2 ms·

> Trials are operated by trained lawyers but the final decisions are often rendered by juries of everyday citizens, who might have little or no legal experience

> Trials are operated by trained lawyers but the final decisions are often rendered by juries of everyday citizens, who might have little or no legal experience. Yes, they aren't educated in law, but the intent of the system is that the judicial system informs the jurors adequately for them to form opinions. I'm not trying to exclude people based on whether they have a degree. > And of course, anyone can run for office, vote in an election, or lobby their elected officials, regardless of education or training. But the intent of the system is that we elect people who are informed enough to make good decisions for us. > Where does economics fall on this spectrum? There is no spectrum, you've simply conflated formal education with being informed.

snowwrestler 11y ago
But even if someone is uninformed, or grossly misinformed, they can still run for office, vote, talk to their members of Congress, or serve on a jury. There is no "how informed are you" test at all for those things, beyond the vague free-flowing conversation between citizens. When it comes to who should make government policy, fundamentally the questions is not "how informed is enough," the question is "who gets to decide how informed is enough." Or roughly "who watches the watchers."
- copsarebastards 11y ago
  > But even if someone is uninformed, or grossly misinformed, they can still run for office, vote, talk to their members of Congress, or serve on a jury. There is no "how informed are you" test at all for those things, beyond the vague free-flowing conversation between citizens. And that is the source of so many problems (although a better solution does not exist, that I am aware of).