Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 33 to 47 of 47

Thread: Up vanity, down royal state

  1. #33
    LUSE Galant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gibraltar
    Posts
    3,018
    Thanks
    431
    Thanked
    486 times in 293 posts

    Re: Up vanity, down royal state

    Quote Originally Posted by wasabi View Post
    No reason in the modern world bills going through parliament could not be proposed / ratified by people logging in from home.
    Actually there are plenty.

    The infrastructure doesn't exist and at the moment cannot. Fraud would abound. At least with elected officials you know for certain who voted for what and what the process was.
    Additionally, there are limits and processes involved in submitting and ratifying bills. Give millions direct access to propose and vote on items and that system becomes unmanageable.
    Then there's the fact that the idea of IQ being of benefit assumes that such "high IQ" voters both have the inclination, time and other resources to examine all bills and related information, they won't, they'll have other jobs. IQ is nice but one still has to apply that to knowledge.

    Then of course we come back to the basic point underlying all this and that is that governing and building a society isn't a matter of pure mathematics as though a calculator could sort it out. In politics and society the goal line isn't fixed, in fact, one could argue it's not even defined. What's the end game of society? Does everyone agree on what's most important and where we should be heading and how? Individuals of any given IQ can differ massively on a way forward because of the differing values they place on things. What's more important, material prosperity, technological advancement, the pursuit of pleasure, freedom of expression? There is no 'right' answer that can be calculated and so IQ is only a part of the equation; the answer is subjective, we define for ourselves what the goal and purpose is. If that's the case, if human choice and desire are the bottom line, then the individual is of maximum importance and there is no way to say that an irrational or silly choice or plan or desire is any better or worse than any other. All we can say is that there are different plans and we'll all pitch in our voice and go with the majority. That, theoretically, is democracy. No 'right' or 'wrong' just the majority. Thus, everyone's voice counts. Who can say any differently?
    No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.

  2. #34
    Senior Member SeriousSam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Anywhere Mental
    Posts
    772
    Thanks
    34
    Thanked
    155 times in 107 posts

    Re: Up vanity, down royal state

    Quote Originally Posted by wasabi View Post
    Below average IQ people shouldn't be allowed to make electoral decisions. They are simply not bright enough to understand.

    Your argument follows the same logic as we should allow drunk drivers because banning them doesn't stop road accidents.
    It may appear logical to you but it is based on an entirely specious assumption. That being that people of below average IQ are the same as drunk drivers. You are presuming guilt before an act and then likening it to one where an act has been committed. In some respects this illustrates my point that irrespective of intelligence, cognitive bias creates irrational belief structures.
    If Wisdom is the coordination of "knowledge and experience" and its deliberate use to improve well being then how come "Ignorance is bliss"

  3. Received thanks from:

    DBarber (30-01-2015)

  4. #35
    Large Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,720
    Thanks
    47
    Thanked
    99 times in 64 posts

    Re: Up vanity, down royal state

    Here I thought that the house of Windsor was a bone of contention, turns out the IQ of the proles is more interesting! If you wanted to gerrymander in favor of Tory-style conservatism, there must be easier ways to do it. Deny votes to young people, women or minorities for instance .

    Quote Originally Posted by people who say royals are cheap/traditional/patriotic/neutral
    ...
    If they're so damned cheap and patriotic, let them pay for themselves. If they're so neutral, why can't we have a transcription, even a slight clue about the discussion, when they meet party leaders and the PM? If they're so traditional, who says tradition disappears upon their removal?

    Berlesconi, Sarkosy, Bush Jnr, Nixon, etc etc; hardly awesome figures.
    I quite agree, yet still want to get rid of them, or put them all in a 3 bed terrace in Darlington.

    Quote Originally Posted by Galant
    ...
    It's a security nightmare. The chap you're replying to is advocating an experiment that has been performed. It's called Athenian democracy. Consider the etymology of the word he uses to describe people whom he thinks shouldn't vote - 'idiot'.
    To err is human. To really foul things up ... you need a computer.

  5. #36
    The late but legendary peterb - Onward and Upward peterb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Looking down & checking on swearing
    Posts
    19,381
    Thanks
    2,892
    Thanked
    3,403 times in 2,693 posts

    Re: Up vanity, down royal state

    Quote Originally Posted by wasabi View Post
    It has nothing to do with eugenics. I suggest you find a dictionary before using words you don't understand.

    It has nothing to do with gender.

    I would normally expect better from you.

