Democracy - does it work? (1 Viewer)

[flappinghippo]

... I'm not referring to an incumbent 'intelligentsia' but to transient classes of people that possess the relevant expertise. For example, scientific questions should be answered by scientists, economic by economists, medical by doctors, historical by historians, philosophical by philosophers etc. The fact is that the opinions of some people on some areas are worth more than the rest of the population.

Not all economists agree with each other, nor scientists (that's the definition of science btw; to doubt), nor doctors blach blah blah.

It's up to us which one to listen to, which ones not to, or whether to do so at all. This might spell disaster to you but so far we're still here. And oh yeah a million people died of starvation last decade in North Korea. How much Dear Leader cried.

You don't need to have an opinion on everything. You just vote who you think would do a good job at juggling the ones you care about.

 

[_dhj_]

I always love this thought that the people who voted for the government are missinformed and are idiots, but the only people who hold this opinion are the people who ote for the opposition.

Also I dont like the current government in power. I reckon they are not very good, but not everyone agrees with me. So does that mean screw the majourity because I THINK I am right?

I don't think it's a question of whether the government or the opposition as a whole is correct. The question arises in considering the specific issues of policy raised as differentiating the government from the opposition. The actual system does not have to change. But it can be improved by a change in the culture to encourage ordinary people to respect the opinions of experts on specific issues. That way, the parties needn't rely as much on appealing to the 'lowest common denominator' when devising policy.

 

[flappinghippo]

I'm just going to leave everything up to flamming hippo. He seems to have more effort then me to get through to you guys

NO! We have to fight the Reds under the beds together

 

[iamsickofyear12]

No to me that sounds like royalty being placed in charge and deciding what happens.

It would be the 10% most intelligent people as determined by a test on relevant political, economic, social issues etc... how is that royalty?

if we'd be fucked in a month, then what does that say about our education system?

1 - The education system cannot be expected to provide people with the ability to reasonable assess and vote on all the potential issues.

2 - Teaching someone something doesn't necessarily mean they learn and understand it. Some people are just less intelligent than others.

3 - You can't teach common sense.

4 - The majority of people are too stupid/lazy/uninterested to keep up with days news let alone important political issues.

 

[Gilbert1]

I don't think it's a question of whether the government or the opposition as a whole is correct. The question arises in considering the specific issues of policy raised as differentiating the government from the opposition. The actual system does not have to change. But it can be improved by a change in the culture to encourage ordinary people to respect the opinions of experts on specific issues. That way, the parties needn't rely as much on appealing to the 'lowest common denominator' when devising policy.

That is one thing I agree with. Althought that would be an extremely hard thing to do.

 

[flappinghippo]

I don't think it's a question of whether the government or the opposition as a whole is correct. The question arises in considering the specific issues of policy raised as differentiating the government from the opposition. The actual system does not have to change. But it can be improved by a change in the culture to encourage ordinary people to respect the opinions of experts on specific issues. That way, the parties needn't rely as much on appealing to the 'lowest common denominator' when devising policy.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Gold star for you

 

[Gilbert1]

It would be the 10% most intelligent people as determined by a test on relevant political, economic, social issues etc... how is that royalty?

Because it is a test of people who consider themselves above the rest of the people, making a test of people who consider themselves better then everyone else, deciding how there country should be run. The same way a king or queen would dictate how to run a country

 

[iamsickofyear12]

Because it is a test of people who consider themselves above the rest of the people, making a test of people who consider themselves better then everyone else, deciding how there country should be run. The same way a king or queen would dictate how to run a country

It is not a test of people who consider themselves better. It is a test of everyone who wants to take it and the people who get the best results (i.e. the people who are proven to be better) get to vote.

10% of 20 million is not even close to being the same as a single dictator.

 

[Gilbert1]

It is not a test of people who consider themselves better. It is a test of everyone who wants to take it and the people who get the best results (i.e. the people who are proven to be better) get to vote.

10% of 20 million is not even close to being the same as a single dictator.

In your opinion. we should have a vote on weather it is a good idea, and if you loose you can bitch about how the people who voted are morons because they didnt agree with you.

Also we are up to over 21million people now. That happened about 3weeks ago. If you kept up with current affairs you would have known that

 

[iamsickofyear12]

In your opinion. we should have a vote on weather it is a good idea, and if you loose you can bitch about how the people who voted are morons because they didnt agree with you.

Also we are up to over 21million people now. That happened about 3weeks ago. If you kept up with current affairs you would have known that

I never said we should vote on whether it was a good idea.

I know that we are over 21 million but 20 is a nice even number so I used it instead.

 

[Gilbert1]

I never said we should vote on whether it was a good idea.

No I suggested we should have a vote. That is why I used a full stop to indicate the ending of my previous sentence.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

No I suggested we should have a vote. That is why I used a full stop to indicate the ending of my previous sentence.

Sorry my bad.

we should have a vote on weather it is a good idea, and if you loose you can bitch about how the people who voted are morons because they didnt agree with you.

My whole argument is that everyone shouldn't get a vote. How do you get from there to 'we should have a vote'. Of course I would lose because the majority of people are stupid and want to continue to be able to vote.

 

[Gilbert1]

Sorry my bad.



My whole argument is that everyone shouldn't get a vote. How do you get from there to 'we should have a vote'. Of course I would lose because the majority of people are stupid and want to continue to be able to vote.

It was a joke desinged to piss you off. Moron.

Your opinion is that the huge majority of people or complete idiots who must have studied for 12yrs before they could wipe there own ass.

My opinion is that you are a bigot. It seems if people don't agree with you they must be wrong because if they were to vote with you say what was correct then the majority of people wouldn't be idiots. Is that about correct?

 

[iamsickofyear12]

Your opinion is that the huge majority of people or complete idiots who must have studied for 12yrs before they could wipe there own ass.

My opinion is that you are a bigot. It seems if people don't agree with you they must be wrong because if they were to vote with you say what was correct then the majority of people wouldn't be idiots. Is that about correct?

The majority of people are complete idiots. It's not my opinion it's a fact whether you want to believe me or not.
It's not about education it's about intelligence. You can try and teach people all you like but if they lack the ability to understand and comprehend what they are being taught and have no common sense they will continue to be stupid.

It's not about my opinion at all. The majority of people are morons and the same majority just happen to disagree with me on a lot of things.

....and now I am going to sleep because I need to get up before 5am.

 

[Gilbert1]

stop saying it isa fact. Back up your claims, and I may start believing you, and I want yo to show how 90% of the country are morons

 

[PrinceHarry]

In my opinion, only rich and educated people should be allowed to vote, as it was in the past in England which made Britain the undisputed military and economic superpower for over 200 years. Only after franchise was extended to the uneducated masses that we have idiots rule the country such as Labour party in the UK and labor party in Australia.

 

[Iron]

The question arises in considering the specific issues of policy raised as differentiating the government from the opposition. The actual system does not have to change. But it can be improved by a change in the culture to encourage ordinary people to respect the opinions of experts on specific issues. That way, the parties needn't rely as much on appealing to the 'lowest common denominator' when devising policy.

That's assuming that experts are right and have a better feel for the interests of the people as a whole. I reget this with indignation and slag.

Public policy always involves contention and the need for balance. A political leader requiring a popular mandate achieves a better balance between what the public subjectively wants and what the solution objectively demands. THe leader hears the experts, and we expect them to, but we also expect them to hear us and our demand for stability, freedom and prosperity.

Through the media, we can judge which side of politics made the better case for their policy. This is bliss, bliss and heaven. Oh, gorgeousness and gorgeosity made flesh.

 

[_dhj_]

That's assuming that experts are right and have a better feel for the interests of the people as a whole. I reget this with indignation and slag.

Public policy always involves contention and the need for balance. A political leader requiring a popular mandate achieves a better balance between what the public subjectively wants and what the solution objectively demands. THe leader hears the experts, and we expect them to, but we also expect them to hear us and our demand for stability, freedom and prosperity.

Through the media, we can judge which side of politics made the better case for their policy. This is bliss, bliss and heaven. Oh, gorgeousness and gorgeosity made flesh.

I don't think we ought to overemphasise the so called balance between subjective and objective policies. This is because the public tends to subjectively share an overarching outcome with the experts - that being the improvement in our quality of living. Of course they also want to further the relative position of their 'class' of people and that's where 'ideological' differences among the parties come into the equation. But if we leave aside the ideological differences, people's opinions merely differ on how to achieve the common goal which they tend to share. In other words they don't disagree (leaving aside the ideological exception) on what they want, only on how they can get it. So long as generally, the population holds the feeling that their voices are being heard - and that is already achieved through voting - that is good enough.

 

[Iron]

I don't think we ought to overemphasise the so called balance between subjective and objective policies. This is because the public tends to subjectively share an overarching outcome with the experts - that being the improvement in our quality of living. Of course they also want to further the relative position of their 'class' of people and that's where 'ideological' differences among the parties come into the equation. But if we leave aside the ideological differences, people's opinions merely differ on how to achieve the common goal which they tend to share. In other words they don't disagree (leaving aside the ideological exception) on what they want, only on how they can get it. So long as generally, the population holds the feeling that their voices are being heard - and that is already achieved through voting - that is good enough.

How can you ignore ideology? The experts offer subjective solutions to subjective problems. I don’t trust an electrician's opinion on plumbing, I don’t trust a doctor's opinion on legal rights, I don’t trust an accountant's opinion on the environment, I don’t trust a general's opinion on peace. But all these fields and competing interests clash. By definition, an expert focuses on one field to the expense of another. Their interest is the profit and power of their field, and if this happens to appeal to democracy through raising prosperity or making rational argument, then good upon them. But a public should be the decider of which subjective value dominates. Any other solution would see the full apparatus of totalitarianism turkey-slapped in our face

 

[flappinghippo]

It is not a test of people who consider themselves better. It is a test of everyone who wants to take it and the people who get the best results (i.e. the people who are proven to be better) get to vote.

10% of 20 million is not even close to being the same as a single dictator.

Proven to be better? How the hell do you prove some people are better than others?

And who decides what consitutes better?

Complete shit.


I think it is true most people are indifferent to politics today. However, this isn't because people are just naturally stupid. It's because our standard of living is so high most of us have nothing to bitch about, and so the pressure to give a shit just isn't there. According to Frontline, most Australians want a fluff piece on Australian fashion than a jounalistic expose on sweatshops.

Most people would agree this culture is undesirable, and should be changed. This is what this discussion is about, no?

So far the suggestions like iamsickofyear12 has put forward suggest we, the morally righteuos and intellectually superior minority should be put in charge of the stupid, selfish and lazy majority, for their own good – that way we wouldn't have bad leaders. This is the fast track to serfdom, not to a well-functioning society.

In my opinion it's a matter of changing people's attitudes and behaviour without infringing on people's freedom and liberties.

Talking about Australia, I think part of the solution is having the choice of whether to vote or not. That way, there's a compromise; you have people who do care about politics expressing what they want, and the indifferent ones needn't be forced to express anything since they have nothing to say.

This dynamic also drives politicians to persuade these indifferent ones to vote, by convincing the voter he will benefitting society if he votes for the right candidate.

However, this dynamic seems also to have its downside, as played out in the USA, where voting rates are pretty low. There's so much twisting of the truth and rhetoric played out on the media, most people just get too frustrated with trying to understand what's going on. Politicians on all sides are vying for your vote while simultaneously disparaging the competition, so it's no easy task peeling away the bullshit when it becomes this complicated. Most don't bother.

So really, I'm not exactly sure how we could do this.

Maybe we can get rid of all the blacks