Wizard of Whatever
Registered Senior Member
In today's political climate, I doubt any amendments could be passed and approved.
The truth is a lie.
- Thread starter Olga
- Start date
Representative democracy does have the potential to be covert technocracy[1], where political parties could "ideally" nominate and choose the most expert and experienced from their members, to run for office. But usually it is those deemed to have the best chance of winning (popular appeal) and who can garner the most funding for their campaigns. Resulting in special interest groups and lobbyists significantly holding much of the reins. Plus, the eventual introduction of primary elections (in the US) undermined that potential further via handing more power to the motives and desires of the voting population, with respect to deciding the caliber of candidates.
Direct democracy, of course, is disparaged due to the possibility of the majority voting policies into effect that are impulsive and detrimental -- no proxies to mediate a mob mentality. But as history has demonstrated, that bulk -- and affluent donors -- can still acquire and sway representatives that conform in part to their legislative wishes. Though laws and the moral accountability of an officeholder (if facilitating _X_ deed occurring) still restricts and mitigates he/she from fully complying to the darkest side of public, private, and populist activism or radical movement demands.
- - - footnote - - -
[1] Not that having "philosopher kings" in office would yield utopia, by any means. Even veteran experts are vulnerable to human corruption, biases, etc. And some overly insulated intellectuals -- albeit celebrated for their moral nobility -- are fabulous idiots when it comes to the practicalities of dealing with the real world.
_
Last edited:
Yes, deluded Conservatives like yourself always use grievance as an excuse for being wrong. They have little if any discerning qualities that allow them to know what is right or wrong, up or down, left or right, fact or fiction, etc. So, when you do make ridiculous claims that you can't support, you automatically revert to grievance when you get called out.
Yep. Conservatives love nothing better than to be victims.
Я в этом не сильно разбираюсь - консерваторы, демократы, или кто то там ещё. Теперь понятно: Мартин - консерватор. А вы кто, Билвон?
So, hey, before you go ... six months ago↗, I asked you a particular question that would have helped you communicate, and me understand, your perspective. I reiterated↗ the question a couple times↗ at least; and it came up again↗ not long after that. And I've tried applying it as a more general question↗, and in related context↗. I even mentioned it to you, again, in January↗. And, honestly, at this point I'm at least as curious about why you won't answer the question as I am the actual answer.
• Can we agree that refusing censorship is not a violation of free speech?
I mean, as you turn to posting good-bye notes in multiple↑ threads↗, it's worth trying one more time, if only to make the point that you just aren't going to answer.
So, please consider that while you have asserted certain behavioral and circumstantial equivalence, you have refused for six months to address even the most basic implications of your assertion. It's unclear what discussion you expect of people when you behave that way.
Or not. You are, after all, behaving according to type.
(Anecdotally, before you go: I've known people to cut ties over this sort of stuff, so it's worth pointing out how bad you are for a certain kind of middle-roader who doesn't support something but complains about the criticism against. It's just that, even at the level of a smalltime discussion board like ours, the persistent embarrassment your behavior inflicts on those who would otherwise defend you feels a lot more extraordinary than it's turning out to be. Yeah, they should probably be embarrassed. People playing your role are a dime a dozen, and largely inflation-proof in the sense of a multiplier applied to zero. For every person who objects so particularly to certain criticism of particular political advocates, there are ten, or twenty, or even a hundred of you to embarrass them by fulfilling the criticism; in the end, they best they can hope for is that your kind really are a legion of bots that can be blamed on someone. As a bot, there's a reason you wouldn't understand a simple question about the implications of what you say; as a living, thinking person, there's a reason you don't want to answer the question.)