democracy, is it really such a good thing?
Discussion
bhstewie said:
Scuffers said:
I would argue the people that do the most to shape our society has little to do with their voting record?
Poor choice of words on my part, basically they should have no influence or choice in who the government is but just shut up keep working and pay their taxes because they're a bit dim intellectually?Scuffers said:
bhstewie said:
Poor choice of words on my part, basically they should have no influence or choice in who the government is but just shut up keep working and pay their taxes because they're a bit dim intellectually?
conversely, do you want your typical thick mong having an influence?But it's better than the alternatives because once you decide that one group isn't worthy of a vote you can guarantee you'll quickly find another, then another.
You can't choose that only people who will vote for you should be allowed to vote essentially.
Edited by bhstewie on Sunday 21st September 16:48
XJ Flyer said:
But then judging others is a subjective thing anyway.In which case who's to say what is any more intellectual than anything else who is dimmer than others and who has the right to judge.IE brain surgeons could say they are the most intellectual while the weather forecasters could say they are while the welders could say they are cleverer than both of them.Which maybe true when the bridge collapses under the weather forecaster and the brain surgeon while they are on their way to work.
Scuffers suggested it should be based on IQ so my comment was worded on that assumption, again possibly poor wording on my part (hope I'm still allowed a vote in the brave new world ).vanordinaire said:
I live in Scotland and in case you didn't notice we just had a referendum. Every fool and his dog had an opinion and spouted it freely. The amount of absolute nonsense going about (from both sides of the argument) was ridiculous but it was aimed at the stupid majority and they believed it all so the result went to the side who managed to convince most idiots.
Wouldn't it be better if we only let clever people vote? Or if everyone has to have a say, give more weighting to votes dependant on the voter's IQ? Or an aptitude test before you can get on the electoral role?
There must be a way to avoid major decisions being made on the basis of spin and soundbites and personality. Any sugestions
Which side were you on? It's not completely clear, but it looks like you've got the grump because the other side won. Wouldn't it be better if we only let clever people vote? Or if everyone has to have a say, give more weighting to votes dependant on the voter's IQ? Or an aptitude test before you can get on the electoral role?
There must be a way to avoid major decisions being made on the basis of spin and soundbites and personality. Any sugestions
actually, the bigger problem is that the people we are voting for are typically no sharper than the rest of us (in fact some drastically less!)
then consider that the issues of the day are now so complex and interrelated, nobody actually can actually understand all the implications, so then it comes down to best guess.
as a for example, take climate change, IMHO is total hogwash, just look how many politicians have brainwashed the masses into believing it?
then consider that the issues of the day are now so complex and interrelated, nobody actually can actually understand all the implications, so then it comes down to best guess.
as a for example, take climate change, IMHO is total hogwash, just look how many politicians have brainwashed the masses into believing it?
davepoth said:
"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
-Abraham Lincoln
Which is the most powerful argument for democracy, as BV72 said. Salmond's "Yes to everything" couldn't fool all of the people all of the time.
"Fool me once, shame on - shame on you. "Fool me - can't get fooled again."-Abraham Lincoln
Which is the most powerful argument for democracy, as BV72 said. Salmond's "Yes to everything" couldn't fool all of the people all of the time.
George W. Bush
bhstewie said:
XJ Flyer said:
But then judging others is a subjective thing anyway.In which case who's to say what is any more intellectual than anything else who is dimmer than others and who has the right to judge.IE brain surgeons could say they are the most intellectual while the weather forecasters could say they are while the welders could say they are cleverer than both of them.Which maybe true when the bridge collapses under the weather forecaster and the brain surgeon while they are on their way to work.
Scuffers suggested it should be based on IQ so my comment was worded on that assumption, again possibly poor wording on my part (hope I'm still allowed a vote in the brave new world ).XJ Flyer said:
In this case you'd vote by choosing which rules you want to be governed by not by putting a bit of paper in a box and then having to live with someone else's choice because more people chose something different than you did.We wouldn't accept it in the shops when we buy something we want so why do we accept it when choosing our government.
Because society isn't the same as "Shall I buy an iPad or an Android tablet?" where one persons choice on a question doesn't really impact anothers?Things get kind of messy when you give people individual choice which rules they want to follow IMO.
Edited by bhstewie on Sunday 21st September 16:56
Scuffers said:
actually, the bigger problem is that the people we are voting for are typically no sharper than the rest of us (in fact some drastically less!)
then consider that the issues of the day are now so complex and interrelated, nobody actually can actually understand all the implications, so then it comes down to best guess.
as a for example, take climate change, IMHO is total hogwash, just look how many politicians have brainwashed the masses into believing it?
You fix that by making politics interesting enough for people to give a st - not by limiting who can or cannot vote just in case they don't vote the way you'd like them to.then consider that the issues of the day are now so complex and interrelated, nobody actually can actually understand all the implications, so then it comes down to best guess.
as a for example, take climate change, IMHO is total hogwash, just look how many politicians have brainwashed the masses into believing it?
I watch a lot of quiz shows and it's astounding just how little people know about politics or politicians.
Don't ask me how you actually do this though.
XJ Flyer said:
If that statement isn't the smoking gun that blows apart the idea that democracy equals freedom then nothing is.
Admittedly I've never looked up the exact definition but I always took democracy to mean that everyone has a say i.e. a vote, not that everyone is free to do whatever they want.bhstewie said:
XJ Flyer said:
If that statement isn't the smoking gun that blows apart the idea that democracy equals freedom then nothing is.
Admittedly I've never looked up the exact definition but I always took democracy to mean that everyone has a say i.e. a vote, not that everyone is free to do whatever they want.Which in practice translates as why should anyone,who rejects and doesn't believe in the global warming theory, have to pay punitive taxes and adopt a lifestyle to placate the beliefs of others in that regard,for example.
XJ Flyer said:
bhstewie said:
XJ Flyer said:
If that statement isn't the smoking gun that blows apart the idea that democracy equals freedom then nothing is.
Admittedly I've never looked up the exact definition but I always took democracy to mean that everyone has a say i.e. a vote, not that everyone is free to do whatever they want.Which in practice translates as why should anyone,who rejects and doesn't believe in the global warming theory, have to pay punitive taxes and adopt a lifestyle to placate the beliefs of others in that regard,for example.
XJ Flyer said:
bhstewie said:
Things get kind of messy when you give people individual choice which rules they want to follow IMO.
If that statement isn't the smoking gun that blows apart the idea that democracy equals freedom then nothing is.Edited by bhstewie on Sunday 21st September 16:56
Randy Winkman said:
XJ Flyer said:
bhstewie said:
XJ Flyer said:
If that statement isn't the smoking gun that blows apart the idea that democracy equals freedom then nothing is.
Admittedly I've never looked up the exact definition but I always took democracy to mean that everyone has a say i.e. a vote, not that everyone is free to do whatever they want.Which in practice translates as why should anyone,who rejects and doesn't believe in the global warming theory, have to pay punitive taxes and adopt a lifestyle to placate the beliefs of others in that regard,for example.
XJ Flyer said:
In practice I've gradually reached the arguable conclusion that democracy is just a form of dictatorship based on the irrelevant issue of relatively how many bits of paper were put in a box,to supposedly represent a component of public choice,within the workings of the government machine.When I'd prefer the word freedom to apply in its literal sense.
Which in practice translates as why should anyone,who rejects and doesn't believe in the global warming theory, have to pay punitive taxes and adopt a lifestyle to placate the beliefs of others in that regard,for example.
I'm rather guessing that if you want "freedom" in its literal sense you only want it when it suits.Which in practice translates as why should anyone,who rejects and doesn't believe in the global warming theory, have to pay punitive taxes and adopt a lifestyle to placate the beliefs of others in that regard,for example.
And not for people with low IQs.
bhstewie said:
XJ Flyer said:
In practice I've gradually reached the arguable conclusion that democracy is just a form of dictatorship based on the irrelevant issue of relatively how many bits of paper were put in a box,to supposedly represent a component of public choice,within the workings of the government machine.When I'd prefer the word freedom to apply in its literal sense.
Which in practice translates as why should anyone,who rejects and doesn't believe in the global warming theory, have to pay punitive taxes and adopt a lifestyle to placate the beliefs of others in that regard,for example.
I'm rather guessing that if you want "freedom" in its literal sense you only want it when it suits.Which in practice translates as why should anyone,who rejects and doesn't believe in the global warming theory, have to pay punitive taxes and adopt a lifestyle to placate the beliefs of others in that regard,for example.
And not for people with low IQs.
Freedom is always relative. People in developed western democracies are probably more free on average* than people have been in any form of state since states first evolved but they (we) aren't completely free and can't be if we have any sort of collective approach to the state. In other words, it can't be all about me, for any of us.
* In other forms of state some people were/are freer, but at the expense of others being a lot less free.
* In other forms of state some people were/are freer, but at the expense of others being a lot less free.
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 21st September 18:29
bhstewie said:
XJ Flyer said:
In practice I've gradually reached the arguable conclusion that democracy is just a form of dictatorship based on the irrelevant issue of relatively how many bits of paper were put in a box,to supposedly represent a component of public choice,within the workings of the government machine.When I'd prefer the word freedom to apply in its literal sense.
Which in practice translates as why should anyone,who rejects and doesn't believe in the global warming theory, have to pay punitive taxes and adopt a lifestyle to placate the beliefs of others in that regard,for example.
I'm rather guessing that if you want "freedom" in its literal sense you only want it when it suits.Which in practice translates as why should anyone,who rejects and doesn't believe in the global warming theory, have to pay punitive taxes and adopt a lifestyle to placate the beliefs of others in that regard,for example.
And not for people with low IQs.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff