Why democracy fails

[Souji]

But America is a Republic...

This guy knows what's up.

That would fail miserably. And itd put us even worse off. This just proves that the people shouldn't be in control of the government.

Better than having SkyNet run everything >_>

 

[Naruto99Uzumaki]

a real democracy for me at last dont got any rules at all you are totally freeee besides killing and hurting others mentally

 

[~Sky~]

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

 

[EnDash]

the problem is not democracy, there are many countries out there that has great education with democracy. what this survey shows is that the education system in america is terrible.

the "did the universe start with a big explosion" and "did humans devolved from other species" are debatable, people may say this is false while still be highly educated. and the questions are very abstract and most people can say yes after waching a history channel show. the only thing there that is not debatable is the earth sun thing, that is extremly troubling for america.

i don't know much about the education system in america but if it's anything like my country, the most importent thing is quality teachers. professors should be teaching the youth at the very least in high school, people are really getting sub-par education anywhere outside of universities.

 

[Senju Bean]

Yours is a severely dangerous argument. Aristocracy, which is what you are chiefly proposing with such a posture, disrespects the primordial human right of autonomy of the masses. By imposing a government leaded by a selected group of intellectuals, we would have a State that seeks to satisfact needs conceived by only a few people. Needs of an individual can only be conceived by that same individual. Thus, democracy nears the perfect model when it comes to ensuring the satisfaction of a certain majority.

Because what is right can be determined by intellectuals, not imbeciles. The theorems of mathematics is not up for vote, it's determined by a very select few: mathematicians. The laws of physics are not up for vote, they are determined by physicists.

What is law should be determined by those who are experts in the field of leadership and politics. It's just like everything else. We need a philosopher king.

Autonomy only exists in those that are rational and have a certain amount of intelligence and self awareness. Even if one is self aware but is borderline retarded, said person cannot be considered autonomous.

 

[Aim64C]

Its because people are idiots. Look at this. Just look at it.

You must be registered for see links

Democracy doesn't fail.

Republics fail when representatives begin trying to control the lives of individuals.

Democratic Republics fail when the people believe it is the responsibility of their elected officials to govern the lives of citizens.

People begin to see the Government as a god that is capable of accomplishing anything and knowing everything. Then are destroyed with their Tower of Babel.

 

[Aim64C]

Because what is right can be determined by intellectuals, not imbeciles. The theorems of mathematics is not up for vote, it's determined by a very select few: mathematicians. The laws of physics are not up for vote, they are determined by physicists.

Physics was determined by the process of scientific analysis. Physics doesn't give two shits about your degree - it does whatever the hell it does and rewards whomever can figure it out and harness the phenomena.

Whether you spent fifty years in school on welfare before building a pulley to hoist yourself out of bed in the morning, or a farmer's son welding some newfangled plow together in the barn - physics really couldn't care less about our human institutions of knowledge and dogmatic consensus.

What is law should be determined by those who are experts in the field of leadership and politics. It's just like everything else. We need a philosopher king.

And why should I not be your philosopher king?

I'll show you just how better I am than the guy you think is competent. *grabs rifle and friends*

That's how that always turns out. That is why we need no kings. Let the Sword of Damocles fall upon all who seek to usurp the will of others and supplant it with their own.

Autonomy only exists in those that are rational and have a certain amount of intelligence and self awareness. Even if one is self aware but is borderline retarded, said person cannot be considered autonomous.

While I agree with the sentiment - there are plenty of stupid people who I am surprised have yet to swallow their tongue while eating or talking; your rationale is fatally flawed.

Every human being insists he/she is valid (unless he/she has some serious identity issues and has difficulty distinguishing his/her existence from the door mat). Telling them that they are invalid and then assigning them a subordinate status never works out well in the long run.

There are plenty of stupid people out there who will end up being slaves to some system or another regardless of what you do. They'll indenture their servitude, choke themselves in the welfare hammock, end up living pay-check to pay-check over credit card debts, etc. There's just not much you can do to help that variety of person short of adopting them as your slave as a benevolent master (and that is how they will treat you, no matter how you approach it).

But, generally, people are competent enough to operate their own individual lives. It's not my business if they **** their children up, if their house is a fire hazard, etc.

I am not saying I would ignore their plights or never offer assistance where I could - but you can lead a horse to water and it still not drink.

The moment I assume it is my right and authority to decide how they will live, what they will do, what they can buy, etc - I become a tyrant. That is an impulse as a human male - to simply bludgeon anything undesired out of existence - but it is an animal instinct that must be managed - or it will see us beat ourselves down to the primal existence of hyper-intelligent monkeys.

 

[Wabbit]

Democracy fails when people scam the scheme and when they ignore an keep quite...

 

[Senju Bean]

Physics was determined by the process of scientific analysis. Physics doesn't give two shits about your degree - it does whatever the hell it does and rewards whomever can figure it out and harness the phenomena.

Whether you spent fifty years in school on welfare before building a pulley to hoist yourself out of bed in the morning, or a farmer's son welding some newfangled plow together in the barn - physics really couldn't care less about our human institutions of knowledge and dogmatic consensus.



And why should I not be your philosopher king?

I'll show you just how better I am than the guy you think is competent. *grabs rifle and friends*

That's how that always turns out. That is why we need no kings. Let the Sword of Damocles fall upon all who seek to usurp the will of others and supplant it with their own.



While I agree with the sentiment - there are plenty of stupid people who I am surprised have yet to swallow their tongue while eating or talking; your rationale is fatally flawed.

Every human being insists he/she is valid (unless he/she has some serious identity issues and has difficulty distinguishing his/her existence from the door mat). Telling them that they are invalid and then assigning them a subordinate status never works out well in the long run.

There are plenty of stupid people out there who will end up being slaves to some system or another regardless of what you do. They'll indenture their servitude, choke themselves in the welfare hammock, end up living pay-check to pay-check over credit card debts, etc. There's just not much you can do to help that variety of person short of adopting them as your slave as a benevolent master (and that is how they will treat you, no matter how you approach it).

But, generally, people are competent enough to operate their own individual lives. It's not my business if they **** their children up, if their house is a fire hazard, etc.

I am not saying I would ignore their plights or never offer assistance where I could - but you can lead a horse to water and it still not drink.

The moment I assume it is my right and authority to decide how they will live, what they will do, what they can buy, etc - I become a tyrant. That is an impulse as a human male - to simply bludgeon anything undesired out of existence - but it is an animal instinct that must be managed - or it will see us beat ourselves down to the primal existence of hyper-intelligent monkeys.

You make valid points, but I'm not saying to let people be lower in any sense. People simply shouldn't vote on things that they don't know about.

If I don't know about the intricacies of cannabis pharmacology, which I don't, then I have no business voting on the issue. It doesn't matter how smart I am. I could be a mathematical prodigy, but since I don't have a deep knowledge of cannabis pharmacology, I hold back in making any opinions about the matter. It's as simple as that.

I'm not saying let one king rule, but to have laws be created and voted on by experts in those fields. Experts on agriculture can vote on agricultural laws but not medical laws etc. That is actually quite reasonable.

 

[Senju Bean]

the problem is not democracy, there are many countries out there that has great education with democracy. what this survey shows is that the education system in america is terrible.

the "did the universe start with a big explosion" and "did humans devolved from other species" are debatable, people may say this is false while still be highly educated. and the questions are very abstract and most people can say yes after waching a history channel show. the only thing there that is not debatable is the earth sun thing, that is extremly troubling for america.

i don't know much about the education system in america but if it's anything like my country, the most importent thing is quality teachers. professors should be teaching the youth at the very least in high school, people are really getting sub-par education anywhere outside of universities.

I just don't see any way one can believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth unless they are borderline retarded. It's like asking someone who Obama is and get a blank stare in response.

I don't know if the survey is a joke, I think there is some exaggeration. But still, for someone to screw up that badly would either mean they are living under a rock or is severely mentally incapacitated.

 

[Aim64C]

You make valid points, but I'm not saying to let people be lower in any sense. People simply shouldn't vote on things that they don't know about.

If I don't know about the intricacies of cannabis pharmacology, which I don't, then I have no business voting on the issue. It doesn't matter how smart I am. I could be a mathematical prodigy, but since I don't have a deep knowledge of cannabis pharmacology, I hold back in making any opinions about the matter. It's as simple as that.

You've already made the genocidal mistake of allowing people with 'knowledge' of something to make decisions for you.

Why would anyone need to vote on a cannabis issue?

Any society that even puts the issue to vote needs to purge its politicians. It is government intervention where it fundamentally should never exist.

Do you know about the botany of a potato? How about the carrot? What about the pharmacology of the various proteins and lipids in milk?

Not a clue.

We ate and drank those things long before any ******* came around and declared himself an expert on the issue and that he should be able to protect you from it. He's free to tell you all about the health concerns with eating/drinking/snorting potatoes. You're free to eat, drink, and snort potatoes until you're having surgery to remove spuds from your lungs.

If you snort potatoes without taking it upon yourself to learn a little about potatoes and what various groups are saying about the benefits and hazards of snorting them - then you're stupid and it's not like you're going to listen to a law written to protect you.

Each time a regulation, law, rule, etc is written - an upgraded idiot is released to defeat the purpose.

I'm not saying let one king rule, but to have laws be created and voted on by experts in those fields. Experts on agriculture can vote on agricultural laws but not medical laws etc. That is actually quite reasonable.

Those experts belong in court rooms as witnesses and/or juries.

They do not belong as legislative arbiters.

The field of scientific research is roughly 80% politics, these days. This is due, in large part, to the federal funding that goes into R&D projects (that is horribly abused) - but it is also because corporations have begun to buy research conclusions. The Federal Reserve has been buying 'global warming' conclusions for a decade, now. Every barrel of Opec Oil they can sell abroad is another $200 in Federal Reserve bonds that another country had to buy in order to meet its growing energy demands. Then they get on to developing a secondary currency we like to refer to as 'carbon credits.'

Further, determining an 'expert' in today's world is next to impossible.

Degrees, honestly, mean nothing in regards to a person's intelligence. Anyone can be conditioned to give answers that satisfy degree requirements.

The only real metric is actual accomplishments. Has a person improved their company's department? Have they invented or developed something new and/or specialized that solves a problem?

There are countless people with degrees in physics who couldn't build a building that would support itself. But the local contractor who dropped out of high school keeps his ancient diesel truck running smooth and almost single-handedly builds multi-leveled structures that last for decades with no problems.

So how in the hell do you determine who is and isn't an expert?

How much do you know about electronics and communications technology? How do you know who should be allowed to vote on issues regarding wireless energy transfer systems? Should businesses be required to tell you that they are powering a TV from across the room (sending that power through you in the form of radio waves)? What about appropriate emission standards?

Or should it be enough that you feel it is unnecessary for me to be telling you what power transmission technologies you can put in your home, business, etc, so long as you aren't microwaving the neighbors?

I think the scientific method addresses the question perfectly. Any law seeking to establish regulatory authority needs to prove both that a realistic danger exists and that regulation effectively reduces the danger by an amount worth accepting the sacrifice of liberty.

For example - texting and driving is demonstrably a bad idea and radically increases the likelihood of an incident involving injury and/or death. All research data suggests laws against texting and driving increase traffic fatalities where they have any effect at all (because people hold their phones down in their lap to prevent cops from being able to see). Therefor the case cannot be made for a law specifically against texting and driving. Being negligent and unable to control your vehicle pretty much covers it and drunken driving.

If we go by that process - 90% of our laws wouldn't exist, and our country would be a much better place for it.

 

[Senju Bean]

You've already made the genocidal mistake of allowing people with 'knowledge' of something to make decisions for you.

Why would anyone need to vote on a cannabis issue?

Any society that even puts the issue to vote needs to purge its politicians. It is government intervention where it fundamentally should never exist.

Do you know about the botany of a potato? How about the carrot? What about the pharmacology of the various proteins and lipids in milk?

Not a clue.

We ate and drank those things long before any ******* came around and declared himself an expert on the issue and that he should be able to protect you from it. He's free to tell you all about the health concerns with eating/drinking/snorting potatoes. You're free to eat, drink, and snort potatoes until you're having surgery to remove spuds from your lungs.

If you snort potatoes without taking it upon yourself to learn a little about potatoes and what various groups are saying about the benefits and hazards of snorting them - then you're stupid and it's not like you're going to listen to a law written to protect you.

Each time a regulation, law, rule, etc is written - an upgraded idiot is released to defeat the purpose.



Those experts belong in court rooms as witnesses and/or juries.

They do not belong as legislative arbiters.

The field of scientific research is roughly 80% politics, these days. This is due, in large part, to the federal funding that goes into R&D projects (that is horribly abused) - but it is also because corporations have begun to buy research conclusions. The Federal Reserve has been buying 'global warming' conclusions for a decade, now. Every barrel of Opec Oil they can sell abroad is another $200 in Federal Reserve bonds that another country had to buy in order to meet its growing energy demands. Then they get on to developing a secondary currency we like to refer to as 'carbon credits.'

Further, determining an 'expert' in today's world is next to impossible.

Degrees, honestly, mean nothing in regards to a person's intelligence. Anyone can be conditioned to give answers that satisfy degree requirements.

The only real metric is actual accomplishments. Has a person improved their company's department? Have they invented or developed something new and/or specialized that solves a problem?

There are countless people with degrees in physics who couldn't build a building that would support itself. But the local contractor who dropped out of high school keeps his ancient diesel truck running smooth and almost single-handedly builds multi-leveled structures that last for decades with no problems.

So how in the hell do you determine who is and isn't an expert?

How much do you know about electronics and communications technology? How do you know who should be allowed to vote on issues regarding wireless energy transfer systems? Should businesses be required to tell you that they are powering a TV from across the room (sending that power through you in the form of radio waves)? What about appropriate emission standards?

Or should it be enough that you feel it is unnecessary for me to be telling you what power transmission technologies you can put in your home, business, etc, so long as you aren't microwaving the neighbors?

I think the scientific method addresses the question perfectly. Any law seeking to establish regulatory authority needs to prove both that a realistic danger exists and that regulation effectively reduces the danger by an amount worth accepting the sacrifice of liberty.

For example - texting and driving is demonstrably a bad idea and radically increases the likelihood of an incident involving injury and/or death. All research data suggests laws against texting and driving increase traffic fatalities where they have any effect at all (because people hold their phones down in their lap to prevent cops from being able to see). Therefor the case cannot be made for a law specifically against texting and driving. Being negligent and unable to control your vehicle pretty much covers it and drunken driving.

If we go by that process - 90% of our laws wouldn't exist, and our country would be a much better place for it.

Of course a dividing line between expert and non expert would have to exist. Of course it would not be perfect. But it certainly is better than having someone that doesn't know anything about the issue to vote, isn't it?

I am even ok if all voters were required to take a basic test instead of being required to obtain a PhD.

Well, with issues far more complicated than potatoes or carrots, I simply don't have the time to read up on the hundreds of scientific research papers. I don't have the time to make myself into a person informed about the issue. Because my definition of informed is far more strict than those of others. So taking this into account, I have no problem having someone else make my choice for me.

If I cared about an issue, than I either take the time to make myself learned in all aspects of the issue, or I'll just have someone make the choice for me. This is the right thing to do.

I agree, something that is proven by the scientific method to be dangerous needs to eliminated despite a reduction in liberty so to speak.

But I go a step further and say that with most issues, uninformed people should not vote. This wouldn't reduce liberty at all. Because liberty means acting free without transgressing on other's liberty. However, making uninformed choices automatically transgresses upon another's liberty.

 

[EnDash]

I just don't see any way one can believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth unless they are borderline retarded. It's like asking someone who Obama is and get a blank stare in response.

