Darcs said And in practice, see: North America pre-colonization, Australia-pre-colonization, the first few million years of human history, City states: (Hong Kong, Macau, etc.), tiny countries and thriving island nations, Catalonia, Paris, other experimental societies.

So past systems? Those we grew/evolved out of? Suggesting that there a tried and tested reason for moving on to Democracy.
Mainly for the reason you admit to below, population. We are no longer in the age of small towns and communities, we're in the age of giant cities, giant countries, hell when even have a United Nations.
Humanity has simply grown too large and wide to operate on such small scale systems anymore.

Darcs said This is bad? I'm asking you to consider size of the population and the state as a significant factor in the success of this. So no, it wouldn't be the American population, consider the population of a town, exclude children, and remember to take into account that this voting would be voluntary, so theoretically no one could vote-- this would just mean that nothing changes.

If you'd like to argue about population sizes, I think it's safe to say the level of technology we posses is sufficient to allow relative ease when voting on this. These are issues that directly effect the population, so yes, they should be expected to deal with them.

And theoretically we might just not vote for a government or president, but it never happens.
And I don't even see how smaller population is a counter for constant demand. If anything, it makes my constant voting issue an even bigger flaw because now if you don't vote it's much more sizable chunk of the community not being represented. So not only is it far more constant/demanding, but it's far more required now.

And technology get's hacked, get's manipulated. There's a reason voting stations still get set up that you have to go there and vote in person.
If Technology was a viable alternative, we have already made the switch like we did with almost every other field of life.

Plus, keyword = expect.
You expect people to follow through and make it work, but you have nothing helping ensure it will.
Other than some faith that everyone will be loyal and honourable to your system.

Darcs said Except it totally wouldn't? Voting would be fluid to fit with the population-- especially considering it's RUN by the citizens.

You mean like our current government is run by citizens?
Or do they not count as citizens anymore because they were advanced to a high position of power?
In which case, wouldn't your system be impossible too, because once said citizens start running stuff we stop seeing them as citizens?

Believe it or not, leading a community isn't an easy job. It's not something you can just do on the side while leading another working life.
If you want to lead your people, you need to invest your time into it.

Darcs said These are issues DIRECTLY affecting the population, education on these issues is expected to be a community precedent. They'd either know what they were voting about, or they wouldn't, that's par for the course-- the only issue I see is people with mental illnesses, and then it simply becomes an issue of better understanding the type of mental illness and their limitations in regards to decision making.

And many wouldn't know, and vote anyways.
Simply going "Well yea, you're perceived flaw will be a thing" doesn't eliminate it as being a flaw, it's actually the reverse.
It confirms my perceived flaw is spot on, in which case ignoring it is the worst thing you can do.

Darcs said I wouldn't want to address the "Those who have no clue what they're doing are voting," issue. If they're citizens and they're of age and they want too, they have a right to vote. The goal is to get as many people informed as possible.

And how do you plan to inform them?
Do you have a method to help make sure everyone is informed.
Or are you just hoping that people will be informed?

Darcs said Are knowledge and motivation really all that different?

Yes? Is this seriously being asked?

Knowledge is possessing the mental information and know how about something. Experience, expertise, understanding.

Motivation is simply caring or wanting to help.

There's actually an article I find is very relevant to this.
Specifically his first point of "The world only cares about what it can get from you". In it, he makes an example of someone on the ground bleeding out.



Now, the author in this case uses this example in regards to romantic relationships, and how simply being a "Nice Guy/Girl" isn't enough.
But I feel it also applies here, where when voting on specific issues simply being a "Motivated Guy/Girl" isn't enough, you need to actually know what you're making a decision about.

Darcs said Who do you think is suggesting the voting in the public forums? It's syncretic, so it could vary and differ based on what the citizens want, but what I see as the ideal scenario is a council of elected representatives who would be "experts" viewing problems and organizing the votes on what citizens request and what needs to be fixed.

What kind of experts? One engineer? One Doctor? One Teacher?
Some nice, in theory. But in practicality, it basically becomes a matter of most of the experts stay quiet when it's not their field, and then the one expert speaks up when it is their field.
Or the other experts wanting to feel involved speak up, even when they may know nothing of the matter at hand.

There's a reason experts stay in their current fields, and then make the propositions. And why when government decisions are made they find people to advise and make arguments.

Darcs said Yeah, nothing's going to be without flaw. That's existence for you!

Therefore, we should simply ignore the flaws and bring in any system we feel like?
Yes, flaws are always around. Thats life.

But it's also important recognize the flaws, combat the flaws, minimize the flaws.
Or you get screwed over. That's life.
Otherwise what's stopping us from being Facist? Or Communist?
Sure there's flaws of mass genocide, but nothing is without flaws... right?

Darcs said Citizens in a gridlock about things that directly effect them-- they'll either figure it out for the greater good, or remain gridlocked and experience the direct effects of that.

You mean, like our current system?

Darcs said I'd much prefer these people be allowed to vote than there being some awful standard of "passion" or "political knowledge" implemented. Bias, prejudice and apathy are jest as legitimate as whatever label you put on why you vote-- no only that, they're pretty much human nature. We all have a little of them all, more or less.

Yes all hold some, this is true.
But it doesn't mean it comes in extremes.
And it doesn't mean it makes everyone viable for every decision.

I find it bizarre how when it comes to certain fields we only trust trained/specialized experts to be making decisions.
But when it comes to making a decision about who is responsible for your country, everyone has a say.
Or with your system, when making a decision about any matter, no matter how complex or serious, everyone has a say.
People go and get trained/educated for a reason. It's not just to have a fancy paper to put up on a wall.

Magic Magnum said So past systems? Those we grew/evolved out of?

Yes. Systems can evolve and change with the times, the people and the resources. Unless you think countries today were run the exact same way 100 years ago?

Magic Magnum said Suggesting that there a tried and tested reason for moving on to Democracy. Mainly for the reason you admit to below, population. We are no longer in the age of small towns and communities, we're in the age of giant cities, giant countries, hell when even have a United Nations.
Humanity has simply grown too large and wide to operate on such small scale systems anymore.

Except that's not true at all, why does any country need to be as big as it is? What I'm proposing is the equivalent of just giving states, counties, and towns/cities the power federal governments currently have.

Magic Magnum said And theoretically we might just not vote for a government or president, but it never happens.

Well, there were the three times a president was elected by the Electoral College despite not winning the majority of the population. I somehow see this as worse than no one turning out to the polls.

Magic Magnum said And I don't even see how smaller population is a counter for constant demand. If anything, it makes my constant voting issue an even bigger flaw because now if you don't vote it's much more sizable chunk of the community not being represented. So not only is it far more constant/demanding, but it's far more required now.

That's just something you can't avoid. You can't demand that people vote, it's their prerogative if they don't want too, they should, especially when their vote means more, but they DON'T have to. That's just how freedom do.

Also, how is answering some yes or no questions once or twice a week a constant bombardment of votes?

Magic Magnum said And technology get's hacked, get's manipulated. There's a reason voting stations still get set up that you have to go there and vote in person.If Technology was a viable alternative, we have already made the switch like we did with almost every other field of life.

Technology and science progress, it's slow, but we are making the transition.

Magic Magnum said Plus, keyword = expect.You expect people to follow through and make it work, but you have nothing helping ensure it will.
Other than some faith that everyone will be loyal and honourable to your system.

You can't ever expect everyone to be honorable to the system, you just need enough. Also, faith is how most governments, as well as the global economy work.

Magic Magnum said You mean like our current government is run by citizens?
Or do they not count as citizens anymore because they were advanced to a high position of power?
In which case, wouldn't your system be impossible too, because once said citizens start running stuff we stop seeing them as citizens?

Believe it or not, leading a community isn't an easy job.
It's not something you can just do on the side while leading another working life.If you want to lead your people, you need to invest your time into it.

They're citizens. But a majority seem too far removed from the populations they claim to represent to all vote in their favor. That isn't okay.

Magic Magnum said And many wouldn't know, and vote anyways.Simply going "Well yea, you're perceived flaw will be a thing" doesn't eliminate it as being a flaw, it's actually the reverse.It confirms my perceived flaw is spot on, in which case ignoring it is the worst thing you can do.
And how do you plan to inform them? Do you have a method to help make sure everyone is informed.
Or are you just hoping that people will be informed?

Communication? Greater emphasis on these things in school? I think it's worth experimentation, and acknowledging that it won't happen over night.

Magic Magnum said Yes?

Is this seriously being asked?

Knowledge is possessing the mental information and know how about something. Experience, expertise, understanding.

Motivation is simply caring or wanting to help.

Call me Socratic, but I don't think you can actually 'know' anything. We live in an incredibly subjective world where, ultimately, truth relies entirely on perspective. Everything is arguable, nothing is black or white. The only thing, I believe, that you can really know, is that you are yourself, and that you know nothing for sure.

'Knowledge' then, isn't really knowing, but the motivation to pursue information and experience despite the uncertainty. I think the two go hand in hand.

Magic Magnum said Specifically his first point of "The world only cares about what it can get from you". In it, he makes an example of someone on the ground bleeding out.

Now, the author in this case uses this example in regards to romantic relationships, and how simply being a "Nice Guy/Girl" isn't enough.But I feel it also applies here, where when voting on specific issues simply being a "Motivated Guy/Girl" isn't enough, you need to actually know what you're making a decision about.

Man, I love David Wong, but he sure does love to cherry pick his arguments. He's presenting the information in a way that confirms his own hypothesis, is it impossible for him to believe MAYBE the guy CAN help your girlfriend out? Even ignoring that, the example is unrealistic and has ZERO context. Where did she get shot? Why did she get shot? Hell-- what time of day is it?

To your "Motivated Guy/Girl" claim, I'd argue voting is different from removing a gun with a pocket knife on the street, but that's just me. Motivation+Knowledge are ideal, but you can't control a population to be perfectly ideal.

Magic Magnum said What kind of experts? One engineer? One Doctor? One Teacher?
Some nice, in theory. But in practicality, it basically becomes a matter of most of the experts stay quiet when it's not their field, and then the one expert speaks up when it is their field.
Or the other experts wanting to feel involved speak up, even when they may know nothing of the matter at hand.

There's a reason experts stay in their current fields, and then make the propositions. And why when government decisions are made they find people to advise and make arguments.

So then expand the arguing panel to those it effects and those who you may consider 'experts'
It is only a theory, but being able to be fluid is vital for success in practice.

Magic Magnum said Therefore, we should simply ignore the flaws and bring in any system we feel like?
Yes, flaws are always around. Thats life.

Yes.

That's how things improve, you take the ideas of your ancestors, and tray and make them better.

Magic Magnum said But it's also important recognize the flaws, combat the flaws, minimize the flaws.
Or you get screwed over. That's life.
Otherwise what's stopping us from being Facist? Or Communist?
Sure there's flaws of mass genocide, but nothing is without flaws... right?

[Correlation != Causation]

Magic Magnum said You mean, like our current system?

Nah, current system is bloated and experiences a disconnect between the representatives and citizens. I feel like smaller spheres of influence would help with that.

Magic Magnum said Yes all hold some, this is true.
But it doesn't mean it comes in extremes.
And it doesn't mean it makes everyone viable for every decision.

Sure, but when you begin excluding people because they aren't "fit" to make a decision regarding where they live, that's when you start becoming fascist.

It's better for the unfit people to make a shitty decision, than strip them of that freedom altogether. Just because by some standardized measurement they aren't knowledgeable or informed enough.

Magic Magnum said I find it bizarre how when it comes to certain fields we only trust trained/specialized experts to be making decisions.

#subjective

Magic Magnum said But when it comes to making a decision about who is responsible for your country, everyone has a say.
Or with your system, when making a decision about any matter, no matter how complex or serious, everyone has a say.

You find it bizarre that people who live in a place get to make decisions regarding that place that they live?

Magic Magnum said People go and get trained/educated for a reason. It's not just to have a fancy paper to put up on a wall.

It kind of is, though.
That, and using that fancy paper to make more green paper.

The fancy paper wouldn't exist if people did it purely out of the joy of learning about a thing they like-- and I would argue, especially now, in the 'digital age' there are more experts than ever WITHOUT that fancy paper who train and educate themselves, for themselves.

Darcs said Yes. Systems can evolve and change with the times, the people and the resources. Unless you think countries today were run the exact same way 100 years ago?

No, but you seemed to completely miss my point.
I was not saying that systems can't evolve, I was saying the exact opposite. That systems do evolve.
And that you are suggesting an outdated system, a already tried and exhausted system we have already built, improved and adapted on according to our current situation.
So by saying "This system to bad, lets use this ancient one" you are essentially suggesting de-evolution, evolving backwards in other words.

Now, is our current system perfect?
No, not by a long shot. But we fix that by updating and improving according to our current situation and foreseeable future.
Not by running back to the past and missing the (quite barbaric) old days.

Darcs said Except that's not true at all, why does any country need to be as big as it is? What I'm proposing is the equivalent of just giving states, counties, and towns/cities the power federal governments currently have.

o.O
Last I checked places such as United States, UK, Japan, Canada, Australia etc. exist.
Or has my town of Oakville now become it's own nation and I simply didn't get the memo?
So not, that is infact true. We don't live in small isolated communities, we live where big countries exist.

And countries got big as communities got big. Societies got big, more connections and alliances were made.
And unless if you want to divide into small isolated families, limit the amount of offspring produced and deny anyone from joining the community you will see the same happen.
Society evolved, it got bigger, it gained the ability to encompass more people.

+By giving cities federal power (which is not all you're proposing. Or municipal governments would simply become federal ones. Citizens would still just vote for the government and be done with it for 4 years) you are essentially dividing the country. With no big overall leadership, there is nothing keeping them together or united. You break up giant communities, many connections.

It is quite literally, downgrading society in order to simplify it.

Darcs said Well, there were the three times a president was elected by the Electoral College despite not winning the majority of the population. I somehow see this as worse than no one turning out to the polls.

Not Majority of votes =/= Not highest number of votes

The way voting works is whatever option has the highest number of votes wins.
So if you have more than 2 candidates, you can have the most votes without having more than half of the votes.
And unless if your proposed system is always going to limit voting to 2 options, you will see the same thing happen in your system.

Darcs said That's just something you can't avoid. You can't demand that people vote, it's their prerogative if they don't want too, they should, especially when their vote means more, but they DON'T have to. That's just how freedom do.

Also, how is answering some yes or no questions once or twice a week a constant bombardment of votes?

I never said it could be avoided. I said it was a problem that your system possesses.
I get that's how freedom works, but if your system requires constant involvement, involvement you have no way to try to keep at a healthy level then your system has a problem.

And these are not simple yes or no questions such as "Do you want pizza for dinner?".
These are big, complex questions. Those that take time to think through, decide, make a stance on etc. At least those taking matters affecting the community seriously.
And I trust I don't need to explain why it's important for people to take it seriously?

Plus, it's not a simple "I'll text my vote" you need to go to specialized locations to log it in.
A rather sizable chunk of your day has to be invested, on a constant basis, plus any time spent sitting around thinking on said issues.

Darcs said Technology and science progress, it's slow, but we are making the transition.

But as technology evolves so do the users.
So does the technology used to hack/take advantage of it.

So when it comes to something as serious as voting, you don't want to trust it to something that someone can easily hack and rig by pretending to be someone else.
This is an issue where no matter how much it evolves the opposition will also evolve.

Darcs said You can't ever expect everyone to be honorable to the system, you just need enough. Also, faith is how most governments, as well as the global economy work.

Yes, but you have no measures in place to try to make sure it does go and hoped.
It is being based on blind trust. There are laws in place to regulate government.
There are laws in place so only qualified people can make decisions on important matters, such as road safety or performing surgery.
It's not based on a blind faith of "Oh, well I trust that the people building our roads know what they're doing".

Darcs said They're citizens. But a majority seem too far removed from the populations they claim to represent to all vote in their favor. That isn't okay.

It's an issue yes.
But one your system isn't fixing.

You will have your council of experts, and they being focused on leading will also become removed from society.
Or, they spend so little time leading, they aren't even doing their jobs as leading.

Darcs said Communication? Greater emphasis on these things in school? I think it's worth experimentation, and acknowledging that it won't happen over night.

Then experiment, test it, prove it and then come back and try it.
Don't make the assumption it will already work.

Darcs said Call me Socratic, but I don't think you can actually 'know' anything. We live in an incredibly subjective world where, ultimately, truth relies entirely on perspective. Everything is arguable, nothing is black or white. The only thing, I believe, that you can really know, is that you are yourself, and that you know nothing for sure.

'Knowledge' then, isn't really knowing, but the motivation to pursue information and experience despite the uncertainty. I think the two go hand in hand.

You require a life saving surgery, your heart has ruptured and needs to be stitched.
There are two people in the room who can try to perform the operation.

One is a doctor, a surgeon who has been trained and educated in surgery.
The other, is your mother. Hysterically crying, willing to do anything to save you, but knows nothing about surgery or human anatomy.

I dare you to say you would pick your mother to perform the operation.

Darcs said Man, I love David Wong, but he sure does love to cherry pick his arguments. He's presenting the information in a way that confirms his own hypothesis, is it impossible for him to believe MAYBE the guy CAN help your girlfriend out? Even ignoring that, the example is unrealistic and has ZERO context. Where did she get shot? Why did she get shot? Hell-- what time of day is it?

To your "Motivated Guy/Girl" claim, I'd argue voting is different from removing a gun with a pocket knife on the street, but that's just me. Motivation+Knowledge are ideal, but you can't control a population to be perfectly ideal.

The guy even when asked constantly never gives any sort of knowledge or proof that he is trained as surgeon.
All he says is that he's a nice guy, and expects this to be enough to remove the bullet.

And it's a hypothetical, meant to illustrate skilled vs not skilled.
What exactly do you hope to argue or prove in regards to where, why or when she was shot?
That has nothing to do with the argument, which is that one must know what they're doing to be able to do it.
One must have understanding of something, to be able to make a proper decision on it.

And when you plan on making all government matters votable by the masses, it's not even that different from the bullet case.
Cases involving everything will come up, road safety, medical practices, what's taught in schools, how schools teach, how to grow food, food health standards, vaccination laws etc.
Cases where if the wrong choice is made, can cost many lives. Cases, that hold too many lives in the balance to entrust to people who do not understand the effects of the decision they are being asked to make.

Darcs said So then expand the arguing panel to those it effects and those who you may consider 'experts'
It is only a theory, but being able to be fluid is vital for success in practice.

I can agree there.
Bringing in expert consultation is always good.
But then it goes back to what was being debated above, why are we then allowing the choice to be made by people who do not even understand the issue, rather than those professionally trained to handle said issues?

Darcs said Yes.

That's how things improve, you take the ideas of your ancestors, and tray and make them better.

So you do agree that we must build on what we have and move forward? Good.
So then why are arguing we ignore 2000 years of said 'moving forward' by going back to a more ancient government system?

Darcs said [Correlation != Causation]

o.O What exactly are even arguing this at?
That flaws cause people to get hurt when they are ignored?
You do know the definition of the word flaw, right?

flaw1
[flaw] Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
noun
1. a feature that mars the perfection of something; defect; fault:
beauty without flaw; the flaws in our plan.
2. a defect impairing legal soundness or validity.
3. a crack, break, breach, or rent.
verb (used with object)
4. to produce a flaw in.
verb (used without object)
5. to contract a flaw; become cracked or defective.

Flaws are bad elements/features.
For example, a flaw with our current system is government being too disattached from society.
We you then guilty of correlation = causation by arguing that it's a problem and causes issues?
Judging by the fact you were able to identify a flaw with a system and recognize it as bad suggests you recognize this concept.
So why is the second the flaw is in something you're suggest you are quick to accuse it of being a logical fallacy that it isn't?

Darcs said Nah, current system is bloated and experiences a disconnect between the representatives and citizens. I feel like smaller spheres of influence would help with that.

It isn't the size of the communities causing that.
It's their exposure to everyday life. If you take a small community, pick a council and then shove them away doing council stuff by themselves all day they will be just as disconnected.
Being disconnected is not something that magically happens by growing in size.

Darcs said Sure, but when you begin excluding people because they aren't "fit" to make a decision regarding where they live, that's when you start becoming fascist.

It's better for the unfit people to make a shitty decision, than strip them of that freedom altogether. Just because by some standardized measurement they aren't knowledgeable or informed enough.

Do you let children choose to cross the street when it's busy on their own?
Do you let people perform surgery on their own without training?
Do you let people drive cars before getting a license?

By your logic, if you don't let someone do any of these you are apparently being a fascist.
It is not better to let unfit people make shitty decisions, if said decisions will get themselves and everyone around them hurt.

Darcs said #subjective

Is performing an operation subjective?
Is wiring a house subjective?
Is building a house subjective?
Is building a road subjective?
Is landing a ship on a comet (which wearing an awesome shirt) subjective?
Is creating a vaccine for a deadly illness subjective?

Darcs said You find it bizarre that people who live in a place get to make decisions regarding that place that they live?

No, I find it bizarre that people are allowed to make decisions that can seriously impact the lives of others while having no understanding about said decision.

Darcs said It kind of is, though.
That, and using that fancy paper to make more green paper.

The fancy paper wouldn't exist if people did it purely out of the joy of learning about a thing they like-- and I would argue, especially now, in the 'digital age' there are more experts than ever WITHOUT that fancy paper who train and educate themselves, for themselves.

Yes there is a money motivation.
But education is not simple money investment.
It gives knowledge, skills. It equips people to tackle jobs, roles and responsibilities they lacked the ability to handle before hand.
And it acts as proof and evidence that they know what they're doing. So you don't have someone perform surgery, who doesn't even know how to hold a scalpel.

Yes there are more fields opening that may not require a degree.
But it's stuff such as some business, artists, game developers.
People who offer a service, that a consumer willingly agrees to purchase, that does not post a safety hazard to said consumer.

If it does, then degrees are required.
And even then, most things such as apprenticeships still require some class time and quizzes in order to confirm you understand certain concepts.

Respond to tyrants and democracy plox.

Magic Magnum said No, but you seemed to completely miss my point.
I was not saying that systems can't evolve, I was saying the exact opposite. That systems do evolve.
And that you are suggesting an outdated system, a already tried and exhausted system we have already built, improved and adapted on according to our current situation.
So by saying "This system to bad, lets use this ancient one" you are essentially suggesting de-evolution, evolving backwards in other words.

Now, is our current system perfect?
No, not by a long shot. But we fix that by updating and improving according to our current situation and foreseeable future.
Not by running back to the past and missing the (quite barbaric) old days.

It's an evolutionary step forward, in my mind, if we take underutilized styles of governing that worked in the past and improve upon them with what we know now.

Magic Magnum said o.O
Last I checked places such as United States, UK, Japan, Canada, Australia etc. exist.
Or has my town of Oakville now become it's own nation and I simply didn't get the memo?
So not, that is infact true. We don't live in small isolated communities, we live where big countries exist.

And countries got big as communities got big. Societies got big, more connections and alliances were made.
And unless if you want to divide into small isolated families, limit the amount of offspring produced and deny anyone from joining the community you will see the same happen.
Society evolved, it got bigger, it gained the ability to encompass more people.

I think population growth was instrumental in getting where we are now, as a society. I'm saying, we don't need to continue growing at an exponential rate, 50,000 people isn't a small family, but it'd be much more efficient to micromanage than the needlessly large countries we have today. Communities wouldn't even be isolated, trade and foreign relations wouldn't end-- they may even form confederacies or border deals.

The point is, the types of large countries you see today exist because of an old world dogmatic view that BIGGER = BETTER. This isn't true, so there's no point in breaking up overextended unions and having governance exist on a smaller level.

Magic Magnum said +By giving cities federal power (which is not all you're proposing. Or municipal governments would simply become federal ones. Citizens would still just vote for the government and be done with it for 4 years) you are essentially dividing the country. With no big overall leadership, there is nothing keeping them together or united. You break up giant communities, many connections.

What are confederacies? I see no problem with breaking up larger communities if it means the smaller communities can more efficiently govern themselves.

Magic Magnum said It is quite literally, downgrading society in order to simplify it.

Downgrading? Better addressing regional issues is downgrading? A more local focus on education, science and the arts is downgrading?

Magic Magnum said Not Majority of votes =/= Not highest number of votes

The way voting works is whatever option has the highest number of votes wins.
So if you have more than 2 candidates, you can have the most votes without having more than half of the votes.
And unless if your proposed system is always going to limit voting to 2 options, you will see the same thing happen in your system.

This isn't even just for what I wish governments generally were, this is just what should be used in any system involving voting: Single Transferable Vote

Magic Magnum said I never said it could be avoided. I said it was a problem that your system possesses.
I get that's how freedom works, but if your system requires constant involvement, involvement you have no way to try to keep at a healthy level then your system has a problem.

"constant"

Magic Magnum said And these are not simple yes or no questions such as "Do you want pizza for dinner?".
These are big, complex questions. Those that take time to think through, decide, make a stance on etc. At least those taking matters affecting the community seriously.

Yes. This is place they live, I'd argue they owe it to the place and themselves to devote time to those thoughts.

Magic Magnum said And I trust I don't need to explain why it's important for people to take it seriously?

I don't think it's important for people to do anything.

Magic Magnum said Plus, it's not a simple "I'll text my vote"

Why not? The risk? Negligible, I feel like if enough people want a thing to work, it can and will work with enough effort. People can and do influence votes everywhere today, nothing is perfect. If your argument is that because the administered area is smaller then the corruption from fraud would be more heavily felt, I'd like to remind you that these things do tend to scale with size.

Magic Magnum said you need to go to specialized locations to log it in.
A rather sizable chunk of your day has to be invested, on a constant basis, plus any time spent sitting around thinking on said issues.

Seems like people would be driven to become experts on the issues-- Not that they already weren't, since these are things that directly influence them as citizens.

Magic Magnum said But as technology evolves so do the users.
So does the technology used to hack/take advantage of it.

So when it comes to something as serious as voting, you don't want to trust it to something that someone can easily hack and rig by pretending to be someone else.
This is an issue where no matter how much it evolves the opposition will also evolve.

I won't pretend there aren't people who won't try things like voter fraud, but again, it's negligible. It happens everywhere, and we can try our best to avoid and prevent it, but that's all.

Not trying a potentially good idea because something bad might happen is just kind of silly.
"Why should I go outside? Ebolachan might get me!"

Magic Magnum said Yes, but you have no measures in place to try to make sure it does go and hoped.
It is being based on blind trust. There are laws in place to regulate government.

No, there are currently laws in place to regulate citizens.

Magic Magnum said There are laws in place so only qualified people can make decisions on important matters, such as road safety

Senate is full of road safety experts?

Magic Magnum said or performing surgery.

I see surgery mentioned a lot in here, are you a doctor by chance?

Magic Magnum said It's not based on a blind faith of "Oh, well I trust that the people building our roads know what they're doing".

But unless you've seen all their certifications and are just as much of an expert as them and can quiz everyone who claims to be a 'qualified person' then it kind of is a blind faith. That trust you have is based on things you don't know, that's blind faith. The governments and economies of the world are built off of this.

Magic Magnum said It's an issue yes.
But one your system isn't fixing.

You will have your council of experts, and they being focused on leading will also become removed from society.
Or, they spend so little time leading, they aren't even doing their jobs as leading.

The thing is, figuring out what a country of 300 million people, the size of America needs, I'm willing to bet, is significantly harder than managing an area the size of Hong Kong with a population of 100,000. Perfect? Maybe not. But a damn good step forward.

Magic Magnum said Then experiment, test it, prove it and then come back and try it.
Don't make the assumption it will already work.

I'm not assuming though. Greater focus on politics in school and the community creates citizens that take a more active interest in their local government, especially if they don't feel ignored by them-- something that'd be a lot easier to simulate in a smaller territory.

Magic Magnum said You require a life saving surgery, your heart has ruptured and needs to be stitched.
There are two people in the room who can try to perform the operation.

One is a doctor, a surgeon who has been trained and educated in surgery.
The other, is your mother. Hysterically crying, willing to do anything to save you, but knows nothing about surgery or human anatomy.

I dare you to say you would pick your mother to perform the operation.

What is it with all the surgery? I'm going to go with, "choosing who should give you a lifesaving surgery isn't the same thing as voting on zoning issues."

(Also, in this example so many assumptions and inferences are made; What if my mother was dead? Is that woman a ghost? Is magic real? Miraculously revived? Does she have magic that can revive me too? What about the doctor? How experienced is he? "trained and educated in surgery" doesn't mean "experienced in surgery" I could be his first case-- what's his record? Have people died under him before? Why does this hospital only have 1 surgeon? What if the surgeon is a racist murderer? What if the machines read my heart condition wrong? Things like this aren't ever black and white)

Magic Magnum said The guy even when asked constantly never gives any sort of knowledge or proof that he is trained as surgeon.
All he says is that he's a nice guy, and expects this to be enough to remove the bullet.

And it's a hypothetical, meant to illustrate skilled vs not skilled.
What exactly do you hope to argue or prove in regards to where, why or when she was shot?
That has nothing to do with the argument, which is that one must know what they're doing to be able to do it.

There are always variables, putting an example like that in a nice little void away from context is cherry picking.

And, voting is not surgery. A person voting on a thing is all the expert you need, they live there, they know what's best for themselves and their community.

Magic Magnum said One must have understanding of something, to be able to make a proper decision on it.

Proper's subjective.

Magic Magnum said And when you plan on making all government matters votable by the masses, it's not even that different from the bullet case.
Cases involving everything will come up, road safety, medical practices, what's taught in schools, how schools teach, how to grow food, food health standards, vaccination laws etc.
Cases where if the wrong choice is made, can cost many lives. Cases, that hold too many lives in the balance to entrust to people who do not understand the effects of the decision they are being asked to make.

That's the thing though, those are their decisions to make. I'm willing to bet most citizens generally want what's best for them, and know that that involves their neighbors getting what's best for them too, and will vote accordingly.

Magic Magnum said But then it goes back to what was being debated above, why are we then allowing the choice to be made by people who do not even understand the issue, rather than those professionally trained to handle said issues?

Because why are you making the assumption these people are completely clueless? They live there, the issues relate to them, there will be people with understanding.

Magic Magnum said So you do agree that we must build on what we have and move forward? Good.
So then why are arguing we ignore 2000 years of said 'moving forward' by going back to a more ancient government system?

Because we aren't going back to that style of government, we're improving upon it, and thousands of other types of governments.

Magic Magnum said o.O What exactly are even arguing this at?
That flaws cause people to get hurt when they are ignored?
You do know the definition of the word flaw, right?

flaw1
[flaw] Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
noun
1. a feature that mars the perfection of something; defect; fault:
beauty without flaw; the flaws in our plan.
2. a defect impairing legal soundness or validity.
3. a crack, break, breach, or rent.
verb (used with object)
4. to produce a flaw in.
verb (used without object)
5. to contract a flaw; become cracked or defective.

Flaws are bad elements/features.
For example, a flaw with our current system is government being too disattached from society.
We you then guilty of correlation = causation by arguing that it's a problem and causes issues?
Judging by the fact you were able to identify a flaw with a system and recognize it as bad suggests you recognize this concept.
So why is the second the flaw is in something you're suggest you are quick to accuse it of being a logical fallacy that it isn't?

Literally what?

Correlation does not equal causation. You implied communism and fascism were inherently bad because of their association with genocide. I'm arguing that isn't true, like at all. see: Cuba

Magic Magnum said It isn't the size of the communities causing that.
It's their exposure to everyday life. If you take a small community, pick a council and then shove them away doing council stuff by themselves all day they will be just as disconnected.
Being disconnected is not something that magically happens by growing in size.

Sure, it doesn't happen magically. It happens as the large territory is sectioned off, and most of those in power become members of the ruling elite. It happens when members of congress never have to deal with their constituents face to face so they become depersonalized to the people they're supposed to represent and susceptible to being bought to further their own career, because they have no real connection to the people who put them there-- and the people who put them there are so far apart and disconnected, they don't even know who he is.

Rome, the Mongols, the Arabian empires, the Holy Roman Empire, pretty much all of the European countries trying to colonize everywhere else... Manifest destiny is an antiquated ideal that time and time again leads to the deaths of civilizations.

Magic Magnum said Do you let children choose to cross the street when it's busy on their own?

Babbys are neurologically different from adults.

Magic Magnum said Do you let people perform surgery on their own without training?

More surgeries! Some people would argue yes, since no amount of artificial training will be the same thing as a live body.

Magic Magnum said Do you let people drive cars before getting a license?

I drive without one.

Magic Magnum said By your logic, if you don't let someone do any of these you are apparently being a fascist.

Cherry picking pretty hard. Voting is a right of every citizen, not some random bad decision.

Not letting a tax paying citizen vote is like not letting them walk on the sidewalk.

Magic Magnum said It is not better to let unfit people make shitty decisions, if said decisions will get themselves and everyone around them hurt.

You're making the assumption that people who didn't go to school to become an officially certified expert are going to make shitty decision that will lead to people getting hurt.

Magic Magnum said Is performing an operation subjective?

:D I was really hoping you'd mention more surgery

Magic Magnum said Is wiring a house subjective?
Is building a house subjective?
Is building a road subjective?
Is landing a ship on a comet (which wearing an awesome shirt) subjective?
Is creating a vaccine for a deadly illness subjective?

I'm sure from someone's perspective they are.

Magic Magnum said No, I find it bizarre that people are allowed to make decisions that can seriously impact the lives of others while having no understanding about said decision.

Why are you making that assumption? That they have no understanding in regards to the things that impact themselves, their loved ones, and others?

Magic Magnum said Yes there is a money motivation.
But education is not simple money investment.

Education isn't, a college education is.

Magic Magnum said So you don't have someone perform surgery, who doesn't even know how to hold a scalpel.

:D

Sure, but the surgeon doesn't need a DEGREE to be able to do the surgery-- it has nothing to do with the skill and training they've acquired.

Magic Magnum said Yes there are more fields opening that may not require a degree.
But it's stuff such as some business, artists, game developers.
People who offer a service, that a consumer willingly agrees to purchase, that does not post a safety hazard to said consumer.

Games can cause epilepsy, businesses can control hazardous services, nothing is black and white, etc.

Magic Magnum said If it does, then degrees are required.
And even then, most things such as apprenticeships still require some class time and quizzes in order to confirm you understand certain concepts.

Right, but there's a danger in assuming anyone with a degree can do what the degree says they can, and that everyone without a degree can't do a certain thing, plenty of competent back alley doctors in Kowloon Walled City. All I'm saying.

Darcs said It's an evolutionary step forward, in my mind, if we take underutilized styles of governing that worked in the past and improve upon them with what we know now.

Or, why not make the basis a current political system, one with 2000 years more experience and then improve on it?
Still making improvements, but you're not throwing away 2000 years of improvements in exchange for the other ones.

Darcs said I think population growth was instrumental in getting where we are now, as a society. I'm saying, we don't need to continue growing at an exponential rate, 50,000 people isn't a small family, but it'd be much more efficient to micromanage than the needlessly large countries we have today. Communities wouldn't even be isolated, trade and foreign relations wouldn't end-- they may even form confederacies or border deals.

Or join together to create tighter and closer bonds.

Darcs said The point is, the types of large countries you see today exist because of an old world dogmatic view that BIGGER = BETTER. This isn't true, so there's no point in breaking up overextended unions and having governance exist on a smaller level.

Was the reasoning for larger countries completely selfless? No.
But there is a reason that such big countries worked, and continued to remain on top.
Rather than fall apart from disorganization, and become trumped by smaller nations.

The wellbeing of people and citizens directly influences the success of a country. If big countries truly hurt the everyday man as much as you seem to think it does, these countries would have all but destroyed themselves in front of the smaller superior nations long ago.

Darcs said Downgrading? Better addressing regional issues is downgrading? A more local focus on education, science and the arts is downgrading?

You think a community of just 50,000 people could pull off landing on the Moon as easily as america did?
(And yes, I know this is the only thing America beat Russia in when it comes to the space race).

Art's are individual creations of creativity. It's completely unrelated to governing laws, unless if the government has a thing for restricting freedom of speech or expression.

And education is something that teachers and parents need to tackle on a child to child issue. Switching from a country government to a town government to develop a one size fits all approach is not going to accomplish too much. There's a reason there's multiple levels of authority, we have some people far on top, and others in other places in between.

Darcs said This isn't even just for what I wish governments generally were, this is just what should be used in any system involving voting:

I can agree with this idea. Allowing votes to transfer to reflect favourite, 2nd favourite etc.
But that has nothing to do with the size of a country, it has to do with the system used to tally the votes.

Darcs said Yes. This is place they live, I'd argue they owe it to the place and themselves to devote time to those thoughts.

Owe? Yes.
Going to? Not so likely.

We owe it to take better care of our earth.
We owe it to help out homeless people more.
We owe it to always try to help good causes when we have the resources to spare.

But do most people? No.

Darcs said Why not? The risk? Negligible, I feel like if enough people want a thing to work, it can and will work with enough effort. People can and do influence votes everywhere today, nothing is perfect. If your argument is that because the administered area is smaller then the corruption from fraud would be more heavily felt, I'd like to remind you that these things do tend to scale with size.

Identity fraud? It's a big thing.
In isolated cases such as "You meet this person online, they want to meet up in person" you can normally use your own judgement or common sense.
But in voting? Something that affects everyone? Where making a mistake can stop genuine people from voting? That's the kind of stuff you kind of owe it to your people to be sure about.

Darcs said Seems like people would be driven to become experts on the issues-- Not that they already weren't, since these are things that directly influence them as citizens.

Effect =/= Knowledge

Global warming affects me greatly, doesn't make me an expert environmentalist.
Transportation affects me greatly, doesn't mean I know how to fix a car.
Being able to eat affects me greatly, doesn't mean I'd make a good farmer.
Being sick affects me greatly, doesn't mean I'm an expert on diseases and medicine.

It could function as a motivator to learn more, but it's no guarantee they will know about the issue.
Then there's the issue of practicality, who would have the time to learn deeply about all these things, while still managing a working, family and social life?

Darcs said Not trying a potentially good idea because something bad might happen is just kind of silly. "Why should I go outside? Ebolachan might get me!"

Except not all dangers carry the same amount of risk.
Some dangers like Ebola hold next to no risk of happening.
Other's have a high risk.

And then you also have to consider, even if the risk is low how much damage could it cause if it did happen?

Darcs said Senate is full of road safety experts?

Like I said many times, advisors.

Darcs said I see surgery mentioned a lot in here, are you a doctor by chance?

No. But I use the example of surgery because:

1) It is a profession that requires lots of skill and know how.
2) It is something that the majority of people will have a need for at some point in their life. Some on a common basis, others rarely but when they do need them it's vital.

Darcs said But unless you've seen all their certifications and are just as much of an expert as them and can quiz everyone who claims to be a 'qualified person' then it kind of is a blind faith. That trust you have is based on things you don't know, that's blind faith. The governments and economies of the world are built off of this.

So because humans do not have the capacity to be experts in every field, and test every other human we should drop all skill and knowledge requirements for any job or field?
There is a difference between trusting people to be decent because you want them to be, and entrusting some duties to others because of practicality.

Is there some sense of trust? Yes. But one made on practicality, because society would not be able to function otherwise.
It is physically impossible to live long enough to be trained in everything, or fact check over 6 billion people.

But it's not trust that people will magically all be good and honest. Or trust that people will magically be experts in every field and therefore all be like Conan and be able to accomplish whatever, whenever.

Darcs said The thing is, figuring out what a country of 300 million people, the size of America needs, I'm willing to bet, is significantly harder than managing an area the size of Hong Kong with a population of 100,000. Perfect? Maybe not. But a damn good step forward.

No. That's still big enough you'll be getting people of all kinds and varieties.
Once you get bigger all that happens is your laws reach more people, at 100k you already crossed the threshold of dealing with almost every kind of human you can imagine.
All that would really differ is geographical and environmental based issues (state of buildings, local wildlife, increase of crime etc.) and we have multiple levels of government specifically to tackle stuff like that.

Darcs said I'm not assuming though. Greater focus on politics in school and the community creates citizens that take a more active interest in their local government, especially if they don't feel ignored by them-- something that'd be a lot easier to simulate in a smaller territory.

Then ask the school boards to teach more about politics.
And ask municipal governments to get more involved with schools and such.

