RepliMagni wrote:[KMA]Avenger wrote:PS, "direct democracy" means, letting the people vote on everything....in short, putting the power back into the hands of the people.
Which would be completely stupid - people neither have the time nor the knowledge nor the skills to understand enough about all aspects of society to make informed decisions
While i agree that the general populace are extremely ignorant about many things, you can't say sweeping statements that the "people neither have the time nor the knowledge nor the skills to understand enough about all aspects of society to make informed decisions". people don't need to be informed about every little detail about everything they need to vote on. in practice, people who want to vote on say an economic issue will "in most cases" ask others or look up what they need to know to make an informed decision. after all, wanting to vote on say an up coming economic issue such as say- bailouts - people will talk, talking encourages people to seek information. when you strip people of the right to make an informed or even an uninformed decision you encourage people to shrug their shoulders and say "what's the point in even talking about it since i can't change things!?" which was the case with me on more times than i care to recall.
i know people-VERY successful people who were dead against the bailouts. they had no idea why they didn't like it and when i explained it to them and tried to give them the information to look and decide for themselves if the information was credible i got a standard response "why tell me, i can't change things!".
That attitude of apathy would change IF people had a voice.
RepliMagni wrote: - heck, I'm a PhD socio-economic historian and I don't know enough about economics to make a fully informed decision about the current economic crisis, let alone all the other aspects of governance.
Who says you have to be an economic expert, a geopolitical expert and any other kind of expert allrolledinto1 just to vote on an issue you have a POV on or passion for?
RepliMagni wrote:
The whole point of a democracy is to give those powers to people we trust to make the right decisions we want based on their policies....
The whole point of a democracy and most other types of governance is to have a Govt do things for you and wipe your runny nose...isn't it time people grew up and stopped expecting so much from their Govt?
Most things can be run better by a truly free market than Govt EVER can or will.
For me, Govt means 1, bureaucrats, police, Govt and public SERVANTS-NOT officials- and the courts have no business or authority in how i live my life so long as i do no harm.
2, Govt takes care of the resources which are owned by the people, not private corporations.
3, that Govt regulates the flow of currency and the value thereof.
4, That Govt maintains a secure boarder and has STRICT migration and asylum laws.
5, That Govt maintains a fair taxation system agreed by an
informed public.
6, ALL public servants in Govt come from the middle and working class...NOT career politicians who leave schools they ALL attend together, who couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag and are not able to wipe their own backsides without getting any on their hands!
7, That Govt guarantees the rights and freedoms of the people AFTER the people have decided what those rights and freedoms are. again, informed debates and decision making is essential here, and NOT by Govt, but by the people.
Feel free to discuss this convo in a new thread.
RepliMagni wrote:
whether or not there is a disconnect between those policies and "trust" is another matter entirely....
Again, feel free to make a new topic
![:-)](./images/smilies/001.gif)