I don't know if the survey is a joke, I think there is some exaggeration. But still, for someone to screw up that badly would either mean they are living under a rock or is severely mentally incapacitated.

living under a rock is probably a good way of saying it even if it is also an exaggeration. but i think people managed to live under a rock while going to school and getting basic education. i wonder if they did a survey like this but targeting teachers and educators, specificly those from public schools.

my point is, the problem for poor education is poor investment in education. people are not just born smart and intelligent, you have to teach them. i can solve most of the education problems by doubling the salary for teachers and preferably more, thus opening teaching for more high educated and knowledagble people. it's like giving a cow half the food she needs and asking why she isn't producing enough milk, if you pay teachers minimum wage you will get teachers that believe the sun rotates around the earth (had a couple of those in my life).

about democracy, churchil said that democracy is a horrible form of governmant, just not as horrible as all the rest. the problem is that a governmant that only allows certain people to vote and have power then they are going to abuse it against the people who are not allowed, like the nazi governmant, the apartheid governmant in africa and stalin's soviet union. in the end people in power use it to promote themselves over people with no power.

the solution i put before about doubling salary for teachers, where will that money come from? well in a phd ruled governmant they will simply take money from the uneducated and give to the educated. which will result in uneducated people getting more uneducated and educated people getting mroe educated and getting more power and control.

what we really need is a governmant that isn't biased towards any one sector, democracy is obviously isn't one of those governmants. but it's closest one yet.

 

[Aim64C]

Of course a dividing line between expert and non expert would have to exist. Of course it would not be perfect. But it certainly is better than having someone that doesn't know anything about the issue to vote, isn't it?

"Hey, all you uneducated retards. I'm taking away your cigarettes and lead-based bullets."

Everything you are saying is that people are too stupid to survive.

If that is the case - why expend all the energy and resources to try and protect them from their own stupidity? Let them abort their fifteenth pregnancy, let them shoot themselves into blissful death with heroine, let them burn their house down with an improperly built fire pit.

Eventually, those who pay attention and who teach their children to pay attention will become the dominant population and the issues will subside to a degree.

I am even ok if all voters were required to take a basic test instead of being required to obtain a PhD.

And who decides what is supposed to be on that test?

HIV doesn't exist. It isn't a real virus. Never was, never will be. The epidemiology of HIV positive individuals just doesn't stack up to reflect a real virus. HIV positive tests reflect a hodge-podge of different antibodies built up by independent viral infections.

So what is with AIDs? About 30 years ago (about the same time we started noticing AIDs), we successfully eradicated Small Pox. AIDs is a progressive failure of the immune system brought about by environmental and/or genetic factors. Just as there are people who are born with progressive failure of various organs - progressive failure of the immune system due to genetic factors is quite likely.

The assumption was made that it must be a new infectious disease, and when no pathogen could be isolated, health officials got creative and tried to find proteins in common across all people displaying AIDs symptoms. The lack of an overt infection vector (airborne, insect, animal, etc) led them to the conclusion that it had to be blood borne and sexually transmitted.

Transmission of HIV 'infection' to a different individual via sexual intercourse has a successful probability of less than 1 in 50 encounters. For the African "AIDs epidemic" to be due to HIV infection, it would have to be non-stop orgies. The authorities in Africa simply chalk up every death without an obvious alternative cause to AIDs. Chronic infections brought about by poor nutrition and living standards could easily give the impression of a disease that is whittling away at the immune system.

In the 'advanced' world - we pump them full of immune suppressors (that are supposed to be antivirals that target viruses that have never been seen with an electron microscope), then claim a virus that kills their immune system was the cause of death.

Of course - the cause of AIDs is not easy to determine. Lifestyle factors can deplete the immune system (why it is more prominent among the 'behaviorally liberal' in America but those same demographics have no increased incidence in nations like China). Others may be brought on by genetics - in which case, avoiding 'treatment' will not likely reverse the immune system's failure.

But you have a whole industry dedicated to tracking down and defeating a ghost. We are even more vulnerable to the horrors of dogmatic principle, today, because of our overconfidence in 'professionals' and 'experts.'

Well, with issues far more complicated than potatoes or carrots, I simply don't have the time to read up on the hundreds of scientific research papers. I don't have the time to make myself into a person informed about the issue. Because my definition of informed is far more strict than those of others. So taking this into account, I have no problem having someone else make my choice for me.

Then you are a slave.

You are to be told what to do and you are to do it. You are not to talk-back to me. Your opinions regarding how things should be done in government are irrelevant.

If I cared about an issue, than I either take the time to make myself learned in all aspects of the issue, or I'll just have someone make the choice for me. This is the right thing to do.

Is it?

History is rife with people who were right even though the experts called them wrong. Doctors have misinformed patients because -they- were misinformed. Economic experts of one year become the fools of the next year.

Who, exactly, do you trust to make decisions for you?

And why should I be forced to accept that same group's decisions?

I agree, something that is proven by the scientific method to be dangerous needs to eliminated despite a reduction in liberty so to speak.

You missed the other half of that.

The scientific method must also support the allegation that a law will actually be successful in its intent.

I can use the scientific method to support that alcohol is dangerous and needs to be regulated. There exists every bit of evidence that bans and regulations on alcohol will fail. So no laws should be written to that effect.

Like seatbelt laws. They do nothing to increase traffic safety. All they are is an extra fine for police districts to add on where they can. It's 'free money' for police when they pull someone over. The same with field sobriety checkpoints. No drunks - but plenty of headlight, seatbelt, expired tag, and other violations.

You don't need to be an expert to recognize a bad deal when you see one.

But I go a step further and say that with most issues, uninformed people should not vote. This wouldn't reduce liberty at all. Because liberty means acting free without transgressing on other's liberty. However, making uninformed choices automatically transgresses upon another's liberty.

The problem is that the people are voting on such issues to begin with.

A population that truly wishes to be free would vote down regulations as a matter of course. A government under such a society would be a fraction of the size it is for us and even the most basic regulatory authorities (FDA) would simply not exist under it.

The problem is that you're making the error (ultimately leading to genocide) that governments naturally belong in a place to make all of these decisions requiring 'experts.'

It doesn't. If there is any doubt at all regarding an over-reach of government, it is better off not existing at all.

living under a rock is probably a good way of saying it even if it is also an exaggeration. but i think people managed to live under a rock while going to school and getting basic education. i wonder if they did a survey like this but targeting teachers and educators, specificly those from public schools.

my point is, the problem for poor education is poor investment in education. people are not just born smart and intelligent, you have to teach them. i can solve most of the education problems by doubling the salary for teachers and preferably more, thus opening teaching for more high educated and knowledagble people. it's like giving a cow half the food she needs and asking why she isn't producing enough milk, if you pay teachers minimum wage you will get teachers that believe the sun rotates around the earth (had a couple of those in my life).

This is patently false.

America's education system is failing for the same reasons America's healthcare is out of whack.

Few people actually pay for the service.

If a hospital tried to charge you $150 for a $2 shot - you'd throw the bill back in their face and say: "Explain this shit." Then you'd never go there, again - you'd go to the guy down the road with the honest pricing and better patient satisfaction. Instead, you see the bill and say: "Thank God I have insurance."

We don't pay for the education of our children, or we'd never send them to PoS school districts that waste money like they waste paper.

First off - our education system teaches tests. We don't actually teach subjects. We teach tests. Because that is how a school district gets its federal money. Fill in the correct bubbles like a good trained monkey - or school administrators won't be able to pay off their college debts.

Second - our education system is very ineffective in its structuring. Books and lecture are prioritized over concept and example. Children should be witnessing the subject in action, and teenagers should be illustrating they can do something with knowledge of those subjects (building something).

Third - public schools waste money hand over fist. For example -when our school was told that they could not have soda machines in the lunch room, the school built a cinder-block wall around the soda machine.

It doesn't matter how much money you pay or don't pay teachers. Talk to just about any retired teacher (or many current teachers), today. The issue isn't money being paid to the teachers. The issue is the expansion of testing standards that teachers are expected to have their kids pass.

"But... the standards are there because teachers haven't been teaching kids."

Incorrect:

You must be registered for see links

The teachers have been teaching. It is the expansion of 'standards' that cuts into the learning process. I was ready for Geometry and Algebra in the third grade, and ready to begin learning chemistry about the same time. The structure of school meant I'd wait another six years to really begin getting into those subjects. But I sucked at "mad minutes" (or "Hot pencils" - or whatever various districts called their "do this many math problems in a minute" exercises).

My teachers did what they could to help encourage me toward the more advanced sections of the school library, or to talk individual subjects with me - but they couldn't send me down the hall to the upper class science room like they used to be able to.

History was an ongoing class of rewriting it. Half of the history lessons of one year were re-teaching the previous year's history lessons with the 'more advanced' interpretation applied. "You mean the Civil War wasn't just about slavery?" Because you lie to kids until you decide they are ready to handle the truth.

about democracy, churchil said that democracy is a horrible form of governmant, just not as horrible as all the rest. the problem is that a governmant that only allows certain people to vote and have power then they are going to abuse it against the people who are not allowed, like the nazi governmant, the apartheid governmant in africa and stalin's soviet union. in the end people in power use it to promote themselves over people with no power.

Which is why America developed a Constitution that limited the authority of government - limiting the power of representatives and also limiting the power of what could be accomplished through simple votes.

the solution i put before about doubling salary for teachers, where will that money come from? well in a phd ruled governmant they will simply take money from the uneducated and give to the educated. which will result in uneducated people getting more uneducated and educated people getting mroe educated and getting more power and control.

In that example, smart people would realize that the money doesn't exist in the uneducated to take the money from.

This also takes a relatively negative view of people as a whole. Generally speaking, most people are non-interventionist. They want to live their life and are not continually looking at how they can 'pull one over' on someone else. They want to learn a trade and to be able to use that trade to better their life and to give their children a better life than they had.

Politicians are the ones who tend to stir divides in populations. They convince people that someone else is the reason why their life feels difficult, and then try to use their frustrations to pass legislation or invade neighboring regions.

The Constitution is meant as a reference to be easily understood by all - it is what the people who created this country believed we should be going about governing our country.

While we can change that Constitution - it is meant to stand as an agreement amongst people: "This is the structure of our government, this is what we can do with it... and this is what we cannot and will not do with it."

But we've fallen victim to the sweet whispers of security from politicians, and now we let them divide us among races, incomes, etc and rally behind their messages of inequality.

We'll soon be killing each other in the streets because we failed to accept responsibility for our country and for our problems. We are now the rest of the world, and that is why we are in the sorry state we are.

what we really need is a governmant that isn't biased towards any one sector, democracy is obviously isn't one of those governmants. but it's closest one yet.

We don't need government.

Government is a convenience we construct. It is a liability we are to oversee.

What made America different from the rest of the world? The people created and owned the government. It wasn't a system forced upon them. It was a system they created and took responsibility for. Just as each individual took responsibility for his/her own life. They learned their trades, traded their work and time, and built the most powerful nation on the planet.

Then we became complacent. We created a central bank. We promised people retirement (and taxed the young to do it). We promised stable markets. We promised security, promised education, guaranteed food on the table and roofs overhead. We began to elect leaders to organize us and are now electing champions to 'fix' our problems.

We are now 'the rest of the world' - which subjects itself to rule rather than subjecting rule to itself. Which is the ground source of every problem we have, currently.

 

[Jin Hayami]

Democracy fails because people vote for issues of the present instead of the future and our politicians are either corrupt, incompetent, or simply lazy.

 

[Senju Bean]

"Hey, all you uneducated retards. I'm taking away your cigarettes and lead-based bullets."

Everything you are saying is that people are too stupid to survive.

If that is the case - why expend all the energy and resources to try and protect them from their own stupidity? Let them abort their fifteenth pregnancy, let them shoot themselves into blissful death with heroine, let them burn their house down with an improperly built fire pit.

Eventually, those who pay attention and who teach their children to pay attention will become the dominant population and the issues will subside to a degree.



And who decides what is supposed to be on that test?

HIV doesn't exist. It isn't a real virus. Never was, never will be. The epidemiology of HIV positive individuals just doesn't stack up to reflect a real virus. HIV positive tests reflect a hodge-podge of different antibodies built up by independent viral infections.

So what is with AIDs? About 30 years ago (about the same time we started noticing AIDs), we successfully eradicated Small Pox. AIDs is a progressive failure of the immune system brought about by environmental and/or genetic factors. Just as there are people who are born with progressive failure of various organs - progressive failure of the immune system due to genetic factors is quite likely.

The assumption was made that it must be a new infectious disease, and when no pathogen could be isolated, health officials got creative and tried to find proteins in common across all people displaying AIDs symptoms. The lack of an overt infection vector (airborne, insect, animal, etc) led them to the conclusion that it had to be blood borne and sexually transmitted.

Transmission of HIV 'infection' to a different individual via sexual intercourse has a successful probability of less than 1 in 50 encounters. For the African "AIDs epidemic" to be due to HIV infection, it would have to be non-stop orgies. The authorities in Africa simply chalk up every death without an obvious alternative cause to AIDs. Chronic infections brought about by poor nutrition and living standards could easily give the impression of a disease that is whittling away at the immune system.

In the 'advanced' world - we pump them full of immune suppressors (that are supposed to be antivirals that target viruses that have never been seen with an electron microscope), then claim a virus that kills their immune system was the cause of death.

Of course - the cause of AIDs is not easy to determine. Lifestyle factors can deplete the immune system (why it is more prominent among the 'behaviorally liberal' in America but those same demographics have no increased incidence in nations like China). Others may be brought on by genetics - in which case, avoiding 'treatment' will not likely reverse the immune system's failure.

But you have a whole industry dedicated to tracking down and defeating a ghost. We are even more vulnerable to the horrors of dogmatic principle, today, because of our overconfidence in 'professionals' and 'experts.'



Then you are a slave.

You are to be told what to do and you are to do it. You are not to talk-back to me. Your opinions regarding how things should be done in government are irrelevant.



Is it?

History is rife with people who were right even though the experts called them wrong. Doctors have misinformed patients because -they- were misinformed. Economic experts of one year become the fools of the next year.

Who, exactly, do you trust to make decisions for you?

And why should I be forced to accept that same group's decisions?

Tell me this, I work up to 70 hours a week, the rest of the time I'm focusing on important things such as family, exercise, and sleeping.

Now you expect me to actually read up upon tomes and tomes of information just so I can avoid being a "slave"? Is that even rational?

Do you have any idea the amount of time it takes to be highly learned in an issue?

 

[Aim64C]

Tell me this, I work up to 70 hours a week, the rest of the time I'm focusing on important things such as family, exercise, and sleeping.

Now you expect me to actually read up upon tomes and tomes of information just so I can avoid being a "slave"? Is that even rational?

Do you have any idea the amount of time it takes to be highly learned in an issue?

If you accept that you need others to tell you how to live your life, then you are a slave.

You accept that the government has rule over your life, and that the only 'problem' is that uninformed people are allowed to make decisions.

If you accept that the government has so much power that only the most informed of people should be allowed to use it, then you have accepted the notion that you are to be ruled over.

That is a slave. Plain and simple.

Slaves are to work and not to ask questions. Now, go back to work and stop pondering about how the government should be. That is for educated people to decide.

 

[Funky Tiger]

Do you have a working brain, op?

After seeing some of your older threads, i don't think so.

 

[Senju Bean]

If you accept that you need others to tell you how to live your life, then you are a slave.

You accept that the government has rule over your life, and that the only 'problem' is that uninformed people are allowed to make decisions.

If you accept that the government has so much power that only the most informed of people should be allowed to use it, then you have accepted the notion that you are to be ruled over.

That is a slave. Plain and simple.

Slaves are to work and not to ask questions. Now, go back to work and stop pondering about how the government should be. That is for educated people to decide.

You are not addressing my point. I am making very good money. I am spending almost ALL my time doing this.

I say this is the right the right way to live life.

I say this is far more important than devoting hours upon hours on political policy.


As an epicurean, I only care about my enjoyment. Given this, give me a good reason to drop my work and indulge in politics.


Why would you even want to indulge in something that you are not highly informed about? Why?

I've never said that only the most informed should be allowed to use it. I said that the highly informed. If everyone became highly informed, then so be it.

 

[Senju Bean]

Do you have a working brain, op?

After seeing some of your older threads, i don't think so.

My Shinju life cycle thread is far better than anything you have come up with, you dolt. Even your username is unimaginative. Why don't you post link your best thread? I want to see how intelligent you are.