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.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
some people just don't get it...
Collapse
X
-
"I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:
-
Kucinich: Agreed, that would seem to work better than the British system or heaven forbid proportional representation (read Weimar Republic). The more "democratic" the system, the more prone to foul-ups."I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:
Comment
-
With technocracy (or a hell of a lot of safeguards) the former could be a lot more efficient, and now free of the shackles of popular opinion, is free to address issues such as global warming, HIV/AIDS and third world poverty without the concern that he would be thrown out of office if he doesnt make short term decisions to appease the public at the expense of those more critical long term aims.
A king rules absolutely for life, and has a much better capacity for making decisions than the uninformed commoner.
You have far too much faith in people, that when given such power, that they would use the power responsibly, and for goals that you agree with.
For example, could not this enlightened despot strip away everything that you hold dear in society, just as likely, as he would be to improve the things you desire?
The best form of government is the one in which people would live under should they disagree with their ruler.Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
Comment
-
So you would rather disenfranchise yourself and to submit to the rule of a king rather than an elected president?
You have far too much faith in people, that when given such power, that they would use the power responsibly, and for goals that you agree with.
For example, could not this enlightened despot strip away everything that you hold dear in society, just as likely, as he would be to improve the things you desire?
The best form of government is the one in which people would live under should they disagree with their ruler.
Nonetheless, must catch some beauty sleep"I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:
Comment
-
The trend toward mediocrity could best be shown, in the US anyway, by the civil service...which meets most of the qualifications that you outlined. The leadership changing at regular intervals is what keeps it from utter stagnation. The fact that a professional core exits at the center lends some credence to your ideas, but Kuchinic rightly points out the danger of using them completely (i.e. judges versus elected officials).
I would submit to you that we already have a system that utilizes some aspects of your dream while still holding the government accountable to the people...(see This November )
Logic would further say that "the sheep" will, to some extent, recognize the limitations of their expertise...hence political parties were born (The vetting process to which you refer). This also answers the question of longevity of government that you desire (For example...Reagan-Bush...1981-1993...12 years), while still being answerable to the people(11/84, 11/88, 1nd finally rejected by the people 11/92)."I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003
Comment
-
Originally posted by Whaleboy
With technocracy (or a hell of a lot of safeguards) the former could be a lot more efficient, and now free of the shackles of popular opinion, . . .Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...
Comment
-
Logic would further say that "the sheep" will, to some extent, recognize the limitations of their expertise...hence political parties were born (The vetting process to which you refer). This also answers the question of longevity of government that you desire (For example...Reagan-Bush...1981-1993...12 years), while still being answerable to the people(11/84, 11/88, 1nd finally rejected by the people 11/92).
holding the government accountable to the people
Such was the reasoning of dozens of would be military saviors overthrowing democracies. Out with politics, let the technocrats do their jobs. They were mostly collosal failures, with a few Asian exceptions."I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:
Comment
-
Nonetheless, going off at tangent, we were supposed to be discussing free speech, and how JSM would not support a classical utilitarian limitation of freedom of expression as his father might."I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:
Comment
-
I believe we should have some type of leadership that is above politics whose main purpose is too protect the people from themselves and the politicians. A system with a PM or President, Parliament/Congress, judges and then some type of leader independent of all these with powers of limitation or even power of proposal.
I think it's a failure on the part of the British system that they don't use their monarchy in such a manner. Connecting all the dots. It's true that sometimes the population don't know what's good in the long run for them. It's also true that politicians make a some amount decisions based on appeasing the people. It's also true that the people have less power when the corporations, unions and various other groups provide the funding for politicians to get their message out. The more money needed to campaign the less voice the common people have. Why not set up a voice that cannot be bought or sold. Why not set up a voice to weigh the issue of freedom of speech, prochoice and etc and come to the conclusion is this really in the public interest regardless of how the lawyers, big tobacco and other lobbyists feel about the situation.What can make a nigga wanna fight a whole night club/Figure that he ought to maybe be a pimp simply 'cause he don't like love/What can make a nigga wanna achy, break all rules/In a book when it took a lot to get you hooked up to this volume/
What can make a nigga wanna loose all faith in/Anything that he can't feel through his chest wit sensation
Comment
-
Originally posted by Whaleboy
Kucinich and BK: Let them all run wild and free!!"I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
"I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
"I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- Dis
Comment
-
...and I don't see the fundamental difference between swinging knives, death threats, and wearing swastikas.
Except that swinging knives can be dangerous when performed by unskilled hands, but it wasn't the point of the illustration in this thread."I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
"I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
"I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- Dis
Comment
-
...and I don't see the fundamental difference between swinging knives, death threats, and wearing swastikas."I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:
Comment
-
To avoid corruption, keep government in some vague concurrence with the people and to prevent revolution (after all one can't steer an oil tanker through too narrow a gauntlet), democracy is useful. An election once a generation. Excellence? Adequacy? Please elaborate on those terms? Getting back to basics, under a libertarian scheme, a governments role consists of analysing a situation and determining if it is legal according to its (my ) libertarian basis, and running the economy. Not out of the realms of feasibility for a technocracy (though obviously I'm not tabling this as a real solution now), thus avoiding human corruption. If you have a means of avoiding human corruption, then democracy (and its associated failings read global warming) is useless and irrelevant. Before a feasible alternative is put in place, it is my view that we should limit democracy and place people in power who know what they are doing, and not influenced by the masses who for the most part, do not."I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:
Comment
Comment