. Pretty shitty form of government. Do you want a Paulocracy instead? |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
| I always thought Sparta was an oligarchy. |
|
| I really don't see why people should be incapable of recognizing a better leader than themselves. Really, that's a matter of intelligence of some sort I'd bet. It's not like I'd imagine myself as the be-all-end-all authority on everything. The only problem of course is that if we're talking about an area where you have no expertise, you can't really know whether the person in question is actually good at it or just bullshitting you. The bane of democracy would be the general shallowness of the whole system. When people that vote based on how handsome or charismatic someone is, are even allowed to vote at all, the system is pretty irredeemably fucked. But the problem here probably lies in the system more than the people. Representative democracy rear up shiny dolls of politicians that dance for the screens in order to gain votes, it's all just a bloody charade full of useless demagogy. Now, if you ditch the useless politicians entirely and replace the head decision-making process with panels of technocrats and experts in every given field, coupled with a thorough peer review system and a strict adherence to statistics and facts whenever possible, I think that would be a vastly improved system. Naturally the people should have no say in who gets elected, their expertise should be in focus, not how pretty their smiles are. And as long as the checks and balances are in place properly, I don't see this being more problematic in terms of corruption than anything else. Then you could throw in direct democracy whenever possible, properly presenting the facts and relevant choices whenever it's a matter of choice rather than factual expertise. For example, let the people vote on the budget allocations or something, whilst giving the technocrats a chance to intervene if the masses go all retarded and vote for something that's unsustainable. |
| Democracy, to quote a favourite fanfic of mine, is the assumption that more than 50% of people are correct more than 50% of the time. This is obviously not true. I'd also put my own spin on it, inspired by mr. Wen-Li - if more than 50% of people are not correct more than 50% of the time, it would be sufficient justification for democracy if they were able to take responsibility for their failure. In this, the people fail too. Nobody blames the voters, it's always the political party at fault. Someone might throw the cliched idea that the people have brought the bad government on themselves with their stupidity, but in the end, that's just idealistic blabber. There is no punishment in making the wrong choice, there is no responsibility, and making a choice must imply responsibility. The mob that were lured by the unbacked promises of the charismatic but hollow leader are free to fail again at the next election, and then they'll even have the gall to blame a lack of competent candidates, when every intelligent person knows not to touch politics exactly because of the mob's criteria. Democracy also demands internal conflict. Split the power in three (executive, legislature, judiciary) and have them monitor and fight each other, even as they struggle for a common goal, and that is without counting the parties that are waiting to seize power for the next selection. This power split means that a government can't screw things up as quickly, but it also impedes efficiency and thus progress at the same rate, which is the reason efficiency - dependent organizations, for example the army, are never ever democratic. You simply don't have a fast, efficient system that constantly produces good results, hell, you don't even get a slow system with good results if all parts are bickering. All of this is obvious to someone with average intelligence. Everyone knows that to succeed in politics, you need not be skilled in governing, but in transferring responsibility and soiling others' reputation as you pad your own. An environment that promotes such a skillset but doesn't require or benefit from it at all is obviously flawed. A few years ago, we had a situation in our country where Libya wanted its debt of 11 million to be waivered in exchange for the lives of 13 or so of our citizens. 13! A sensible, pragmatic leader would use the 11 million to save the lives of many more, but that would send his ratings crashing, so all parties played the "emotional and compassionate" card and opted to pay up. I am sure everyone in the government realized that, and the press too, nobody is So, to sum up: -People are emotional and illogical. -Leaders have to make hard decisions and they can't do that if reliant on the opinion of the emotional and illogical. -As long as choice doesn't come with responsibility when voting, voters will mostly be uninformed, rely on gut instinct/simple charisma, and keep making the same mistakes over and over. -Splitting the power is inefficient. -Democracy doesn't breed good governors, it breeds good politics, i.e. popularity jugglers. It also turns away competent governors. Nobody with good intentions can survive the popularity game, and thus, only the inhonest *** (profanity of your choice, I select hypocrite for great mediocrity) remain. Bonus: The people DON'T HAVE to do the research. It is inefficient to assume that 6 billion people have to spend even an hour doing the research for a good ruler (disclaimer being that adequate research is actually days of involvement by a sufficiently critical mind, with both "6 billion people spending days" and "6 billion being critical" being impossible), this should be done in another way. |
AnnoKano said: Metty said: Democracy: Two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner. Pretty shitty form of government. Do you want a Paulocracy instead? I would like to have a constitutional republic where the elected representatives actually follow their oath of office, the constitution. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Metty said: AnnoKano said: Metty said: Democracy: Two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner. Pretty shitty form of government. Do you want a Paulocracy instead? I would like to have a constitutional republic where the elected representatives actually follow their oath of office, the constitution. Think you will be asking too much from "a human". Though it's not impossible. |
