some people just don't get it...

[Whaleboy]

Plato, while I broadly concur, democracy (aka rule by idiocy) will likely lead to the destruction of Western civilisation. Libertarianism, within the framework of a benevolent dictatorship or technocracy would be so damn cool!!

[Ben Kenobi]

If only we could get pregnant

Well, you don't have to sleep around.

Lots of fun with just one.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Plato, while I broadly concur, democracy (aka rule by idiocy) will likely lead to the destruction of Western civilisation. Libertarianism, within the framework of a benevolent dictatorship or technocracy would be so damn cool!!

Our difference is that I have faith in the people to collectively do what is best...you only have faith in one or a few. Furthermore, who selects the one or the few?

[Kuciwalker]

BK, pregnancy is NOT an STD (well, at least not in the sense of HIV or herpes)

[Whaleboy]

BK: If the objective was to get as many people pregnant as possible, monogamy is a bad plan...

[Ben Kenobi]

What!

I thought the goal here was to maximise pleasure.

[Kuciwalker]

Back on topic:

Whaleboy - sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What!

I thought the goal here was to maximise pleasure.

A true utilitarian!

[Whaleboy]

Our difference is that I have faith in the people to collectively do what is best...you only have faith in one or a few. Furtermore, who selects the one or the few?

The people, collectively, are simplistic, a great theatre of sheep. Individually, we have our talents, but politics and economics is a precise game. If I have to choose between deciding on the basis of logic or popularity, I choose logic. Those members of the public with sufficient understanding of politics, law, philosophy, economics, sociology or psychology to run the country in a democracy are "diluted" by those who don't. Note that I am a free speech advocate, but see no reason why a nation should be run on that basis, instead of merely featuring it for the people. Of course, elected representatives are a better idea than pure democracy, but can only really serve as a cushion to the uninformed populus. Let's be clear about this, you opiate the people with a feeling of power, you create a stable government (the longest lived political systems iirc are democracies), and you can field large patriotic armies. That, particularly the latter point, hasn't changed in the better part of 25 centuries.

As for who selects the few? A good question, a system in a constitution whereby those who fullfill certain criteria best are chosen perhaps (obviously more than one to curb the risk of corruption, but ideally a self-perpetuating and transparent technocracy to eliminate the risk of corruption). Lets not go off at a tangent by discussing the finer points of my pipe dream, but suffice that there is a reasonable argument against democracy that does not involve exploding Shi'ites.

[Pekka]

THe funny part is, I don't think a single gay man or lesbian was even really offended by the sticker. It was the girl who was offended. Why would you defend some people who are not even offended?

[Whaleboy]

Kucinich and BK: Let them all run wild and free!!

[Kuciwalker]

Whaleboy - have you read Mill's Representative Government?

As for who selects the few? A good question, a system in a constitution whereby those who fullfill certain criteria best are chosen perhaps (obviously more than one to curb the risk of corruption, but ideally a self-perpetuating and transparent technocracy to eliminate the risk of corruption).

In it, his basic point is that all bureaucracies tend towards mediocrity without some outside stimulus - and that there is no effective measuring stick that can be preserved in writing. In the economy, this stimulus is actual bankruptcy. There is no reliable corresponding stimulus in politics except something dependent on the people. However, they need not (indeed, should not, often) be directly selected by the people.

[Whaleboy]

Good point (and yes, but it overlaps with On Liberty a lot in my view). It would tend to lend itself to a vague democracy, perhaps once a generation to keep the government roughly in line with the wishes of the people, which would also serve as a check against revolution. Perhaps an election once every 15/20/30 years. That lends itself to technocracy too of course... one could elect programs instead of people. Either way, its different, I like it

[Ben Kenobi]

perhaps once a generation to keep the government roughly in line with the wishes of the people

I think we do better by our politicians than we do by our judges.

4 years seems long enough for me, given that a shorter period spurs innovations and corrections. Making the terms longer will not help democracy, but will rather encourage one man to take control of things for himself.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Good point (and yes, but it overlaps with On Liberty a lot in my view). It would tend to lend itself to a vague democracy, perhaps once a generation to keep the government roughly in line with the wishes of the people, which would also serve as a check against revolution. Perhaps an election once every 15/20/30 years. That lends itself to technocracy too of course... one could elect programs instead of people. Either way, its different, I like it

One of the things Mill actually admired about the US was the Senate - he claimed that because it was selected by the state legislatures, which were mostly elected for a seperate purpose, the Senators were generally more professional. Now, I don't know if this was correct, not having lived then, but it seems to make sense, and is similar to what you suggest - democracy, but not only not direct democracy but with several layers between the people and the legislators.

Of course, I would also want a directly elected house, with proportional representation, to give the people some direct power (but checked).