| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"Sphere" |
| Date: |
18 Nov 2006 10:38:44 PM |
| Object: |
Deciding what to decide. |
The important thing in a democracy is to
set the agenda. Deciding the question
is of little importance, where deciding what
the question is is of supreme importance.
A vocal or monied minority should not be
allowed to determine the conversation. It is
the right of the majority to decide what to
decide.
In this respect our "democracy" is a failure.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
| User: "Sir Frederick" |
|
| Title: Re: Deciding what to decide. |
18 Nov 2006 11:06:03 PM |
|
|
On 18 Nov 2006 20:38:44 -0800, "Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote:
The important thing in a democracy is to
set the agenda. Deciding the question
is of little importance, where deciding what
the question is is of supreme importance.
A vocal or monied minority should not be
allowed to determine the conversation. It is
the right of the majority to decide what to
decide.
In this respect our "democracy" is a failure.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
For good example, look at the really crappy candidates
recently put up for POTUS. We get to vote, yes, but
for amazingly poor candidates from the major
political parties. The elite select the possible agendas.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Deciding what to decide. |
18 Nov 2006 11:50:18 PM |
|
|
Sir Frederick wrote:
On 18 Nov 2006 20:38:44 -0800, "Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote:
The important thing in a democracy is to
set the agenda. Deciding the question
is of little importance, where deciding what
the question is is of supreme importance.
A vocal or monied minority should not be
allowed to determine the conversation. It is
the right of the majority to decide what to
decide.
In this respect our "democracy" is a failure.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
For good example, look at the really crappy candidates
recently put up for POTUS. We get to vote, yes, but
for amazingly poor candidates from the major
political parties. The elite select the possible agendas.
I'd call that a typical example rather than a
good example.
Actually, I'm less concerned with the dumbfucks
we elect to represent us than the fact that we
still use representation.
It wouldn't be all that hard to use the Internet
to do the bookkeeping and have a real primary
democracy -- with the only real problem being
how to prevent demagoguery.
The problem is deciding what to decide.
(I consider the issue of Internet access merely
another straw-man thrown up by the current
power structure. I'm willing to restrict sovereignty
to those who can read/write -- although I'm not willing
to restrict it to other's guesses as to who can
read. I'm not big on age, or most other restrictions --
such as criminal background. Essentially, if you
are capible of particilpating you ought to have
the right of participation.)
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim" |
|
| Title: Re: Deciding what to decide. |
19 Nov 2006 09:30:26 AM |
|
|
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163915418.004307.112550@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Sir Frederick wrote:
On 18 Nov 2006 20:38:44 -0800, "Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote:
The important thing in a democracy is to
set the agenda. Deciding the question
is of little importance, where deciding what
the question is is of supreme importance.
A vocal or monied minority should not be
allowed to determine the conversation. It is
the right of the majority to decide what to
decide.
In this respect our "democracy" is a failure.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
For good example, look at the really crappy candidates
recently put up for POTUS. We get to vote, yes, but
for amazingly poor candidates from the major
political parties. The elite select the possible agendas.
I'd call that a typical example rather than a
good example.
Actually, I'm less concerned with the dumbfucks
we elect to represent us than the fact that we
still use representation.
It wouldn't be all that hard to use the Internet
to do the bookkeeping and have a real primary
democracy -- with the only real problem being
how to prevent demagoguery.
The problem is deciding what to decide.
(I consider the issue of Internet access merely
another straw-man thrown up by the current
power structure. I'm willing to restrict sovereignty
to those who can read/write -- although I'm not willing
to restrict it to other's guesses as to who can
read. I'm not big on age, or most other restrictions --
such as criminal background. Essentially, if you
are capible of particilpating you ought to have
the right of participation.)
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
The problem is what happens when you take the power out of the hands of a
small group of idiots (the representatives) and put it into the hands of a
large group of idiots (the demos)? In the former case we can at least
identify the idiots responsible for the idiocy. Either way you still get
idiotic policy for idiots by idiots.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ed" |
|
| Title: Re: Deciding what to decide. |
19 Nov 2006 07:42:31 PM |
|
|
I agree that such an approach would be more democratic.
The disadvantage might be that if there were a lot of issues to decide,
the actual majority
would not make time to participate, the decisions would wind up being
made by a small portion of the population again. And there really are
a LOT of issues that need to be decided in a country this size.
Ed
Actually, I'm less concerned with the dumbfucks
we elect to represent us than the fact that we
still use representation.
It wouldn't be all that hard to use the Internet
to do the bookkeeping and have a real primary
democracy -- with the only real problem being
how to prevent demagoguery.
The problem is deciding what to decide.
(I consider the issue of Internet access merely
another straw-man thrown up by the current
power structure. I'm willing to restrict sovereignty
to those who can read/write -- although I'm not willing
to restrict it to other's guesses as to who can
read. I'm not big on age, or most other restrictions --
such as criminal background. Essentially, if you
are capible of particilpating you ought to have
the right of participation.)
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AE" |
|
| Title: Re: Deciding what to decide. |
19 Nov 2006 03:36:45 AM |
|
|
Sphere wrote:
...
I'd call that a typical example rather than a
good example.
Actually, I'm less concerned with the dumbfucks
we elect to represent us than the fact that we
still use representation.
It wouldn't be all that hard to use the Internet
to do the bookkeeping and have a real primary
democracy -- with the only real problem being
how to prevent demagoguery.
The problem is deciding what to decide.
...
That's not a harder problem than finally to decide.
Let every citizen suggest what to decide, publish the suggestion, and,
given the number of responses or the number of votes for or against
taking that decision, decide whetehr or not to decide.
Basically that's the idea of plebiscite.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