Metty said: I would like to have a constitutional republic where the elected representatives actually follow their oath of office, the constitution. I agree, entirely. (I also notice that you're from the "Republic of Texas," which tells me a lot of what I need to know about your political views ^_^) However, I think we'd be surprised at how few leaders throughout history, US history included, have actually failed at upholding their oaths of office in their positions in government -- it's just that people have become even more disillusioned with them in the Information Age. Can you imagine if, in 2012, Thomas Jefferson bought almost a million square miles of land without constitutional authorization? Or if Robert Livingston went 50% over budget to buy that land? So I think that things aren't as bad as we make them out to be. Voters may often be stupid and ignorant, but the leaders they elect are "good enough." |
Metty said: AnnoKano said: Metty said: Democracy: Two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner. Pretty shitty form of government. Do you want a Paulocracy instead? I would like to have a constitutional republic where the elected representatives actually follow their oath of office, the constitution. If you're American, you pretty much are stuck with a Plutocracy. And I agree, a Constitutional Republic is in the best interests of everyone, but it will never happen. Why? Because of articles like this. Here in America, at least, there has been this push for more power gathered into less hands and more moral restrictions on the populace as a whole. This indicates we're heading towards another form of repressive dictatorship as has happened many times in the past. Most recently in Nazi Germany. |
| Every minute you are thinking of evil, you might have been thinking of good instead. Refuse to pander to a morbid interest in your own misdeeds. Pick yourself up, be sorry, shake yourself, and go on again. Evelyn Underhill |
| I believe the best society would be a Technocratic Meritocracy. I don't believe uneducated people should have the right to decide the path of a nation. They're not qualified. |
| > The Fellow MAL Users Social Link has reached level 6! > Your power to create Forum Posts of the Anime Arcana has grown! |
Vinter said: I believe the best society would be a Technocratic Meritocracy. I don't believe uneducated people should have the right to decide the path of a nation. They're not qualified. Ah, I was waiting for your post, Vinter! <3 ... |
 |
Vinter said: I believe the best society would be a Technocratic Meritocracy. I don't believe uneducated people should have the right to decide the path of a nation. They're not qualified. Define 'educated'. High School Diploma, college, university? What about people who don't attend such places, but become highly successful outside of education, such as entrepreneurs? |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
| An idea I had after 20 seconds of thinking was to use their tax payments. Have a floor above which people get the right to vote. If someone is successful, their higher salary is reflected on their tax pay. This is obviously flawed and doesn't cover many corner cases (arts people who don't earn much but are intelligent, retirees etc), but can be improved if someone sat down for more than 20 seconds. |
| Going to completely disagree here. It is not that people are not smart enough to make Democracy successful, it is that they don't care enough. It's really that simple. Your argument is saying that people turn up to vote, but don't have any idea who the hell the people are and what they stand for, when people don't even turn up to vote in the first place. Democracy is all about participation. |
kasapina said: An idea I had after 20 seconds of thinking was to use their tax payments. Have a floor above which people get the right to vote. If someone is successful, their higher salary is reflected on their tax pay. This is obviously flawed and doesn't cover many corner cases (arts people who don't earn much but are intelligent, retirees etc), but can be improved if someone sat down for more than 20 seconds. That is ridiculous. |
|
Legendre said: Going to completely disagree here. It is not that people are not smart enough to make Democracy successful, it is that they don't care enough. It's really that simple. Your argument is saying that people turn up to vote, but don't have any idea who the hell the people are and what they stand for, when people don't even turn up to vote in the first place. Democracy is all about participation. Who's argument? |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
| Sorry I should have been more specific! The articles argument ^_^. What they are stating is that people aren't smart enough to choose the correct leader, or the most capable one. Which is ridiculous, since 90% of people aren't choosing in the first place. |
Legendre said: Sorry I should have been more specific! The articles argument ^_^. What they are stating is that people aren't smart enough to choose the correct leader, or the most capable one. Which is ridiculous, since 90% of people aren't choosing in the first place. Voter turnout depends on a number of things... and its impact would not be significant if the competence of those who didn't vote was evenly distributed among the sample. However, I think people those who are more intelligent are more likely to vote than those who are unintelligent, so it probably does have some significance in election results overall. If there was 100% turnout though what the article is saying would still be true, and in that case one could even argue that a higher turnout is a bad thing rather than a good thing. Anyway, discussion about voter turnout are not really relevant to the subject at hand. |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
| I've had those complaints about democracy forever. Bring on the technocracy! |
hikky said: I've had those complaints about democracy forever. Bring on the technocracy! I have heard people calling for technocracy on here for a long time, but I have yet to hear anyone explain how such a system would work in practice. Most people seem to use fairly arbritrary measures like intelligence to determine who should be in charge, in the process discounting the importance of other qualities like experience, leadership, charisma and virtue. These are also important things for a leader to have, yet I see no way they could be implemented into a technocracy. Furthermore, it's not like intelligent people necessarily agree with each other. There are people I consider to be as smart or smarter than I am who I disagree with politically; would this conflict of ideas not give the same result as it would had it involved the wider populace? |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
AnnoKano said: hikky said: I've had those complaints about democracy forever. Bring on the technocracy! I have heard people calling for technocracy on here for a long time, but I have yet to hear anyone explain how such a system would work in practice. Most people seem to use fairly arbritrary measures like intelligence to determine who should be in charge, in the process discounting the importance of other qualities like experience, leadership, charisma and virtue. These are also important things for a leader to have, yet I see no way they could be implemented into a technocracy. Furthermore, it's not like intelligent people necessarily agree with each other. There are people I consider to be as smart or smarter than I am who I disagree with politically; would this conflict of ideas not give the same result as it would had it involved the wider populace? This. Also, for Meritocracy: this would maybe solve quite some problems, but also cause some other (mainly social) problems. I don't see how Meritocracy (and Technocracy) are any better, they merely seem to be alternatives. |
| I see dead people. |
| It's because people are smart that democracy does not work how it was supposed to. Democrats:TOLD |
Nintendosoni said: AnnoKano said: hikky said: I've had those complaints about democracy forever. Bring on the technocracy! I have heard people calling for technocracy on here for a long time, but I have yet to hear anyone explain how such a system would work in practice. Most people seem to use fairly arbritrary measures like intelligence to determine who should be in charge, in the process discounting the importance of other qualities like experience, leadership, charisma and virtue. These are also important things for a leader to have, yet I see no way they could be implemented into a technocracy. Furthermore, it's not like intelligent people necessarily agree with each other. There are people I consider to be as smart or smarter than I am who I disagree with politically; would this conflict of ideas not give the same result as it would had it involved the wider populace? This. Also, for Meritocracy: this would maybe solve quite some problems, but also cause some other (mainly social) problems. I don't see how Meritocracy (and Technocracy) are any better, they merely seem to be alternatives. While I agree with technocracy(see->china) I will never approve of meritocracy, since personality>IQ |
AnnoKano said: hikky said: I've had those complaints about democracy forever. Bring on the technocracy! I have heard people calling for technocracy on here for a long time, but I have yet to hear anyone explain how such a system would work in practice. Most people seem to use fairly arbritrary measures like intelligence to determine who should be in charge, in the process discounting the importance of other qualities like experience, leadership, charisma and virtue. These are also important things for a leader to have, yet I see no way they could be implemented into a technocracy. Furthermore, it's not like intelligent people necessarily agree with each other. There are people I consider to be as smart or smarter than I am who I disagree with politically; would this conflict of ideas not give the same result as it would had it involved the wider populace? Well, it's not about seeking perfection--just, really--it's better than democracy. How do we currently determine who gets the grant for a gigantic research project? How do companies determine who they're going to put in charge of engineering billion dollar machines? They choose the most experienced and proven candidate for the job. You can start identifying those people right out of college if necessary. As for disagreements--you could always have a panel of experts that ruled by majority vote, just like the senate or house does now. The point is, even if there are disagreements, a majority opinion held by experts is almost always better than a majority opinion held by laymen. I don't know, but honestly, I wouldn't trust some sleazy guy with a law degree to cut my hair or to design my house. I don't know why it would be considered sensible to trust them with power over other things that are similarly outside their specialization. |
AnnoKano said: But what does leadership charisma or virtue matter if you've got, say, a panel of experts in city planning debating how to increase the effectiveness of the transportation network? I have heard people calling for technocracy on here for a long time, but I have yet to hear anyone explain how such a system would work in practice. Most people seem to use fairly arbritrary measures like intelligence to determine who should be in charge, in the process discounting the importance of other qualities like experience, leadership, charisma and virtue. These are also important things for a leader to have, yet I see no way they could be implemented into a technocracy. At least my point would be to ditch the pointless mass of media-monkey politicians on top that only gobble up resources and do nothing useful. With them gone, stuff like leadership and charisma would be pointless, we don't need some smiling mascot to make the sheeple get off their asses and vote, a silent and mostly unnoticeable machinery of specialists doing their jobs would make me sleep far better at night. And then we're left with the bureaucrats that's been doing the real work all along. So fix up the brightest amongst them in a specialist panel to control their department. As for disagreement, a strict adherence to scientific rigour should eliminate some of it, and then you could always hand all the big ideological questions over tot he people in the form of direct democracy, so long as the options have been found to be sustainable in practice. |
AnnoKano said: hikky said: I've had those complaints about democracy forever. Bring on the technocracy! I have heard people calling for technocracy on here for a long time, but I have yet to hear anyone explain how such a system would work in practice. Most people seem to use fairly arbritrary measures like intelligence to determine who should be in charge, in the process discounting the importance of other qualities like experience, leadership, charisma and virtue. These are also important things for a leader to have, yet I see no way they could be implemented into a technocracy. Furthermore, it's not like intelligent people necessarily agree with each other. There are people I consider to be as smart or smarter than I am who I disagree with politically; would this conflict of ideas not give the same result as it would had it involved the wider populace? technocracy----->China |
