Anti-vaxxers start epidemy at Disneyland

[Purple]

the problem is that your list is practically screaming "abuse me to suppress disidents", there's no way you could use that list and still have fuctioning true democracy instead of pseudo-democrcy ruled by a de-facto nobility who are the only ones allowed to vote. there's so many things on that list that are outright impossible to define objectivly that it could never work as you intend.

That's why it's an example meant to convey the spirit of what I am saying and not something you'd actually use. If you wanted to make a proper list it would be hundreds of pages long and take years of work by the smartest people you have to assemble. And even than it'd have to be a constant work in progress.

[Elheru Aran]

Which is why it's useless in practice. You have to accept the voice of the stupid as well as the intelligent in an democracy. Otherwise it's not a democracy. People being idiots doesn't remove their basic rights, and voting is one of those. If they muster enough votes to pass something stupid, it's kind of your own fault for a.) not educating them in the error of their ways and b.) mustering enough votes on your own side to counter theirs.

Stupidity is not a crime. The actions that result from it can be. It's hard to help that.

[Thanas]

Hey, I wonder what Purple would say if I were to designate certain users as idiots and then claim they should not be allowed to vote. Odds are he would probably not like the result.

And that kids, is why you don't suppress votes by lists.

[Purple]

Which is why it's useless in practice. You have to accept the voice of the stupid as well as the intelligent in an democracy. Otherwise it's not a democracy.

Is it not more important for the system to work rather than to adhere to some sort of principal or definition?

People being idiots doesn't remove their basic rights, and voting is one of those. If they muster enough votes to pass something stupid, it's kind of your own fault for a.) not educating them in the error of their ways and b.) mustering enough votes on your own side to counter theirs.

That argument only really works if the stupids aren't the majority. If they are than no amount of campaigning is going to get a majority vote to oppose them. At least not without doing something fraudulent like convincing them that voting day is next week and not tomorrow.

Stupidity is not a crime. The actions that result from it can be. It's hard to help that.

Why use the term crime? I am genuinely curious.

Hey, I wonder what Purple would say if I were to designate certain users as idiots and then claim they should not be allowed to vote. Odds are he would probably not like the result.

And that kids, is why you don't suppress votes by lists.

To be perfectly honest I would not mind. I'd much rather live in a society that works well but does not ask me for my opinion than one where I am asked but so is everyone else and things don't work out well in the end. After all, if things work well why would I feel the need to object to that?

[Elheru Aran]

Which is why it's useless in practice. You have to accept the voice of the stupid as well as the intelligent in an democracy. Otherwise it's not a democracy.

Is it not more important for the system to work rather than to adhere to some sort of principal or definition?

You think you can't have both?

People being idiots doesn't remove their basic rights, and voting is one of those. If they muster enough votes to pass something stupid, it's kind of your own fault for a.) not educating them in the error of their ways and b.) mustering enough votes on your own side to counter theirs.

That argument only really works if the stupids aren't the majority. If they are than no amount of campaigning is going to get a majority vote to oppose them. At least not without doing something fraudulent like convincing them that voting day is next week and not tomorrow.

Or, you could do the first thing I suggested, teach them where they're wrong. If they can't learn, then perhaps it's not the place for you. The States is a big country and there's always going to be parts of it that are more one way than another. Fortunately, as time goes on, the population is slowly liberalizing. For all that the conservative minority have the loudest voices out there, they are still the minority.

Stupidity is not a crime. The actions that result from it can be. It's hard to help that.

Why use the term crime? I am genuinely curious.

Because in the States, that's about the only reason you can disenfranchise a legal voter-- committing a crime. Stupidity, refusing to vaccinate your kids, being a Klansman, whatever, aren't crimes.

Hey, I wonder what Purple would say if I were to designate certain users as idiots and then claim they should not be allowed to vote. Odds are he would probably not like the result.

And that kids, is why you don't suppress votes by lists.

To be perfectly honest I would not mind. I'd much rather live in a society that works well but does not ask me for my opinion than one where I am asked but so is everyone else and things don't work out well in the end. After all, if things work well why would I feel the need to object to that?

Yeah, I think if you're going to have that attitude, you cannot understand how important the fundamental rights guaranteed to US citizens, and to citizens of many other countries, are. Voting is one of the most integral ways for the common citizen to make their opinion known in the political forum. Your apathy indicates either a stupendous lack of intelligence or deliberate obtuseness.

[Thanas]

Hey, I wonder what Purple would say if I were to designate certain users as idiots and then claim they should not be allowed to vote. Odds are he would probably not like the result.

And that kids, is why you don't suppress votes by lists.

To be perfectly honest I would not mind. I'd much rather live in a society that works well but does not ask me for my opinion than one where I am asked but so is everyone else and things don't work out well in the end. After all, if things work well why would I feel the need to object to that?

I don't even....

[Purple]

You think you can't have both?

I think that one is nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking so it really does not matter if I can have that one.

