3 ms·

If you're saying that mob rule has the power to irrationally stop nuclear power production, I agree with you. If you're saying this is the way things ought to

by khafra 16y ago

If you're saying that mob rule has the power to irrationally stop nuclear power production, I agree with you. If you're saying this is the way things ought to be, I'm not sure if I agree but I think you have a valid point about the democratic form of government. If you're saying a dumb herd of people's panicky reactions to a scary situation actually mean nuclear power is more dangerous than other forms, you're dead wrong. I don't think other people here understand which of these arguments you're making, either.

paganel 16y ago
Yeap, you're right on the first 2 points I was trying to make. Reguarding this > If you're saying a dumb herd of people's panicky reactions to a scary situation actually mean nuclear power is more dangerous than other forms, you're dead wrong. I didn't say that people's reaction to nuclear power changes it into something "dangerous", I was only saying that if people decide not to fund nuclear development anymore (say, by not allowing their Governments to subsidize said industry) then its voice should be listened to, even if to some it may sound "dumb" or "panicky". This is why I said that if the voice of the majority isn't listened to we're back to Technocracy, i.e. a small group of informed elite taking vital decisions for the rest of us.
- kstenerud 16y ago
  Actually, it's a plutocracy. People don't listen to technocrats unless they have a good idea for generating wealth/power. The reason you don't leave any serious decisions in the hands of the masses is because it leads to instability, which is the worst thing that can happen to a government. In every form of government, you have a minority bloc which makes the most important decisions unilaterally. The remaining decisions are, depending on the visible form of government, passed on to various degrees to the public so that they may feel they are participating in the running of their country's affairs. There is, of course, some give-and-take when a special interest group gains too much power, but those can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

by khafra 16y ago

paganel 16y ago

Yeap, you're right on the first 2 points I was trying to make. Reguarding this > If you're saying a dumb herd of people's panicky reactions to a scary situation actually mean nuclear power is more dangerous than other forms, you're dead wrong. I didn't say that people's reaction to nuclear power changes it into something "dangerous", I was only saying that if people decide not to fund nuclear development anymore (say, by not allowing their Governments to subsidize said industry) then its voice should be listened to, even if to some it may sound "dumb" or "panicky". This is why I said that if the voice of the majority isn't listened to we're back to Technocracy, i.e. a small group of informed elite taking vital decisions for the rest of us.

kstenerud 16y ago
Actually, it's a plutocracy. People don't listen to technocrats unless they have a good idea for generating wealth/power. The reason you don't leave any serious decisions in the hands of the masses is because it leads to instability, which is the worst thing that can happen to a government. In every form of government, you have a minority bloc which makes the most important decisions unilaterally. The remaining decisions are, depending on the visible form of government, passed on to various degrees to the public so that they may feel they are participating in the running of their country's affairs. There is, of course, some give-and-take when a special interest group gains too much power, but those can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.