now boys and girls /primo supremo :m: the equations building an art museaum... = posting ....in a village full of idiots = sci ..pulling out all the stops... = qualitative analysis of my posts ..either.. = qualitative analysis of his* own posts *his = outlandish take another gander, fella = reinterpret the original statement original statement = your patronage gives lie to the expressed sentiment. your patronage gives lie to the expressed sentiment. = you will not hang out here if that were the case ...that... = .... a village full of idiots /nuff said?
But art museums are for spectators, and we all know how people get all quiet and proper when wandering the halls of an art museum.
this would be a really good idea. I would love to debate hyper on different forms of goverment but its hard to find a spot where it wont turn into idiocy (except for formal debate and i really wanted it to be an open debate)
Asguard: "I would love to debate hyper on different forms of goverment but its hard to find a spot where it wont turn into idiocy (except for formal debate and i really wanted it to be an open debate)" Letting Mods worry about order, decorum, placement, etc. I'll just summarize right here. Do with it as you like, I think good discussion just runs its course whether it happens in fertile or barren places. Even in the most hallowed places, I turn to idiocy myself, whenever I've just had enough of being serious. But seriously: My opinion on ideal government boils down to advocacy of direct democracy: I believe that entire adult populations should be compelled to vote- any permits or benefits we require from local or national governments should require and compel dutiful participation as citizens in the responsibilities of self-governance. The conscious consensus can be expressed, while the unconscious, apathetic noise can be randomized through scientific balloting. Formats, frequency, and scope of referenda should of course be subject to democratic refinement when they become controversial. If complex electronic financial exchanges can be made secure, then the technology has also adequately matured for the logistics of direct democracy. If we can agree on traffic rules, then we can agree on policy-making rules too. If the most democratic nations of the world are becoming better places to live than the alternatives, then human reasoning has obviously evolved sufficiently for the phased implementation of more direct democracy- even in large, established constitutional governments. Looking at the USA, our greatest policy disasters, and our most vexing societal challenges have clear origins in non-democratic special-interest influence on national policy. Our most obvious path to reform is rooted in our founding, still un-realized ideals: We the People, having a majority opinion expressing hope and faith in human nature, participating in forming a more perfect union, progressively improving the responsiveness of government of, by, and for the people. Democracy is an expression of faith in human nature. All other forms of government are expressions of varying degrees of cynicism about it. I've lived around enough to know that people from the most disparate backgrounds can and do coexist, and that the experience is far more fulfilling and gratifying than the alternative. Where present systems of government show great disparity between government policy and public opinion in major issues of policy (elective war, funding of physical and social infrastructure, unpopular leadership) we have the perfect opportunities for pioneering referenda. A structure can be designed by which a certain threshold of public dissatisfaction with a policy arrived at by our representatives would trigger a national referendum on the issue- including constitutional popular impeachment and/or removal of representatives from office whenever necessary. While this would not result in infallible choices, the powerful difference would be that such a system would result in greatly augmented public interest, and accelerated popular learning about policy cause-and-effect. Governance and policy always has been, and always will be experimental. What needs most to change is for the public to become more directly accountable for, and more deliberative about our most critical collective policies. We don't need complex debates about electing the local dog-catcher. We do need more focused and sustained public debate and empowerment about issues like life and death, war and peace, poverty and wealth. Direct democracy would stimulate collective learning about accountability, and about the importance of political activism. I don't expect true democracy to instantly create better policy than all that came before. I expect it will instead bring an acceleration of the evolution of policy-making. I expect direct democracy to be far more progressive and than diluted democracy, and far more beneficial to the societies affected than any variations on authoritarianism. If and when we debate forms of government, that's what my position will boil down to: The closer any particular government adheres to the ideals of democracy, the more I am in support of it. I firmly believe that the only authority for collective policy comes from collective consensus. If a collectively-agreed policy fails, then direct democracy will respond: We will find ourselves compelled to collectively own up to and learn from our mistakes (even bloody ones) without all the present political scapegoating, distraction, and orchestrated confusion.
Why do this? The Politics section has become a joke. I have little hope a political science section would be the benefactor of anything remotely approaching appropriateness.
Your remarks would be fairly appropriate in the politics section, given the current tenor of all the wonderful debate that's happening there. Unless, of course, if you're lying. You know certain members think everyone else is lying all the time, so it may be that your just another big, fat liar.
liar pantson, fire-noses, longues, telephone wifi-er. Bashi-bazouk! :soapbox: Let's have that debate conversation (post 30) asguard. There's only serious scientific discourse here. *cricket... cricket* :bump: *cricket... cricket*
AGREE WITH THE OP. The politics board is plagued by threads that don't actually involve politics as a branch of intellectual inquiry. People aren't arguing about the merits of political ideals like democracy, the state, human nature, etc. It's just people arguing why their politics are the best. Imagine if you will, if the religion forum went from containing threads about the nature of religion, why we believe in gods, and other such intellectual topics... to being saturated with threads like "Christians are better than Jews..!!!" or "Another reason why the Muslims eat dicks..!" Such mindless browbeating would get old fast. It is in Politics.
