Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Shutdown and democracy

Page 3 of 3 [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Previous topic | Next topic

The_Walrus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

18 Oct 2013, 6:06 pm

zer0netgain wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
And yet the American people re-elected Obama and the Senate...


1. Look at what the option was (and Romney WAS NOT the lead candidate, but he was pretty much handed it after a blood bath of every leading contender but to his emerging on top).

Who was, then? Santorum? Less electable than Romney. Paul? Never really a poll leader.

Romney was consistently a leading candidate whilst the others took it in turns to compete with him.

If the American public hated Obamacare that much then they wouldn't have re-elected him... and the polls would say that hated it.
Image



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

21 Oct 2013, 12:52 pm

RushKing wrote:
Government is impractical and tyrannical, and small scale direct democracy would be way more functional.


I beg to differ. Government is inherently practical. Given a limited number of resources, and a larger number of calls on those, what choices do you make? That is government boiled down to its essence. And there can be nothing more practical than setting priorities about what you must do, what you'd like to do, and what you can't consider doing.

As for tyranny, government can be tyrannical, but as the old show tune says, "It ain't necessarily so." And if you feel that the United States government is tyrannical, then I think you need to give your head a shake an think about what life is like in a real tyranny.

Quote:
Mob rule is not democracy. In a direct democracy, people discuss and think critically.


I think we found the flaw in your argument...

Quote:
A group has no reason to carry out with something a minority violently disagrees with. Representative democracys create mobs with popularity contests. The glorious founding fathers ironically created the mob they were trying to "protect" individuals from. This idea that the people are too dumb to govern themselves and so they must be ruled a small number who also happen to be human beings is complete bunk.


Bunk? Then why is it that every country that leads in measures like the HDI and the Freedom index is a representative democracy? Why is it that no state--no matter how small--governs itself through direct democracy? If it can't function in San Marino, how can we possibly expect it to function on any larger scale?


_________________
--James


RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

21 Oct 2013, 4:10 pm

visagrunt wrote:
RushKing wrote:
A group has no reason to carry out with something a minority violently disagrees with. Representative democracys create mobs with popularity contests. The glorious founding fathers ironically created the mob they were trying to "protect" individuals from. This idea that the people are too dumb to govern themselves and so they must be ruled a small number who also happen to be human beings is complete bunk.


Bunk? Then why is it that every country that leads in measures like the HDI and the Freedom index is a representative democracy?

Every nation state
visagrunt wrote:
Why is it that no state--no matter how small--governs itself through direct democracy?

Because states are anti-democratic. I don't believe "small" government to be a solution.
visagrunt wrote:
If it can't function in San Marino, how can we possibly expect it to function on any larger scale?

I don't

I believe in a decentralized network of direct democracies.



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

21 Oct 2013, 4:29 pm

/\ RushKing, have you ever considered the possibility of living in the real world?

After all, it is obvious that none of your utopian dreams will ever come to pass, so why even bother?



RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

21 Oct 2013, 5:27 pm

GGPViper wrote:
/\ RushKing, have you ever considered the possibility of living in the real world?

After all, it is obvious that none of your utopian dreams will ever come to pass, so why even bother?

Whats wrong with dreaming? How do we make a better world without dreaming first? Taking the hypothetical seriously is a fundamental part of planing for a better tomorrow.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

22 Oct 2013, 10:54 am

RushKing wrote:
I don't

I believe in a decentralized network of direct democracies.


You'd be better off believing in the Tooth Fairy.


_________________
--James