>> Technically, these are beliefs that you have formed, not facts demonstrated by your example. > technically democracy is all bout that. For now, to some deg

>> Technically, these are beliefs that you have formed, not facts demonstrated by your example. > technically democracy is all bout that. For now, to some degree (the degree that it is true, which is unknown). But if you won't exert effort towards sound logic and epistemology, or show any interest when you are mistaken, should you be criticizing others? Granted, Western Culture is also "all about that", but it's not a great excuse. >> How would him providing proof change the epistemic state of underlying reality that you are allegedly describing? > by proving the thesis that "liquid democracy solves that" Note that I was challenging this: "It simply says that people know nothing about govern, they should only vote once for themselves to protect their personal interest. And that liquid democracy doesn't work at all, when applied in practice..." ...but now you are addressing this different claim: >> However, given the kind of people we have running Congress... this system doesn't seem to work that well. Geriatic insider traders who owe their positions to various corporate conglomerates (finance, energy, defense, pharmaceuticals, etc.) have ended up running all the committees, and the evidence that this is a failure can be easily seen by looking at America's crumbling domestic infrastructure. > Yeah, this is what liquid democracy solves. Please make sure you understand the concept before arguing against it. Note that by politicians being removed by the equation that specific problem is solved by definition (opening up new problems, of course). As I said elsewhere in the thread, I think a big benefit of some form of direct democracy is that it would offer an opportunity for people to develop skills in various forms of thinking that are taught in philosophy, but not in schools.