0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Hound, BB. There are more political and philosophical luminaries than you can shake a stick at that support my contention that the level of sophistication of an electorate is crucially important. Right back as far as Plato. He wrote that democracy is dangerous as its typical citizen is shiftless and flighty:"Sometimes he drinks heavily while listening to the flute; at other times, he drinks only water and is on a diet; sometimes he goes in for physical training; at other times, he’s idle and neglects everything; and sometimes he even occupies himself with what he takes to be philosophy".It would be much safer, Plato thought, to entrust power to carefully educated guardians. Exemplar No. 1 of the level of sophistication being thought to be massively important....At the opposite end, Karl Marx made huge play with the level of sophistication, of the intelligence, or lack of, of electorates. Exemplar No. 2 of the level of sophistication being thought to be massively important....John Stuart Mill in the nineteenth century proposed giving extra votes to citizens with university degrees or intellectually demanding jobs because those with neither did not have the intelligence or experience to contribute sensibly. Mill worried that others would lack knowledge and judgment hence he wanted to give more votes to those better qualified. Exemplar No. 3 of the level of sophistication being thought to be massively important....In the United States, élites who feared the ignorance of poor immigrants tried to restrict ballots. In 1855, Connecticut introduced the first literacy test for American voters. New York in 1921 introduced a law requiring new voters to take a test if they couldn’t prove that they had an eighth-grade education. Exemplar No. 4 of the level of sophistication being thought to be massively important....And, of course, your God, Adam Smith, had a few words to say too. Here's an idea. If we value the power to make good decisions, why not try a system that’s a little less fair but makes good decisions more often? It's called “epistocracy,” and it means “government by the knowledgeable.” Funny how you went all egalitarian, like all good Socialists, when I made an elitist suggestion! Exemplar No. 5 of the level of sophistication being thought to be massively important....Get off your righteous hobby horses. Think for once. This debate has proved my contention beyond any shadow of doubt.CheersBobG
Oh look! The foul mouthed illiterate Belton is back!!How are you?? I suppose a discussion about J S Mill and Plato is way outside youir competance so we can expect nothing better from you. Try getting an education.BobG
Any debate, any democratic party, and voting plan that does not take into account the level of knowledge, intelligence and sophisticatioon of the electorate is not going to get very far at all.... We can see the evidence of that right here in this topic and on this forum!BobG
There are plenty of knowledgeable and wealthy people, with power, who do much good with their money.Our very own Terry Bramall for a starter.
Quote from: SydneyRover on May 27, 2022, 12:43:47 amBRR, I accept pretty much all of that except:''What our system does very effectively is give the illusion that there is power in the ballot box''One would have had to be living under a rock not to understand the sycophant and coward that johnson is and for the dimmies moaning that ppl didn't accept the vote in 2016 or 2019 should understand we are here in this position as a direct result of the ballot box choice many made, too many. They need to own every bit of it and grow some.Dimmies? There you go again, resorting to insults, as a replacement forr intelligent, articulate conversation.Your argument against the ballot box, that too many people make the wrong choices, is probably the most anti-democratic thing I've ever heard.
BRR, I accept pretty much all of that except:''What our system does very effectively is give the illusion that there is power in the ballot box''One would have had to be living under a rock not to understand the sycophant and coward that johnson is and for the dimmies moaning that ppl didn't accept the vote in 2016 or 2019 should understand we are here in this position as a direct result of the ballot box choice many made, too many. They need to own every bit of it and grow some.
It has to be universal suffrage.Each individual has their own experience of life. Each should have an understanding of what is best for them, like no other individual could.The problem with the notion that the knowledgeable know best, is it assumes they will want what's best for society as a whole.They may not.They may well just use their power to selfishly improve their own circumstances further.I think there is enough evidence in our own flawed system to assume that would be true.
Here's an idea. If we value the power to make good decisions, why not try a system that’s a little less fair but makes good decisions more often? It's called “epistocracy,” and it means “government by the knowledgeable.” Funny how you went all egalitarian, like all good Socialists, when I made an elitist suggestion! Exemplar No. 5 of the level of sophistication being thought to be massively important....Get off your righteous hobby horses. Think for once. This debate has proved my contention beyond any shadow of doubt.CheersBobG
Not at all saying I agree with their system, but THE biggest mass transition from rural abject poverty, to urban, reasonable standard of living has occurred in a profoundly undemocratic country.China has overseen the lifting out of poverty of around half a billion people in the past 30 years. Democracy is far from the only way to see a transition out of poverty.
DDYou couldn't live in a society like that because you live in one where the heavy lifting of dragging people out of utter abject poverty was done many years ago.You're setting a false question. The question isn't whether some comfortable Westerner whose great-great-grandparents lived in abject poverty approves of the Chinese model. It's whether a peasant farmer who moved from a dirt poor village in the sticks and now works in a factory in Tianjin, lives in a small, basic but serviceable apartment and has kids at state school with the possibility of going to University approves of it.
Quote from: River Don on May 28, 2022, 05:27:43 pmIt has to be universal suffrage.Each individual has their own experience of life. Each should have an understanding of what is best for them, like no other individual could.The problem with the notion that the knowledgeable know best, is it assumes they will want what's best for society as a whole.They may not.They may well just use their power to selfishly improve their own circumstances further.I think there is enough evidence in our own flawed system to assume that would be true.This is very true, why a supposedly "intelligent and sophisticated man" could not see this for himself tells you all you need to know about him and how a cohort of like minded people think and would like to treat the general populous.Never heard such nonsense from true Labour supporters, but then again they didn't consider themselves high handed or pompous, above and beyond what passes as decent behavior. Can you imagine taking his musings to their logical conclusions, there would be more than just Emily Pankhurst turning in their grave, unbelievable, even for this forum.
Quote from: danumdon on May 28, 2022, 06:36:03 pmQuote from: River Don on May 28, 2022, 05:27:43 pmIt has to be universal suffrage.Each individual has their own experience of life. Each should have an understanding of what is best for them, like no other individual could.The problem with the notion that the knowledgeable know best, is it assumes they will want what's best for society as a whole.They may not.They may well just use their power to selfishly improve their own circumstances further.I think there is enough evidence in our own flawed system to assume that would be true.This is very true, why a supposedly "intelligent and sophisticated man" could not see this for himself tells you all you need to know about him and how a cohort of like minded people think and would like to treat the general populous.Never heard such nonsense from true Labour supporters, but then again they didn't consider themselves high handed or pompous, above and beyond what passes as decent behavior. Can you imagine taking his musings to their logical conclusions, there would be more than just Emily Pankhurst turning in their grave, unbelievable, even for this forum.With your comments about women maybe you need a spell an a re-education camp, you evoking what Emily Pankhurst would think ffs
Quote from: River Don on May 28, 2022, 05:27:43 pmIt has to be universal suffrage.Each individual has their own experience of life. Each should have an understanding of what is best for them, like no other individual could.The problem with the notion that the knowledgeable know best, is it assumes they will want what's best for society as a whole.They may not.They may well just use their power to selfishly improve their own circumstances further.I think there is enough evidence in our own flawed system to assume that would be true.This is very true, why a supposedly "intelligent and sophisticated man" could not see this for himself tells you all you need to know about him and how a cohort of like minded people think and would like to treat the general populous.Never heard such nonsense from true Labour supporters, but then again they didn't consider themselves high handed or pompous, above and beyond what passes as decent behavior. Can you imagine taking his musings to their logical conclusions, there would be more than just Emily Pankhurst turning in their grave, unbelievable, even for this forum.
Obviously didn't have anything of substance to say, like backing up some pretty extreme and fascist beliefs from your likeminded pal.Its apparent that you can't interact unless its on your own terms and if you do you come back with childish bubble, expected from a political extremist,I can't be bothered with you.