Or, you could do the first thing I suggested, teach them where they're wrong. If they can't learn, then perhaps it's not the place for you.

Or, and this might be a strange concept to you I can expect the government to not do something stupid and bad regardless of how many people want them to.

The States is a big country and there's always going to be parts of it that are more one way than another. Fortunately, as time goes on, the population is slowly liberalizing. For all that the conservative minority have the loudest voices out there, they are still the minority.

It's kind of a global problem with democracy though.

Because in the States, that's about the only reason you can disenfranchise a legal voter-- committing a crime. Stupidity, refusing to vaccinate your kids, being a Klansman, whatever, aren't crimes.

I guess I am talking from a European perspective. Out here the government can ban certain political movements and such and belonging to them is a crime. There are also hate speech laws and the like that mean if you say certain things that's a crime too.

Yeah, I think if you're going to have that attitude, you cannot understand how important the fundamental rights guaranteed to US citizens, and to citizens of many other countries, are. Voting is one of the most integral ways for the common citizen to make their opinion known in the political forum. Your apathy indicates either a stupendous lack of intelligence or deliberate obtuseness.

To be perfectly honest lately I have been feeling that my vote is not worth the paper it's drawn on. And every time any democracy in the world demonstrates that the stupid get what they want whilst the smart can't, even if I am with the stupid at times it reinforces said feeling.

But lets just stop here. I don't want to mess this thread even further.

[madd0ct0r]

Hey, I wonder what Purple would say if I were to designate certain users as idiots and then claim they should not be allowed to vote. Odds are he would probably not like the result.

And that kids, is why you don't suppress votes by lists.

To be perfectly honest I would not mind. I'd much rather live in a society that works well but does not ask me for my opinion than one where I am asked but so is everyone else and things don't work out well in the end. After all, if things work well why would I feel the need to object to that?

I don't even....

He's summed up the Chinese bargain fairly well.

[Simon_Jester]

Hey, I wonder what Purple would say if I were to designate certain users as idiots and then claim they should not be allowed to vote. Odds are he would probably not like the result.

And that kids, is why you don't suppress votes by lists.

To be perfectly honest I would not mind. I'd much rather live in a society that works well but does not ask me for my opinion than one where I am asked but so is everyone else and things don't work out well in the end. After all, if things work well why would I feel the need to object to that?

Exactly how would you be assured that things would work well? You have no recourse against the system if it abuses you or becomes corrupt.

Historically, the track record of undemocratic countries is actually very bad. They get into stupid wars, they enact stupid ignorant policies, their economies stagnate because they're run as kleptocracies by the oligarchy (or the autocrat and his cronies).

I have often wondered what it would take to make a technocratic-autocratic government "work" as you describe.

And the only answer I can come up with is "a magic box that picks incorruptible, very restrained people who use power sparingly and stop very often to make sure they're taking all sides of an issue seriously." Unless you have such a magic box tucked away in your purple cube, we're out of luck on that front.

[Purple]

Unless you have such a magic box tucked away in your purple cube

You aren't supposed to know about that. Who told you about it

[Simon_Jester]

So seriously, do you have any answer to the observation that in an undemocratic system, you have absolutely no recourse if the government is corrupt, or abusive, or unwise, or just plain ignorant of the problems you face and winds up grinding you into the dirt?

[Purple]

So seriously, do you have any answer to the observation that in an undemocratic system, you have absolutely no recourse if the government is corrupt, or abusive, or unwise, or just plain ignorant of the problems you face and winds up grinding you into the dirt?

I will admit that I have not given this too much thought. I have been spending my time on more productive things.
But tell me, what mechanisms do modern democracies offer in that regard? What is stopping our leaders from just forming an oligarchy and presenting you with a choice that is meaningless? I mean, from my understanding that is what is happening in america and a good chunk of the "democratic world" right now. Isn't it? And what can you do about it if they do? Protest? What if they just don't care and let you shout your lungs out until you give up? Rebel? Well that works in any society.

[Simon_Jester]

So seriously, do you have any answer to the observation that in an undemocratic system, you have absolutely no recourse if the government is corrupt, or abusive, or unwise, or just plain ignorant of the problems you face and winds up grinding you into the dirt?

I will admit that I have not given this too much thought. I have been spending my time on more productive things.

If you have put so little thought into politics that you don't have an answer to this question, you have no right to a political opinion.

It would be like having strong opinions about physics while being entirely ignorant of basic mathematical and scientific concepts.

But tell me, what mechanisms do modern democracies offer in that regard? What is stopping our leaders from just forming an oligarchy and presenting you with a choice that is meaningless?

For one, it requires the leadership to be much more slow and subtle about such things. In many former colonies in the Third World, where democracy was not in place when the local independence movement won, the mean time to dictatorship and kleptocracy was five years. In developed countries with functional democratic systems, it's much longer.