    Anyway - I'm done with this thread - fed up with people spectacularly demolishing arguments nobody made.
    I know quite well what eugenics is - which is why I said a version of - you are selecting people to vote on a criteria that is hard to measure, and over which the person has no control. You might just as well select on the basis of gender - or race or whatever, hence my second comment.

    However, to address your other point,

    You are referring to a plebiscite which worked reasonable well for a small population like ancient Greece, , but unlikely tp work well with large populations. Look at recent referenda in this country.

    You also ignore the fact that Parliament is a debating chamber, and few bills are ratified as originally drafted.

    You also ignore the three pillars of democracy, the Judiciary, Legislature and executive - the executive being formed out to the the majority of MPs - or one where a coalition can be formed.

    A credible possibility might be to select people at random (like Jury service) to sit in Parliament for a fixed term.

    However, as you are done with the thread, I am probably wasting my time going further
    (\__/)
    (='.'=)
    (")_(")

    Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
    My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute

  6. Received thanks from:

    DBarber (30-01-2015)

  7. #37
    RIP Peterb ik9000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,237
    Thanks
    1,233
    Thanked
    804 times in 608 posts
    • ik9000's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P7H55-M/USB3
      • CPU:
      • i7-870, Prolimatech Megahalems, 2x Akasa Apache 120mm
      • Memory:
      • 4x4GB Corsair Vengeance 2133 11-11-11-27
      • Storage:
      • 2x256GB Samsung 840-Pro, 1TB Seagate 7200.12, 1TB Seagate ES.2
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Gigabyte GTX 460 1GB SuperOverClocked
      • PSU:
      • NZXT Hale 90 750w
      • Case:
      • BitFenix Survivor + Bitfenix spectre LED fans, LG BluRay R/W optical drive
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Professional
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2414h, U2311h 1920x1080
      • Internet:
      • 200Mb/s Fibre and 4G wifi

    Re: Up vanity, down royal state

    Strikes me both sides are arguing for the same thing in different ways. The people at large need to vote in people who are experts and who are able to understand the complicated things the people cannot on their behalf. It is not that the less-bright folk should be denied a vote, but there needs to be careful selection of the shortlist of candidates from which they can vote in the first place. Politicians ought to have to sit mega IQ and competency exams, regularly. Career politicians should not be allowed, and no-one should be allowed near the place unless they have demonstrated the ability to 1) hold down long-term stable employment (no lazy spongers) 2) be of upright character (no fraudster/nutter/scumbags) 3) demonstrate competency in whatever it is they've done for the last 10-20 years (no calamity Janes/Ed Balls-ups) and 4) have the literacy and reasoning skills to be able to present cases both for and against relevant topics of the time (no bigotted blinkered thinkers) and 5) display the willingness to actually debate in a grown up manner in the aim of reaching the best outcome for the country, rather than simply siding with their party whip...

    Sensible governance will prevail even in a democracy as we currently have it, if the willingness is there to ensure sensible candidates in the first place. Otherwise short-termist populist voting will inevitably prevail, a la Greece, to the detriment of us all.

  8. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    West Cork
    Posts
    877
    Thanks
    74
    Thanked
    148 times in 109 posts
    • opel80uk's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte MA770-UD3 revision 2
      • CPU:
      • Phenom II X4 955BE
      • Memory:
      • 4gb PC2-8500
      • Storage:
      • Samsung F1 1tb
      • Graphics card(s):
      • MSI ATI Radeon HD 6950 Twin FrozR II OC 2048MB
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX450W 450w
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7
      • Internet:
      • Virgin Media 10Mb

    Re: Up vanity, down royal state

    Quote Originally Posted by ik9000 View Post
    Strikes me both sides are arguing for the same thing in different ways. The people at large need to vote in people who are experts and who are able to understand the complicated things the people cannot on their behalf. It is not that the less-bright folk should be denied a vote, but there needs to be careful selection of the shortlist of candidates from which they can vote in the first place. Politicians ought to have to sit mega IQ and competency exams, regularly. Career politicians should not be allowed, and no-one should be allowed near the place unless they have demonstrated the ability to 1) hold down long-term stable employment (no lazy spongers) 2) be of upright character (no fraudster/nutter/scumbags) 3) demonstrate competency in whatever it is they've done for the last 10-20 years (no calamity Janes/Ed Balls-ups) and 4) have the literacy and reasoning skills to be able to present cases both for and against relevant topics of the time (no bigotted blinkered thinkers) and 5) display the willingness to actually debate in a grown up manner in the aim of reaching the best outcome for the country, rather than simply siding with their party whip...
    If you start dictating who can and can't stand as a candidate, and in turn removing the opportunity to be elected by the people from a large chunk of the population, based on what appear to be subjective criteria, then that's not really democracy, is it?