AnnoKano said: According to the article above, the general populace is not smart enough to select the best possible leadership, because they are unable to recognise a better candidate for leadership than themselves. Already here the argument is beyond redemption. What do they think democracy is? This is a thing anyone can understand: Democracy is not about choosing the candidate who is the most competent. Democracy is about letting people decide over their own lives and society and which direction it needs to take. A representative is therefore not at all needed to be halfway competent - if the democracy is healthy, all that is needed is that he relays the desires of the population to wherever he needs, such as to diplomatic missions or so on. A healthy democracy will have a strong and competent bureaucracy to actually do everything. Representatives are just another form of tool for the public will. Representatives. Not leaders. Clearly Dunning and Kruger have fallen for the obscure Dunning-Kruger effect and judged themselves as competent in political philosophy when, in fact, they aren't. But hey, when we live in societies where plutarchy is called democracy and capitalism imagined a prerequisite instead of impediment to social and political freedom, it follows naturally that people will misunderstand all the terms involved, so I can't blame the poor bastards. Metty said: AnnoKano said: Metty said: Democracy: Two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner. Pretty shitty form of government. Do you want a Paulocracy instead? I would like to have a constitutional republic where the elected representatives actually follow their oath of office, the constitution. Unless you think voting rights should be limited past agewise, say by property or race, that is a form of democracy. Of course, given that the economic sphere functions identically, and not like it does now, as a throng of command economy autocracies. |
How is the world ruled and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read. | Report rules abuse | Your Panel | Clubs | Messages | Forum | Recent <img src="http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/4672/stuhlbarg.png" /> |
nathanr said: technocracy----->China China also places severe restrictions on personal and political freedoms, and is run by a ruling class- the members of the Communist Party of China. Would you be willing to accept a technocracy if it involved giving those things up? hikky said: Well, it's not about seeking perfection--just, really--it's better than democracy. How do we currently determine who gets the grant for a gigantic research project? How do companies determine who they're going to put in charge of engineering billion dollar machines? They choose the most experienced and proven candidate for the job. You can start identifying those people right out of college if necessary. As for disagreements--you could always have a panel of experts that ruled by majority vote, just like the senate or house does now. The point is, even if there are disagreements, a majority opinion held by experts is almost always better than a majority opinion held by laymen. I don't know, but honestly, I wouldn't trust some sleazy guy with a law degree to cut my hair or to design my house. I don't know why it would be considered sensible to trust them with power over other things that are similarly outside their specialization. If there is a choice between two options in entirely different fields, it would be difficult to decide which would be better than the other. If it were a contest between say, investing in education and investing in infrastructure, both could make a very good case without being able to appreciate the arguments of their opponents. In that situation, would the ideal person to make the decision not be someone who is able to assess the strengths of one side's arguments over the other, and decide which one is the more compelling of the two? Deciding which arguments are the best does not necessarily require you to know the details of the subjects at hand. You do not need to know how highways are constructed to decide whether investing in highways is a good idea, and the same goes for education. Ideally, you would probably have someone who is well-suited to understanding how arguments work... Like, I dunno... a lawyer, maybe? Baman said: But what does leadership charisma or virtue matter if you've got, say, a panel of experts in city planning debating how to increase the effectiveness of the transportation network? At least my point would be to ditch the pointless mass of media-monkey politicians on top that only gobble up resources and do nothing useful. With them gone, stuff like leadership and charisma would be pointless, we don't need some smiling mascot to make the sheeple get off their asses and vote, a silent and mostly unnoticeable machinery of specialists doing their jobs would make me sleep far better at night. And then we're left with the bureaucrats that's been doing the real work all along. So fix up the brightest amongst them in a specialist panel to control their department. As for disagreement, a strict adherence to scientific rigour should eliminate some of it, and then you could always hand all the big ideological questions over tot he people in the form of direct democracy, so long as the options have been found to be sustainable in practice. A strict adherence to scientific rigour would not help you determine what direction to take the country in deciding whether it would be better to invest in one of two projects in different fields, like I mentioned above. Why revert back to direct democracy if the government is formed on the notion that direct democracy is a bad idea? Isn't that a particularly risky choice too if you have limited mass democratic involvement to the occassional referendum, which may happen only once in a decade? Finally, it's not as if present governments do not consult experts when making decisions... that is the role of the civil service... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_servants |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
271 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |