democracy, is it really such a good thing?

[XJ Flyer]

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?

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.

[bitchstewie]

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?

On a purely personal level then obviously no because it isn't a good thing to have people voting based on what might be a simple case of who's going to give them the most free stuff.

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

[bitchstewie]

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 ).

[Randy Winkman]

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.

[Scuffers]

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?

[Fartomatic5000]

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."

George W. Bush

[XJ Flyer]

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 ).

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.

[bitchstewie]

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

[bitchstewie]

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.

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]

bhstewie said:

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

If that statement isn't the smoking gun that blows apart the idea that democracy equals freedom then nothing is.

[bitchstewie]

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.

[XJ Flyer]

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.

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.

[anonymous-user]

Your "pluralism" appears to be a form of sovereign citizen blah, or anarchism, but for people who don't live in squats.

[Randy Winkman]

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.

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.

And I'm a pacifist but still pay for the armed forces.

[davepoth]

XJ Flyer said:

bhstewie said:

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

If that statement isn't the smoking gun that blows apart the idea that democracy equals freedom then nothing is.

Where did you get that idea? Democracy has never equalled freedom. Democracy is merely the least unfair system of government that has been devised to date.

[XJ Flyer]

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.

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.

And I'm a pacifist but still pay for the armed forces.

Which under a pluralist regime would probably at least allow you the compromise of only having to pay the defence component of your taxes based on that expected of someone living in a neutral and non NATO country like Switzerland or Ireland for example.

[bitchstewie]

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.

And not for people with low IQs.

[davepoth]

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.

And not for people with low IQs.

IIRC the original US Constitution had something similar in it - "The Three Fifths Compromise".

[anonymous-user]

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.

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 21st September 18:29

[XJ Flyer]

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.

And not for people with low IQs.

I've already said that IQ is irrelevant in applying freedom of choice in government.While allowing an opt out for non believers in the global warming cause obviously also means allowing an opt in for those who do believe.Which certainly isn't a case of 'freedom when it suits'.