    Quote Originally Posted by ik9000 View Post
    Sensible governance will prevail even in a democracy as we currently have it, if the willingness is there to ensure sensible candidates in the first place. Otherwise short-termist populist voting will inevitably prevail, a la Greece, to the detriment of us all.
    How do you know what's happened in Greece is 'to the detriment of us all'? Someone comes in and challenges (and wins) the usual hegemony that exists in most societies that has lurched from crisis to crisis to crisis for generations now, and suddenly it's bad for all of us. No wonder complacency runs like the Nile through most major political parties.

  9. #39
    The late but legendary peterb - Onward and Upward peterb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Looking down & checking on swearing
    Posts
    19,381
    Thanks
    2,892
    Thanked
    3,403 times in 2,693 posts

    Re: Up vanity, down royal state

    I do have a problem with career politicians in that they don't always have much real world experience, and it does call into question whether they are more interested in furthering their career, rather than the interests of their constituency.

    On the other hand, their career does depend on their constituency, although in a safe seat, that reduces the incentive, and it's not unknown to have an MP dropped into a safe seat just so they can remain in Parliament.

    But the only way round that would be to increase the minimum age for standing as an MP, to (for example) 40, but again that is an arbitrary selection criteria.
    (\__/)
    (='.'=)
    (")_(")

    Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
    My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute

  10. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    West Cork
    Posts
    877
    Thanks
    74
    Thanked
    148 times in 109 posts
    • opel80uk's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte MA770-UD3 revision 2
      • CPU:
      • Phenom II X4 955BE
      • Memory:
      • 4gb PC2-8500
      • Storage:
      • Samsung F1 1tb
      • Graphics card(s):
      • MSI ATI Radeon HD 6950 Twin FrozR II OC 2048MB
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX450W 450w
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7
      • Internet:
      • Virgin Media 10Mb

    Re: Up vanity, down royal state

    Quote Originally Posted by peterb View Post
    I do have a problem with career politicians in that they don't always have much real world experience, and it does call into question whether they are more interested in furthering their career, rather than the interests of their constituency.

    On the other hand, their career does depend on their constituency, although in a safe seat, that reduces the incentive, and it's not unknown to have an MP dropped into a safe seat just so they can remain in Parliament.

    But the only way round that would be to increase the minimum age for standing as an MP, to (for example) 40, but again that is an arbitrary selection criteria.
    But if a political system in a country exists whereby it allows a situation of someone being elected almost entirely because of the political party they belong to, rather than, and in some cases in spite of, what the individual stands for, then that is indicative of a broken system. Blaming career politicians, and looking at how to stop them, rather than looking at the rotten environment that allows and encourages that type of politician is IMO, pointless.

  11. #41
    Senior Member SeriousSam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Anywhere Mental
    Posts
    772
    Thanks
    34
    Thanked
    155 times in 107 posts

    Re: Up vanity, down royal state

    It is a quandary as for example you wouldn't hire a plumber to rewire your house. Having experience of politics is in some ways a benefit. The issue for me in some ways is more the effect of media and what that has meant career politicians have had to become to survive. The age of the "sound-bite" has led to an almost pathological need to avoid questions which are intentionally designed to trap them into something that will make for headlines. Yes there is more to it than that, but it certainly isn't helping.
    Last edited by SeriousSam; 29-01-2015 at 12:24 AM. Reason: spelling
    If Wisdom is the coordination of "knowledge and experience" and its deliberate use to improve well being then how come "Ignorance is bliss"

  12. #42
    RIP Peterb ik9000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,237
    Thanks
    1,233
    Thanked
    804 times in 608 posts
    • ik9000's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P7H55-M/USB3
      • CPU:
      • i7-870, Prolimatech Megahalems, 2x Akasa Apache 120mm
      • Memory:
      • 4x4GB Corsair Vengeance 2133 11-11-11-27
      • Storage:
      • 2x256GB Samsung 840-Pro, 1TB Seagate 7200.12, 1TB Seagate ES.2
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Gigabyte GTX 460 1GB SuperOverClocked
      • PSU:
      • NZXT Hale 90 750w
      • Case:
      • BitFenix Survivor + Bitfenix spectre LED fans, LG BluRay R/W optical drive
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Professional
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2414h, U2311h 1920x1080
      • Internet:
      • 200Mb/s Fibre and 4G wifi

    Re: Up vanity, down royal state

    Opel, it's not dictating who can and can't nominate themselves as a candidate, it's about then ensuring that nominee has the expertise for the job. I could put myself forward to do your knee operation with my black and decker tool set, but you'd rightly require your surgeon to be competent and adequately trained. Just so for our politicians please!

  13. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    West Cork
    Posts
    877
    Thanks
    74
    Thanked
    148 times in 109 posts
    • opel80uk's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte MA770-UD3 revision 2
      • CPU:
      • Phenom II X4 955BE
      • Memory:
      • 4gb PC2-8500
      • Storage:
      • Samsung F1 1tb
      • Graphics card(s):
      • MSI ATI Radeon HD 6950 Twin FrozR II OC 2048MB
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX450W 450w
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7
      • Internet:
      • Virgin Media 10Mb

    Re: Up vanity, down royal state

    Quote Originally Posted by ik9000 View Post
    Opel, it's not dictating who can and can't nominate themselves as a candidate, it's about then ensuring that nominee has the expertise for the job. I could put myself forward to do your knee operation with my black and decker tool set, but you'd rightly require your surgeon to be competent and adequately trained. Just so for our politicians please!
    Comparing a Surgeon and a Politician is entirely disengenuous. The criteria used to select a politician in a Democracy is not how competent they are, but whether it's the will of the people to elect that individual as a representative of the voters. If it's the will of the people to elect someone who is incompetent and inadequately trained (although in whose opinion?), then that is their (our) right. A surgeon on the other hand is able allowed to be a surgeon based almost entirely on his competence. That's the criteria used for society to decide who can and cannot be surgeons.

    If you want to arbitrarily add requirements for those seeking election, based on what at best seem to be a subjective criteria because you think it will lead to better governance, then I understand that position, but don't dress it up as democracy, because it's clearly not.

    If we listened to you and that other champion of peoples rights Wasabi, we'd have a large section of the population not allowed to vote in elections or stand for parliament. Who says right wing fascism is dead?

  14. #44
    LUSE Galant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gibraltar
    Posts
    3,018
    Thanks
    431
    Thanked
    486 times in 293 posts

    Re: Up vanity, down royal state

    Quote Originally Posted by ik9000 View Post
    Strikes me both sides are arguing for the same thing in different ways. The people at large need to vote in people who are experts and who are able to understand the complicated things the people cannot on their behalf. It is not that the less-bright folk should be denied a vote, but there needs to be careful selection of the shortlist of candidates from which they can vote in the first place. Politicians ought to have to sit mega IQ and competency exams, regularly. Career politicians should not be allowed, and no-one should be allowed near the place unless they have demonstrated the ability to 1) hold down long-term stable employment (no lazy spongers) 2) be of upright character (no fraudster/nutter/scumbags) 3) demonstrate competency in whatever it is they've done for the last 10-20 years (no calamity Janes/Ed Balls-ups) and 4) have the literacy and reasoning skills to be able to present cases both for and against relevant topics of the time (no bigotted blinkered thinkers) and 5) display the willingness to actually debate in a grown up manner in the aim of reaching the best outcome for the country, rather than simply siding with their party whip...

    Sensible governance will prevail even in a democracy as we currently have it, if the willingness is there to ensure sensible candidates in the first place. Otherwise short-termist populist voting will inevitably prevail, a la Greece, to the detriment of us all.
    Although I empathise with the sentiment I disagree with the solution. For one, as Opel has said, there's a big problem with a supposed democracy that limits who can and can't receive votes. It goes against the principles of a democracy and can lead to some rather nasty destinations.

    For another, though, I think a big part of the problem is a result of a wrong approach, that is, from trying to solve these issue by identifying the perfect candidate or government with whom we can trust the running of the country. I think that's the wrong approach because it is a unicorn hunt and misses a big part of why democracy is the best system available. Democracy is the best not because it emphasises brilliance and capability of human beings but instead the reverse - it accounts for their persistent failings.

    "I think most people [support democracy] for the opposite reason. A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that every one deserved a share in the government. The danger of defending democracy on those grounds is that they’re not true... The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so flawed that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.” C. S. Lewis

    “I believe in political equality. But there are two opposite reasons for being a [supporter of democracy]. You may think all men so good that they deserve a share in the government of the commonwealth, and so wise that the commonwealth needs their advice. That is, in my opinion, the false, romantic doctrine of democracy. On the other hand, you may believe ... men to be so [flawed] that not one of them can be trusted with any irresponsible power over his fellows. That I believe to be the true ground of democracy. I do not believe [in] an egalitarian world. ...we have found, as Lord Acton says, that 'all power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' The only remedy has been to take away the powers and substitute a legal fiction of equality.” C. S. Lewis

    There is no such thing as the perfect ruler or perfect system, so I think it's a waste of time to look for one. Instead, I think the solution is smaller/more local government. Encourage more and more responsibility at every level (from national, to county, to local, as well as corporate and individual), encourage better, more thorough, wiser, education.
    No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.

  15. #45
    I'm Very Important
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,789
    Thanks
    313
    Thanked
    323 times in 287 posts
    • Domestic_Ginger's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte GA-MA770-UD3
      • CPU:
      • Phenom II X2 550
      • Memory:
      • 4GB DDR2
      • Storage:
      • F3 500gb
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 5850
      • PSU:
      • Corsair 550vx
      • Case:
      • NZXT beta evo
      • Operating System:
      • W7
      • Monitor(s):
      • G2222HDL

    Re: Up vanity, down royal state

    Great C S Lewis quotes.

    I would be terrified to burden local councils with any more responsibilities. The overheads from duplicating positions would cripple it.

    I'm not really interested in politics tbh. All the parties are the same. France for their many failings has a system where anybody can run; if they can get a share of the votes the state will pay for them. Here we're stuck with the same old three; I can only assume finances and hangover from the cold war have kept the socialists away.

    I would like to see greater tax for the 1%. Tax laws I can understand. Stop selling off assets for a quick buck. Stop building so many frigging shoe box houses and tax the hell out of the 10 house owners / foreign investers.

  16. #46
    RIP Peterb ik9000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,237
    Thanks
    1,233
    Thanked
    804 times in 608 posts
    • ik9000's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P7H55-M/USB3
      • CPU:
      • i7-870, Prolimatech Megahalems, 2x Akasa Apache 120mm
      • Memory:
      • 4x4GB Corsair Vengeance 2133 11-11-11-27
      • Storage:
      • 2x256GB Samsung 840-Pro, 1TB Seagate 7200.12, 1TB Seagate ES.2
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Gigabyte GTX 460 1GB SuperOverClocked
      • PSU:
      • NZXT Hale 90 750w
      • Case:
      • BitFenix Survivor + Bitfenix spectre LED fans, LG BluRay R/W optical drive
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Professional
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2414h, U2311h 1920x1080
      • Internet:
      • 200Mb/s Fibre and 4G wifi

    Re: Up vanity, down royal state

    Quote Originally Posted by Domestic_Ginger View Post
    I would like to see greater tax for the 1%. Tax laws I can understand. Stop selling off assets for a quick buck. Stop building so many frigging shoe box houses and tax the hell out of the 10 house owners / foreign investers.
    Amen, amen & amen!

  17. #47
    Treasure Hunter extraordinaire herulach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bolton
    Posts
    5,618
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked
    172 times in 159 posts
    • herulach's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI Z97 MPower
      • CPU:
      • i7 4790K
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Vengeance LP
      • Storage:
      • 1TB WD Blue + 250GB 840 EVo
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 2* Palit GTX 970 Jetstream
      • PSU:
      • EVGA Supernova G2 850W
      • Case:
      • CM HAF Stacker 935, 2*360 Rad WC Loop w/EK blocks.
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 8.1
      • Monitor(s):
      • Crossover 290HD & LG L1980Q
      • Internet:
      • 120mb Virgin Media

    Re: Up vanity, down royal state

    Quote Originally Posted by Domestic_Ginger View Post
    Great C S Lewis quotes.

    I would be terrified to burden local councils with any more responsibilities. The overheads from duplicating positions would cripple it.

    I'm not really interested in politics tbh. All the parties are the same. France for their many failings has a system where anybody can run; if they can get a share of the votes the state will pay for them. Here we're stuck with the same old three; I can only assume finances and hangover from the cold war have kept the socialists away.

    I would like to see greater tax for the 1%. Tax laws I can understand. Stop selling off assets for a quick buck. Stop building so many frigging shoe box houses and tax the hell out of the 10 house owners / foreign investers.
    You realise that the british electoral system works the same way? Anyone can stand provided you're not bankrupt, a judge etc. If you manage to form a suitably large political party you can also get a budget from the commons.

    House price inflation is not the responsibility of eveeel foreign boogeymen. its a result of easy access to credit, the inevitable concentration of jobs into smaller places due to change in the economy and the piss poor infrastructure that serves to further concentrate jobs and people. Property taxes won't serve to deflate house prices significantly any more than 5 and 6 % interest rates did.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •