Why arent the smartest people running our countries? - Page 4

madnak · #31 10-21-2007, 05:40 PM

How about the alternative of not having a government of the elite in the first place? I mean, fair enough if you think none of these are viable, but don't push them out of the conversation entirely.

tame_deuces · #32 10-21-2007, 05:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
How about the alternative of not having a government of the elite in the first place? I mean, fair enough if you think none of these are viable, but don't push them out of the conversation entirely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, obviously I don't want a government of the elite, as even if were to run things smoother (aka. Singapore) I don't think it really is a good society. A good democracy should minimize elitism - the big problem of course being that this is not always done since even though the people electing leaders aren't being elitist, the big parties can be by choosing politicians from a small group of accepted pools, a dangerous practice to say the least.

As for other alternatives like voluntarism vs state debate and stuff like that I was just hoping to avoid the debate in full - I think it digresses from the OP's question and I feel like that debate is just bashing your head into the wall on difference of fundamentals and we all know the debater's arguments from hundreds of posts seen before.

madnak · #33 10-21-2007, 06:02 PM

What about "true" (rather than representative) democracies, or communitarian sorts of structures, things like that? It's not the specifics I'm worried about, it's the attitude of "well, it's better than fascism so I guess we should stick with it."

tame_deuces · #34 10-21-2007, 06:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What about "true" (rather than representative) democracies, or communitarian sorts of structures, things like that? It's not the specifics I'm worried about, it's the attitude of "well, it's better than fascism so I guess we should stick with it."

[/ QUOTE ]

Direct democracy and community structures works well for small entities, for larger entities you can often get an efficiency problem, plus voter apathy may indirectly make it representative democracies. When usable I think direct democracy is preferable to representative democracy, as long as you still have constitutions that negate a strong 'tyranny of majority' (equality principles iow).

It is an interesting scenario that if technology in communications and information handling progress much further such a solution could very well in some future take over for our current models without much fuzz at all, since you would potentially avoid 'lost in translation' and logistical problems of being organized in smaller entities.

I'm also at a bit of an disadvantage since I come from a rather small country, so our politics are done 'closer' to the public and as such we might enjoy bigger potential of say than in larger entities - this makes it hard for me to express myself on countries of much bigger populations.

Mr_Moore · #35 10-21-2007, 07:38 PM

My headline is misleading. My intentions when i wrote this post was to focus mainly on the fact that debates should be a of higher level and should be treated much more professionally. Arguments should not be based only on opinions but should also be presented with facts. This is of course not possible always but many times it is.
As i mentioned before i found that several of the politicians who entered the debate were retarded and that was what went through my mind when i wrote the headline.

Mr_Moore · #36 10-21-2007, 07:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes it always sounds like a sweet deal until you figure out it is ultimately only the people with merit who gets to say who has merit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meritocracy is a system of a government or another organization wherein appointments are made and responsibilities are given based on demonstrated ability (merit) and talent rather than by wealth (plutocracy), family connections (nepotism), class privilege, cronyism, popularity (as in democracy) or other historical determinants of social position and political power.

Since you are against using merit and talent as a measure, which of the other choices do you prefer: (a) wealth, (b) popularity, (c) social position, (d) political power, (e) family connections, (f) class privilege, or perhaps, (g) cronyism. Cronyism sounds like the bomb!

[/ QUOTE ]

Meritocracies always devolve into connections, class privelige and cronyism, esp family ties and stuff like that. So they actually never use real merit much for anything. It's cool, it is like monarchies in disguise so obviously if I'm king (I mean president, silly me) I'd prefer popularity on paper. Looks better for the UN.

To answer your question as to what I would really prefer - none of them. Obviously popular sovereignty is the best and all that, but a good system it does not make alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since we live in a democracy i agree that we should vote for the people running for government. I do on the other hand also think that the people that are going to be working at the highest level of politics should be qualified to do so.

onesandzeros · #37 10-21-2007, 08:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Since we live in a democracy i agree that we should vote for the people running for government. I do on the other hand also think that the people that are going to be working at the highest level of politics should be qualified to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

No we don't, unless you believe we do of course. The votes don't count either, but many believe they do. All politicians of any power know this, and that's what allows them to be powerful politicians (liars). Any who doesn't perpetuate the lie is "insane". This is why 99% of all politicians are pathological lairs. No smart, truth seeker is allowed unless it benefits the the agenda of those ruling which is just a handful of men, ultimately.

Mr_Moore · #38 10-21-2007, 08:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since we live in a democracy i agree that we should vote for the people running for government. I do on the other hand also think that the people that are going to be working at the highest level of politics should be qualified to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

No we don't, unless you believe we do of course. The votes don't count either, but many believe they do. All politicians of any power know this, and that's what allows them to be powerful politicians (liars). Any who doesn't perpetuate the lie is "insane". This is why 99% of all politicians are pathological lairs. No smart, truth seeker is allowed unless it benefits the the agenda of those ruling which is just a handful of men, ultimately.

[/ QUOTE ]

The politicians, how did they get their position? Perhaps there is a different democracy in Sweden then in the us.

Case Closed · #39 10-22-2007, 04:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Because most people hate smart people.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is so very true and so very scary. I go to a state school that is nothing to brag about. Being in the same state as U of I a lot of the people who attend WIU(my school) know a lot of people who attend U of I. A lot of the time the fact that U of I is full of brighter students is treated with a great deal of hostility because it exposes their own deficiencies(my theory at least).

Mr_Moore · #40 10-22-2007, 09:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because most people hate smart people.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is so very true and so very scary. I go to a state school that is nothing to brag about. Being in the same state as U of I a lot of the people who attend WIU(my school) know a lot of people who attend U of I. A lot of the time the fact that U of I is full of brighter students is treated with a great deal of hostility because it exposes their own deficiencies(my theory at least).

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this type of rivalry common and found everywhere in the world and should be treated with a bit of salt?