Demtri, is there such a thing as superstition? Are there false beliefs? How do we separate personal experience that is reliable from that which is not? Simply seeing something and immediately believing whatever crazy explanation for it pops in my head can’t have as much merit as eliminating obvious inconsistencies, and finding the explanation that helps me best understand the phenomenon.
Also, I asked you before how you distinguish science from personal experience, and you said that you do not. So, when you say science is arrogant, do you also intend to say that personal experience is arrogant? If not, you do distinguish them. In that case, how is science defined differently from personal experience.
Haha its annoying that I suspect most people who argue ‘personal experience’/‘science’ would never apply it in practice. Try that sort of reasoning when you need heart medication/surgery, brain surgery, try it any time you need an antibiotic.
When we decide that antibiotics work and sugar pills don’t, its not ‘simply’ an issue of personal experience both claims aren’t equal.
I agree with this as well. Morality is not the issue. The majority is restricted and penalized for the actions and behavior of a few, which, to me, makes it fundamentally unjust. I would have great confidence in a new system which allowed citizens complete freedom to govern themselves. Rather that than a system that preemptively limits, based on distrust in the ‘public’ to make informed decisions. Call it idealistic but otherwise one would have to concede that the average citizen has less integrity than the average politician and that would be a very sorry statement indeed. I don’t think that failure in our current representatives indicates that the population is ignorant… I think it just underscores how impossible and unattainable it is for a few to actually represent the views of the whole.
I think that apathy can be mostly attributed to a near-complete loss of faith in the system itself. In the 18th century voter turn-out was next-to complete because confidence in the system to mirror the wishes of the people was still intact. But if you believe a practice is broken and corrupted… and evidence of that is all around you… participating in it makes less and less sense. Which is what makes the idea of such a radically different approach so intriguing. After all our current system was designed centuries ago based on a completely different set of circumstances… it seems only natural that it will cease to be affective as the dynamics change. Everything must adapt… I’d say that’s not the question. The question is only to what? With the playing field-leveling technology we have on hand now it makes sense that that would be employed in any new governing model. In any case I think it would be very interesting to see such a system acted out on a smaller scale to begin with.
I feel the same way, like the time is right for something new. The old ways are starting to make sense in the context of today’s world.
I also think that change needs to be gradual… people have not reacted so well to rapid change throughout the course of history.
I would be in favor of a mix between our representative democracy and a direct democracy. Maybe something resembling the Swiss, giving the people power to hold a referendum to challenge any law passed by the government and put it to a national vote, or to propose constitutional amendments. Another idea would be to eliminate the US house of Reps and replace it with a direct national voting system. Everything would work essentially the same as far as the interaction between the elected senate and the people. Laws originate from either, pass to the other, and then on to the white house. I feel like the Reps only exists because 250 years ago information traveled at the speed of horse, and direct participation in government was not feasible. (BTW check Barack Obama’s technology vision - he has some real interesting ideas about using the internet to create citizen participation in gov’t - perhaps a step in this direction: youtube.com/watch?v=WFNt_pV2RNk )
If our votes were recorded on the web, and you could see at any time your name next to how you voted, there would be less voter fraud, because you can see if your vote has changed or not.
Also, I think we should vote with our money- Our Income Taxes should allow us to put our money into the programs we want to endorse. Then there would be no need for an elected few to decide for us.
If people actually decided instead of the elected few…what form of government would this be?
It’s not a matter of quantity of people, it’s a matter of quantity of wealth, and the vastly outnumbered 5% of “rich Americans” control more than half of all the wealth.
If you let let money decide policy, then the small number of people with a disproportionately large amount of wealth will cause an unfair distribution of power.
Where did you get your “stuff” from? Either you took it from someone else (in which case you would be a hypocrite for chastising the poor in doing the same) or you earned it, meaning you put forth some effort in exchange for that stuff. The problem in unfair compensation for work. Too many people get too much for doing too little and vice versa. And you would criticize them for demanding fair compensation for their work? The US unemployment rate is only 5%. People are working, their just not getting enough money for it because those who control the payouts are keeping it for themselves. If you don’t want people stealing what they have rightful earned, then perhaps you should just give them what they deserve.
It’s still a better way than what we’ve got, and the scales will slowly tip to the favor of the majority. Also, a smaller government with more checks and balances deter corruption, and then coorperations won’t get what they used to because the majority who are not rich will not vote for things that benefit large coorperations. Politicians will eventually be more selfless, and tides will turn for the better. Most will favor the middle class in time.
Sign a contract for low wages or starve. That’s some choice. Sounds like slavery to me.
Who am I to decide what is fair? Who is the business owner to decide what is fair? Who is anyone to decide what is fair? Ahh, and the inherent problem of the Libertarian free market ideal becomes more apparent. Let’s let the “invisible hand” make the decisions. Some economic religion we’ve invented here.
