Do you like being told what to do by idiots? Then why do you enjoy democracy?

[Mustard]

For those of you not aware of what a "Devil's Advocate" is, please leave this thread and drink some bleach.



Ok, are they gone now? Good. I've been pondering this question for awhile, thought I'd get some feedback from y'all intellegent folk. OK, so I personally don't like being told what to do, and I especially don't like being told what to do by an idiot. Now, by "being told what to do", I am talking about the laws that have been put in place by the power of the representative democracy that I live in. Of course, what I do like is getting feedback from intellegent people, (ah ha! I just asked for some like two sentences ago...) I like discourse, and I enjoy good dialogue.

A large majority are great laws that deserve a place on the books, but there are not only some monstrously stupid/illogical/otherwise unacceptable laws in effect, there are some monstrously stupid people voting for and enforcing those same laws. There lies the problem I am having with this representative democracy; the idiots that have infected it thereby telling me, nay forcing me, to accept some horribly written legislation as the law of the land.

So I keep wondering to myself, "Why do I prefer this representative democracy I live in?" In addition, I ponder, "Wouldn't I prefer a more unitary government, where the decisions were made by a volunteer cousel consisting of great thinkers?" The answer is yes, I would. It would be far easier for me to accept the judgments of wise and sage individuals than the present system provides for. Now, the system we have in place now isn't too shabby, and its far better than many alternatives, (if not all alternatives) but there is no doubt it my mind that the system could use an overhaul.

Let me break it down. Presently, we have quasi-volunteer professional politicians who comprise groups that act as our legislative, judicial, and executive bodies of government, and I gotta be honest, the number of cooks in that government kitchen is not only too great a number, but the intellect of what seems like a vast majority of them hovers around... average at best. Since I don't prefer to be told what to do by idiots, I guess that is why I tolerate being told what to do by men and women of average intellectual means.

Is it wrong of me to require the people who are in effect telling me what to do to be not only more intellectual with regards to their sought after profession of professional politician, is it wrong of me to also require that these same professional politicians figure out how to run their own lives (and by extension their personal households) with a quiety dignity and efficiency that would say to me, "hey, it appears that so-n-so has it together, because of the image they present." I don't think its wrong of me to require that, but I also don't think its realistic either. So then why do I keep thinking about it?

I don't dislike the representative democracy I live in, but I think it could be far more efficient and by extension would have far less idiots telling me (and you all) what to do.

Do you like being told what to do by idiots? If your answer is something similar to "no", then why do you enjoy your [insert government style here]?

[Archetype]

I've never liked democracy. In theory, for the longest time I wanted an Aristocracy, but power corrupts, and as Gilbert Gottfried says, that shit is now gay and incestuous (only more deliciously colour). So I went socialist democratic, then capitalist because the smart gets the money and the power (also because every other kid is a fuckin faggoty ass liberal socialist), but capitalism as a political strategy is uber-corrupt. Hell, it's uber-corrupt pretty much no matter what.

Democracy in theory, is sorta Wikipedia-esque. It's a network of ideas where the most reasonable, in the sense of balanced, wins. Which in itself, is pretty ahead of it's time, with the whole idea of a network of ideas being superior has just now become the principle of a new time period (postpostmodernism, altermodernism, transmodernism, whatever it ends up bein called, if anything), which, I'll admit, is only coming to terms in hard to reach places (the Tate art gallery has done 2 shows I know of, and there's a couple books out there on the theory making the rounds in academics, but largely, it's not quite recognized as an actual period, it might just end up being a fringe or fashionable thing, then again, most people still think we're living in a modern world). That network of ideas, still allows for a lot of crap to come to the top, but I'm becoming ever-suspicious of that top, at least authority wise.

The way our democracy actually stands, it's corrupt squabbling. The definition of politics is the art of power. It always revolves around that. And any government will be corrupt. Government in itself is built on that foundation of corruptness (that's a word and colour isn't? Google, you suck). There are always shitty laws that pass in a system that allows laws to be passed in the first place.

So I lean on anarchy. Not total absence of gov't, but absence of centralized power. There are places that have existed as anarchies, and have flourished, and I know of one example of a current anarchy, Christania, that actually works. While everywhere else I know of, gov't is necessary to retain order, mainly, to protect society from the criminals within (as Grant Morrison says, we create the police to protect us from the blacks that want to steal our shit, murder, and rape us), in Christiania, creation of certain laws actually created crime; after "outlawing" hash from outside pressures, gangs moved in to take over the market, resulting in a 2005 shooting and murder. In the semi-independent town (they still pay taxes for certain resources and, I think, military cooperation), they have laws, but in order to retract or create a law, the entire town must be in agreement, absolute, not majority. In a sense, it's a democracy absent normal authority.

I'm an anarcho-pacifist on principle.

However, I'm still suspicious of the viability of an anarchy. Like I said, it certainly isn't reasonable in just about anywhere else in the world. So I guess what I'm trying to say is I hate representative democracy, but ultimately, I don't know. Back to my tower to shoot people on both sides.

[Insomniac]

I think intelligence is overrated. It's nice to have, and what you really mean is you want people who are knowledgeable about the subjects they have power over, and for the most part, legislators are. They may not be going in, but the seniority system and such mean that over time, they get to know about the subjects of their committees. Plus, no one can be knowledgeable enough about something, so they're going to have to get specific experts to testify and give recommendations. And most of the unelected civil servants I know, the staff that does all the real work of collecting, reading, and writing legislation, are impressively smart at what they do. That aspect isn't a problem for me.

Now lobbying, and even more so the pork we all demand from our representatives, this is insidious. But this is more a function of the federal government growing bigger and having more resources to reward everyone with than a fundamental problem with representative democracy. The slow and probably necessary growth of the central government would almost certainly have been faster under any other system.

Fundamentally, I think there's a much bigger risk in letting experts make all decisions. It's really tough to know what's best for everyone else and be right. The Soviets had some incredibly smart people in their government, but sometimes you need that dispersed chaos to shake things up and see how they settle out. Dumb people and laymen, generally, have new ideas and approaches that are healthy to prevent stagnation or groupthink.

I want the people in the military to be making good decisions in regards to specifics, and I want them to give their leaders good advice, but I don't want those leaders to give up national security or fighting wars over to military men. MacArthur knew more about warfare than Truman, but MacArthur wanted to nuke the hell out of China during the Korean conflict, and he was probably right militarily, but a military idiot made the right decision not to.

[Mustard]

In this media-culture, intelligence is underrated by a country mile. To me, intelligence and wisdom go together like fish and water. I mean, intelligence is a boon for a guy like me, but like I said, I'd rather have wise and sage thinkers than the intellectually incurious bottom-feeders we have now. I guess that is why I want to be wise and have the courage to always try to exercise the good idea that is present in all relationships we can fathom.

Lobbying, ugh, don't get me started. I could write thousands of words on my wish to abolish lobbying and lobbyists altogether.

Insomniac, why do you think its a much bigger risk in letting experts make all decisions? I would counter any answer by saying that I too wouldn't want "experts" to make decisions for the whole, but as advisors, experts are a wonderful tool for a wise counsel of thinkers to utilize regarding specific circumstances. You broke it down into a military analogy, and I could expand on that by doing the same for transportation, economics, etc, you understand I'm sure what I'm trying to say here.

You also say that it is tough to know what is best for everyone else and be right. I agree, but somebody, or some body, has to have the courage to make those decisions. Instead, what I see in our representative democracy is a bunch of quabbling bitches standing around and crowing about trivial matters when they should be progressing our country out of this shit we are presently mired in. For the most part, I think they all lack courage to some degree, (whether that be none or barely or moderately or entirely is based on an individual basis naturally) HOWEVER, the more they say they have courage, the less I am inclined to believe they have any, nor would I be inclined to believe they even know what that word truly means.

[Insomniac]

Lobbyists aren't entirely bad, but I won't try to be a devil's advocate for them, even in this thread.

When you talk about experts as advisors, I don't understand exactly how what you're saying is different from the current system. I admit, a professional legislature with money for large staffs is a better thing than a kind of part-time job every other year like it is in Texas, but even there, with all of the idiots, they have qualified people working for them, and they have qualified people coming in to testify or give them the results of studies and such (lobbyists do this).

When a person makes a decision, what I really want is that we be able to hold them accountable for the results. And they should be afraid of that. Unfortunately, people like Barney Frank can criticize their own bills as someone else's mistakes and their constituents eat it up like he's shitting chocolate.

I don't think it's a perfect system, but most of the blame, in my mind, lies in what we expect our government to do and what we let them get away with, not how it's set up.

[Yelram]

The problem is not with democracy, but that the representation is at a federal level, and the states really have very little power. And the localities have even less. And I'm sorry Sink, but just because you think "I dont like dumb people making laws" doesnt give you the right to strip them of their vote. I dont like liberals making laws, whats your point. If you get exactly what you want, its not exactly a democracy is it? Its a Sinkocracy. If you really think a board of braniacs could run the country better, I feel bad for you. You're willing to give up all of your rights, for nothing more than the comfort of knowing that "smart" people are running things. I dont think we could get people agreeing on what "smart" is. Some people that the political left see as "genius", I see as mildly retarded, and vice versa.

Lobbyists have a place in our system, they are very important, the second you remove all the lobbyists, and throw some self-acclaimed "intellectual" in power (or group of) is the second our whole system collapses. The lobbyists are the experts that you're talking about, and they are experts in their specific fields. They pass this information on to legislators, and they make the decisions about what laws should be passed. I think what we need is our laws to be peer reviewed. We need "open source" bills, that can be altered during the preliminary process by referendum voting. We need line item vetoes, and we need laws that restrict legislators from packing bills with totally unrelated garbage.

[Archangel]

Every voting ballot should have a pop quiz on top. Nothing special, just very basic questions.

-What is the capital of China?

-When did WWII take place?

-What does GDP mean?

-What's the first article of our constitution?


Stuff like that, randomly chosen.


If you don't get them right (say 3 out of 4), your vote doesn't count.

I can see several effects of this: The serious mouth-breathers' votes go to shit, stopping the kind of populism directed at the biggest idiots (the Christian right in the US, the extreme left in Europe) from garnering votes for arseholes. Second, once the "smarter" (meaning those with a functioning fifth grade education) people realise that their votes are counted and appreciated, more of them might get interested in the political process. There is a reason for the voting age - however, if you let people vote who don't know the capital of France, why not let 9 year olds vote, at that point?

Also, I'd love to hear the reasons people would come up with to oppose this measure - to defend the right of someone who does not know the most important principles of our country or the most basic facts about the world to have a say in its future.

[Satan]

Every voting ballot should have a pop quiz on top. Nothing special, just very basic questions.

-What is the capital of China?

-When did WWII take place?

-What does GDP mean?

-What's the first article of our constitution?


Stuff like that, randomly chosen.


If you don't get them right (say 3 out of 4), your vote doesn't count.

I can see several effects of this: The serious mouth-breathers' votes go to shit, stopping the kind of populism directed at the biggest idiots (the Christian right in the US, the extreme left in Europe) from garnering votes for arseholes. Second, once the "smarter" (meaning those with a functioning fifth grade education) people realise that their votes are counted and appreciated, more of them might get interested in the political process. There is a reason for the voting age - however, if you let people vote who don't know the capital of France, why not let 9 year olds vote, at that point?

Also, I'd love to hear the reasons people would come up with to oppose this measure - to defend the right of someone who does not know the most important principles of our country or the most basic facts about the world to have a say in its future.

Discrimination against idiots is still discrimination. Plus that'd wipe out the entire black vote.

[Stax]

Every voting ballot should have a pop quiz on top. Nothing special, just very basic questions.

-What is the capital of China?

-When did WWII take place?

-What does GDP mean?

-What's the first article of our constitution?


Stuff like that, randomly chosen.


If you don't get them right (say 3 out of 4), your vote doesn't count.

I can see several effects of this: The serious mouth-breathers' votes go to shit, stopping the kind of populism directed at the biggest idiots (the Christian right in the US, the extreme left in Europe) from garnering votes for arseholes. Second, once the "smarter" (meaning those with a functioning fifth grade education) people realise that their votes are counted and appreciated, more of them might get interested in the political process. There is a reason for the voting age - however, if you let people vote who don't know the capital of France, why not let 9 year olds vote, at that point?

Also, I'd love to hear the reasons people would come up with to oppose this measure - to defend the right of someone who does not know the most important principles of our country or the most basic facts about the world to have a say in its future.

This gets into the same thing I argue with you all the time about the Holocaust-speech laws in Germany. Once you break an absolute it's not absolute anymore. Once you accept that the government can set parameters for who is "allowed" or "smart" enough to vote you've given yourself over to the will of the system.

[redsox39]

Last I checked, the Majority that is deciding things is lock step with the Inner-cities and their excellent schooling! So, apparently, the south Side of Chicago AND the MIT crowd think the same...

Then you have super Red States like Nebraska, with a growing economy, a shrinking enemployment rate, and one of the best school systems in the US. (which, granted, is like having the nicest trailer in the park, but whatever)

[Archangel]

To Stax:

Government DOES set parameters. You have to be a citizen, and of a certain age. In some countries, you can't have a criminal record. Not so long ago, you had to be male, white, and rich. As a matter of fact, pretty much every democracy started out that way. Voting has never, to my knowlege, been an absolute right.

There is a reason why pre-schoolers aren't allowed to vote - that reason being that they're not informed and mature enough. Well, I contend that a large part of "adults" aren't, either. If you honestly think that Obama is both a godless socialist and a Muslim terrorist, you have no business deciding the future of world politics.

[Archangel]

Honestly, is basic -as in junior high level - grasp of politics really more arbitrary than age as a criterion?

[freegood]

Last I checked, the Majority that is deciding things is lock step with the Inner-cities and their excellent schooling! So, apparently, the south Side of Chicago AND the MIT crowd think the same...

Then you have super Red States like Nebraska, with a growing economy, a shrinking enemployment rate, and one of the best school systems in the US. (which, granted, is like having the nicest trailer in the park, but whatever)

Seems like you've convinced yourself to get in the trailer with your sis and move to Nebraska.

[freegood]

Insomniac, why do you think its a much bigger risk in letting experts make all decisions? I would counter any answer by saying that I too wouldn't want "experts" to make decisions for the whole, but as advisors, experts are a wonderful tool for a wise counsel of thinkers to utilize regarding specific circumstances. You broke it down into a military analogy, and I could expand on that by doing the same for transportation, economics, etc, you understand I'm sure what I'm trying to say here.

You also say that it is tough to know what is best for everyone else and be right. I agree, but somebody, or some body, has to have the courage to make those decisions.

There's two issues I have with this quote.

Addressing your original premise, we all hold ourselves accountable to different standards. The best father might not be the best voter. The best scientist might not be the best judge to who is the best administrator.

You don't like religion, but you respect it in some aspects. Similarly to what you quoted, why not just let all the religious experts make all the decisions when it comes to religion? There's two responses wrt flawed religious leaders. Either religion is full of shit and their experts are full of shit by association, or the experts have been clouded by personal and political interests in their own right. Either way, there's a deeply rooted flaw....

The other issue is the quote itself: We are already letting the experts run the show.

The corporate world is not a democracy. Federal judges aren't elected. Cabinet members and administrators are mostly appointed.

This is the richest part. Local levels of government are the best examples of democracies, but an expert is the best of his field. Why would he run an election in Podunk when he could easily make more in the corporate world or get gratification on the state or federal level?

Personally, I'd rather elect an honest fool in his field than a deceitful expert in his field. Deceitful fools in politics are deserving for an uncaring electorate.


Instead, what I see in our representative democracy is a bunch of quabbling bitches standing around and crowing about trivial matters when they should be progressing our country out of this shit we are presently mired in. For the most part, I think they all lack courage to some degree, (whether that be none or barely or moderately or entirely is based on an individual basis naturally) HOWEVER, the more they say they have courage, the less I am inclined to believe they have any, nor would I be inclined to believe they even know what that word truly means.

The deeply rooted flaw in all of this is taking a top down approach because of the failures of the idiots running the bottom. Well, we're all idiots in different talents. The failure is collectively ours.

Those quabbling bitches are the best at what they do. They can be considered experts. We are allowing them to run the show because we don't know any better. Why the fuck would I think Sheila Jackson is qualified to know about Commerce or question banks? Because I appointed her as a politician, and she has the authority to figure it out. I never knew about her authority.

Well if we ran an aristocracy, we'll likely have Sheila Jacksons around or maybe Einstein running the Fed cuz he's so brainy. But when shit happens, I can't go along with good conscience and blame the kings or plutocrats for their shit logic or their base ignorance. At that point, it'd best be wise not to even bring it up.

Maybe the heart of the matter is deflecting blame for the fuckups of our society and government.



Also, I'd love to hear the reasons people would come up with to oppose this measure - to defend the right of someone who does not know the most important principles of our country or the most basic facts about the world to have a say in its future.

Mouth breathers get crib notes from chain email letters along with the helpful reminder that Obama will steal something you least expect.

Who writes those chain letters....who reads and trusts them...

[Stax]

Honestly, is basic -as in junior high level - grasp of politics really more arbitrary than age as a criterion?

Because age is an absolute. You are right, I didn't put that properly. Obviously there are limitations on voting in terms of age, citizenship, and possibly criminal record.

Maybe this is another US bias of mine, but we have a bad history when it comes to adminstering tests to test your "right" to vote, as the only time we ever imposed such a test was to keep the black man down for another hundred years or so.

Really the problem I have is that things like age and citizenship have clear impacts on your voting that the law needs to understand. A 'voting test' will be far more arbitrary. Why can you say that you NEED to know the names of the 3 branches of US government to say who should be elected to Congress? Obviously it makes sense to know that, but why is it a necessity?

[Archetype]

Really the problem I have is that things like age and citizenship have clear impacts on your voting that the law needs to understand. A 'voting test' will be far more arbitrary. Why can you say that you NEED to know the names of the 3 branches of US government to say who should be elected to Congress? Obviously it makes sense to know that, but why is it a necessity?
Because if you don't know how your government works in the broadest of senses, you really don't know what you're voting for.

[Archangel]

What he said.


Also, what about people with criminal records, who in some states cannot vote? How is that not arbitrary?

[vasili denisov]

I don't dislike the representative democracy I live in, but I think it could be far more efficient and by extension would have far less idiots telling me (and you all) what to do.

Do you like being told what to do by idiots? If your answer is something similar to "no", then why do you enjoy your [insert government style here]?
Let's take the population (P) and divide it into the groups, the rulers (R) and the ruled (R'), so obviously, P = R U R'. Let's then argue that there are discrete constructions of accumulated data, denoted A. For these purposes, we'll avoid any constructions that are opportunistic, made solely for the self-profit of elements of R, or just ludicrously stupid, that are dismissed immediately. So, we are left with discrete constructions A1, A2, etc. each either containing elements not in the other construction, or placing greater emphasis on elements than those emphasized in other constructions. These are different perceptions that good men can disagree on; despite the different elements, none is necessarily wrong.

After this, we can argue for each Ax, there is a set of proposed solutions, which we can label B1, B2, etc. Again, none is opportunistic; the open question of which works better than the others depends on long-term hypotheses that may or may not be valid.

In a democracy, though a group of An constructions may be proposed with respective Bn solutions; however, from the R' group may be proposed additional constructions and solutions; should our population be especially educated, we can expect an even larger number of additional constructions with respective potential solutions. It should be noted in oligarchies, aristocracies, and tyrannies, such a flow is not possible; if it is allowed it immediately draws into question, why does R rule indefinitely over R', if the solutions of the ruled are superior to those of the rulers? So, there is that advantage.

A caveat might be raised that the R' group in a democracy chooses solutions from the B pool that provide the best short-term benefits without looking at the long-term risks and liabilities; that the R also do so for reasons of re-election. However, the ruled have sufficient education to understand the importance of these long-term costs and liabilities, though they ignore them in a democracy. This, however, is equally an argument that a population sufficiently educated will understand these long-term costs and liabilities, and weigh more carefully these and the short-term benefits.

In another category, there are also solutions from the B pool that promise long-term hypothetical benefits and short-term costs; in a democracy, the R' will at some point demand that these benefits be tangible, not hypothetical. This is considered a disadvantage; yet in a system where power is static with R, they may continue on with a failed policy, always assuming long-term benefits are around the corner, as they are not accountable to R'. On balance, the democracy has the advantage in responses, and in ability to construct new organizations of data.

Finally, we can look at two recent failures as examples of what goes wrong when power is centered among too small a number: the Iraq war and the mortgage security collapse. In the case of Iraq, the number of An (pessimistic hypotheses about the weapons program) were restricted due to the opaqueness of a the Iraq regime, but as well with the supposedly most damning information kept secret, for reasons of security. When more information was available, the additional A (more sanguine hypotheses) were superior to the previous A.

Similarly, the A available with regard to the economic collapse were limited to a small number due to the esoteric quality of the financial instruments used, the level of mathematics necessary, and the knowledge necessary to navigate such things. Thus, the A that gained prominence (the system currently provides great benefits, and the risk is very, very low) was in fact, not the A that turned out to be true (the system does provide benefits, but the perceived low risk is artificial, and when it does come due, the result will be catastrophe). The accompanying B solutions, for similar reasons of the obscurity of the field and the knowledge necessary, is very low. Again, this is not a case of a smaller R, which would result in the same low number of A and B. Instead, it is for a more widely educated R'.

[Archangel]

You lost me at (P).

[vasili denisov]

You lost me at (P).
Yeah, I actually use horrible notation there. I use set notation (capital letters), then stay with capital letters when denoting things that are not sets. I should be speaking of possible constructions of data as a1,a2,...etc., constituting a set A of such possible constructions, and respective hypothetical solutions for a1 to be b11, b12, b13..., then for a2 to be b21, b22,...etc, the total constituting a set B of all known hypothetical solutions.

[Archangel]

Now you lost me at "horrible".


This isn't working out, man.

[Stax]

What he said.


Also, what about people with criminal records, who in some states cannot vote? How is that not arbitrary?

That's more about punishment than it is about the spreading of democracy.

Because if you don't know how your government works in the broadest of senses, you really don't know what you're voting for.

Really though, beyond the laughable nature of it, why would your vote be 'worse' if you didn't know how many people sat on the Supreme Court for example?

[Archangel]

Because ignorant people are more easily swayed by demagogues and fear-mongers. Look at the average Bush/Cheney supporter, for one.

[freegood]

Well even with more educated members, there's still the issue where politicians introduce social policy that are popular despite the lack of any short or long term gain. Nazi Germany wasn't supported by retards and illiterates.

[Archangel]

The "AP" in "NSDAP" stood for "workers' party"...

[Stax]

Because ignorant people are more easily swayed by demagogues and fear-mongers. Look at the average Bush/Cheney supporter, for one.

Go to an art gallery opening, filled with people from wealthy backgrounds and college educations who will tell you some piece of canvas with a series of slightly different shades of red squares draw on it is worth millions. "Intelligence" doesn't mean you can't be swayed by stupid ideas.

Ignorant people have as much a right as any to take part in deciding the government that will affect their lives.

[Archangel]

Go to an art gallery opening, filled with people from wealthy backgrounds and college educations who will tell you some piece of canvas with a series of slightly different shades of red squares draw on it is worth millions.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of most modern art, either, but that comparison was beyond ridiculous.

"Intelligence" doesn't mean you can't be swayed by stupid ideas.


I'm not denying that (communism is the #1 example here); however, I don't see many history professors talking about how "that thar n****r O-bama is a doggone terr'st, it's right thar in his name".


Ignorant people have as much a right as any to take part in deciding the government that will affect their lives.

Why?

[redsox39]

I'm not denying that (communism is the #1 example here); however, I don't see many history professors talking about how "that thar n****r O-bama is a doggone terr'st, it's right thar in his name".




I don't see a lot of history professors talking about how "they ain't gonna havfta worry about paying the mortgage and putting gas in the car nows that a black mans is in charge" either.

[Archangel]

I don't see a lot of history professors talking about how "they ain't gonna havfta worry about paying the mortgage and putting gas in the car nows that a black mans is in charge" either.

Obviously, but that went without saying. But since that belief didn't cause as much suffering as "we need to get them Al-Caddy types hidin' in I-rahk", I'll let that slide for now.

[Archangel]

Anyway, this whole discussion is a bit tangential to the OP's topic; also, we've talked about this already in Insomniac's great thread (http://archive.gorillamask.net/showthread.php?t=50069).

[Insomniac]

For all of this talk about "those stupid people," I do find it kind of funny almost none of us can follow vasili's mathematical notations, regardless of how poor a choice they were.

In a world where only qualified people are allowed to make decisions, I have a feeling I'd be left out, too.

[Archangel]

If we set the bar at vasili's level, about 37 people in North America would be allowed to vote.

[Mustard]

...and I'm two of them.

[Stax]

I'm not denying that (communism is the #1 example here); however, I don't see many history professors talking about how "that thar n****r O-bama is a doggone terr'st, it's right thar in his name".

Using nicer language doesn't make it any less silly.

Why?

Because a democracy is a government of and for all people. You need a pretty hefty reason to DENY someone the right to vote, not to give it to them.

[Archangel]

You can deny them that right for having nicked a pair of sunglasses or sold some weed, but not for being drooling morons?

[Stax]

You can deny them that right for having nicked a pair of sunglasses or sold some weed, but not for being drooling morons?

Does petty theft rise to the level of felony where you lose your vote? I honestly don't know. As for drugs, our drug policy has been ass-backwards for a while, so yeah.

[Pax Britannia]

Do you like being told what to do by idiots? If your answer is something similar to "no", then why do you enjoy your [insert government style here]?

If the British public elect another Labour government i'm leaving the country. And thats not the usual idle threat from someone who has opposing views to the ruling government, I have family in NZ and will move.

[Mustard]

Damn it all, this is what the whole point of this thread, more or less. --> Our representative democracy works pretty well given the circumstances, but the government would work much better if it weren't voted upon and comprised of, oh let's spit-ball and say at least 25% of the population. At least that is my opinion.

Now, doesn't that sound exclusive? It should, voting has always been exclusive, but in a true democracy, the privilidge to vote of course is granted to all who are within a certain age... but wait, that's exclusive as well. See the quandry here? So if we're gonna have a government "of, by, and for the people", then barring people for any reason the already established government chooses seems to be a bit... well, not right. Which is a problem, not to mention the initial premise that a good quarter of the population probably (and in some cases, literally) doesn't know its ass from a voting booth.

With that said, I guess its worked out pretty well so far, given all of the circumstances. However, that doesn't mean it can't improve. The structure is far from perfect, everybody knows this. I want it to improve, everybody should, right? As far as I'm concerned, one good start is by being more exclusive with regards to voting rights. I'm pretty sure Arch touched on this issue on Page 1, and I've got to say that adding the stipulation that "you must be this informed/intelligent to vote" is a good idea. Nothing too difficult, like asking what the quadratic equation is, and what the golden ratio is out to 15 decimals, but questions that people who apply for citizenship get asked seems fair. The idea that they have to study our history and pass a test to get citizenship is a fair proposition, the same should be administered to those who wish to vote. If anything, this will force people to become more informed about important subjects, and it stands to reason that this will also serve to exclude idiocy and ignorance from our representative democracy, which is what I want the most of all.

That is unless you want idiocy and ignorance to play a role in the government...

[Archangel]

If the British public elect another Labour government i'm leaving the country. And thats not the usual idle threat from someone who has opposing views to the ruling government, I have family in NZ and will move.

Great, you'd move from fucking sheep... to fucking more sheep.

[Pax Britannia]

There are no coincidences....

[Archangel]

Ah, so lemme guess, your uncle there is a sheep farmer?

[Pax Britannia]

You are just jealous that Britain got the Lebensraum Germany so sorely craved.

[Archetype]

Go to an art gallery opening, filled with people from wealthy backgrounds and college educations who will tell you some piece of canvas with a series of slightly different shades of red squares draw on it is worth millions. "Intelligence" doesn't mean you can't be swayed by stupid ideas. Um, fuck you. You don't go to an art gallery once in a hypothetical and get to criticize everything art has done in the past 150 years. Art has always been a symbol of status, and as long as it is, the more renowned and effective the art is, the higher it will go for. Why a specific piece will go for higher depends on the context of the gallery, the art world, and a hell of a lot more than can be absorbed from listening to a few rich guys talking about it in a gallery. I'm not gonna defend the piece you're talking about, because I don't know it or if it exists, but you're really not helping the case for ignorance here.




Ignorant people have as much a right as any to take part in deciding the government that will affect their lives.
Rights come with responsibilities.

Using nicer language doesn't make it any less silly.

Because of a lack of information solidifying the point of view as reasonable, not because it's somehow just an inherent silliness.

[Stax]

Um, fuck you. You don't go to an art gallery once in a hypothetical and get to criticize everything art has done in the past 150 years. Art has always been a symbol of status, and as long as it is, the more renowned and effective the art is, the higher it will go for. Why a specific piece will go for higher depends on the context of the gallery, the art world, and a hell of a lot more than can be absorbed from listening to a few rich guys talking about it in a gallery. You're really not helping the case for ignorance here.

If you want to defend some of the garbage that is built up as "art" within a community, feel free, but at some level things are only expensive because people who go to those things are willing to pay the money so they can go to one another's houses and go "Oh is that a so-and-so?"

[Archangel]

Can of worms alert.


By the way, I love that Philo, PnC and News have been so busy lately.

[Archetype]

If you want to defend some of the garbage that is built up as "art" within a community, feel free, but at some level things are only expensive because people who go to those things are willing to pay the money so they can go to one another's houses and go "Oh is that a so-and-so?"
Art is not a qualifier, it's a language of communication. There's bad art like there is bad English, but the individual doesn't get to claim what is and isn't art, nor does the community. I'm not gonna defend anything, because you've just made broad claims that I really can't take seriously.

And no, people don't pay for the art for that purpose anymore, because the days of an artist being able to take an artwork that had nothing to do with them, sign it, and sell it as their own, are gone. Jeff Koons is a relic from a dead age, where the artist is a noble creature. Bienniales have overtaken the grand Solo Exhibition. All new artists have to carry humility or they're art won't be given any sort of respect. "Look" went to "Look at Me" in the past, but has now returned to "Look" with a greater degree of understanding. It's not so much "Look" as it is "Consume and Digest."

I might hate PoMo, but it was completely necessary. The limitations of Modernism had to be criticized and attacked; deconstructed, so that something more complex could birth from it. I really can't say anything more until you give me something to run with, til then, your criticisms of art just look like ignorant babble.

[hatepoppy]

The ideal state operates like an ideal business, giving you what you need, at a decent price, without any crap. We need to have a free market approach to government (like democracy, only with a more consumer based approach)

are you familiar with the greek (typically meaning athenian) model of democracy? It was almost exactly as you describe.

as i understand, selection by lot was decided upon because elective democracies devolve quickly into oligarchies. Those popular and well known enough to garner majority votes are only those rich, visible, and charismatic few in the elite. The original criticism of elective democraxy came from its designers - it is a device by which the ruling elite can claim to defer to the populace while holding all the power behind closed doors. Sound familiar?

this election is a reminder of exactly this. By distinctly polarizing the populace between two diametrically opposed parties, they build a scapegoat into the system.

say, anyone want to make a shitload of money? lets go to war! who <i>gives</i> a shit what the sheeple say. 50% of them wont give a shit, 10% will buy the lies so thoroughly theyll rally 39% to our cause. sure 1% might be suspicious, might ask questions. but there are so few who actually think critically and deductively that we can paint them as crazy or terrorists, and since our word is truth (or just like, <i>whatever</>) everyone will believe us (or not give a shit). noone will follow the crazy antiamerican terrorists. and if in the end the people do get all riled up, theyll be too close to the next election to revolt, as 'he'll be out next year anyway.' at which point we pull out our next puppet for "volume 2: change!"

They can do whatever they want, and if the people are unhappy about it, they flip over to the cool side of the pillow.

this was the flaw inherent in elective democracy that led the greeks to select representatives by lot. but athenian democracy was far from perfect.

Socrates was tried and executed by the athenians in this system of government for corrupting the minds of children with his philosophy and theology. the story goes Plato (an opponent of athenian democracy) compared this trial to 'a doctor prosecuted by a pastry chef before a jury of children.'

fwiw

[Archetype]

The Republic explained it better.

[hatepoppy]

chevy nova?

what the hell is a free market government? rule by the highest bidder? if so, that's what we've got right now. is the US govt ideal?

youll never have a true democracy in a capitalist society. fuck, i'd be surprised to ever see a true democracy.

the concept of ideality is inextricably tied to perspective. your ideal business describes what one consumer might feel. however, as it is tremendously concise and to the point of business, it is not ideal for a business owner. for the proprietor its all about the dough.

go into walmart and tell me you get what you need, at a decent price, without any crap.

you might get what you need, at a decent price. but itll be at reduced quality (i.e. cheap - again ideal for the owner and not consumer) and surrounded by so much shit that youre either going to spend way more money than you initially intended or be so aggravated by the fact that you have to wade through three circles of fat white nascar hell for a plastic garbage bin that youd've rather paid more for a more easily obtained similar (though more pricey) product.

so for consumers, walmart is fist-fucking you with a smile on its face. unless you are a fat white nascar fan that likes spending their weekend shooping for low priced, low quality goods (at which point, it might be ideal for you - perspective, right?).

i guess my point is, who is walmart ideal for? sam walton or frank mcnormalfucker?


by the same logic, from whose perspective are we considering the ideal relationship between man and state? and by what metric are we deciding ideality?

the US likes to fashion itself as as close to ideal as it gets in this shitfuck of a planet, based on it's alleged free will, market, and democracy. until i was old enough to realize forming your own opinions was better than accepting your parents' as truth (maybe 10), i felt like i was in the best country in the world, no fucking doubt. love it or leave it. total blind blue-collar patriotism.

any more, i feel as though that feeling about the US i had was a product of the ignorance of the impoverished quasi-working class fuckers i grew up around. like religion, patriotism is a means by which frank mcnormalfucker feels as though he's part of teh in-crowd. everyone needs some reason to feel self-righteous.

bottom line? the ideal relation between man and state is fictional. eliminating all corruption, social segregation and wealth gaps is a pipe dream, regardless of your form of government.

all practical (i.e. realistically implementable) forms of government are corrupt. we will all be slaves, always, albeit outside the knowledge of the masses. what was it wolfgang von goethe said? 'the most hopelessly enslaved are those who falsely believe they are free.'

by acknowledging any form of government as ideal, you are committing yourself to the wheel. not that you have a choice.

http://i33.tinypic.com/dqgplk.gif

[Okie Medicvet]

All I have to contribute is the old saw by Churchill about democracy being the worst form of govt. there is...except for all the others.

[Archetype]

For all of this talk about "those stupid people," I do find it kind of funny almost none of us can follow vasili's mathematical notations, regardless of how poor a choice they were.

In a world where only qualified people are allowed to make decisions, I have a feeling I'd be left out, too.
I think it's just a language we aren't used to. Seems kind of a strange way to explain accountability (I think).

[Stax]

I might hate PoMo, but it was completely necessary. The limitations of Modernism had to be criticized and attacked; deconstructed, so that something more complex could birth from it. I really can't say anything more until you give me something to run with, til then, your criticisms of art just look like ignorant babble.

It was not a criticism of art. It was a criticism of Arch's universal theme, that the intelligentsia are somehow 'better'. In this thread it's some idea that the "intelligent" as would be defined by some arbitrary civics test would have some mystic quality that separate them from the unwashed masses.

[Archetype]

It was not a criticism of art.

Yes, it was. It may not have been the point, but that makes it worse, not better. You used it as an hypothetical example to define a point where the intelligentsia can follow idiotic ideas, when in reality it's form was ignorant to the subject of the example.

It was a criticism of Arch's universal theme, that the intelligentsia are somehow 'better'. In this thread it's some idea that the "intelligent" as would be defined by some arbitrary civics test would have some mystic quality that separate them from the unwashed masses.
Mystic? What's mystical about being informed?

[Archangel]

It was not a criticism of art. It was a criticism of Arch's universal theme, that the intelligentsia are somehow 'better'. In this thread it's some idea that the "intelligent" as would be defined by some arbitrary civics test would have some mystic quality that separate them from the unwashed masses.

My arse it wasn't. You implied that people go to art galleries buy expensive crap because it's trendy.

Maybe pointing out that stuff at galleries is usually crap and art appreciation is nothing but silly aping of others' opinions wasn't your main point. Doesn't mean you didn't make it. Our good friend Roberto Ciaccio - shameless name dropping here - is best noted for painting squares (not that he can't do anything but - we have several nudes he drew, and they're amazing), so that makes him some hack and people buy his shit because they're told to or want to brag.

I respectfully disagree.

Stick to baseball.

[Mustard]

Stick to baseball... HA, I get the pun!

[satandole666]

I understand the argument against letting "idiots" vote but I don't think it is the primary issue.

I can't speak with absolute authority (I'm not 100 years old), but it seems that in some previous generations (namely WW2 era and earlier) there was more value placed in using your power effectively than there was in retaining your power. In other words, politicians today are more concerned with re-election than they were previously...almost like it is their #1 priority above all others.

This leads to very short-sighted lawmaking. If you can manage to pull something off in your first term (or not fuck up too bad) you stand better chance of re-election. The easiest way to do this is to pander to idiots on both sides of the spectrum.

Meanwhile, important issues like our ridiculous National debt go unmentioned since any actual solution to the problem (increased taxes, lowered spending, or a combination of both) will be massively unpopular.

The flaw is in the system, not in the people. The current incentives in place lean towards politicians just trying to get re-elected. There are no measures to judge the quality of work and no one is holding their feet to the fire. In addition, we don't have any hindsight on most far reaching plans (say, the current spending spree) until those who made it are out of office.

Find a system to make politicians worry less about getting re-elected and worry more about the effect of their decisions in 10-20 years.

It might be a stupid suggestion, but why not remove the ability to serve consecutive terms in any elected position at the Federal level? Sure, the President can have 2 terms still, but someone else has to be between them. Same goes for Senators and Representatives. At least a first term President would not waste 9 months of 4 years running for re-election. It might slow-down the pace of some lawmaking, but I haven't been a fan of anything that has come out of Washington in quite a few years so maybe that is not a bad thing.

[freegood]

Meanwhile, important issues like our ridiculous National debt go unmentioned since any actual solution to the problem (increased taxes, lowered spending, or a combination of both) will be massively unpopular.

The flaw is in the system, not in the people. The current incentives in place lean towards politicians just trying to get re-elected. There are no measures to judge the quality of work and no one is holding their feet to the fire. In addition, we don't have any hindsight on most far reaching plans (say, the current spending spree) until those who made it are out of office.

That's an interesting point. Should the government have forced consumers to spend less and borrow within their means to prevent bankruptcies of the average idiot?

Then again, Paulson, Geithner, or Robert Rubin aren't exactly rubes in their own right. Fed Chairman Bernanke is a Stanford tenured professor who's among the best authorities of the Great Depression. They may be misguided, but they are experts defined in the OP.

We're supposed to trust them by virtue of their expertise, no? Or should the Fed and Treasury positions be opened up to popular vote?


I guess it would be a great thing to make recycling mandatory, birth control compulsory, and personal diets regimented. Experts know what they're doing, and what's better for us even more than we do ourselves.

[Septic_Porpoise]

That's an interesting point. Should the government have forced consumers to spend less and borrow within their means to prevent bankruptcies of the average idiot?

Then again, Paulson, Geithner, or Robert Rubin aren't exactly rubes in their own right. Fed Chairman Bernanke is a Stanford tenured professor who's among the best authorities of the Great Depression. They may be misguided, but they are experts defined in the OP.

We're supposed to trust them by virtue of their expertise, no? Or should the Fed and Treasury positions be opened up to popular vote?


I guess it would be a great thing to make recycling mandatory, birth control compulsory, and personal diets regimented. Experts know what they're doing, and what's better for us even more than we do ourselves.

that's the crutch right there. expert advice is only good up until the point that it tells you to do something that you don't want to.

[satandole666]

Or something that is in their best interests and not in yours.

[Bullfrog]

The Churchill quote was the most apropos thing said so far.

I absolutely DESPISE our government... I just don't know what to do about it! I DO disagree with the Supreme Court about lobbyists. The problem is that lobbying is a First Amendment right that applies to individuals, as well as anyone else. Corporations, counting as "entities" of a non-living sort (yet certainly representing the interest(s) of stockholder(s) ranging from one to possibly many thousands). And by extension, when they hire a lobbyist to speak on their behalf or work as an "expert" in a certain field to present information to Congress and try to represent their interests, the case was convincingly made to the SC that they were within their First Amendment rights to do so. All Congress could do was to limit the amount of campaign contributions each member could receive in each election cycle -- which, of course, they limited from EVERYONE, both individuals and corporations... Of course the "big boys" kept finding loopholes, which they still have.

It's gotten to the point that it's ridiculous. At last summer's political conventions, the rules were that no food could be served on plates or that used utensils, and that there couldn't be any sit-down meals... So all big, STILL VERY SWANK and PRIVATE events (no news media allowed) were held in big ballrooms with finger foods all impaled on toothpicks and totally devoid of chairs... Everyone was standing around still eating expensive shrimp and "finger foods," and drinking all kinds of cocktails... They just couldn't SIT DOWN while doing it.

These "contribution limits" have been lowered through the years (I think it's down to $2,500 during the primary season and $2,500 during general election season, now). But there are ways around them... Back in the late-80s I read a book called "Stealth Pacs..." I can't recall the rest of the title right now. This particular book detailed how the various Israeli lobbies attempted to get more preferential treatment for Israel through the use of various "Stealth PACs" (Political Action Committees). They'd have a dozen or more different organizations... many with NAMES that looked like they had NOTHING to do with Israel or any Jewish cause whatsoever, but had DIRECT ties back to either Israel or major sponsors of Israeli causes, and some members of Congress (who at the time could receive, I think, $10,000 per election year from a PAC), were receiving as much as $200,000 per election year from up to 20 different PACs. The book had names of House and Senate members with records of which PACs paid what, and details of the EXACT affiliations of each PAC.

This is NOT an a sidetrack on the debate over Israel, just an example I have in a book around here somewhere... The American Chemical companies, the pharmaceutical companies, and MANY other big industries have multiple lobbyists disguised in various different guises doing the same sorts of things, so each can have multiple chances to influence every member of Congress... It's well-known; You can find documentation and occasionally some show like "60 Minutes" will do an episode about it. But nothing ever happens about it... So far as I can tell, there's nothing that currently CAN be done about it... It's the same sort of thing that helped the tobacco industry keep out of trouble as long as IT did -- until it finally lost the big court case and all the cards just came tumbling down.

As for the "voting intelligence" test, it sure wouldn't bother me. Frankly, I think anyone who votes SHOULD know at least a little bit about our nation, history and government.

A citizenship knowledge test isn't arbitrary. If you ask me, the age requirement is the most arbitrary thing there is... I've known a few 12-year-olds, several who were 14 and a good number between that age and 18 who seemed mature enough, wise enough, educated enough and interested enough in our society to vote. And I know plenty of people in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s and beyond who don't act like they EVER should have been allowed to vote... or drive... or in many cases allowed to roam free in society at all! :eek:

Here's a sample test for ya:

Who was our first President?

What city is America's Captial in?

What President is Washington State named after?

How many animals of each kind did Moses take on the ark? :p

Is President Obama a Sunni or Shiite Muslim? ;)

No matter HOW they answer the first four, if they give any answer other than NEITHER to the last one, we put them on the FBI's terrorist watch list :D (along with the dumb redneck/crazy Christian conservative list).

Another point, to me, seems to be that there is a difference between intelligence/education and WISDOM. Wisdom comes more from the heart than from the head. I think you can be of even less than average intelligence and still be quite wise... And I've seen people who are VERY smart and show little to no wisdom...

And the poster with the funny name (Vellis???) proves part of WHY we can't just rely on "experts" to run everything... For one thing, a lot of highly educated intellectual types don't know how to communicate their ideas in any manner other than all this technical jargon that even most of the people in their own field can't follow without breaking it down and reading it three times, although most experts these days seem to do a better job of making things more "accessible" to the masses. Still, in many fields if you assemble a group of experts you still may not get a consensus, just a bunch of "arguing eggheads."

I do agree these "professional politicians" have helped contribute to the corruption of government as much as anything, and I think term limits are a great idea. My personal idea is a single, 6-year term for everyone, President included, with the terms in both the Senate and the House staggered like they currently are in the Senate so you don't have an entire "Freshman Class" every six years, with nobody knowing what they're doing -- at least 2/3 of the House and Senate would always have at least 2 or 4 years experience... The original idea for our Congress was "citizen statesmen," people who would leave their farms or law practices for a few years to help run the country and do their civic duty, then go back to their "regular" profession. This is DEFINITELY NOT what we have. As to whether someone could run for the position again after a certain period of time, I guess we could leave that as a possibility, but I would prefer that we didn't, as I think it could still allow for a sort of "revolving political door."

This business of 30... 40... 50 years in the same House or Senate seat! Ridiculous! It's political dynasty! It's why we end up with massive federal projects in places other than where common sense says they SHOULD be -- perhaps the BEST example of this is the HOUSTON Space Center, where they build and work on all the rockets and space shuttles and whatnot that then have to be transported 1,000 miles to Cape Canaveral for LAUNCH... Who was Vice President and the former President Pro Tem of the Senate when Kennedy started the Space Program? And where was he from? Johnson still had A LOT of clout in the Senate and plenty of friends and pull in the House, so our space program costs probably BILLION$ more than it should so politicians could keep their constituents happy (I could probably find 100 examples if I looked hard enough!

Well, I don't mean to write a book on my very first post in this thread... Most of you have made some valid points... Some of you just like to argue and call each other names, lol. For what it's worth, I never "got" why people paid so much for Jackson Pollock paintings that were big red rectangles with a yellow line around the outside ending in an arrow -- just because he was the FIRST one to do it??? Well YEAH... nobody ELSE ever thought somebody would pay $50,000 for something like that, lol... I'll never quite understand the art world, though, nor pretend to... I think some of them are geniouses -- many elitists snobs -- I have NO IDEA how to tell the one group from the other, though... I think the world of "high fashion" is even worse, though, lol.

At any rate, I personally know a good many intelligent, lucid people who have political opinions which I simply cannot fathom -- and they feel the same way about me... And neither of us, no matter how persuavive our arguments, can convince the other... Of course this is where democracy functions best: in compromise, and a big part of the reason only 20% of Americans (an all-time low) currently identify themselves as Republicans, as the Republican Party has increasingly become the party of NO COMPROMISE since the "religious wrong" took it over about 1980.

Politics is "the art of comprimise"... either that or, as some comedian pointed out (was it the late George Carlin?) a bunch of blood-sucking arachnids!
RIBBIT!

[Morfin]

For what it's worth, I never "got" why people paid so much for Jackson Pollock paintings that were big red rectangles with a yellow line around the outside ending in an arrow -- just because he was the FIRST one to do it??? Well YEAH... nobody ELSE ever thought somebody would pay $50,000 for something like that, lol... I'll never quite understand the art world, though, nor pretend to... I think some of them are geniouses -- many elitists snobs -- I have NO IDEA how to tell the one group from the other, though...


Putting aside absolutely everything else in your rambling post, you may want to refrain from any art-related comments if you believe that Jackson Pollack was known for "big red rectangles" or "yellow lines ending in an arrow."

[Archangel]

What. The. Fuck.

[Bullfrog]

Putting aside absolutely everything else in your rambling post, you may want to refrain from any art-related comments if you believe that Jackson Pollack was known for "big red rectangles" or "yellow lines ending in an arrow."

That's just the main example I saw in my college art book that I remember.

I've seen some modern art that just completely blows me away -- even the completely abstract stuff -- just the colors and textures and whatnot... I can just get lost in it... Then I see other stuff and I have to wonder if somebody didn't paint it in finger-painting class in kindergarten -- and often that's worth more than the stuff I like. I don't even TRY to figure it out.

And NO, I won't even TRY to post anything else about "painting" art, although I know a fair amount about several of the other arts.

Perhaps I DID ramble a bit because I spent half the night reading the thread and it was like 5 a.m. when I finally wrote... And I tried to address just about every point I'd read. You won't see any more posts that long.

Not. For. A. While.

[billy1980]

I think we forget that people were just as upset if not more about our countries polotics 100 years ago as they are now. Its just not in our faces. We all just need to get fission figured out so we have free energy and can all do wtf we want.

[Bullfrog]

Yeah, Billy.

People talk like there weren't political dynasties or political corruption or anything prior to -- I don't know -- 1950?

Where do they think the term "smoke-filled-room" came from? Tamany Hall? "Stump speeches," where the politician would stand on a big stump and yell and scream like an evangelist until he got the crowd into a full lather? At which point, like most evangelists, he could convince them of pretty much anything, if he was skilled enough and used the proper key words and phrases (still done today, just on TV, mostly).

We have FISSION pretty well figured out, Billy, it's what to do with the waste that's the problem... Perhaps you're thinking about controlled FUSION, which all of nuclear physics seems to still be working on... Except I wouldn't be surprised if most of the true "free energy solutions" have already been discovered by someone and either suppressed or bought up by the big oil and other power companies, to be totally withheld until they have no more oil or other non-nuclear energy left to expend... Not saying they have them, but it sure wouldn't surprise me.

As for our "representative democracy," there's a good bit of evidence that it doesn't really exist, either -- it's all just an illusion presented by the power brokers... No matter who we elect, they're all actually beholden to the business interests. Current affairs and events would seem to bear that out.
Bullfrog

[freegood]

I tend to like the freedoms granted from our "representative democracy".

Maybe I'm just grazing along, but some countries are doing far worse in that respect, while the others are comparably as free as the US.

[Bullfrog]

Oh I don't disagree with you one bit as to the freedoms we have, freegood. I just sometimes wonder if there's not a lot of "hat tricks" being performed to keep the masses alternately happy and stirred up on every issue but whatever is REALLY going on "with that man behind the curtain" (really ALL those folks behind the curtains).

Not that I'm a conspiracy theorist... more of a "conspiracy hypothesist," to be accurate, as I could be completely wrong in all these musings, but I increasingly suspect that there IS something to at least SOME of the apparent insanity spouted by some of the conspiracy theorists... That "star chambers" and Tri-Lateral commissions and so forth made up of people too powerful to be controlled by anyone and mostly beyond the reach of any government may be pulling the strings not just on a national, but on a GLOBAL level, making sure there's always just enough war there, peace here, etc. to serve their longterm goals. To such people, what happened late last year would NOT be a catastrophe but part of a long-term master plan.

I truly hope there ISN'T any such group of global puppetmasters pulling the strings... But the more I read, the more closely I watch the way the world really "works" and the more I watch the news, the more I come to understand why some of the conspiracy nuts may not be quite so NUTS after all.

If you want to see some really scary and true examples of such behavior, read Naomi Klein's book, "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism," which came out about this time last year. Last fall, about the time all the bailouts started, she was on "Real Time with Bill Maher" and predicted this would just be ONE MORE CHANCE and example and so far, I fear she's right, although I'm not sure what else our government could have done.
Ribbit

[freegood]

Groups, if they last long enough, take a life of their own.

How much is it a conspiracy if they're of similar mindset rather than of similar instruction?

It's really easy to trash our system, but how many people take the time to join politics, become active with their local political party, and become involved in decisions that affect their neighbors?

Sounds preachy. Truth sometimes is.

[Bullfrog]

While I don't belong to ANY of the political parties (because I've found ALL OF THEM, to date, too restrictive and bound to their particular dogmas), I AM rather politically active and vote every time there's any election -- even if it's just for something like Water Commissioner.

I've also appeared before our local County Council on an issue or two, and have written a number of editorials and letters to the editor about local political and social matters, as well as writing, calling and emailing my U.S. Congressman and Senators on behalf of a good number of causes I believe in through the years... All that probably puts me in the 99th percentile of the general electorate.

What I proposed above is just a very scary thought. There's a style of management in the business world known as "crisis management," in which the manager manipulates his workers by constantly playing them against one another and keeping them all in a "state of perpetual crisis" where they're all generally and usually so pent up with frustrations and anger towards each other (or him), that they do whatever it is he wants (even often if it's not in their own self-interest) just to spite whomever they're angry with, i.e., to PROVE they CAN do it.

I neither like nor approve of this style of management, but I'm pretty certain it was applied during almost the entire previous presidential administration. There are OTHER sneaky forms of management to achieve similar results, and I'm not saying Obama and his cronies are employing those, but it's always possible, as is a return to "crisis management.
Pahhhhhh-Rumph!

[freegood]

While I don't belong to ANY of the political parties (because I've found ALL OF THEM, to date, too restrictive and bound to their particular dogmas), I AM rather politically active and vote every time there's any election -- even if it's just for something like Water Commissioner.

I've also appeared before our local County Council on an issue or two, and have written a number of editorials and letters to the editor about local political and social matters, as well as writing, calling and emailing my U.S. Congressman and Senators on behalf of a good number of causes I believe in through the years... All that probably puts me in the 99th percentile of the general electorate.

You seem knowledgeable about politics, and it's apparent that you've read up on management.

Couldn't one say that you would be an ideal civil servant, and one that could be a cut above others in advancing your concerns?

[Bullfrog]

You seem knowledgeable about politics, and it's apparent that you've read up on management.

Couldn't one say that you would be an ideal civil servant, and one that could be a cut above others in advancing your concerns?

Perhaps, and I have a college degree, as well... and I'm a believer that some compromise is always necessary to achieve political consensus.

That said, I'm not enough of a "game player" or "political enough" or willing enough to lie to the people to be likely to get elected. When I was younger and more idealistic, I thought about elected office and dreamed of such aspirations. Then I woke up.

Besides, I can't see myself running as anything but an "independent," and independents just DON'T get elected where I live. I'd have to move to Vermont or somewhere, lol.
Croak-Ribbit-Jug-o-Rum!

[freegood]

There's generally a handful of positions where people who run run unopposed.

How's that for an ego booster?

[Das Kahlua]

While I don't belong to ANY of the political parties (because I've found ALL OF THEM, to date, too restrictive and bound to their particular dogmas), I AM rather politically active and vote every time there's any election -- even if it's just for something like Water Commissioner.

I've also appeared before our local County Council on an issue or two, and have written a number of editorials and letters to the editor about local political and social matters, as well as writing, calling and emailing my U.S. Congressman and Senators on behalf of a good number of causes I believe in through the years... All that probably puts me in the 99th percentile of the general electorate.

What I proposed above is just a very scary thought. There's a style of management in the business world known as "crisis management," in which the manager manipulates his workers by constantly playing them against one another and keeping them all in a "state of perpetual crisis" where they're all generally and usually so pent up with frustrations and anger towards each other (or him), that they do whatever it is he wants (even often if it's not in their own self-interest) just to spite whomever they're angry with, i.e., to PROVE they CAN do it.

I neither like nor approve of this style of management, but I'm pretty certain it was applied during almost the entire previous presidential administration. There are OTHER sneaky forms of management to achieve similar results, and I'm not saying Obama and his cronies are employing those, but it's always possible, as is a return to "crisis management.
Pahhhhhh-Rumph!

Random capitalization and bolding, yet everything is spelled correctly.

Taters dupe on a computer with spell-check?

[Don Scrappy]

I actually dislike democracy, but it is better than every other form of government.

[Das Kahlua]

I actually dislike democracy, but it is better than every other form of government.

Or so the people tell you.

[Don Scrappy]

Or so the people tell you.

well, ideally the best government would be a monarchy with me at the helm, but that probably won't happen.

[Bullfrog]

Random capitalization and bolding, yet everything is spelled correctly.

Taters dupe on a computer with spell-check?


I'm not sure what a "taters dupe" is, but I use the bolding and the occasionall all-caps both for emphasis (sometimes I just don't feel like bothering with the bolding, and so I hit the capslock key, instead -- old habit from days on a forum that didn't have bolding options).

As for spell check, I have that in a couple of programs, but NOT in my browser, so far as I know... I'm just a pretty good speller, and I tend to try to watch my spelling and try to catch any typos or misspellings. I still miss some, on occasion, but not many.
Flaring tympanic membranes :p