|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Smelling The Coffee: 2010 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5034 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined:
|
Lack of technology isn't the reason direct democracy was avoided at all. Maybe not, but the presence of technology is certainly a reason why direct democracy shouldn't be avoided today. "We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5034 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined:
|
Huh? What technology is this? Communications networks with adequate bandwidth, security, accessibility and availability.
There would be too many items to vote on and people would soon get bored by issues they knew nothing about and barely understood. That's right, people would only vote on issues that directly affected their lives and either ignore or educate themselves on issues they barely understood. Why is this a problem?
Under your system, we'd soon have decisions being taken by a tiny minority. What, you mean like a minority of 646 deciding on behalf of the other 60,000,000. Gosh, no we wouldn't want that to happen now, would we? "We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4218 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined:
|
Today we have the technology to allow direct and immediate voting on each and every issue, without the need for the physical gathering of large crowds and the subsequent risk of mob mentality. Except that voting is only a small part of what a direct democracy would be. In a direct democracy all the citizens are legislators. Thus proposing, forming, debating & voting on issues. How, even with modern technology would you feel that this is possible? There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
Communications networks with adequate bandwidth, security, accessibility and availability. That's not an answer, that's just a description of what an answer might be like. How are these networks to operate? How are they to be secured? How do we prevent fraud? How are the votes going to be collated? Who gets to decide what is actually being voted on in the first place? And how much is this going to cost? If you are being serious, you need much more specific answers than this.
That's right, people would only vote on issues that directly affected their lives and either ignore or educate themselves on issues they barely understood. Why is this a problem? Because it relies upon a vastly over-optimistic view of human nature. If the fuss over gay rights in the US has taught us anything it is that many people get most upset (and most active) over issues that don't affect them at all.
What, you mean like a minority of 646 deciding on behalf of the other 60,000,000. Gosh, no we wouldn't want that to happen now, would we? Actually I would and do like that. You can't steer a ship by committee, nor could a country be effectively governed when it was shackled to a public that does not and will not understand the issues. Your system would lead to a permanent state of options paralysis. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Hyroglyphx writes: Votes don't usurp the Constitution. If you want to discuss God in school, that's why private schools exist. Hi Hyro. It wasn't exclusively for private schools in the days of the founders, in whose public schools prayer and Bible were everyday events. Why? Why didn't the founders rise up in protest as you people would rather than supporting it? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5034 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
Well I am glad you mentioned the dreaded S word. As I would have been uncomfortable doing so in this volatile context. Ha-ha, see if I was the sensitive type I would now be screaming blue murder about you trying to "subjugate my community" and such like.
But dude my wife isn't called flossy and has never been sheared. Oh I know, I've seen your women trying to hail a taxi! No need to feel sheepish about it though. "We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Hi Buz,
I see you've given up on trying to show that the founding fathers approved of the use of these books and settled for "Well they didn't object!". Pretty thin. As far as I am aware, the Bible was mainly used as reading primer, not a history lesson or a science textbook. That might be a factor. Just for the record, you might like to take a look at this page, which examines the claim that Jefferson introduced the Hymnals you mentioned into US public schools. It's not true of course, but that doesn't stop (guess who!) your buddy David Barton from making the claim. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5034 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined:
|
In a direct democracy all the citizens are legislators. Thus proposing, forming, debating & voting on issues. How, even with modern technology would you feel that this is possible? Is this a rhetorical question? It's not just possible, it's already hapenning. Have you heard of things like chat, social networks, mobile phones, tele-conferencing, SMS, IM, Twitter, Skype, GPS, etc. The world is communicating and interacting like never before. The technology is already here, it just needs to be integrated into a formal, structured, secure, accessible and available system. "We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.4
|
Maybe not, but the presence of technology is certainly a reason why direct democracy shouldn't be avoided today. I notice that you completely ignore the rest of my post, where I mention the reason direct democracy should be avoided. Do you enjoy being dishonest? Direct democracy results in tyranny of the majority over the minority. As Benjamin Franklin said, it's just two wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner - "majority rules" without restriction results in the horrific oppression of minorities. Travesties like the death penalty for homosexual activity, or "separate but equal" laws for blacks are possible under direct democracy, but at least have significant hurdles in a Representative Constitutional Republic. Beyond that, do you really think that every Tom, Dick, and Harry has the time, attention span, and intelligence to deal with voting on everything that the legislature normally does? Really? Imagine a debate over a bill where 300,000,000 people get to have their say. The technology for voting exists (debatable - we can't seem to get electronic voting down yet, either - American Idol and social networking votes are not held to the same degree of accuracy and accountability as an actual legislature, for reasons that should be blatantly obvious if you have more than a dozen neurons in your cranial cavity), but the ability to get anything done with that many voices and votes does not, unless you have a time machine stashed away somewhere. Direct democracy sounds nice, but like Communism, it just doesn't work in the real world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Coyote writes: You'd be sore annoyed under a muslim theocracy. I suspect your attitude would change real quick.How about we keep all religious indoctrination out of the public schools, eh? That's what churches et al. are for anyway, isn't it? 1. Islam law is outside the parameters of the Constitution. It mandates prayer five times daily, violent subjection to it's repressive laws and punishment when any other than their god Allah and their prophet Mohammed is venerated, worshipped or advocated. It's rigid agenda is to establish a state religion as was that of the popes and bishops of the RCC in the Dark Ages. When a specific religion becomes established by law contrary to the Bill of Rights there no longer the freedom to vote for or against it. 2. When the Bible, The New England Primer and Watts Hymnal were in the schools there was no religious denomination or specific doctrine taught. By representation from the republic majority of the voters, these books were used. Today the republic majority have elected leaders who have disallowed these books. That's how the republic is suppose to function. Unfortunately, the more secular the schools become, the more delinquency, crime, suicide, drug abuse, civil unrest etc we have. Interestingly, that's what the Bible predicted would happen, that things would get worse when the precepts were not applied. History attests to that. The majority of the curriculum in the early schools was the three Rs, reading, writing and arithmetic as well as hygien, science, history and social studies. In the colleges and universities (most of the great ones like Harvard, Yale and Princeton originating as Christian, being founded by clergymen) the higher maths, sciences and skills etc were taught. I understand that most had chapel services. But my, oh my, didn't that produce just terrible and oppressive graduates who wrecked the republic, reduced it to third world welfare and insurmountable impoverishment! BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
I detect Underpants Gnomes.
Your suggestions are eerily reminiscent of the gnome business model. STEP ONE: Set up "things like chat, social networks, mobile phones, tele-conferencing, SMS, IM, Twitter, Skype, GPS, etc.". STEP TWO: ... ... ... STEP THREE: Reap rewards of secure voting system for all! I think you need to be a bit more specific at stage two. Unless you have actually become so demented as to suggest that we vote over Skype, I think you need to be a lot more specific. Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : Typo. "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4218 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Is this a rhetorical question? It's not just possible, it's already hapenning. Have you heard of things like chat, social networks, mobile phones, tele-conferencing, SMS, IM, Twitter, Skype, GPS, etc. The world is communicating and interacting like never before. The technology is already here, it just needs to be integrated into a formal, structured, secure, accessible and available system. it's not the technology, it is the logistics. Direct democracy means that all registered voters are the legislature. Each would have to be logged in and verified that they are on the voting list, before the session could start. What would you do if a roll call vote was ordered. Each voter must state yea or ney, one at a time. Have you ever seen thee only thing similar to a direct democracy, the New England Town meeting. Even with just a 1000 or so voters it is a logistic nightmare particularly when any voter cam address the meeting on any bill. Imagine a country the size of the USA where any voter can comment on the legislation. The bill would never come to a vote. suppose that 100,000 people wanted to comment on the bill at 1 minute each, that would be 69 days, at 24 hours per day, without stopping. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Unfortunately, the more secular the schools become, the more delinquency, crime, suicide, drug abuse, civil unrest etc we have. Interestingly, that's what the Bible predicted would happen, that things would get worse when the precepts were not applied. History attests to that.
You are mixing different issues and confusing cause and effect. The majority of the curriculum in the early schools was the three Rs, reading, writing and arithmetic as well as hygien, science, history and social studies. In the colleges and universities (most of the great ones like Harvard, Yale and Princeton originating as Christian, being founded by clergymen) the higher maths, sciences and skills etc were taught. I understand that most had chapel services. Could any of these things you mention be a consequence of a significant increase in population, concentration of much of that population into large cities, and a significant reduction in a rural lifestyle? And could the increasing secularization be due to a vastly more educated populace? Or to the two+ centuries of scientific advance since the American Revolution? Or the increasingly multicultural makeup of our nation? Or the realization that The Enlightenment means that, if we so choose, we can tell the shamans -- of all stripes -- to go jump in the lake without fear of arrest or burning at the stake or some such? Perhaps your viewpoint is too narrow. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.4 |
2. When the Bible, The New England Primer and Watts Hymnal were in the schools there was no religious denomination or specific doctrine taught. The Bible mean Christianity, which is itself a specific religion. Are you retarded? "Freedom of religion" does not equate to "you can worship Jesus however you want to."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
No it wouldn't! It would be no different to me being arrested and condemned to death as a result of my violating some current law proposed by government and voted by parliament. The only difference is that currently my death would be the application of the will of a minority while in a direct democracy it would be the application of the will of the majority, hence somehow more palatable. It may appear more palatable, but I for one am thankful I don't live in a direct democracy, but rather a republic because of mob rule -- mob rule just being a colloquialism for majority rule infringing on inherent rights. Here's a very interesting, detailed explanation. It is 10 minutes long, but I think you'll be able to appreciate it. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024