quote:

---

Originally posted by garry anderson:
1st assumption, the bumbling idiot actually chose who got to be around him. I think he was sick of being a failure and a loser and left it all up to the people who had done it before to do it again. By no means an accident, not even the popular vote, but with an awesome team who had a job to do and a brand to work with. I've never said washington was full of idiots, too many lobbiest though. There should be a ban on those. : )

---

Again, I demand that you show your credentials as a political scientist. If you are unable to do so, your opinions carry about as much water as Bush's economic policies.

I am sick and tired of everyone having an opinion. The worst of the worst is what'shisfacetheplumber, who's not even an expert in plumbing. But this whole tea party business is pathetic. Suddenly everyone knows what's best for the country? Everyone's a political scientist? Democracy is truly a terrible system, because it assumes everyone is intelligent, well-informed, and rational. Nothing could be further from the truth.

__________________
This message brought to you by MOTL's very own fancy biologist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by garry anderson:
1st assumption, the bumbling idiot actually chose who got to be around him. I think he was sick of being a failure and a loser and left it all up to the people who had done it before to do it again. By no means an accident, not even the popular vote, but with an awesome team who had a job to do and a brand to work with. I've never said washington was full of idiots, too many lobbiest though. There should be a ban on those. : )

---

Look dude, I know you don't like him, or his policies.
But back the **** off, okay?
I don't give a flying turd about how stupid you think he is as a person. I don't care about what you have to say about his moral rectitude, his decisionmaking abilities, or anything else. Yeah, I know, he was a terrible president. Probably the worst of all. But you know what? He still was a president. And you don't slander the president. It's despicable, shameful, and cowardly. There is a huge difference between attacking someone as a leader and attacking someone as a person. You crossed that line. Believe me, I wish we had had someone, ANYONE, at the helm for the last eight years rather than him. He had terrible policies, divided the country, and threw our reputation and economy in the toilet. But he is still the president, and I've had it with people gleefully taking dumps on his character. ENOUGH.

quote:

---

Originally posted by garry anderson:
I personally believe and see that a Democrat's main objective in helping create better government is to help it's people become more equally "intelligent, well-informed, and rational."

Democrat's want to promote good democracy. I know, it's wierd isn't it?

---

Interestingly, no, a Democrat's main object is not to create better government. Their goal, exactly analogously to the Republican's goal, is to consolidate power in the hands of the few, namely themselves. They do not want to help people be more intelligent, well-informed, or rational. They want people to be tools for the machine, just as the Republicans do. The words change, but the song remains the same.

Take the blinders off. Anyone who would willingly seek power must not be allowed to receive it. There is no such thing as a truly benevolent politician, no person who would truly put the public good before their own.

__________________
This message brought to you by MOTL's very own fancy biologist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pyr0ma5ta:
Interestingly, no, a Democrat's main object is not to create better government. Their goal, exactly analogously to the Republican's goal, is to consolidate power in the hands of the few, namely themselves. They do not want to help people be more intelligent, well-informed, or rational. They want people to be tools for the machine, just as the Republicans do. The words change, but the song remains the same.

Take the blinders off. Anyone who would willingly seek power must not be allowed to receive it. There is no such thing as a truly benevolent politician, no person who would truly put the public good before their own.

---

You need to re-read my point, you messed it all up and responded to some other . . . . little voice in your head. You are so at odds with anything not exactly like you, you cannot even conceive other peoples perspectives.

Republicans want what's best for Republicans, not even all Republicans, just the ones with exactly the same perspective. Those people only join forces when someone scares them into thinking they're going to losing some fragment of their fragile fallacy of a life. Then they'll do anything to destroy that which they don't understand or doesn't fit their illusion, desperately trying to protect that which they KNOW WITHOUT QUESTION. They bundle their illusions into warm fuzzy words that no one would dare object to like family values, patriotism and the American Dream.

The last time I checked the American Dream was mortgaged 146% loan to value, Patriotism included invading Iraq for it's oil not WMD's, and Family Value's are intrinsic of Families not Christians everyone instinctively has them.

The Republican house of cards is falling apart. The illusion will end one day and I only hope the Democrats can put together a better whole America for everyone on the planet. The other option is to go the way of every other Empire from the beginning of recorded time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by garry anderson:
You need to re-read my point, you messed it all up and responded to some other . . . . little voice in your head. You are so at odds with anything not exactly like you, you cannot even conceive other peoples perspectives.

Republicans want what's best for Republicans, not even all Republicans, just the ones with exactly the same perspective. Those people only join forces when someone scares them into thinking they're going to losing some fragment of their fragile fallacy of a life. Then they'll do anything to destroy that which they don't understand or doesn't fit their illusion, desperately trying to protect that which they KNOW WITHOUT QUESTION. They bundle their illusions into warm fuzzy words that no one would dare object to like family values, patriotism and the American Dream.

The last time I checked the American Dream was mortgaged 146% loan to value, Patriotism included invading Iraq for it's oil not WMD's, and Family Value's are intrinsic of Families not Christians everyone instinctively has them.

The Republican house of cards is falling apart. The illusion will end one day and I only hope the Democrats can put together a better whole America for everyone on the planet. The other option is to go the way of every other Empire from the beginning of recorded time.

120,000,000 Americans think like you and shrinking, maybe another 120,000,000 around the world and the other 6,530,000,000 people on the planet think people like you are the devil. I think it's about time you started living in the real world, all of it. Grow up and make it better for everyone.

---

FAIL
Pyr0's not a republican.
Epic self-ownage.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ch3ckm4t3:
Competition is great. Be it sports or most areas of life. Competition is human nature. Of course it can be taken too far (like anything). And of course some people who cannot compete will rally against competition.

---

I compete fine, and do well. I don't rally against it, without it I wouldn't be able to do the business I love.

I do however see the enormous costs and amounts of resources that are wasted because of it. Competition benifit's the sponsor and the victor, mostly the sponsor. For example, I have new condominium building I want to build, I put out a tender for quotes and swiftly 100's of people (say 8 groups for each service I need) start whirling around working for days, weeks even months putting together contracts, plans, designs, quotes, etc. I (sponsor) will only pick one (victor) of each type of service I need, maybe not the best, maybe the cheapest.

So, hundred's of trees, thousands of gallons of gas, maybe tens of thousands of man hours all get wasted competing. Only 1/8th of all resources used in that competition are actually used, the other 7/8th's are wasted.

The Sponsor wins by getting what he wants for 1/8th the cost of the resources required to produce what he wants.

The Victor wins by getting the resources the Victor is giving him to do the job.

This result is the same for virtually every competition, obviously if 2 people are competing then only 1/2 the time/money/effort is wasted. Saying it's human nature is silly, we've been programmed to be that way fighting for resources, it can be de-programmed once we eliminate the waste.

quote:

---

Originally posted by garry anderson:
You need to re-read my point, you messed it all up and responded to some other . . . . little voice in your head. You are so at odds with anything not exactly like you, you cannot even conceive other peoples perspectives.

Republicans want what's best for Republicans, not even all Republicans, just the ones with exactly the same perspective. Those people only join forces when someone scares them into thinking they're going to losing some fragment of their fragile fallacy of a life. Then they'll do anything to destroy that which they don't understand or doesn't fit their illusion, desperately trying to protect that which they KNOW WITHOUT QUESTION. They bundle their illusions into warm fuzzy words that no one would dare object to like family values, patriotism and the American Dream.

The last time I checked the American Dream was mortgaged 146% loan to value, Patriotism included invading Iraq for it's oil not WMD's, and Family Value's are intrinsic of Families not Christians everyone instinctively has them.

The Republican house of cards is falling apart. The illusion will end one day and I only hope the Democrats can put together a better whole America for everyone on the planet. The other option is to go the way of every other Empire from the beginning of recorded time.

120,000,000 Americans think like you and shrinking, maybe another 120,000,000 around the world and the other 6,530,000,000 people on the planet think people like you are the devil. I think it's about time you started living in the real world, all of it. Grow up and make it better for everyone.

---

Speaking of re-reading, missing points, and being brainwashed...

I believe the appropriate word is "irony."

__________________
This message brought to you by MOTL's very own fancy biologist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
FAIL
Pyr0's not a republican.
Epic self-ownage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by garry anderson:

FAIL
My post didn't say "Republicans Like PyrO"

I see you and pyrO like to insert your own thoughts into others posts in an attampt to find something you can argue about. That's sharp. Why even contribute, why not just stay off the thread? You're just re-inforcing our points.

---

ROFL.
The irony of someone who uses a post that digs sharply at BOTH sides of the spectrum as a jumping off point for an anti-conservatism rant telling others to not insert THEIR thoughts into other's posts is so, so sweet.

Also, nice attempt at ass-covering; don't even pretend that there isn't utter hypocrisy behind everything you've said and done on this page thus far.

quote:

---

Originally posted by garry anderson:
FAIL
My post didn't say "Republicans Like PyrO"

I see you and pyrO like to insert your own thoughts into others posts in an attampt to find something you can argue about. That's sharp. Why even contribute, why not just stay off the thread? You're just re-inforcing our points.[/B]

---

So when you say "our," you really mean "my," right? Since nobody is backing you up on this one.

A quick question, which I don't think is unreasonable. Where am I putting my own thoughts into your posts? If anything, it's you who are putting your personal thoughts into mine. Even if you didn't say it in so many words, you CLEARLY and obviously accused me of being a Republican. The most cursory look at my post should have told you that I am incredibly against BOTH the Democrat and the Republican parties in the US.

Who are the 120,000,000 Americans who think like I do? I'm my own man. I think for myself. I come up with my own conclusions given the data available to me. I carefully and meticulously evaluate facts and statements asserted as fact. I take nothing said to me as true unless verified. I am skeptical to the utmost degree. Can you say the same?

__________________
This message brought to you by MOTL's very own fancy biologist.

I did notice that neither of you even attempted to address or argue the content of my posts.

I'm not a democrat either, I don't beleive in political parties, the electoral process, or the system of government as it exists today. I do think there's a pure democracy but it doesn't involve representatives.
In the current type of "democracy," a leader really means "temporary ruler".

A true democracy, doesn't involve politicians making decisions for us, it involves politicians carying out decisions that we as society make for ourselves. Not governance, services.

quote:

---

Originally posted by garry anderson:
Does either of you want to actually contribute an idea or put forth an argument? Would you rather just get defensive and argue that I'm not arguing fairly? I do appoligize for labelling you at all. I have an idea though, why not focus on the points and argue against them.

I did notice that neither of you even attempted to address or argue the content of my posts.

I'm not a democrat either, I don't beleive in political parties, the electoral process, or the system of government as it exists today. I do think there's a pure democracy but it doesn't involve representatives.
In the current type of "democracy," a leader really means "temporary ruler".

A true democracy, doesn't involve politicians making decisions for us, it involves politicians carying out decisions that we as society make for ourselves. Not governance, services.

The President should be an employee, and his job is to execute a mandate decided on by the people, nothing more. No more campaign advertising, spin or lobbyists. The Pres screws up and get's fired just like everyone else.

---

Tell me, why exactly should I have to defend the Republican stance when it's patently clear that I don't support it? You accuse me of being a Republican, and then wonder why I don't address the content of your posts. Ever heard of a straw man? I don't need to address your arguments if they are putting (absolutely despicable) words in my mouth.

Besides, I notice that you haven't responded to mine either, despite the fact that they clearly and explicitly refute yours. You clearly and explicitly claimed that the Democratic party's platform includes informing the people and helping them think for themselves. I clearly and explicitly claim that all politicians, whatever brand of shoes they wear, are interested in only one thing: consolidation of power in the hands of few. Therefore, American Democracy is, by definition, a flawed concept, a result of selfish human nature. I'm not being defensive here. I'm putting forth an idea that you've so far refused to acknowledge or address.

Furthermore, I accuse you of being one of the sheeple. That's right, you're as brainwashed as the conservatives you claim to disagree with. I challenge you to show that you've actually thought these things out. Back up your claims. I dare you.

Also, your claim to being non-partisan is laughable after this travesty of a post:

quote:

---

Originally posted by garry anderson:
I personally believe and see that a Democrat's main objective in helping create better government is to help it's people become more equally "intelligent, well-informed, and rational."

Democrat's want to promote good democracy. I know, it's wierd isn't it?

---

If that's not a partisan post, I don't know what is.

Your point about true democracy is correct, but has already been addressed. I believe that humans are ignorant, self-interested, short-sighted, and irrational. We are unable or unwilling to vote for the greater good. Regardless of whether or not there is a figurehead at the top, democracy is flawed, because it governs flawed subjects. Having a guy at the top making decisions only makes it worse.

How's that for responding to your comments? Your move.

Edits: Man, I'm terrible at spelling and grammar right after waking up.

__________________
This message brought to you by MOTL's very own fancy biologist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pyr0ma5ta:
Anyone who would willingly seek power must not be allowed to receive it. There is no such thing as a truly benevolent politician

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gary anderson:
I don't beleive in political parties, the electoral process, or the system of government as it exists today. I do think there's a pure democracy but it doesn't involve representatives. True democracy, doesn't involve politicians making decisions for us, it involves politicians carying out decisions that we as society make for ourselves.

---

So what's the alternative? If we cannot have any elected officials because they would either be a) be seeking power by putting themselves on the ticket or b) inherently undemocratic because they are representatives, what kind of government do we have? Direct democracy on all issues?

America is not a Greek city-state - our population is over 300 million. I fail to see how making every issue a referendum is even remotely possible. And even if this were possible, it wouldn't do away with all the political machinery - they would just do their bidding in different manners (namely, by spending money to finance campaigns for certain initiatives, etc). It's fine to complain about how crappy politics in America are, but it doesn't do much good unless you have a solution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pyr0ma5ta:
no person who would truly put the public good before their own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
So what's the alternative? If we cannot have any elected officials because they would either be a) be seeking power by putting themselves on the ticket or b) inherently undemocratic because they are representatives, what kind of government do we have? Direct democracy on all issues?

---

All of the statements you highlighted are of course on a purely theoretical level. I will, of course, concede that on a practical level, the alternatives are to have direct democracy on all issues, or something you probably have not considered: pure anarchy. I would like to revert to the basic social contract, without organized sovereignty. Sadly, this carries with it other problems, which again stem from the selfishness of human nature, which I consider to be even darker than Thomas Hobbes thought. I cannot propose a better system, I can only critique what I see.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
America is not a Greek city-state - our population is over 300 million. I fail to see how making every issue a referendum is even remotely possible. And even if this were possible, it wouldn't do away with all the political machinery - they would just do their bidding in different manners (namely, by spending money to finance campaigns for certain initiatives, etc). It's fine to complain about how crappy politics in America are, but it doesn't do much good unless you have a solution.

---

You're right, of course, that without a proposed solution, I am not being productive. Instead of elections and people running for public posts, we select, say, 0.01% of the population, excluding those too old or young, at random to form the governing body for the year? These people will be able to communicate to the population in a one-way manner: they will address the nation from time to time, make decisions, and pass judgement on policy. They will be informed of the state of affairs, of course, but this will be their only contact with the outside world. Lobbying will not exist.

This system is not without its own problems as well, but I think it's far better than electing people who are running for office. It's more like jury duty than anything else.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
Then how do you explain people who sacrifice their lives (literally or figuratively) for others? There may be more selfish than altruistic people, but saying everybody is 100% selfish is a lie.

---

It is possible to make what appears to be a selfless move and yet have selfish motives. One might claim that Mother Teresa was selfless, but she gained followers, fame, and beatification. The truly selfless and thankless sacrifice is few and far between. I did not claim that all people are 100% selfish, but I don't think you can assert that truly selfless sacrifices are a common occurence. It takes an extraordinary person to make extraordinary sacrifices. We are not a race of extraordinary people.

__________________
This message brought to you by MOTL's very own fancy biologist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by garry anderson:
Does either of you want to actually contribute an idea or put forth an argument? Would you rather just get defensive and argue that I'm not arguing fairly? I do appoligize for labelling you at all. I have an idea though, why not focus on the points and argue against them.

---

At this point you are either so drenched in ideology that you don't listen to what you type, or you're so stubborn to admit your hypocrisy that you are now attacking other people in an attempt to obscure the fact. Allow me to elucidate you then:

Pyr0ma5ta makes a post that points out that Democrats and Republicans are the same politician with a different pair of shoes. You respond by attacking republicans and telling him "120,000,000 americans think like you and shrinking". Even if you weren't calling him a republican (doubtful), you are still a massive hypocrite.

quote:

---

Originally posted by garry anderson:
I see you and pyrO like to insert your own thoughts into others posts in an attampt to find something you can argue about. That's sharp. Why even contribute, why not just stay off the thread? You're just re-inforcing our points.

---

I see you like to insert your own thoughts into others posts in an attempt to find something you can argue about. That's sharp. Why even contribute, why not just stay off the thread? You're just re-inforcing my point that YOU'RE A GODDAMN HYPOCRITE.

quote:

---

Blah.

---

The rest of what you have to say is equally hypocritical, partisan, and not worth my time. I swear, you're almost as bad as skizzikmonger and ch3ckmat3. Almost.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pyr0ma5ta:

You're right, of course, that without a proposed solution, I am not being productive. Instead of elections and people running for public posts, we select, say, 0.01% of the population, excluding those too old or young, at random to form the governing body for the year? These people will be able to communicate to the population in a one-way manner: they will address the nation from time to time, make decisions, and pass judgement on policy. They will be informed of the state of affairs, of course, but this will be their only contact with the outside world. Lobbying will not exist.

---

Forgive me, but that sounds preposterous. Actually, that's not quite true: it sounds rather similar to the ancient Athenian system, except of course that the city of Athens was much smaller and less diverse than nation-states today.

But I really don't see that being feasible, or even necessarily desirable. Just imagine the havoc that could be wrought by a few people with peas for brains, or ambition for a heart. Frankly, I prefer the current system for its more-or-less open debate, and the illusion of popular power.

If we really want to strike at the heart of a number of the problems (such as greed and corporate lobbying), then much simpler solutions exist. Ban corporate lobbying and donations, for one. For another, institute a much more radical left-wing economic policy with a guaranteed minimum income/life provisions, and cap salaries at a reasonable amount. Increase taxation. Place a (social) premium on leisure time rather than disposable income. If the state provides everyone with enough food, shelter, healthcare, and communications access to meet a decent standard of living, then the incentives to go overboard should be much reduced.

Frankly, I think that the best way to reduce the kind of political corruption and croneyism that we both despise is just to move away from the greed endemic in our economic system. Let's use leisure time as the unit of measurement of freedom, rather than buying power.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.
I do not think they will sing to me."
-T.S. Eliot

The only path to victory in the “war on terror” is the moral high ground. Sadly, it's buried beneath the rubble of your nation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
Forgive me, but that sounds preposterous. Actually, that's not quite true: it sounds rather similar to the ancient Athenian system, except of course that the city of Athens was much smaller and less diverse than nation-states today.

---

Very astute. Indeed, my proposal is based upon the Athenian system. You earn 2 effort points for recognizing the similarities.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
But I really don't see that being feasible, or even necessarily desirable. Just imagine the havoc that could be wrought by a few people with peas for brains, or ambition for a heart. Frankly, I prefer the current system for its more-or-less open debate, and the illusion of popular power.

---

I liken it more to jury duty. Except in this case, you've got 30,000 people who will represent the government for the year. The idea is that this is a small enough number that each individual person is not likely to be asked to serve more than once, so it's not a huge inconvenience. But it's also a large enough number that hopefully there will be sufficient non-idiots to balance out the bleating masses. And it's also large enough that it's not likely a single person will be able to convince everyone to be their puppet. Finally, organizing 30,000 people is likely to be a difficult task. Getting things done will be hard. Which is a good thing: "The best government is that which governs least."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
If we really want to strike at the heart of a number of the problems (such as greed and corporate lobbying), then much simpler solutions exist. Ban corporate lobbying and donations, for one. For another, institute a much more radical left-wing economic policy with a guaranteed minimum income/life provisions, and cap salaries at a reasonable amount. Increase taxation. Place a (social) premium on leisure time rather than disposable income. If the state provides everyone with enough food, shelter, healthcare, and communications access to meet a decent standard of living, then the incentives to go overboard should be much reduced.

---

I agree with every statement in this paragraph. However, you know full well that given the American socialism-phobia, even mentioning any one of these policies is political suicide. None of these will happen in America while people still remember the Cold War and McCarthy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
Frankly, I think that the best way to reduce the kind of political corruption and croneyism that we both despise is just to move away from the greed endemic in our economic system. Let's use leisure time as the unit of measurement of freedom, rather than buying power.

---

I presume that you've taken some form of Economics class, since you're well educated. After getting through the traditional introductions and paperwork, what's the first thing out of the professor's mouth?

"Economics is based on the assumption that greed is good."

How then do you propose to take greed out of economics, if it's the very keystone? We are taught from day one to envy the very rich. Everyone is taught that "he who dies with the most toys wins." How do you propose we teach people that we should value time rather than material objects? Seems to me that greed for "stuff" is ingrained into our very human nature.

__________________
This message brought to you by MOTL's very own fancy biologist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pyr0ma5ta:
All of the statements you highlighted are of course on a purely theoretical level. I will, of course, concede that on a practical level, the alternatives are to have direct democracy on all issues, or something you probably have not considered: pure anarchy.

---

Actually, I have considered it, but I find it unacceptable. We criticize corruption because it marginalizes people and creates bad policies, but anarchy would simply result in granting that power to anyone who could obtain big guns. Minimally, the status quo protects us from things such as hooligan mobs and tyrannical dictators. Pure anarchy would probably not remain for long - it would simply revert us to a more primitive form of rule.

The solution I feel best is minimizing the government. By restricting government power, we limit the number of places it can poison. And I think you agree, no?

quote:

---

Originally posted by pyr0ma5ta:
"The best government is that which governs least."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pyr0ma5ta:
Instead of elections and people running for public posts, we select, say, 0.01% of the population, excluding those too old or young, at random to form the governing body for the year?

These people will be able to communicate to the population in a one-way manner: they will address the nation from time to time, make decisions, and pass judgment on policy. They will be informed of the state of affairs, of course, but this will be their only contact with the outside world. Lobbying will not exist.

---

Hello manipulation by the people providing them with the information.

Hello random chance that the majority of the people in office agree on some issue and decide to make it priority one no matter how absurd or wrong it is. Like nuking the middle east, killing all illegal immigrants on sight, il-legalizing hand-holding before marriage, eliminating taxes entirely, and other such things. Who knows what could happen.

I think Goas covered the rest. There are just as many opportunities for fail in this system as there are in the current one, except our government at least accomplishes a few things upon occasion, whereas your idea is designed to produce nothing but nothing. I will admit it was funny, though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pyr0ma5ta:
so it's not a huge inconvenience.

---

A year of my life without any contact with the outside world except through specialized liaisons sounds like a massive inconvenience to me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pyr0ma5ta:
And it's also large enough that it's not likely a single person will be able to convince everyone to be their puppet.

---

If presidential candidates (like Bush, for example) can manipulate millions of people into voting for them, I'm pretty sure they could handle a couple thousand. Especially if it was those people's job to sit around and listen.

Unless, of course, a 100% vote tally was needed to pass any policy. Then, yes, nothing would get done. Ever.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pyr0ma5ta:
It is possible to make what appears to be a selfless move and yet have selfish motives. One might claim that Mother Teresa was selfless, but she gained followers, fame, and beatification. The truly selfless and thankless sacrifice is few and far between. I did not claim that all people are 100% selfish, but I don't think you can assert that truly selfless sacrifices are a common occurence. It takes an extraordinary person to make extraordinary sacrifices. We are not a race of extraordinary people.

---

The issue is that you are assuming ANY selfishness makes a person unfit for rule. Yes, on a whole, everyone has selfish motives and flaws. However, that does not make them incapable of making selfless acts. Every day people make decisions that might not directly benefit them - for example: the simple act of holding the door open for someone behind you. It takes an extra push of the muscles, but it helps someone else. Although maybe there was that "selfish" motive of making yourself feel good for doing so, I don't see why this is bad - it creates a social net gain with no individual net loss.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
Actually, I have considered it, but I find it unacceptable. We criticize corruption because it marginalizes people and creates bad policies, but anarchy would simply result in granting that power to anyone who could obtain big guns. Minimally, the status quo protects us from things such as hooligan mobs and tyrannical dictators. Pure anarchy would probably not remain for long - it would simply revert us to a more primitive form of rule.

---

I admit that anarchy does not solve the issue of human nature and our constant need to impress our will on each other. Didn't say it was a perfect solution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
The solution I feel best is minimizing the government. By restricting government power, we limit the number of places it can poison. And I think you agree, no?

---

Agree.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
Hello manipulation of the computer that selects the names.

Hello manipulation by the people providing them with the information.

Hello random chance that the majority of the people in office agree on some issue and decide to make it priority one no matter how absurd or wrong it is. Like nuking the middle east, killing all illegal immigrants on sight, il-legalizing hand-holding before marriage, eliminating taxes entirely, and other such things. Who knows what could happen.

---

Didn't say the selection was without problems. Also, random chance, yes, but is that worse than systematic manipulation by those already in power? I'll put my money on the randomly selected group any day.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
A year of my life without any contact with the outside world except through specialized liaisons sounds like a massive inconvenience to me.

---

But is it more or less of an inconvenience than our current system of government?

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
If presidential candidates (like Bush, for example) can manipulate millions of people into voting for them, I'm pretty sure they could handle a couple thousand. Especially if it was those people's job to sit around and listen.

---

I think you'll agree when I say that Bush and company had a very influential and motivated team with lots of money to manipulate the public. It'll be harder to imagine that a group of randomly selected individuals will be motivated or able to drive a group of other randomly selected individuals.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
Unless, of course, a 100% vote tally was needed to pass any policy. Then, yes, nothing would get done. Ever.

---

Didn't say that. I did say that less government, in general, is better, but there are cases where action must be taken. So it should be difficult but not impossible to enact action. A 3/5ths majority should be sufficient.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
The issue is that you are assuming ANY selfishness makes a person unfit for rule. Yes, on a whole, everyone has selfish motives and flaws. However, that does not make them incapable of making selfless acts. Every day people make decisions that might not directly benefit them - for example: the simple act of holding the door open for someone behind you. It takes an extra push of the muscles, but it helps someone else. Although maybe there was that "selfish" motive of making yourself feel good for doing so, I don't see why this is bad - it creates a social net gain with no individual net loss.

---

The selfish motive of holding the door open is to prevent one from being labeled as a jerk for not holding the door open. It still comes back to you, in the end, if you're the person who is incourteous.

One could argue that this is a good thing, but I argue that in the end, we're all just trying to benefit ourselves. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, after all, it's what evolution is all about, but it does prevent us from ever being able to work together to build a more perfect union.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
Moreover, if discussing politics specifically, there are many issues that rulers provide over that they have no interest in manipulating. For example, even if Obama is selfish, he has nothing to gain from the majority of the policies he supports save for the support of his voterbase, which is who he was elected to represent in the first place.

---

Negative. There's always a reason to manipulate something. Always a lobbying group to appease, votes to be gained, interest groups to satisfy, money to be raised. Also, you cannot possibly claim that Obama supports the policies of every one of the people who voted for him. He's taken a position of supporting "don't ask, don't tell" in recent days; I'm fairly certain a lot of people who voted for him do not support discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. He's acting in his own best interest here. The majority of Americans oppose gay rights, and he's thinking ahead to 2012.

__________________
This message brought to you by MOTL's very own fancy biologist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pyr0ma5ta:
Didn't say the selection was without problems. Also, random chance, yes, but is that worse than systematic manipulation by those already in power? I'll put my money on the randomly selected group any day.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pyr0ma5ta:
Didn't say that. I did say that less government, in general, is better, but there are cases where action must be taken. So it should be difficult but not impossible to enact action. A 3/5ths majority should be sufficient.

---

Sure - I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, just offering two possible scenarios. With the 3/5 option, I think you are grossly overestimating the political intelligence of the average citizen and that a LOT of bad policies will be passed. There is a very high chance that, especially given you do this ever year, you will eventually end up with a sample where 3/5 of the people believe in one of the wacky ideas I stated earlier. That, or a charismatic one is able to persuade them.

Also, if everyone is selfish and these people are never going to be re-elected, what is to stop them from agreeing to pass lots of selfish policies... like liquidating Microsoft and giving themselves all the money (or something along those lines). Rationally, that seems like the best choice. Just because these individuals didn't SEEK power doesn't mean they won't ABUSE it.

And yes, I know I am nitpicking and that "every system will have problems." I'm not asking you to create utopia. However, your arguments against that status quo are nitpicks as well. America has existed for 200 years and, save for a couple of relatively harmless scandals, things are running fairly smoothly. This discussion is about small issues, not systems as a whole.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pyr0ma5ta:
I think you'll agree when I say that Bush and company had a very influential and motivated team with lots of money to manipulate the public. It'll be harder to imagine that a group of randomly selected individuals will be motivated or able to drive a group of other randomly selected individuals.

---

Why wouldn't they be motivated? If people are motivated to exert their will over others right now, who is to say they would lose this desire if placed among a group of other randomly selected people? My argument isn't that random people will do the convincing - it's that your samples are random, so it is concievable that someone with high political persuasion skills ends up in the group and is able to sway them under his command.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pyr0ma5ta:
The selfish motive of holding the door open is to prevent one from being labeled as a jerk for not holding the door open. It still comes back to you, in the end, if you're the person who is incourteous.

One could argue that this is a good thing, but I argue that in the end, we're all just trying to benefit ourselves. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, after all, it's what evolution is all about, but it does prevent us from ever being able to work together to build a more perfect union.

---

I never said that selfishness is bad - I'm contending that people don't HATE selfless actions. People want what is best for themselves, but society has advanced to the point where we don't mind seeing other people live well too. There's no reason why this principle does not apply to governance. If a politician can make a decision that benefits his constituency at no real expense to himself, there's no reason why he wouldn't do it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pyr0ma5ta:
Negative. There's always a reason to manipulate something. Always a lobbying group to appease, votes to be gained, interest groups to satisfy, money to be raised. Also, you cannot possibly claim that Obama supports the policies of every one of the people who voted for him. He's taken a position of supporting "don't ask, don't tell" in recent days; I'm fairly certain a lot of people who voted for him do not support discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. He's acting in his own best interest here. The majority of Americans oppose gay rights, and he's thinking ahead to 2012.

---

Also, your claim to being non-partisan is laughable after this travesty of a post:

Originally posted by garry anderson:
I personally believe and see that a Democrat's main objective in helping create better government is to help it's people become more equally "intelligent, well-informed, and rational."

This is were I pointed out that you miss-read my point, read it one more time and see if you can put the thought together. I'll give you a hint. "objective IN helping" not objective IS helping. Completely different meanings and since you shot off on an irrelevant tangent, I didn't address it.

I am a Liberal person, meaning I am centrist, open to both conservative and socialist views and picking the best of each to live by. The US only has a right wing and center party, there is no left wing party. The right wing destroyed it some 55-60 years ago with the same methods Hitler used barely a decade earlier. Fear Mongering & propoganda.

There's some traces of left wing efforts remaining, unions, social security, etc. but the party has been destroyed.

I'm not pro democrat or partisan so much as I am truly just anti-having people use force, violence, fear, money, security or fallacy to empose their will on me. In my experience, these are the tools of the Republican Party.

For Example, abortion. If it's my child, I have a right to give input but it's not my body, and not my decision. I can't make the decision so I should respect the other persons decison, even though I don't like it. If it's not my child, it's none of my business and I should stay they hell out of it. Why can't pro-lifers be prolifers with their own bodies and leave everyone else the hell alone. Why do they feel the need to impose their will on everyone.

Same thing with Gay marriage, what difference does it make to us straight people? It doesn't affect us at all, It's none of our business. Allowing them to have the same legal rights as every other committed couple is wrong? I don't see how or even how it's any of my business, of course they should be equal. It's in the constitution, isn't it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by garry anderson:
For Example, abortion. If it's my child, I have a right to give input but it's not my body, and not my decision. I can't make the decision so I should respect the other persons decison, even though I don't like it. If it's not my child, it's none of my business and I should stay they hell out of it. Why can't pro-lifers be prolifers with their own bodies and leave everyone else the hell alone. Why do they feel the need to impose their will on everyone.

Same thing with Gay marriage, what difference does it make to us straight people? It doesn't affect us at all, It's none of our business. Allowing them to have the same legal rights as every other committed couple is wrong? I don't see how or even how it's any of my business, of course they should be equal. It's in the constitution, isn't it?

---

Actually, if you believe in pure democracy like you say you do, then these things are outlawable, so long as the majority says so ... right?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
If we really want to strike at the heart of a number of the problems (such as greed and corporate lobbying), then much simpler solutions exist. Ban corporate lobbying and donations, for one. For another, institute a much more radical left-wing economic policy with a guaranteed minimum income/life provisions, and cap salaries at a reasonable amount. Increase taxation. Place a (social) premium on leisure time rather than disposable income. If the state provides everyone with enough food, shelter, healthcare, and communications access to meet a decent standard of living, then the incentives to go overboard should be much reduced.

---

I third this motion. Motion is carried.

An annual referendum could work. With the networking and encryption technology today, picking a mandate for a non-governing body to implement as 100% transparent public owned social services could work fine. Those choices could be made from the comfort of your home once a year, with periodic minor updates and changes to the mandate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
[B]Actually, if you believe in pure democracy like you say you do, then these things are outlawable, so long as the majority says so ... right? [B]

---

Good point.