And even in countries where we say our leadership has become an oligarchy and we have no choices... the situation is still far better than in the average tyranny. In the US, the government is still obliged to obey the rule of law in many, many manners. There are still a wide variety of legal protections for the citizens that really can help them avoid being abused by the government.

The system doesn't work as well as citizens of a democracy would like- but it still works. Better than is normal by historical standards. It's just that the standards we have in the Western world today are so high, because the baseline is a democratic nation with strong safeguards to protect the people and ensure good governance.

Remove all those safeguards, and the situation becomes far worse than even the United States. The difference between the US and a country with less democracy (say, modern Russia) is very obvious and blatant. In Russia the oligarchy is even more obvious and even more privileged, the legal system is more corrupt, and the government is in many ways even more uncaring about the long-term future of the country.

I mean, from my understanding that is what is happening in america and a good chunk of the "democratic world" right now. Isn't it? And what can you do about it if they do? Protest? What if they just don't care and let you shout your lungs out until you give up?

There remains the chance that some faction will take over enough of the vote to undermine the elite. Or that a corporation will be boycotted. Or that large numbers of politicians will defect from the rich billionaire who funds their reelection campaigns, for fear of primary challenges- and perhaps find a new billionaire to support them, in which case they lose nothing.

The point is that at least in a democracy there ARE mechanisms by which peaceful transfers of power, and peaceful changes of policy, can happen. There is a practical limit on how far you can abuse people, and there are real costs for getting anywhere close to that limit.

In a tyrannical state, you can dump a lot of abuse on people and never even realize it, while patting yourself on the back for being a genius manager. This happened historically to people like Mao and Ceausceau.

So no, you cannot just say "well, those 'safeguards' have zero value so I will ignore them."

This remains a real issue. Suppose your gold standard for whether a government is adequate is "does it do its job well." By what means do you ensure good job performance from a state that lacks free speech, free elections, or even the right to protest government actions freely?

[mr friendly guy]

If you have put so little thought into politics that you don't have an answer to this question, you have no right to a political opinion.

It would be like having strong opinions about physics while being entirely ignorant of basic mathematical and scientific concepts.

Isn't this the problem facing a democracy? The voters do have a right to an opinion even on subjects they are ignorant on the most basic parts of said subject. I can point to examples where in some places governments would be hard press to push forward the appropriate policies because the electorate has no freaking clue. Lets say on climate change (US, Australia, but not so in the EU), use of GMO (Europe, but not a big issue in the US), use of nuclear power (a problem in large parts of Europe, and for a while in the US) etc.

I find it ironic you think purple has "no right" to an opinion yet criticise him for supporting a form of government which does just that.

[Iroscato]

<snip self-entitled bullshit>

You really have no fucking clue just how easy you have it, do ya? You're one of these spoilt millenial (by god I hate that phrase, but it can come in handy on occasion) types who's so soft and out of touch with reality that they are unprepared for every harsh minor detail about modern society, and therefore reacts by immediately throwing up your arms and hysterically declaring the whole situation FUBAR and in need of tearing down.
For all its many faults, by and large democracies work. Yes, people are left behind by the system, and there are shady deals and clandestine schemes that tarnish the whole thing, but to be so naive as to suggest you'd be comfortable with an undemocratic process is not just idiotic, it's fucking dangerous.

If this is dogpiling or considered a useless rant, by all means let me know, I just meet this shit head on whenever I see it, and need to blow off some steam.

[madd0ct0r]

For all its many faults, by and large democracies work. Yes, people are left behind by the system, and there are shady deals and clandestine schemes that tarnish the whole thing, but to be so naive as to suggest you'd be comfortable with an undemocratic process is not just idiotic, it's fucking dangerous.

Again, one billion Chinese HAVE made that bargain. People are people are people. People around the world are conservative, suspcious and willing to put up with a lot as long as things seem to be getting better and the situation is stable.

[Simon_Jester]

If you have put so little thought into politics that you don't have an answer to this question, you have no right to a political opinion.

It would be like having strong opinions about physics while being entirely ignorant of basic mathematical and scientific concepts.

Isn't this the problem facing a democracy? The voters do have a right to an opinion even on subjects they are ignorant on the most basic parts of said subject. I can point to examples where in some places governments would be hard press to push forward the appropriate policies because the electorate has no freaking clue. Lets say on climate change (US, Australia, but not so in the EU), use of GMO (Europe, but not a big issue in the US), use of nuclear power (a problem in large parts of Europe, and for a while in the US) etc.

I find it ironic you think purple has "no right" to an opinion yet criticise him for supporting a form of government which does just that.

First of all, I think that people have a duty to inform themselves. Failing this duty leaves one open to criticism. Purple has failed in this duty, and laughs it off by saying he has 'better things to do' than even know what the questions are in matters of basic political science. As a result, he can't answer 2500-year-old questions about his own assertions. Anyone who stayed awake through high school civics should be able to answer the question I asked him- or at least recognize its importance, acknowledge that it's a legitimate question that should not be laughed off. "Who will guard the guardians" is the cornerstone of half of all politics.

Secondly, I think that the government has a duty to educate the people. Not just in issues like genetic engineering and nuclear power, but in how to think logically so that they can be good citizens. It won't work 100% of the time on 100% of the issues, but if it's done faithfully it will matter. When government fails this duty it is open to criticism. When some among the people permit or encourage such failure, so are they.

Thirdly, I think that the issue every citizen deserves an opinion on is "are your leaders doing an acceptable job, yes or no?" Not just any issue, but the specific issue of "in terms of basic accountability and job performance, who should be in charge?" This is why I favor republics over democracies.

Some citizens will make a botch of this choice. That's predictable. However, the cost of accepting the quasirandom effects of morons on the vote is lower than the cost of allowing the state to remove broad categories of voters from the rolls for being too stupid to vote. Even bozos like Purple.

In my frustration, I summed up Purple's failure to perform the basic duty of giving his own opinions five minutes' thought by saying he 'doesn't have a right to an opinion on political things,' to paraphrase. Which was vague.

It would perhaps be more accurate to say, "Purple, you are so willfully ignorant of basic political theory, that in my opinion you have forfeited the right to even participate in a discussion of how political organization should work. Maybe you are fit to illiterately scrawl an X in a box to pick one of the options that the grown-ups offer you, after a minder has carefully explained to you what they mean, but that's about it. So if you refuse to think about the basic, simple questions others put to you, then be silent and stop cluttering up a conversation others have about the same issue. Because if you don't already know anything, and if you won't listen to anyone, you're wasting our time."

[Purple]

First of all, I think that people have a duty to inform themselves

A duty? This is the first time I hear of any duty like that. I have certainly not heard of any laws, regulations or requirements for anyone to be informed. And if it ain't enforced, than it ain't a duty. Although, what you might not realize is that what you say works perfectly well within what I described initially. In fact, if it could be implemented well a system where only those who have accomplished said "duty" would be the best selection criteria for who gets to vote. Really, the more I read your posts the more I feel you are making my case for me.

[mr friendly guy]

First of all, I think that people have a duty to inform themselves. Failing this duty leaves one open to criticism.

I agree on that. As for the rest of your post, I will let Purple argue that if he so chooses.

Secondly, I think that the government has a duty to educate the people. Not just in issues like genetic engineering and nuclear power, but in how to think logically so that they can be good citizens. It won't work 100% of the time on 100% of the issues, but if it's done faithfully it will matter. When government fails this duty it is open to criticism. When some among the people permit or encourage such failure, so are they.

Again agree. Although I would add that whether a government being a democracy or autocracy necessarily means one would be better at educating than another. The other implication I would draw is that education would improve decision making in both a democracy and non democratic government.

Thirdly, I think that the issue every citizen deserves an opinion on is "are your leaders doing an acceptable job, yes or no?" Not just any issue, but the specific issue of "in terms of basic accountability and job performance, who should be in charge?" This is why I favor republics over democracies.

Can you expand on that preference to republics over democracies. Just interested.

Some citizens will make a botch of this choice. That's predictable. However, the cost of accepting the quasirandom effects of morons on the vote is lower than the cost of allowing the state to remove broad categories of voters from the rolls for being too stupid to vote. Even bozos like Purple.

That would also depend on how far the state is allowed to go wouldn't it? I feel you are comparing the worse examples, whereas purple statement didn't necessarily imply the worse examples. To elaborate I could hypothetically describe a state which limits the power of its rulers even if not democratic by how we commonly apply the term. For example fixed terms for leaders, have leaders elected by elites (as opposed to the whole adult population), a culture of anti corruption and a culture venerating the rule of law.

In my frustration, I summed up Purple's failure to perform the basic duty of giving his own opinions five minutes' thought by saying he 'doesn't have a right to an opinion on political things,' to paraphrase. Which was vague.

It would perhaps be more accurate to say, "Purple, you are so willfully ignorant of basic political theory, that in my opinion you have forfeited the right to even participate in a discussion of how political organization should work. Maybe you are fit to illiterately scrawl an X in a box to pick one of the options that the grown-ups offer you, after a minder has carefully explained to you what they mean, but that's about it. So if you refuse to think about the basic, simple questions others put to you, then be silent and stop cluttering up a conversation others have about the same issue. Because if you don't already know anything, and if you won't listen to anyone, you're wasting our time."

Fair enough.

[Simon_Jester]

First of all, I think that people have a duty to inform themselves

A duty? This is the first time I hear of any duty like that. I have certainly not heard of any laws, regulations or requirements for anyone to be informed. And if it ain't enforced, than it ain't a duty.

1) Duties do not flow from law-books. Duties flow from ethical obligations, which in turn flow from philosophy. I could go on at length about the philosophy here but I am stupidly busy starting as of the moment I write this (it was the last thing I wrote). So it'll have to wait.

