If by good you mean liberal- or direct democracy, no. I used to be but then I realized most people are idiots rendering such systems self-destructive.
United DEMOCRATIC Nations
- Thread starter Patrick
- Start date
-
- Tags
- democratic nations united
If by good you mean liberal- or direct democracy, no. I used to be but then I realized most people are idiots rendering such systems self-destructive.
Well, I don't see myself moving away from my belief that democacy is the gold standard. And I don't see you trusting pure democracy enough to let go of the republic thing.
With that we can agree. Great forum, great discussions.
gary
www.UnitedDemocraticNations.org
With that we can agree. Great forum, great discussions.
gary
www.UnitedDemocraticNations.org
Totally subjective. I mean if that's your argument I'm on the side of good for wanting to stabilize our political situation (without stepping on anyone's civil rights/liberties) while you're basically wanting us all to commit social suicide by letting ignorant and/or corrupt people to dictate the laws.
Last edited:
David, you said...
Sorry...I just don't see bullying as a justifiable form of government. This also means that you are ignoring the absolute power corrupts absolutely problem.
gary
That was tongue-in-cheek.
As I've stated many times, I oppose letting everyone vote even if they don't know the 1st thing about what they're voting on, I'm not actually advocating authoritarianism. I'm still a republican, I'm just not a liberal-democrat.
That was tongue-in-cheek.
As I've stated many times, I oppose letting everyone vote even if they don't know the 1st thing about what they're voting on, I'm not actually advocating authoritarianism. I'm still a republican, I'm just not a liberal-democrat.
How would that work in real life? What would be an example of an issue that you would be qualified to vote on, but not your neighbor?
I wouldn't be qualified to vote for anything.
But that's something I could change with an education (full ride public education would be extended to the collage/university level if I had my way). For example only diplomats would be allowed to set foreign policy, only military types (not necessarily military, civilians with degrees in strategy and military history could as well) would be allowed to go to war, only economists (regardless of what school of thought they prescribe to) would be allowed to set economic policy, etc. It would still be a republican system but you're vote would be restricted.
I wouldn't be qualified to vote for anything.
You would have a pretty small army- good luck defending a nation with that. Actually, on second thought, you might have no army since most people with degrees and that have done higher education are less likely to join the army anyway.
And I suspect all the people in their own fields would just vote for massive government benefits for their respective sectors- moral hazard.
Also, who's to say what education is legit and what isn't? Steve Jobs did what he did as a dropout as have many others- let's not put too much weight on institutional education, doing so will lead to lost contributions from many geniuses.
That only the PHDs in Constitutional law could write?
I don't think your idea works in the real world. If anything it'll lead to more corruption and more arrogance in lawmaking and that is the last thing we need.
That only the PHDs in Constitutional law could write?
I don't think your idea works in the real world. If anything it'll lead to more corruption and more arrogance in lawmaking and that is the last thing we need.
Constitutional law wouldn't apply when creating the constitution. And I never said anything about a PhD, people don't need to be experts, they just need to understand what they're voting on. Any level of degree, if from a reputable school, would suffice. That's also why I'd expand the PS system from K-12 to K-University, it's the only way to keep the system restricted by qualification without preventing social mobility.
I wouldn't be qualified to vote for anything.
Still not sure I understand. Only diplomats would set foreign policy? Do I somehow vote for these "diplomats" or are they in this polition of authority entirely by way of education? I hope you're not saying that an extremely small, unelected minority would decide issues as momentus as whether our nation goes to war, regardless of the opinion of the people, congress, or the president. That would make for a very chaotic world.
Another thought...what if the diplomatic experts said we needed a new embassy in country X, but the military experts said we needed a military base instead. Assuming that we can only afford one option, or worse that the options are in conflict, how would you break the tie?
Last edited:
Similar threads
