DrZoidberg
Contributor
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing
-
Features
Best political system (and how to get there).
- Thread starter Worldtraveller
- Start date
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing
ruby sparks
Contributor
WAB
Veteran Member
Pope. Good quote, except he tended to be a big baby. /off topic
Max Rockatansky
Die dulci freure
Note the difference between your two comments: “rational political beliefs” and “political beliefs”. I agree the latter is more akin to religious beliefs. However, rational political beliefs are, by their very nature, both rational and defendable. If they are not logically or factually defendable, then they are not “rational”.
Example; favoring a government that spends within its means is rational. Saying “I want a balanced budget, but also a military that covers the entire planet and a wall around the entire country” isn’t logical.
Try getting in a political discussion with the public on a topic you actually really know and understand. Like, in a field where you've worked for 20 years. The confidence with people who might otherwise be intelligent people dispense politicized blather will astonish you. And they will have plenty of sources on the internet to confirm their irrational religious beliefs. Their beliefs will not be affected by contact with someone who actually knows the subject. There is no hope down this path.
Canard DuJour
Veteran Member
Of course. But money ultimately isn't. Or there wouldn't be inflation, would there?
I don't know, why not? What are "government resources"? If you're asking why gov't doesn't prioritise that from a limited pot of tax receipts, the answer is that gov't spending isn't limited by a pot of tax receipts.
Neither do I. But I can imagine why start-ups and marginal businesses might need help. Or why strong businesses might become weak in a downturn. Or public services that run at cost or provide non-profit public goods. Etc.
Neither does any other Federal govt spending. The currency issuer does not ultimately need currency users' money. Sounds like exactly the kind of b/s that should be scrapped in favour of explicit public funding.
Max Rockatansky
Die dulci freure
Obviously some do as I mentioned, but if you are saying all are like that, then you might reflect upon the idea that the problem is more internal than external.
untermensche
Contributor
Plenty of people with normal IQ's voted for Trump.
IQ is not a measure of political judgement.
A person with a high IQ can have very low judgements. Destructive judgements.
IQ is not a measure of political judgement.
A person with a high IQ can have very low judgements. Destructive judgements.
Max Rockatansky
Die dulci freure
Apples and oranges. Many people with normal IQs voted for Trump but not for his politics but because he wasn't Hillary.
Intelligent people know there's a difference between voting for a person because of their party affiliation and voting for a person because they like them personally.
untermensche
Contributor
That's twice as ignorant.
Max Rockatansky
Die dulci freure
LOL. I'm content to let people decide for themselves who is the most ignorant in this conversation. OTOH, you can pull a Trump and just keep screaming that it's me.
untermensche
Contributor
What makes you so smart?
You think voting for a totally ignorant unqualified con man is a sane thing to do if a former Senator and Secretary of State is running against him.
Proves everything you think about IQ is wrong.
IQ does not give people sane judgements.
Max Rockatansky
Die dulci freure
An incorrect assessment, but I can see that what I'm trying to convey is beyond you. Partly, I suspect, because you running more on emotion than calm reason.
untermensche
Contributor
I'm running on sense.
I know a total con man when I see one. I grew up in New York. I knew Trump was a cheap lying con man years before he showed the rest of the country full of suckers.
When a person loses badly in their home town that should tell people with intelligence something.
Some people can't seem to see it.
Again, IQ test scores are no protector of anything.
It is no guarantee of sense.
Max Rockatansky
Die dulci freure
No comment on your "sense".
As for con man, yes, Trump is a fucking asshole liar and reality TV show host. That's not the point, but again, I've given up that you will cool down enough to actually read what I've written.
untermensche
Contributor
You said it was somehow sensible to vote for him.
That is not true. Especially if an actual qualified person is running against him.
He was and is totally incompetent.
He knows how to loot, that is all.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,584
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
We already have DIRECT DEMOCRACY, in the case of JURIES which rule in criminal cases.
We've already decided this, at least in the case of deciding guilt or innocence in criminal trials, where ordinary citizens (jury) vote directly. So we are capable of giving citizens a direct vote on certain matters. What prevents us from extending this further, to political policy issues?
Both. Citizens can pressure the representatives in that direction. The benefits of having citizens play a direct role can be recognized by both the elitists and ordinary citizens. Just as they recognize the benefit of having citizens decide guilt/innocence in criminal trials.
Those participating will be properly informed and educated just as jury members currently are informed and educated about the matters they decide on.
It isn't necessary that "every citizen" be properly informed and educated about everything going on. But the particular ones deciding a certain issue must be informed and educated on that issue. This is done now, in jury trials, so it is possible for ordinary citizens to be appropriately informed and educated to make the decisions needed.
We've already decided this, at least in the case of deciding guilt or innocence in criminal trials, where ordinary citizens (jury) vote directly. So we are capable of giving citizens a direct vote on certain matters. What prevents us from extending this further, to political policy issues?
Both. Citizens can pressure the representatives in that direction. The benefits of having citizens play a direct role can be recognized by both the elitists and ordinary citizens. Just as they recognize the benefit of having citizens decide guilt/innocence in criminal trials.
Those participating will be properly informed and educated just as jury members currently are informed and educated about the matters they decide on.
It isn't necessary that "every citizen" be properly informed and educated about everything going on. But the particular ones deciding a certain issue must be informed and educated on that issue. This is done now, in jury trials, so it is possible for ordinary citizens to be appropriately informed and educated to make the decisions needed.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,584
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
If you think average citizens are so stupid, why do you trust them to decide guilt/innocence in court cases?
Are average citizens competent only to choose which demagogue(s) to rule over them?
Probably millions would choose to participate in a process which respects the thinking of each individual citizen rather than making them dependent on the demagogues (representatives) to do the thinking for them. All that matters is that everyone is invited to participate. It's up to each individual whether to participate. If only 100 thousand Americans choose to participate, then those ones would make the decisions.
A system which has to consider what we each think individually is better than a system which only subjugates us to a list of elitist demagogues from which we choose a few to do our thinking for us because they've mesmerized us into thinking they're superior to us.
If citizens serving on a jury are educated enough in order to make those difficult decisions, why couldn't they become educated enough to make a political policy decision?
Are average citizens competent only to choose which demagogue(s) to rule over them?
Probably millions would choose to participate in a process which respects the thinking of each individual citizen rather than making them dependent on the demagogues (representatives) to do the thinking for them. All that matters is that everyone is invited to participate. It's up to each individual whether to participate. If only 100 thousand Americans choose to participate, then those ones would make the decisions.
A system which has to consider what we each think individually is better than a system which only subjugates us to a list of elitist demagogues from which we choose a few to do our thinking for us because they've mesmerized us into thinking they're superior to us.
If citizens serving on a jury are educated enough in order to make those difficult decisions, why couldn't they become educated enough to make a political policy decision?
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,584
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Why do we have to care WHICH DEMAGOGUE GETS ELECTED? Why is someone condemned as "APATHETIC" who --
-- who doesn't care which demagogue wins, or who dislikes the demagogue you choose to worship? How are you superior to them, or any less apathetic, because you're obsessed with these demagogues and they're not?
But part of the cause of the apathy is the snobbery and demagoguery of those in power, who only give us a list of demagogues to choose from to rule over us.
If citizens played a role where they actually think directly on the matters to be decided, many would be less apathetic. When what we think doesn't matter, it makes us more apathetic.
But when "apathy" is voluntary, because someone genuinely doesn't care, why is that a "major problem"? Why isn't it OK if they choose not to participate because they really don't care, as long as they're always free to change their mind later and participate, when they do care?
The real "problem" is that those who are truly interested and seek a genuine way to participate are denied this and instead are only handed a list of demagogues to choose from and are told that all they're good for is to choose a demagogue from this list.
What we need is a system which is open to everyone to participate in, if they want to, letting them play a genuine role which engages their mind.
-- who doesn't care which demagogue wins, or who dislikes the demagogue you choose to worship? How are you superior to them, or any less apathetic, because you're obsessed with these demagogues and they're not?
Agreed that voter apathy is a major problem in the world's largest democracy....even if it's really a Federal Constitutional Republic.
But part of the cause of the apathy is the snobbery and demagoguery of those in power, who only give us a list of demagogues to choose from to rule over us.
If citizens played a role where they actually think directly on the matters to be decided, many would be less apathetic. When what we think doesn't matter, it makes us more apathetic.
But when "apathy" is voluntary, because someone genuinely doesn't care, why is that a "major problem"? Why isn't it OK if they choose not to participate because they really don't care, as long as they're always free to change their mind later and participate, when they do care?
The real "problem" is that those who are truly interested and seek a genuine way to participate are denied this and instead are only handed a list of demagogues to choose from and are told that all they're good for is to choose a demagogue from this list.
What we need is a system which is open to everyone to participate in, if they want to, letting them play a genuine role which engages their mind.
Max Rockatansky
Die dulci freure
-- who doesn't care which demagogue wins, or who dislikes the demagogue you choose to worship? How are you superior to them, or any less apathetic, because you're obsessed with these demagogues and they're not?
Agreed that voter apathy is a major problem in the world's largest democracy....even if it's really a Federal Constitutional Republic.
But part of the cause of the apathy is the snobbery and demagoguery of those in power, who only give us a list of demagogues to choose from to rule over us.
If citizens played a role where they actually think directly on the matters to be decided, many would be less apathetic. When what we think doesn't matter, it makes us more apathetic.
But when "apathy" is voluntary, because someone genuinely doesn't care, why is that a "major problem"? Why isn't it OK if they choose not to participate because they really don't care, as long as they're always free to change their mind later and participate, when they do care?
The real "problem" is that those who are truly interested and seek a genuine way to participate are denied this and instead are only handed a list of demagogues to choose from and are told that all they're good for is to choose a demagogue from this list.
What we need is a system which is open to everyone to participate in, if they want to, letting them play a genuine role which engages their mind.
Sorry, but I strongly disagree. Just a because a citizen is lazy, apathetic, uneducated or narcissistic is not an excuse to blame it on others. That’s pure Trumpian logic. I noticed that the Democrats worked extra hard on this election to get out the vote. Even so, I expect the actual turnout will be less than 70%.