2) Actually, that duty is regularly enforced in many fields of human endeavour. There are all sorts of areas where it is actively illegal for you to offer a formal opinion as though you were qualified, when you are not. Or where if you misrepresent yourself as having an informed opinion when you do not, you could be sued or otherwise punished. Socially, people routinely penalize each other for speaking about matters of which they are ignorant, especially matters of importance.

Moreover, if you yourself have any intellectual integrity at all... You will at least recognize that you are supposed to know what you are talking about. This is a very basic thing required to participate in intelligent conversation. It is not an idea I made up.

If you don't have that much integrity, then you are a worthless and irrelevant troll whose opinion is of no value to anyone, including yourself.

In fact, if it could be implemented well a system where only those who have accomplished said "duty" would be the best selection criteria for who gets to vote. Really, the more I read your posts the more I feel you are making my case for me.

A system that lets the state select who is allowed to vote for its own leadership will evolve to service a limited class of voters while allowing terrible things to happen to people outside that class. It's as straightforward as evolution by natural selection in biology.
_____________________________________________

For all its many faults, by and large democracies work. Yes, people are left behind by the system, and there are shady deals and clandestine schemes that tarnish the whole thing, but to be so naive as to suggest you'd be comfortable with an undemocratic process is not just idiotic, it's fucking dangerous.

Again, one billion Chinese HAVE made that bargain. People are people are people. People around the world are conservative, suspcious and willing to put up with a lot as long as things seem to be getting better and the situation is stable.

The catch is that these one billion Chinese are very lucky. Tens of billions of people (i.e. most of the human race) lived under various forms of autocracy, and the average Chinese citizen today getting a better deal out of it than almost any of them.

On the other hand, the average Chinese person's grandparents had to live in terror of being called insufficiently revolutionary, submit to the virtual destruction of their institutions of learning, and watch their cultural works and literature be censored, often destroyed, and replaced with official Party-line pap. Meanwhile famines raged throughout the country because of disastrously stupid and willfully ignorant agricultural and industrial policies. And many thousands if not millions were subjected to bizarre public humiliation rituals and tortures for being, well... anything. There didn't have to be a reason, you were just randomly persecuted for whatever, basically.

Were the people who made this happen punished, for the totally wrongful and stupid persecution and destruction that killed millions and humiliated or ruined millions more? No, they were not! Because the main guy responsible was the Glorious Leader of the Chinese state. There was no free press and no free speech to spread accurate information about his performance, so no one had accurate information- not even him! No matter how badly he screwed up, so long as he had the loyalty of his own armed enforcer organizations, there was no way to replace him or even give him so much as a slap on the wrist for bringing about disastrous famines or floods.

And instead of this complete, royal fuckup being punished... As part of the nature of Chinese autocracy of the time, Mao was the beneficiary of a personality cult in which people would repeat his most mundane sayings as if they were important slogans and concepts. Even today it would appear to be controversial in some Chinese circles to say "Mao Zedong was not a god."

And again, this is the same government you are now talking about. Officially, basically nothing has changed since then except that the government pursues different policies. If the people now running China suddenly changed their minds and wanted to redo the Cultural Revolution, there is legally nothing stopping them. Tens of millions would die, either in the resulting civil wars or the resulting floods and famines and plagues... but nothing would necessarily punish those responsible.

So one cannot point to China as evidence that totalitarianism or autocracy can function reliably. For now, it's working for them. Well within living memory, they were one of the worst horrific basket cases in the world, exceeded or rivaled only by other countries that were also autocracies (like, say, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge).
_____________________________________________

Secondly, I think that the government has a duty to educate the people. Not just in issues like genetic engineering and nuclear power, but in how to think logically so that they can be good citizens. It won't work 100% of the time on 100% of the issues, but if it's done faithfully it will matter. When government fails this duty it is open to criticism. When some among the people permit or encourage such failure, so are they.

Again agree. Although I would add that whether a government being a democracy or autocracy necessarily means one would be better at educating than another. The other implication I would draw is that education would improve decision making in both a democracy and non democratic government.

I would argue that public education has little impact on a non-democratic government's performance, except that it makes the actual government functionaries more competent and efficient. Which matters little if it doesn't also serve to stop them being corrupt. Or if it doesn't prevent them from following their own ideology off a cliff while ignoring the consequences of that for others.

Thirdly, I think that the issue every citizen deserves an opinion on is "are your leaders doing an acceptable job, yes or no?" Not just any issue, but the specific issue of "in terms of basic accountability and job performance, who should be in charge?" This is why I favor republics over democracies.

Can you expand on that preference to republics over democracies. Just interested.

What it comes down to is that the average person has neither the time nor the inclination to obsessively chew over policy recommendations, or even to listen to those who do. It is not practical to expect that of them. It's reasonable to expect them to think a little on policy issues, but not to give the matter their full attention for any real length of time.

So it makes sense to delegate that responsibility to people who have little or no other job than to make such decisions. The alternative (have everyone vote on all policy decisions) is prohibitive and didn't work all that well even back in Athens with a population of voters small enough to all fit into the same ampitheatre. It could have been worse, but it could have been better.

Some citizens will make a botch of this choice. That's predictable. However, the cost of accepting the quasirandom effects of morons on the vote is lower than the cost of allowing the state to remove broad categories of voters from the rolls for being too stupid to vote. Even bozos like Purple.

That would also depend on how far the state is allowed to go wouldn't it? I feel you are comparing the worse examples, whereas purple statement didn't necessarily imply the worse examples. To elaborate I could hypothetically describe a state which limits the power of its rulers even if not democratic by how we commonly apply the term. For example fixed terms for leaders, have leaders elected by elites (as opposed to the whole adult population) a culture of anti corruption and a culture venerating the rule of law.

All those safeguards are liable to fall apart over time or become irrelevant in the absence of the basic safeguard: the ability of the people to accurately examine and hold accountable their leadership. Fixed term limits mean nothing when kingmakers behind the scenes can control the outcomes, except to secure the power of said kingmakers. An electorate that makes up only an elite fraction of the populace will elect politicians who service that elite, regardless of its effects on those who lack the vote. And a culture of lawful, honest government only lasts so long if there is no freedom of speech to reveal abuses, and no means for the public to hold the government accountable.

[Purple]

1) Duties do not flow from law-books. Duties flow from ethical obligations, which in turn flow from philosophy. I could go on at length about the philosophy here but I am stupidly busy starting as of the moment I write this (it was the last thing I wrote). So it'll have to wait.

And quite frankly a duty that is not enforced is not a duty. Ethics are all fine and well but relying on people to follow any ethical code without enforcement is about as reliable, smart and quite frankly sane as relying on the tooth fairy or the magical hand of the free market. It's silly idealism, that's what it is.

2) Actually, that duty is regularly enforced in many fields of human endeavour. There are all sorts of areas where it is actively illegal for you to offer a formal opinion as though you were qualified, when you are not. Or where if you misrepresent yourself as having an informed opinion when you do not, you could be sued or otherwise punished. Socially, people routinely penalize each other for speaking about matters of which they are ignorant, especially matters of importance.

And yet the most important area of all, the one that dictates our very lives and government is not one of them. You tell me why this is so. I have my ideas. But I want to hear yours first.

Moreover, if you yourself have any intellectual integrity at all... You will at least recognize that you are supposed to know what you are talking about. This is a very basic thing required to participate in intelligent conversation. It is not an idea I made up.

I know what I am talking about. I merely did not take the time to think up an alternative society for the one we have now. The two are different points. I am also smart enough to separate theory from reality and idealistic images of how things "should" be from the reality of how they are. You can throw all the philosophy and ethics of the world at me if you want. All I have to do to disprove it is ask you politely to look out the window.

A system that lets the state select who is allowed to vote for its own leadership will evolve to service a limited class of voters while allowing terrible things to happen to people outside that class. It's as straightforward as evolution by natural selection in biology.

Sure, that is true. But is democracy as it is any better? In your high and mighty ideals and with a perfectly educated and informed population which is kept in that state by a benevolent democracy loving state that would not be the case. But let's be honest. That's not the real world. Right now, what I see before me is simply election by pageant. Every couple of years world leaders parade them self in a huge popularity contest with the aim to impress a stupid and uneducated population with how big their ego-penis is.

[Broomstick]

1) Duties do not flow from law-books. Duties flow from ethical obligations, which in turn flow from philosophy. I could go on at length about the philosophy here but I am stupidly busy starting as of the moment I write this (it was the last thing I wrote). So it'll have to wait.

And quite frankly a duty that is not enforced is not a duty. Ethics are all fine and well but relying on people to follow any ethical code without enforcement is about as reliable, smart and quite frankly sane as relying on the tooth fairy or the magical hand of the free market. It's silly idealism, that's what it is.

Peer pressure is a very real thing, even if it's not on the lawbooks.

Consistently violate society's generally held ethics and you'll be punished alright, even if it's socially and not financially or in jail or court. Ask people like Paula Deen or Bill Cosby whose livelihoods have been directly impacted by violating certain social norms even if nothing they did was against the formal law.

There is the formal punishment of law, and the informal punishment of society. They both exist.

But if you spend all your time in mama's basement banging on your keyboard you might not understand that, what with not participating in society.

[Simon_Jester]

And quite frankly a duty that is not enforced is not a duty. Ethics are all fine and well but relying on people to follow any ethical code without enforcement is about as reliable, smart and quite frankly sane as relying on the tooth fairy or the magical hand of the free market. It's silly idealism, that's what it is.

Ethics are about the the things you're supposed to do whether or not someone tells you to. That's the whole point. That's practically the definition of the word "ethics."

My point here is, simply, that you have a duty to show intellectual integrity, that this is something others will enforce against you in various ways (including this forum's own rules). And that for your own sake as a practical matter you should show intellectual integrity. And even if it weren't something others will try to force you to do, and even if it weren't for your benefit too, it would still be something you ought to do, because truth is better than falsehood and correct reasoning is better than bullshitting.

2) Actually, that duty is regularly enforced in many fields of human endeavour. There are all sorts of areas where it is actively illegal for you to offer a formal opinion as though you were qualified, when you are not. Or where if you misrepresent yourself as having an informed opinion when you do not, you could be sued or otherwise punished. Socially, people routinely penalize each other for speaking about matters of which they are ignorant, especially matters of importance.

And yet the most important area of all, the one that dictates our very lives and government is not one of them. You tell me why this is so. I have my ideas. But I want to hear yours first.

Because the basic quality of government affects literally everyone, and affects them strongly. Adults have a right to a say in that which affects them.

The corollary to this, of course, is that adults have a responsibility to find the basic minimum amount of information it takes to understand things which affect them- or to abstain from the process by choice.

For example, if I am affected by an illness, I have a responsibility to learn basic things about the illness so that I do not hurt myself. If I am affected by a natural disaster, I have a responsibility to know basic things about how to protect myself and how to avoid making the disaster worse for others. If I have a job that affects the public, I have a responsibility to do that job correctly to the best of my ability.

And if I intend to inject my political opinions into a discussion, or into an election, I have a responsibility to:
1) Listen to the facts and important questions involved, and
2) Think about one's ideas and make sure they're not stupid and insane.

Anyone who acts otherwise is a fool, or a spoiled overgrown child.

Moreover, if you yourself have any intellectual integrity at all... You will at least recognize that you are supposed to know what you are talking about. This is a very basic thing required to participate in intelligent conversation. It is not an idea I made up.

I know what I am talking about. I merely did not take the time to think up an alternative society for the one we have now. The two are different points.

I asked you to do neither.

I asked you to give an intelligent answer to a simple question.

I asked you to explain, if you think government can or should be run by autocrats "as long as it works..." how do you ensure that it will continue to work?

If you're going to keep evading that question, maybe you should go away and do it on a forum that doesn't have rules against repeatedly evading questions.

I am also smart enough to separate theory from reality and idealistic images of how things "should" be from the reality of how they are. You can throw all the philosophy and ethics of the world at me if you want. All I have to do to disprove it is ask you politely to look out the window.

That is nonsensical babble. What you should do is, simply, what you should do. If you don't intend to do that which you should do, you are contemptible, and the only thing which you can ever be good for is self-pleasure. In which case, go pleasure yourself somewhere else.

If you will not listen to logic and arguments for why you should do a thing, then you should not be here.

In my opinion you shouldn't be anywhere else, either, but perhaps it's for the best that I don't get to make that decision.

A system that lets the state select who is allowed to vote for its own leadership will evolve to service a limited class of voters while allowing terrible things to happen to people outside that class. It's as straightforward as evolution by natural selection in biology.

Sure, that is true. But is democracy as it is any better? In your high and mighty ideals and with a perfectly educated and informed population which is kept in that state by a benevolent democracy loving state that would not be the case.

Bullshit. I never said any of those things. You're constructing a strawman version of my argument.

But let's be honest. That's not the real world. Right now, what I see before me is simply election by pageant. Every couple of years world leaders parade them self in a huge popularity contest with the aim to impress a stupid and uneducated population with how big their ego-penis is.

More bullshit. And yet, despite your bullshit, the democratic nations manage to have, on average, far better governments than the autocratic nations. People are safer, policy is more functional. It's not perfect, but it doesn't have to be.

Remember, YOU are supposed to be the one who thinks the system that works best, is best. On average, democracies work better than autocracies. If you're telling the truth about your own opinions, that should be the end of the matter, assuming you're not a fool or a spoiled child.

Your fantasies of submitting to an all-powerful tyrant are irrelevant.

[madd0ct0r]

For all its many faults, by and large democracies work. Yes, people are left behind by the system, and there are shady deals and clandestine schemes that tarnish the whole thing, but to be so naive as to suggest you'd be comfortable with an undemocratic process is not just idiotic, it's fucking dangerous.

Again, one billion Chinese HAVE made that bargain. People are people are people. People around the world are conservative, suspcious and willing to put up with a lot as long as things seem to be getting better and the situation is stable.

The catch is that these one billion Chinese are very lucky. Tens of billions of people (i.e. most of the human race) lived under various forms of autocracy, and the average Chinese citizen today getting a better deal out of it than almost any of them.

On the other hand, the average Chinese person's grandparents had to live in terror of being called insufficiently revolutionary, submit to the virtual destruction of their institutions of learning, and watch their cultural works and literature be censored, often destroyed, and replaced with official Party-line pap. Meanwhile famines raged throughout the country because of disastrously stupid and willfully ignorant agricultural and industrial policies. And many thousands if not millions were subjected to bizarre public humiliation rituals and tortures for being, well... anything. There didn't have to be a reason, you were just randomly persecuted for whatever, basically.

Were the people who made this happen punished, for the totally wrongful and stupid persecution and destruction that killed millions and humiliated or ruined millions more? No, they were not! Because the main guy responsible was the Glorious Leader of the Chinese state. There was no free press and no free speech to spread accurate information about his performance, so no one had accurate information- not even him! No matter how badly he screwed up, so long as he had the loyalty of his own armed enforcer organizations, there was no way to replace him or even give him so much as a slap on the wrist for bringing about disastrous famines or floods.

And instead of this complete, royal fuckup being punished... As part of the nature of Chinese autocracy of the time, Mao was the beneficiary of a personality cult in which people would repeat his most mundane sayings as if they were important slogans and concepts. Even today it would appear to be controversial in some Chinese circles to say "Mao Zedong was not a god."

And again, this is the same government you are now talking about. Officially, basically nothing has changed since then except that the government pursues different policies. If the people now running China suddenly changed their minds and wanted to redo the Cultural Revolution, there is legally nothing stopping them. Tens of millions would die, either in the resulting civil wars or the resulting floods and famines and plagues... but nothing would necessarily punish those responsible.

So one cannot point to China as evidence that totalitarianism or autocracy can function reliably. For now, it's working for them. Well within living memory, they were one of the worst horrific basket cases in the world, exceeded or rivaled only by other countries that were also autocracies (like, say, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge).
_____________________________________________

You know I'm not going to have to stretch far for counter examples. Should I go back to Cromwell's starvation of Ireland, Australian baby robbery or more recent Indian pogroms and religious riots? Should I talk about Thatcher's war on the miners, or Lydon B-Johnson's Gulf of Tonkin, or Blair, Bush and Cheney's adventures in the deserts? It's the same system of government, though all the officials have changed*, and has anyone in this selection been held to account for the starvation and misery inflicted on others?

You might delcare the Chinese Goverment unreliable based on what was happening in the early 60's. In that same time, what was happening in the democratic USA? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
In the last decade and a half, the Chinese government has lifted more people out of absolute poverty then any organisation in the world. They have certainly out performed democratic india. I'm not a fan of them for many reasons, but I do admit when they get things right.

If you are talking checks and balances, I'd point out the naked regulatory capture in the US and and Australia, the system that allows 2 schools to dominate the UK selection of MPs, and how many 'democratic' dynasties do the US and India boast between them? A vote is no protection against a dollar.

* well, except in the last example. making it even worse then Mao's Gang of Four, who after all were given show trials and imprisoned for their crimes. Something you seem to have forgotten in your wikipedia trawl

[mr friendly guy]

Few thoughts before I go to work

1. I am really jaded because I think its less so about type of government than the person or persons running it. A monarchy where the ruler is smart, has decent feedback mechanisms (easier in the modern world with the internet), competent, and not corrupt will improve the standard of living in a country.

The only difference between different forms of government seems to be that some hold more power over their own countries, so their fuck ups are magnified, while their achievements if they work can occur quicker and more widespread. All other things being equal (eg population, GDP etc, so it makes it hard to compare between countries since all other things are not equal).

2. If I did not have the fortune to be born in a developed or relatively well off country (like most of the world's population) I freely admit I would forego some of the rights like voting for as Purple puts it "getting things done." Presumably he means things like economic development. The problem of course is, there is no way to tell whether I would get a leader who could get things done. But lets just say hypothetically if I was born in a poor country and the leaders had already demonstrated a capability to improve things. Lets say its not democratic. Would I forego temporarily the right to vote (ie not agitating for change) in exchange for improved standard of living?

In all honesty I would say yes. This strangely enough seems to be the path developed nations took. The West became rich before it became democratic did it not? The US didn't even allow women to vote until the early 20th century, but had already surpassed the British empire in terms of GDP almost 2 decades earlier (depending on who you ask). I also just want to bring up anecdotal evidence of people who I know come from countries where they have the right to vote and prefer to live in Australia as non citizens (without a right to vote). Their reason? Why Australia has a higher standard of living. Doesn't seem to bother them not having that right.

Anyone who thinks they would rather live in a democracy come what may, should try a thought experiment. I am sure these people would prefer a democracy all things being equal (ie same standard of living) but what happens if things aren't? Would you prefer to live in say China (and keep your head down) or India? Even if you say India, at what point do you say "nope, this standard of living is too bad, I would rather live in the non democratic nation with decent standard of living." I think everyone has a "breaking point" if you will.

Now lets take the converse. If I was already born in a rich country and I had a good standard of living, would I make the "Chinese bargain" as madd0ctor puts it. Most probably not, because my situation wouldn't be like China's, and thus no need to make that bargain. I wouldn't make that bargain even if I was convinced our geopolitical rivals were getting ahead economically and the only way to compete was to do a "Chinese bargain."