4 ms·

You talk about democracy as if it's a fantastic system. It's not. One vote per person? So a guy who has a political degree has the same voice as a guy who votes

You talk about democracy as if it's a fantastic system. It's not. One vote per person? So a guy who has a political degree has the same voice as a guy who votes depending on which candidate has the nicest eyes?

booruguru 13y ago
> So a guy who has a political degree has the same voice as a guy who votes depending on which candidate has the nicest eyes? What is the alternative? Yes we are NOT all equal. Some of us are more rational and intelligent than others. But how would you go about determining one's intellectual and moral worthiness? (Education? IQ?) And who gets to decide the criteria for superiority? If you were as smart as you think you are...you would have considered these issues before making such a shockingly elitist statement.
- voicereasonish 13y ago
  I don't consider myself especially smart. But giving everyone an equal say in the running of a country is pure madness. The better alternative is a friendly dictator, or a good monarchy. My original comment was to point out that "Democracy" is not some perfect utopia that every country should strive for.
  - booruguru 13y ago
    Democracy is not perfect, but it's the best option available. Also, I can't tell if you're being facetious or if you truly believe we would be better of with dictatorships...because there are plenty of real-world examples to choose from and they're quite horrible.
pavelrub 13y ago
What a load of elitist BS. YES - that's exactly what should happen. Your "political degree" gives you no right to decide for other people what's good for them. If I like my leaders to have nice eyes, then I am entitled to my vote just as you are entitled to yours based on your "political degree" nonsense that I don't care about. You don't get to decide if having nice eyes is important or not. If enough people think it's important - then it is important by definition.
- voicereasonish 13y ago
  Imagine if companies were run that way: Shop floor assistant at an Apple store gets the same say as the VP legal, about whether or not to sue someone for trademark infringement? One person one vote! yay democracy. > If enough people think it's important - then it is important by definition. Your logic is bad. If enough people think that vacinations cause autism, does that make it true? The majority is often wrong.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Shop floor assistant at an Apple store gets the same say as the VP legal In a representative democracy, a clerk in the social security office doesn't have the same authority and scope of power in the day to day operation of government as the Attorney-General. They both have the same say in, say, electing a member of Congress, just as shop floor assistant and a corporate VP who both had equal holdings in the relevant company's stock on things that go to votes of the shareholders. > > If enough people think it's important - then it is important by definition. > Your logic is bad. If enough people think that vacinations cause autism, does that make it true? Your logic is bad. You draw a false equivalence between a matter of objective fact (causality) and a matter of subjective preference (importance). The two are not parallel.
    - voicereasonish 13y ago
      > just as shop floor assistant and a corporate VP who both had equal holdings in the relevant company's stock on things that go to votes of the shareholders. That's the point - in that logic, the amount of votes you get in a democracy would be tied to how much land you own. Which IMHO seems a probably better way to do things.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > That's the point - in that logic, the amount of votes you get in a democracy would be tied to how much land you own. No, land is something you own subordinate to the nation, not an equity stake in the nation. Though the idea that the problem with our government is that its not plutocratic enough is, well, amusing.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> So a guy who has a political degree has the same voice as a guy who votes depending on which candidate has the nicest eyes? I have a Political Science degree, and I see no reason why this would be a problem. Could you clarify why you think this should not be the case?
- voicereasonish 13y ago
  Nobody would even attempt to run a company like that. You wouldn't give a checkout assistant the same say in a company as the CEO. Why do we suppose it's a good idea to run a country like that?
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Nobody would even attempt to run a company like that. Citizens of a country run by representative democracy are like equal-equity shareholders in a corporation. > You wouldn't give a checkout assistant the same say in a company as the CEO. You would in things done by vote of the shareholders if they were each equal in that regard. Of course, those kind of things are mostly (1) ratifying or rejecting certain major decisions proposed by other equal members or by management (like the initiative/referendum process in many US states and some national governments) and (2) choosing the board of director and certain officers (like the proces of normal elections in most representative governments.) Which covers, pretty much, the things done by elections in most representative governments. So, no, I don't think the difference you claim is at all valid.
  - davidw 13y ago
    > Nobody would even attempt to run a company like that. Nobody would ever attempt to run a monastery like a bar, either.

booruguru 13y ago

> So a guy who has a political degree has the same voice as a guy who votes depending on which candidate has the nicest eyes? What is the alternative? Yes we are NOT all equal. Some of us are more rational and intelligent than others. But how would you go about determining one's intellectual and moral worthiness? (Education? IQ?) And who gets to decide the criteria for superiority? If you were as smart as you think you are...you would have considered these issues before making such a shockingly elitist statement.

voicereasonish 13y ago
I don't consider myself especially smart. But giving everyone an equal say in the running of a country is pure madness. The better alternative is a friendly dictator, or a good monarchy. My original comment was to point out that "Democracy" is not some perfect utopia that every country should strive for.
- booruguru 13y ago
  Democracy is not perfect, but it's the best option available. Also, I can't tell if you're being facetious or if you truly believe we would be better of with dictatorships...because there are plenty of real-world examples to choose from and they're quite horrible.

pavelrub 13y ago

What a load of elitist BS. YES - that's exactly what should happen. Your "political degree" gives you no right to decide for other people what's good for them. If I like my leaders to have nice eyes, then I am entitled to my vote just as you are entitled to yours based on your "political degree" nonsense that I don't care about. You don't get to decide if having nice eyes is important or not. If enough people think it's important - then it is important by definition.

voicereasonish 13y ago
Imagine if companies were run that way: Shop floor assistant at an Apple store gets the same say as the VP legal, about whether or not to sue someone for trademark infringement? One person one vote! yay democracy. > If enough people think it's important - then it is important by definition. Your logic is bad. If enough people think that vacinations cause autism, does that make it true? The majority is often wrong.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Shop floor assistant at an Apple store gets the same say as the VP legal In a representative democracy, a clerk in the social security office doesn't have the same authority and scope of power in the day to day operation of government as the Attorney-General. They both have the same say in, say, electing a member of Congress, just as shop floor assistant and a corporate VP who both had equal holdings in the relevant company's stock on things that go to votes of the shareholders. > > If enough people think it's important - then it is important by definition. > Your logic is bad. If enough people think that vacinations cause autism, does that make it true? Your logic is bad. You draw a false equivalence between a matter of objective fact (causality) and a matter of subjective preference (importance). The two are not parallel.
  - voicereasonish 13y ago
    > just as shop floor assistant and a corporate VP who both had equal holdings in the relevant company's stock on things that go to votes of the shareholders. That's the point - in that logic, the amount of votes you get in a democracy would be tied to how much land you own. Which IMHO seems a probably better way to do things.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > That's the point - in that logic, the amount of votes you get in a democracy would be tied to how much land you own. No, land is something you own subordinate to the nation, not an equity stake in the nation. Though the idea that the problem with our government is that its not plutocratic enough is, well, amusing.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> So a guy who has a political degree has the same voice as a guy who votes depending on which candidate has the nicest eyes? I have a Political Science degree, and I see no reason why this would be a problem. Could you clarify why you think this should not be the case?

voicereasonish 13y ago
Nobody would even attempt to run a company like that. You wouldn't give a checkout assistant the same say in a company as the CEO. Why do we suppose it's a good idea to run a country like that?
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Nobody would even attempt to run a company like that. Citizens of a country run by representative democracy are like equal-equity shareholders in a corporation. > You wouldn't give a checkout assistant the same say in a company as the CEO. You would in things done by vote of the shareholders if they were each equal in that regard. Of course, those kind of things are mostly (1) ratifying or rejecting certain major decisions proposed by other equal members or by management (like the initiative/referendum process in many US states and some national governments) and (2) choosing the board of director and certain officers (like the proces of normal elections in most representative governments.) Which covers, pretty much, the things done by elections in most representative governments. So, no, I don't think the difference you claim is at all valid.
- davidw 13y ago
  > Nobody would even attempt to run a company like that. Nobody would ever attempt to run a monastery like a bar, either.