Oolite Bulletins

This is why democracy is stupid: these idiots are allowed to vote, indeed, under Australian law, these idiots are required to vote:-

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/histor ... more-43323

This is an example of why democracy makes grown-up people sad.

Wildeblood wrote:

This is why democracy is stupid: these idiots are allowed to vote, indeed, under Australian law, these idiots are required to vote:-

This is an example of why democracy makes grown-up people sad.

This being one of my pet peeves, like you it seems, I feed you
Why, yes, but society being comprised mostly of not-yet-grown-up-if-ever people, we must have a system managing not-yet-grown-up-if-ever people, and counterbalancing not-yet-grown-up-if-ever people in position of power.

The alternative would be to find wise-grown-up people to lead us. But where do you find such rare beasts ?

Fire enough crud into a closed system and you alter the system.
It's like taking a dump on clockwork then arguing that the clock was going to stop naturally anyway.

P-o-s-s-i-b-l-y, but the jobbie helped things along and made it more difficult to fix didn't it?

Day wrote:

...find wise-grown-up people to lead us. But where do you find such rare beasts ?

There are a few folks around here I would nominate
...and several hundred I wouldn't

Smivs wrote:

Day wrote:

...find wise-grown-up people to lead us. But where do you find such rare beasts ?

There are a few folks around here I would nominate
...and several hundred I wouldn't

And would those wise-grown-up volunteer for such a task? Leading us, I mean?

Day wrote:

And would those wise-grown-up volunteer for such a task? Leading us, I mean?

No, I expect they're far too sensible.

Smivs wrote:

Day wrote:

And would those wise-grown-up volunteer for such a task? Leading us, I mean?

No, I expect they're far too sensible.

I like Douglas Adams solution. And that could work with a small group of people like that.
But until then, we have to make do with the least bad system we know, which seems to be this democracy. I'm not sold on it, either, for precisely the same reason, look at the codswallop of Republican candidates polluting the US primaries. I would not be comfortable seeing any of them near a voting booth, let alone a legislative or executive body.

Mazur wrote:

I like Douglas Adams solution.

Round up all the middlemen and send them to another planet?

Wildeblood wrote:

Mazur wrote:

I like Douglas Adams solution.

Round up all the middlemen and send them to another planet?

That too, but I was thinking of the president of the Universe one. Both solutions have merit.

Day wrote:

The alternative would be to find wise-grown-up people to lead us. But where do you find such rare beasts ?

And how to tell if we find one?

Bertrand Russell I believe once wrote:

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wise people so full of doubts.

An ironically 'certain' statement but relevant none the less. If it, 'takes one to know one', then the 'above average effect' is probably far too prevelant for an accurate concensus.

The biggest fool can reach the best decision whilst the wisest can come to make the worst; it's just that the reasoning of the former is usually the less elegant of the two.
Denying the voice of even the most foolish person is a dangerous path to take IMO.

And so...

Smivs wrote:

Day wrote:

And would those wise-grown-up volunteer for such a task? Leading us, I mean?

No, I expect they're far too sensible.

Wildeblood wrote:

This is why democracy is stupid: these idiots are allowed to vote, indeed, under Australian law, these idiots are required to vote

They are required to vote, but one way in which they can cast their vote is for a 'none of the above' absention option. Also: part of the point of compelling people to vote is to increase people's feeling of involvement in governance. Presumably part of the point of that, in turn, is to get a better - more thoughtful and less selfish - electorate.

At any rate, surely we can agree on the more general points, viz., (1) electorates can be better or worse and (2) one remedy for poorly functioning democracies is to improve the electorate. (One could propose various means to the later goal. Such means might include greater participation - fix democracy through more democracy! - but also education and, for various reasons, the removal of power from vested interests.)

Now: if, in principle, democracies can be better or worse, then, again at least in principle, democracies are improvable - and, since the alternative to democracy seems to be tyranny of various sorts, I think we should go for democracy.

Smivs wrote:

Day wrote:

And would those wise-grown-up volunteer for such a task? Leading us, I mean?

No, I expect they're far too sensible.

Redspear wrote:

Day wrote:

The alternative would be to find wise-grown-up people to lead us. But where do you find such rare beasts ?

And how to tell if we find one?

Well, for the sake of argument, how about I nominate a specific candidate?

I nominate Professor Richard Dawkins to be the prime-autocrat-tyrant-dictator of the English-speaking world. If Professor Dawkins' word were law, surely our society could be improved much more quickly than it can with representative democracy?

Would any of you disagree that he is the best one to lead us? If so, why? And, if not he, who would be a better candidate?

UK_Eliter wrote:

one remedy for poorly functioning democracies is to improve the electorate. [...] Such means might include greater participation - fix democracy through more democracy! - but also education

That was the big idea of USSR: make a more conscious electoral body so they may vote better, socially speaking.
Of course, the problem was to decide who would decide what would be taught, and how it would be decided.
As it was an important power issue, it was decided at the top, in a tyrannical way (oh the irony).

I imagine we would encounter the same issues.

UK_Eliter wrote:

in principle, democracies are improvable

Please, what do you mean?

Wildeblood wrote:

I nominate Professor Richard Dawkins to be the prime-autocrat-tyrant-dictator of the English-speaking world. If Professor Dawkins' word were law, surely our society could be improved much more quickly than it can with representative democracy?

Would any of you disagree that he is the best one to lead us? If so, why? And, if not he, who would be a better candidate?

I'm not sure he has experience in managing LOTS of people.
I would nominate Linus Torvalds, with Dawkins and Eric Raymond as main advisors. Dawkins being old, another one is necessary who would be compatible with his ideas and already conscious of the world changes induced by the accelerating disruptive technological progresses.

EDIT: as a non-native english speaker, and for lots of other reasons, I disagree with the idea of dividing blocks depending on the mainly used language.

Day wrote:

EDIT: as a non-native english speaker, and for lots of other reasons, I disagree with the idea of dividing blocks depending on the mainly used language.

You read an obvious, but unintended, implication. I don't know what other languages Professor Dawkins speaks. If he speaks French he should obviously rule French-speaking lands too.

I would gladly volunteer to rule France for you, if I spoke the lingo, but I don't. (If I won lotto I'd be over there in a flash - ta, ta, bye, Australia. And if I won lotto I'd employ a bilingual flunky to speak to my neighbours for me. For historical reasons Australians take a perverse pride in being monolingual.)