Don't try to remove a different level of government. All you're doing is putting more pressure and demand on the smaller governments, ultimately hurting your cause.

Darcs said I'm going to go with, "choosing who should give you a life saving surgery isn't the same thing as voting on zoning issues."

(Also, in this example so many assumptions and inferences are made; What if my mother was dead? Is that woman a ghost? Is magic real? Miraculously revived? Does she have magic that can revive me too? What about the doctor? How experienced is he? "trained and educated in surgery" doesn't mean "experienced in surgery" I could be his first case-- what's his record? Have people died under him before? Why does this hospital only have 1 surgeon? What if the surgeon is a racist murderer? What if the machines read my heart condition wrong? Things like this aren't ever black and white).

Like I said before, when you're expanding people to vote on everything. Laws that control lives?
It is the same thing, if not bigger for voters. In the surgery it is just the patients life at risk, with certain laws it is the entire populations.

And honestly just stop trying to dismiss the argument because I didn't bother to mention unnecessary details such as "was gandalf in the room" or "Is my doctor Joffrey".
Use common sense, obviously if your mother is in the room she isn't dead. Obviously this example is based on real life so there's no magic.

Your surgeon skill/history questions are somewhat valid mind you (though by asking these you seem to show you recognize how experience and skill matters. So once again, why are you arguing that none is needed? You seem to already grasp the concepts you are trying to disprove), but even if I gave you the worst possible answers he is still more skilled and knowledge than the mother, who was stated to possess no skill.
+If the machine read you wrong, that doesn't give the mother points. Cause she'd fuck up just the same from getting the wrong info.

Darcs said There are always variables, putting an example like that in a nice little void away from context is cherry picking.

Variables? Yes.
To the point that it equals the playing field from someone who knows exactly how to help compared to someone just has likely to make it worse? No.
Plus, you're asking for such out there/unrelated variables that I question you're even looking at actual variables. But more trying to think of anything possible I didn't add as a reason to avoid the question.

Darcs said That's the thing though, those are their decisions to make. I'm willing to bet most citizens generally want what's best for them, and know that that involves their neighbors getting what's best for them too, and will vote accordingly.

And in line with the earlier example, the mother wants what's best for you also.
That doesn't mean she suddenly knows how to perform the operation.
She'll try her damn best to save you, but it doesn't change the fact she has no idea at all about what she's doing.

Darcs said Because why are you making the assumption these people are completely clueless?

I'm not making the assumption all people are clueless. I'm making the assumption they're not experts on everything.
Which as detailed above about practicality in elements such as time to learn, and human life span is a very safe assumption, if not outright fact to be saying.

If someone has the understanding the the topic/situation? Great, let them at it.
If they don't? They're not qualified. If you still wish to trust them to do just as good a job that's your risk to take, but don't be shocked when their result is no where near as good as the experts result.

Darcs said Literally what?Correlation does not equal causation. You implied communism and fascism were inherently bad because of their association with genocide. I'm arguing that isn't true, like at all. see: Cuba.

I was showing how they possessed flaws, and how it was unwise to ignore said flaws.
Now are communism and fascism broken and messed up systems? Yes, but I have no intention on arguing two other political systems when this current one is already such a big time sink at it is.
All I'm saying is, they had flaws. Rather big ones, may you think they're good systems or not you cannot deny they had flaws. And flaws are not fixed by ignoring them, they only grow.

Darcs said Sure, it doesn't happen magically. It happens as the large territory is sectioned off, and most of those in power become members of the ruling elite. It happens when members of congress never have to deal with their constituents face to face so they become depersonalized to the people they're supposed to represent and susceptible to being bought to further their own career, because they have no real connection to the people who put them there-- and the people who put them there are so far apart and disconnected, they don't even know who he is.

Yes, these are problems (with both systems). I can agree to that.
These can be alleviated in other ways, reduce pay to be closer to an average salary (+Obvious security benefits, because you do get radicals who want to get violent against such leaders. But that's more job insurance than anything else), bring in outside advisors more often etc.

Stuff that actively increases their exposure and empathy to the common person, not stuff that simply makes the number they rule go down but does nothing to change their day to day routine.

Darcs said I drive without one.

Which is illegal.
Be careful where you admit to this.

Darcs said Not letting a tax paying citizen vote is like not letting them walk on the sidewalk.

So, are new immigrants and children not allowed to walk on sidewalks?
There is a difference between not letting some live their life, and not letting someone make a decision based on something they are either not ready to comprehend, or not legally a part of yet.

Darcs said You're making the assumption that people who didn't go to school to become an officially certified expert are going to make shitty decision that will lead to people getting hurt.

I'm saying that people making decisions on matters that require knowledge and training that they do not possess will lead to people getting hurt.
You can not hold a degree and still make some good decisions, but on stuff you know about. And once again, degree's act as proof of knowing about the matter.
Is there deep down some trust involved? Yes, but is far less risky than trusting someone understands when they have absolutely nothing to show to prove that understand it.

Darcs said I'm sure from someone's perspective they are.

And none of those people are working such jobs. For good reason.

Darcs said Education isn't, a college education is.

Why? They are both education.
The only differences are that:

1. One's from government hired teachers, one's from business hired teachers
2. One's legally required, the other is optional (and paid for)
3. One's generalized, being a basic understanding of a variety of topics. One specialized on certain fields, and touches on many topics that elementary and high schools never even touch on.

Darcs said Sure, but the surgeon doesn't need a DEGREE to be able to do the surgery-- it has nothing to do with the skill and training they've acquired.

The physical paper? No.
But the degree is proof that they know how to do the surgery.
Which is a lot safer to rely on, than trusting your random joe who wanders in and claims to be a doctor.

Unless if they come from a blue police box... Then they're good to go.

Darcs said Games can cause epilepsy, businesses can control hazardous services,

When I said "That does not post a safety hazard" I meant it as "When someone offers a service, that provides no safety hazards then no real degree is needed".
Not "Game developers, Businessmen etc. have no safety hazards".

Because there are cases that happens, but in those cases staff cover it.
Health boards to address damaging visuals and hazardous practices, safety inspections, regulations, gear etc.

Darcs said Right, but there's a danger in assuming anyone with a degree can do what the degree says they can, and that everyone without a degree can't do a certain thing, plenty of competent back alley doctors in Kowloon Walled City. All I'm saying.

Some degree people might walk out and still be hopeless.
May they have cheated, or simply went "I know better than the people in lab coats!".
But it's a far lower risk/gamble than trusting a random bloke on the street who claims to be a nice guy.

Just like you are taking less of a risk from a Doctor with a degree, than you are from a back alley doctor.

Darcs is in the process of discovering what James Madison did in Federalist 10.

Here's the problem with your system, Darcs. 1. You can take over really tiny countries very eaily.
2. It is easier for demagogues to convince 10,000 people all in the same area than 150,000,000 all over the country. The bigger the country, the more cultures it has and the more varied its citizen's concerns. This makes a 51% perpetual majority for one ideology impossible.

The solution therefore is to have a weak federal government whose only business is regulating that which crosses state lines, having uniform international trade laws, protecting your rights from violence, and national defense.

Magic Magnum said Or, why not make the basis a current political system, one with 2000 years more experience and then improve on it?
Still making improvements, but you're not throwing away 2000 years of improvements in exchange for the other ones.

That's exactly what I'm suggesting, we aren't throwing away 2000 years of experience, we're using that experience to improve what we already have (everything old and new) and try something new.

Magic Magnum said Or join together to create tighter and closer bonds.

Sure? If people want to give up their autonomy that's fine, but you also just as easily have tighter bonds formed within the country.

Magic Magnum said Was the reasoning for larger countries completely selfless? No.
But there is a reason that such big countries worked, and continued to remain on top.

Raw resources? More people to work menial jobs? Luck?

Magic Magnum said The wellbeing of people and citizens directly influences the success of a country. If big countries truly hurt the everyday man as much as you seem to think it does, these countries would have all but destroyed themselves in front of the smaller superior nations long ago.

Yes, but only so much. There are PLENTY of other factors that make or break countries. China is the worlds third largest country, the second best economy, has the most people in the world-- and yet isn't even top 40 in HDI. Meanwhile, Hong Kong has less people than New York, is barely the 37th best economy in the world, but has an HDI in the top 15 of all the countries in the world-- and it isn't even technically a country.

Magic Magnum said You think a community of just 50,000 people could pull off landing on the Moon as easily as america did?
(And yes, I know this is the only thing America beat Russia in when it comes to the space race).

As we enter newer and newer eras of technology, population size will only become more and more irrelevant.

Magic Magnum said Art's are individual creations of creativity. It's completely unrelated to governing laws, unless if the government has a thing for restricting freedom of speech or expression.

Art programs are better funded and recognized by local governments, though.

Magic Magnum said And education is something that teachers and parents need to tackle on a child to child issue. Switching from a country government to a town government to develop a one size fits all approach is not going to accomplish too much. There's a reason there's multiple levels of authority, we have some people far on top, and others in other places in between.

Except we've seen that doesn't work in the classroom. The federal "one size fits all" approach is doing nothing to help today's kids, now more than ever we need to move toward as close as we can get to tailoring lessons for each student.
see: Digital Aristotle

Magic Magnum said Owe? Yes.
Going to? Not so likely.

We owe it to take better care of our earth.
We owe it to help out homeless people more.
We owe it to always try to help good causes when we have the resources to spare.

But do most people? No.

And I think that's unfortunate, but that's their prerogative.

Magic Magnum said Identity fraud? It's a big thing.
In isolated cases such as "You meet this person online, they want to meet up in person" you can normally use your own judgement or common sense.
But in voting? Something that affects everyone? Where making a mistake can stop genuine people from voting? That's the kind of stuff you kind of owe it to your people to be sure about.

In an ideal world you'd be sure about everything. But this is not an ideal world, voting machines today are constantly being shown to have security flaws, that's human error and existence for you. To say we shouldn't do something because something bad [i]might/[i] happen is like saying we should all hide in our beds for the rest of our lives.

Bad shit happens at America's level and Tokyo's, the goal is to try our best to get rid of it, not just give up because we fear something bad is going to happen.

Magic Magnum said Effect =/= Knowledge

Global warming affects me greatly, doesn't make me an expert environmentalist.
Transportation affects me greatly, doesn't mean I know how to fix a car.
Being able to eat affects me greatly, doesn't mean I'd make a good farmer.
Being sick affects me greatly, doesn't mean I'm an expert on diseases and medicine.

You don't need to have a degree in environmental science to know that car fumes are bad.
Or a master mechanic to change a tire.
Or certified GMO farmer to plant a few herbs.
Or a nurse, to know to wash your hands.

Magic Magnum said It could function as a motivator to learn more, but it's no guarantee they will know about the issue.

They probably already know a little, the hope is that they might educate themselves a little more. But you don't have to, you are your own person.

Magic Magnum said Then there's the issue of practicality, who would have the time to learn deeply about all these things, while still managing a working, family and social life?

That's the point, you are a citizen, and you deal with the things that effect you and your family and you deal wit in day to day life.

Magic Magnum said Except not all dangers carry the same amount of risk.
Some dangers like Ebola hold next to no risk of happening.
Other's have a high risk.

And then you also have to consider, even if the risk is low how much damage could it cause if it did happen?

Except we're arguing the same level of risk here.
Voter fraud happens in big countries, voter fraud happens in small countries, and it's probably the same amount of damage and annoyance relative to size. It isn't some new thing that would only occur in a city state.

Magic Magnum said Like I said many times, advisors.

*lobbyists.

Magic Magnum said No. But I use the example of surgery because:

1) It is a profession that requires lots of skill and know how.
2) It is something that the majority of people will have a need for at some point in their life. Some on a common basis, others rarely but when they do need them it's vital.

And there lies my point. Not only is surgery not really comparable to voting, in that voting is not a profession and is not a skill so much as having an opinion and while you SHOULD go to vote, you don't need to, ever. You could live your whole life without voting in America and not miss out on a thing.

Magic Magnum said So because humans do not have the capacity to be experts in every field, and test every other human we should drop all skill and knowledge requirements for any job or field?
There is a difference between trusting people to be decent because you want them to be, and entrusting some duties to others because of practicality.

Is there some sense of trust? Yes. But one made on practicality, because society would not be able to function otherwise.
It is physically impossible to live long enough to be trained in everything, or fact check over 6 billion people.

But it's not trust that people will magically all be good and honest. Or trust that people will magically be experts in every field and therefore all be like Conan and be able to accomplish whatever, whenever.

A trust made on practicality, because society would not be able to function otherwise? So you agree with me, then? That we should trust most voters to be responsible.

Magic Magnum said No. That's still big enough you'll be getting people of all kinds and varieties.

You're ignoring my point, 100,000 people would be OBJECTIVELY easier and more efficient to govern than 300 million. 100 representatives could EASILY communicate with 1000 people.

Magic Magnum said Once you get bigger all that happens is your laws reach more people, at 100k you already crossed the threshold of dealing with almost every kind of human you can imagine.

Technically, 7 billion would be every kind of human you could imagine.

Magic Magnum said All that would really differ is geographical and environmental based issues (state of buildings, local wildlife, increase of crime etc.) and we have multiple levels of government specifically to tackle stuff like that.

That aren't able to take action because they aren't autonomous?

Magic Magnum said Then ask the school boards to teach more about politics.
And ask municipal governments to get more involved with schools and such.

Don't try to remove a different level of government. All you're doing is putting more pressure and demand on the smaller governments, ultimately hurting your cause.

How is freeing up the smaller governments to govern in a way relative to their own burgs putting pressure on them? If anything it removes the pressure of conforming to uniform federal regulations.

Magic Magnum said Like I said before, when you're expanding people to vote on everything. Laws that control lives?
It is the same thing, if not bigger for voters. In the surgery it is just the patients life at risk, with certain laws it is the entire populations.

Except throughout history, it's the federal government that votes to kill people, the generally citizenry end up getting dragged along. While it was happening the average American citizen didn't even know what WWII was about. People tend not to be needlessly malicious.

Magic Magnum said And honestly just stop trying to dismiss the argument because I didn't bother to mention unnecessary details such as "was gandalf in the room" or "Is my doctor Joffrey".

How is Gandalf the Grey being in the room an unnecessary detail? Of course I'm going to chose Gandy.

Magic Magnum said Use common sense,

You use common sense first. Voting is not an immediate life or death interaction comparable to a surgery. You keep trying to validate this biased example that isn't even arguing a valid point, this example doesn't exist in reality, there's no point applying common sense to it.

Magic Magnum said obviously if your mother is in the room she isn't dead.

But if my mother IS DEAD in REAL LIFE then she can't be in the room unless she is a ghost, or CIA imposter or I have time retconing powers. Also you're assuming my mother isn't a surgeon.

Magic Magnum said Obviously this example is based on real life so there's no magic.

Like you know that.

Magic Magnum said Your surgeon skill/history questions are somewhat valid mind you (though by asking these you seem to show you recognize how experience and skill matters. So once again, why are you arguing that none is needed? You seem to already grasp the concepts you are trying to disprove)

Experience in voting is not comparable, at all, to experience in surgery. I pointed out that being able to perform surgery does not come inherently from training and education. On the other hand, voting is simple, requires little training, and some context and education.

Magic Magnum said but even if I gave you the worst possible answers he is still more skilled and knowledge than the mother, who was stated to possess no skill.

It was never stated. You assumed my mother possessed no skill.

Magic Magnum said +If the machine read you wrong, that doesn't give the mother points. Cause she'd fuck up just the same from getting the wrong info.

If the machine read wrong I'd be outy, no surgery.

In fact, I wouldn't even be in that hospital in the first place, I don't have insurance.

Magic Magnum said Variables? Yes.
To the point that it equals the playing field from someone who knows exactly how to help compared to someone just has likely to make it worse? No.
Plus, you're asking for such out there/unrelated variables that I question you're even looking at actual variables. But more trying to think of anything possible I didn't add as a reason to avoid the question.

It's a self-serving example that has nothing to do with voting.

Also dissecting a question is not avoiding it.

Magic Magnum said And in line with the earlier example, the mother wants what's best for you also.
That doesn't mean she suddenly knows how to perform the operation.
She'll try her damn best to save you, but it doesn't change the fact she has no idea at all about what she's doing.

A lifesaving surgery IS NOT the same thing as VOTING ON AN ISSUE YOU, AS A CITIZEN, ARE AWARE OF AND/OR REGULARLY DEAL WITH.

Magic Magnum said I'm not making the assumption all people are clueless. I'm making the assumption they're not experts on everything.
Which as detailed above about practicality in elements such as time to learn, and human life span is a very safe assumption, if not outright fact to be saying.

If someone has the understanding the the topic/situation? Great, let them at it.
If they don't? They're not qualified. If you still wish to trust them to do just as good a job that's your risk to take, but don't be shocked when their result is no where near as good as the experts result.

Voting isn't something you need to be particularly qualified for, living in a place and being moderately observant should give you some understanding the the topic/situation.

Magic Magnum said I was showing how they possessed flaws, and how it was unwise to ignore said flaws.
Now are communism and fascism broken and messed up systems? Yes, but I have no intention on arguing two other political systems when this current one is already such a big time sink at it is.
All I'm saying is, they had flaws. Rather big ones, may you think they're good systems or not you cannot deny they had flaws. And flaws are not fixed by ignoring them, they only grow.

Sure, everything has flaws, but for communism and fascism genocide is not one of them.

Magic Magnum said Yes, these are problems (with both systems). I can agree to that.
These can be alleviated in other ways, reduce pay to be closer to an average salary (+Obvious security benefits, because you do get radicals who want to get violent against such leaders. But that's more job insurance than anything else), bring in outside advisors more often etc.

Stuff that actively increases their exposure and empathy to the common person, not stuff that simply makes the number they rule go down but does nothing to change their day to day routine.

How is the encouragement of open public forums to discuss these things in the smaller communities not going to increase common empathy?

Magic Magnum said Which is illegal.
Be careful where you admit to this.

That there can be nothing particularly wrong with a certain action except that "it's illegal" is amazing to me.

Magic Magnum said So, are new immigrants and children not allowed to walk on sidewalks?
There is a difference between not letting some live their life, and not letting someone make a decision based on something they are either not ready to comprehend, or not legally a part of yet.

No there isn't. Voting isn't a privileged reserved only for those who are experts, it's a right-- not even just for tax paying citizens, it's for literally every citizen.

Magic Magnum said I'm saying that people making decisions on matters that require knowledge and training that they do not possess will lead to people getting hurt.

That's freedom.

Magic Magnum said You can not hold a degree and still make some good decisions, but on stuff you know about. And once again, degree's act as proof of knowing about the matter.

Magic Magnum said Is there deep down some trust involved? Yes, but is far less risky than trusting someone understands when they have absolutely nothing to show to prove that understand it.

You aren't trusting one person, you're trusting an entire population. I'll make the argument that most people want what is best, even if mainly because they want what's best for themselves.

Magic Magnum said And none of those people are working such jobs. For good reason.

#assumption

Magic Magnum said Why? They are both education.
The only differences are that:

1. One's from government hired teachers, one's from business hired teachers
2. One's legally required, the other is optional (and paid for)
3. One's generalized, being a basic understanding of a variety of topics. One specialized on certain fields, and touches on many topics that elementary and high schools never even touch on.

I wasn't talking about public education vs. college

I was talking about pursuing your own education and knowledge vs. college

Magic Magnum said The physical paper? No.
But the degree is proof that they know how to do the surgery.

Which is a lot safer to rely on, than trusting your random joe who wanders in and claims to be a doctor.[/quote]
Sure, you're right there. What I have a problem with, is that you don't NEED the education to get the paper, you can just buy your way through college. In the same vein, there are people who are smart enough to do it, they just won't be able to make the funds for schooling.

Magic Magnum said Unless if they come from a blue police box... Then they're good to go.

FANTASTIC

Magic Magnum said Some degree people might walk out and still be hopeless.
May they have cheated, or simply went "I know better than the people in lab coats!".
But it's a far lower risk/gamble than trusting a random bloke on the street who claims to be a nice guy.

Just like you are taking less of a risk from a Doctor with a degree, than you are from a back alley doctor.

Context is important. There are plenty of people, especially outside of America, who get all the medical help they need from non-certified medical professions and live fine, they may even see those "official" guys with degrees as government sanctioned drug dealers.

It wouldn't be entirely wrong.

So Boerd said Darcs is in the process of discovering what James Madison did in Federalist 10.

Federalist 10? Wow is that the new one! Better pull up my wagon and trot along to the nearest town to get it! But first I better make sure to watch out for those durn injuns!

So Boerd said Here's the problem with your system, Darcs. 1. You can take over really tiny countries very eaily.

That's why France was able to suppress the French revolution, right? That's why Finland fell so easily to Russia, right? The US totally curb stomped Cuba, right?

War is dying down, and with that mentality, borders will become more fixed as more and more people realize how stupid senseless loss is and eventually go the war of Costa Rica. Being taken over isn't really a concern in today's political climate.

So Boerd said 2. It is easier for demagogues to convince 10,000 people all in the same area than 150,000,000 all over the country. The bigger the country, the more cultures it has and the more varied its citizen's concerns. This makes a 51% perpetual majority for one ideology impossible.

STV, brah.

Also, what?

So Boerd said The solution therefore is to have a weak federal government whose only business is regulating that which crosses state lines, having uniform international trade laws, protecting your rights from violence, and national defense.

You mean a confederacy?
(national defense is a waste, though)

Again, Peisistratus and Syracusan tyrants.

So Boerd said Again, Peisistratus and Syracusan tyrants.

Peisistratos wasn't even a tyrant, though. His reign was seen as moderate and similar to a constitutional government. Also, in fearing tyrants, you aren't fearing a style of government, you're fearing human nature.

People aren't inherently one thing or another, and where tyrants crop up, others will crop up to oppose them--

--AND THAT'S A ROCK FACT.

Darcs said
[citation needed]History says differently!

In another Crash Course (Crash Course big history, I think), John says that the murder rates might have been as high as 10%. Working hours weren't long, but that doesn't mean that life was not brutal.

According to Lawrence H. Keeley (an archaeology professor at the University of Illinois), 90-95% of hunter-gatherer societies have been involved in wars, wars which can produce casualty rates as high as 60%. For example, archaeologists have dug up pre-columbian mass graves with over 500 men, women and children, all of which were scalped.

Ok, this is getting to be far to big a time investment to be arguing the same thing over and over again.

I'm backing out after this.
I have better things to be doing with my day than trying to drill in the concept of knowledge and learning.
And how somethings are not natural/inherent to every human being, it's the whole bloody reason school exists in the first place.

Darcs said That's exactly what I'm suggesting, we aren't throwing away 2000 years of experience, we're using that experience to improve what we already have (everything old and new) and try something new.

Then build on our current system.
Stop arguing to make our basis a system used 2000 years ago, if you're argument isn't to use a system from 2000 years ago.

This is basically going "I'm not saying it was aliens. But I'm saying it was aliens".

Darcs said Sure? If people want to give up their autonomy that's fine, but you also just as easily have tighter bonds formed within the country.

Then you're proposition is short lived.
People will react by joining up again, and giant countries will be formed.

Humanity as a species has already gone through the history and experience to build such things.
Just because you weren't alive for all of human history to see it happen first hand is no reason for people to have to backtrack, and start from scratch just so you can see it happen for yourself.

Darcs said Raw resources? More people to work menial jobs? Luck?

More resources and manpower are big ones.
They help contribute to big projects that otherwise wouldn't work.
Once again, you seem to get this concept. So why in the world are you arguing it?

Luck however is not an argument.
If 'luck' was it, then you'd only see a few big countries and then a ton of small isolated nations.
Clearly, we are full of big countries, and have next to no isolated nations.
So more than luck was involved. It's almost as if it's just a better way to function.
But nah, alliances, bigger projects, more resources couldn't possibly be good things could they?

Darcs said Yes, but only so much. There are PLENTY of other factors that make or break countries. China is the worlds third largest country, the second best economy, has the most people in the world-- and yet isn't even top 40 in HDI. Meanwhile, Hong Kong has less people than New York, is barely the 37th best economy in the world, but has an HDI in the top 15 of all the countries in the world-- and it isn't even technically a country.

But since we don't have a single case of a tiny nations/countries in the numbers you describe prospering compared to countries in the millions, it's clear that despite other factors big countries function better.
Sure, you may have cities with said countries which flourish like Hong Kong. But that from resources gained from other places, if you took Hong Kong out and made them they're own country? They'd fall apart.

Darcs said As we enter newer and newer eras of technology, population size will only become more and more irrelevant.

So why do science now, when we can do science later?
News flash, science isn't a passive thing that humanity just 'unlocks' at certain time intervals.
We need researchers, scientists, organizations, resources, funding etc. to get there.
And the more pooled and collected it is, the better.

We will never get to your newer technology if you insist on dividing nations to the point that they are unable to fund the science needed to get there.
And even once we do get to the newer technology, why butcher it? Wouldn't such new technology be even more powerful in the hands of a big collective group, rather than ripped apart into a ton of tiny ones?

Darcs said Except we've seen that doesn't work in the classroom. The federal "one size fits all" approach is doing nothing to help today's kids, now more than ever we need to move toward as close as we can get to tailoring lessons for each student.see: Digital Aristotle

I've lost track of the number of times you did this.
Taken my argument, used it as your own. And then use said argument against me as if I'm arguing your own point.
Seriously, cut it out. When you notice you're wrong, admit it. Don't spin it around make it look like that was your point the whole time.

Because what "I" was arguing was that education is not something you fix by assigning to a smaller government. Cause governments will still use a one size fits all approach. May it be for a population of 10 million, or 10 thousand. Education is handled by a student by student case, tailoring the lesson to the individual students in question. In other words, your smaller governments wouldn't accomplish shit in terms of improving education. They can fund it (which becomes bigger/better the more taxpayers you got), they set general standards or expectations. But they aren't the ones doing the teaching, they aren't the tree to bark at in terms of helping students directly.

Darcs said And I think that's unfortunate, but that's their prerogative.

It is. But it also shows that you're system relying on everyone being good, moral and doing what they owe to people out of sheer good will wouldn't work.
Quite simply because, it's on their own prerogative which you have admitted to.

Darcs said In an ideal world you'd be sure about everything. But this is not an ideal world, voting machines today are constantly being shown to have security flaws, that's human error and existence for you. To say we shouldn't do something because something bad [i]might/[i] happen is like saying we should all hide in our beds for the rest of our lives.

Bad shit happens at America's level and Tokyo's, the goal is to try our best to get rid of it, not just give up because we fear something bad is going to happen.

You completely skipped over my how risk/effect argument.
And how not all risks are dead on the same.
Some risks are smart, others are not.
This risk you are suggesting, is not one of the smart ones.
There's a reason terms called "Smart risks" and "Calculated risks" exist.

So just to make this completely clear.
Me highlight how your risk is bad and ineffective does not make me afraid of risk, and it does not mean we should hide in our beds.
It just means, your risk is bad, your risk won't work, it is poorly thought out.

Darcs said You don't need to have a degree in environmental science to know that car fumes are bad.
Or a master mechanic to change a tire.
Or certified GMO farmer to plant a few herbs.
Or a nurse, to know to wash your hands.

You do to understand the specifics, we needed one to discover it was a problem in the first place, you need one to know how to actually counter/correct it.

There's a lot more to fixing a car than changing a tire.

Yes, anyone can plant a could of herbs. But GMO allows it to grow faster, better, get better yield, be healthier etc. It's the equivalent of a 5 year old drawing in a colouring book, and leonardo making the Monalisa. Both art/food, both painting/farming, but on completely different levels, and value.

And medical knowledge is far more complex than washing your hands. If you have ever seen a doctor, or gone to the hospital, or even got sick and went to a drug mart for cough syrup you understand this. So I suppose you think that if you got into the doctor with the chicken pox, or ebola all you need to do is wash your hands. Right?

So yes, without education/training you 'might' grab the bare basics.
But as you have demonstrated, you need far more to actually fully understand the field, do all the work involved etc.
Infact, I don't even claim to be an expert in these things. I just know these are 'some' of the things involved.
You didn't even acknowledge these as parts of the job... Let alone understand how to do it.

Darcs said They probably already know a little, the hope is that they might educate themselves a little more. But you don't have to, you are your own person.

Yes you are your own person. You don't have to make yourself an expert in a field you lack interest or time for.
But that means, if you don't other to educate yourself, you should not be trusted with important jobs/task that require said education.
No one is banning anyone from doing certain things, we simply expect the person to know what they are actually doing.

Darcs said That's the point, you are a citizen, and you deal with the things that effect you and your family and you deal wit in day to day life.

I had a grandparent die from a heart attack when I was younger, am I now trained/knowledgeable in how to deal with them?
Am I now an expert enough that I should be allowed to help make decisions in regards how to treat others who suffer from heart attacks?
Has losing someone is medical condition, magically blessed me with advanced and complex knowledge on the subject?

Of course it hasn't. Being affected by something is not the same as understanding it. And it sure as hell is not the same as knowing how to counter it, prevent it or treat it.

Darcs said Except we're arguing the same level of risk here. Voter fraud happens in big countries, voter fraud happens in small countries, and it's probably the same amount of damage and annoyance relative to size. It isn't some new thing that would only occur in a city state.

I never said it was a city-state flaw.
I said it was a flaw with mobile voting.

Darcs said And there lies my point. Not only is surgery not really comparable to voting, in that voting is not a profession and is not a skill so much as having an opinion and while you SHOULD go to vote, you don't need to, ever. You could live your whole life without voting in America and not miss out on a thing.

Maybe in current voting, because you only ever vote on one thing, whose in charge.
But with your proposed voting? Where every citizens is now expected to take on every profession? That is what turns it into a profession. That is what now makes it comparable to surgery.

Now to clarify/distinct my issue with Democracy Voting from your voting quickly:

-Democracy: Anyone can vote for a leader, even if they understand nothing of politics.
In our current system I was simply saying the expectation of vote should be raised to be those with some political knowledge and understanding.
Or at the very least those who can prove to have attended a speech or two, and not simply sat at home and is coming in to vote for their favourite colour.
Requirement? Yes, but a low one.

-Your voting system: Bring every possible issue there is to citizens. Every complex matter, every matter that requires skill and care.
That is far more responsibility than current democracy. That requires far more skill and understanding.
So quite logically more responsibility = more understanding/training needed.

Your system expects citizens to be making choices on everything, so logically people should have an understanding on everything.
An impossible standard, therefore making it an impossible system.

Darcs said A trust made on practicality, because society would not be able to function otherwise? So you agree with me, then? That we should trust most voters to be responsible.

There is a different on practicality due to simple time and life span requires to specialize in a certain field, and background check.
And on hoping every human being is moral. You can't test/confirm that people are loyal. You can test/confirm if people are trained.
They are called exams, colleges and universities have them all the time. And since people like you, have no knowledge on a matter such as a Physics exam. It is not people like you checking it, because you wouldn't even know if they were right. Instead the person checking it is someone who understands physics, someone who can actually tell if the person understands the content.

Darcs said You're ignoring my point, 100,000 people would be OBJECTIVELY easier and more efficient to govern than 300 million. 100 representatives could EASILY communicate with 1000 people.

The numbers are still big enough though that although numerically it is a lot smaller, it holds little effect in practicality.
It's still enough faces that they blur, that they becomes numbers, that you can't really connect.

Plus on top of that this would require far more people to be going into political fields, taking away people from other fields such as scientists, engineers, teachers etc.
Not only will this barely make a dent, it will drain resources.

Darcs said How is freeing up the smaller governments to govern in a way relative to their own burgs putting pressure on them?

How is assigning more work, demands and responsibility adding pressure?
Is this honestly being asked?
Go to school, ask your teacher for 10 times the amount of homework, do it all and then come back to me and tell me that it didn't add more pressure.

Darcs said Except throughout history, it's the federal government that votes to kill people, the generally citizenry end up getting dragged along. While it was happening the average American citizen didn't even know what WWII was about. People tend not to be needlessly malicious.

WWII was not a matter of "Eh, we're bored. Let's go shoot some germans. We could use some dead people".
It was an alliance of many countries starting a conquest to conquer and destroy everyone, doing mass genocide, and stripping many rights from people.
That was war that had to be joined for survival, and so our lives would not become living hells.

Now, let's give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's rewind, and pick another war. One that wasn't needed for survival.
Such as say, the war in Iraq. That war was rather pointless, it was for the oil.
Ok, yes you have a point here. The war of Iraq was done without people really knowing what it was about, and got people killed.
This is a problem, this needs to be addressed. In fact, it is a problem being slowly addressed as countries have been getting less and less prone to going to war. The rate has been decreasing.
In fact, drafting is basically illegal now in many places it used to be legal. And people are far more easily now able to stand up to the government and try to get them to stop.
Hell with Afghanistan it did happen, the armies eventually pulled out.

But this does not require also letting complete novices making life and death voices in matters such as medical, road safety etc.
You can address this issue with war, without sabotaging ever safety concern in the country.

Darcs said Voting is not an immediate life or death interaction comparable to a surgery.

Current voting? No.
Your proposed style? Yes it is.

Once again, suggesting that all citizens no matter how uneducated get a say over stuff such as how food is grown, how roads are maintained, if we use vaccines etc. Is extremely dangerous.
All you need is one "Vaccines cause autism" conspiracy to run rampant, and next thing you know all vaccines are illegal and people are dying left and right.

Darcs said But if my mother IS DEAD in REAL LIFE then she can't be in the room unless she is a ghost, or CIA imposter or I have time retconing powers. Also you're assuming my mother isn't a surgeon.

I am making a hypothetical situation to make a point.
So your mother in said hypothetical is a hypothetical mother.
She doesn't need to be based on your real mother, because that's not relevant to the point being made.

Darcs said Like you know that.

Considering I'm the one making the hypothetical?
Yea, I'm pretty damn sure there's no magic in the situation.

Unless if you mean to argue there's magic in real life?
In which case, proof and evidence. Cause atm you have zero scientific backing.

Darcs said I pointed out that being able to perform surgery does not come inherently from training and education.

No, you simply refused to believe it.
You think those street surgeons woke up with the skill?
They still learned somewhere, they still practiced somewhere.
Not as well as a professional, not as skilled as a professional.
But it's still something they had to acquire, they didn't wake up one day and go "Huzzah! Time to do open heart surgery!".

Darcs said If the machine read wrong I'd be outy, no surgery.

In fact, I wouldn't even be in that hospital in the first place, I don't have insurance.

You'd be dead, because you just walked out with your heart bleeding out.
And once again, hypothetical. It can be assumed for the sake of the example you found some means to pay for the operation.

And even if you don't, you lacking insurance doesn't somehow means skill and knowledge isn't a thing.
It just means you lack insurance.

Darcs said Also dissecting a question is not avoiding it.

You failed to mention Bowties, or Lightsabers.
How am I to answer this question without you talking about Bowties?

Sadly, this isn't even an exaggeration of what you're doing... :/

Darcs said VOTING ON AN ISSUE YOU, AS A CITIZEN, ARE AWARE OF AND/OR REGULARLY DEAL WITH.

I AM RIGHT BECAUSE I TURNED ON MY CAPS LOCK!
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!

Darcs said How is the encouragement of open public forums to discuss these things in the smaller communities not going to increase common empathy?

Once again, stop trading your argument with my own.
In the very part this quote was replying to I had outright said that being more open/exposed helps empathy.
But what I also said was that you need to actually do that, make it more open.
Simply cutting down on the number of citizens and calling it a day is not going to do that.

Darcs said That there can be nothing particularly wrong with a certain action except that "it's illegal" is amazing to me.

There's the argument to be made of you have been taught/trained.
You have yet to prove you know how to drive, by doing so you put lives at risk.

But since you have repeatedly ignored the concept of skill and experience being a thing, it's safe to assume you'd apply the same logic here.
Now if you excuse me, I'm going to stick my 1 year old cousin in the car, and have her drive. Driving affects her, her parents drive her around.
Therefore should know how to drive, right?

Darcs said That's freedom.

Not freedom, Anarchy.

Darcs said most people want what is best, even if mainly because they want what's best for themselves.

Ah, and that's the issue.
They all look out for themselves.

The NRA's might go and try to legalize every gun because they have a gun fascination.
The westboro baptists will try to force God on everyone because it fills their religious ego.
Mothers of an autistic child might try to drain every penny into autism therapy, at the expense of funding for any other kids treatment.
The people who hate taxes will try to get rid of government outright, make it so if someone lacks the case, they should die starving on the street.

They care about an issue, as long as it affects them personally.
But the second it might benefit everyone else, but not them specifically?
Yea, good luck getting them to co-operate.

Especially when people are short sighted, they are largely motivated by immediate gains rather than long term investment.

Darcs said Sure, you're right there. What I have a problem with, is that you don't NEED the education to get the paper, you can just buy your way through college. In the same vein, there are people who are smart enough to do it, they just won't be able to make the funds for schooling.

University and College are rather big on grades. If you don't get the grades you fail.
And there isn't any "Pay 1000 dollars to get this question right" option anywhere.

The whole can't afford to get in part? That's a valid concern.
But that's solved by government funding, not getting rid of the entire expectation of being trained on something before doing it.

Darcs said Context is important. There are plenty of people, especially outside of America, who get all the medical help they need from non-certified medical professions and live fine, they may even see those "official" guys with degrees as government sanctioned drug dealers.It wouldn't be entirely wrong.

Often times it's all their economic state can afford them. They lack the ability to get higher skilled/qualified help.
Plus, paranoia of certain countries, degree's can't be helped. Some poor guy might see a professional doctor as a drug dealer, that doesn't make the doctor a drug dealer. That makes the poor guy misinformed, most likely as a result by the stuff told by their friends and media.

Protagonist said In another Crash Course (Crash Course big history, I think), John says that the murder rates might have been as high as 10%.

I feel like that's a case where correlation doesn't equal causation.

Protagonist said Working hours weren't long, but that doesn't mean that life was not brutal.According to Lawrence H. Keeley (an archaeology professor at the University of Illinois), 90-95% of hunter-gatherer societies have been involved in wars, wars which can produce casualty rates as high as 60%. For example, archaeologists have dug up pre-columbian mass graves with over 500 men, women and children, all of which were scalped.

War didn't stop with change in governing style, I'd argue it changed as education became more inclusive and as technology increased. As we maintain this level of widespread education and technology, we shouldn't bind ourselves to a type of governing that might not be as efficient.

---

Magic Magnum said Ok, this is getting to be far to big a time investment to be arguing the same thing over and over again.

Then try to stop making vast generalizations and assumptions, don't cherry pick examples and claim things that you believe to be subjectively true to be true for EVERYONE. Your arguments will be a lot more constructive.

Magic Magnum said I'm backing out after this.
I have better things to be doing with my day than trying to drill in the concept of knowledge and learning.
And how somethings are not natural/inherent to every human being, it's the whole bloody reason school exists in the first place.

Exactly. EXACTLY. That's the point, the people AREN'T clueless savages, they're people with access to the knowledge of today, plus the experience of living where they live. If someone makes it through school and life without learning a damn thing about what would be beneficial for where they live it will be negligible compared to all the people who do.

Magic Magnum said Then build on our current system.
Stop arguing to make our basis a system used 2000 years ago, if you're argument isn't to use a system from 2000 years ago.

This is basically going "I'm not saying it was aliens. But I'm saying it was aliens".

You're acting like the system we use today isn't directly based off of the one used 2000 years ago. I'm not suggesting reversion, I'm suggesting changing how we interpret and use all of it.

Magic Magnum said Then you're proposition is short lived.
People will react by joining up again, and giant countries will be formed.

Humanity as a species has already gone through the history and experience to build such things.
Just because you weren't alive for all of human history to see it happen first hand is no reason for people to have to backtrack, and start from scratch just so you can see it happen for yourself.

Great opinion, based on... what, exactly?

You don't know what people would do in an incredibly revised city style of governing with today's knowledge and technology. You also seem to completely ignore that small countries and city states do, in fact, exist today, and they do pretty well for themselves.

Magic Magnum said More resources and manpower are big ones.
They help contribute to big projects that otherwise wouldn't work.
Once again, you seem to get this concept. So why in the world are you arguing it?

Because modern technology? I'm not sure you've realized this, but we no longer live in an age where people are working on those assembly lines. The need for physical manpower is at an all time low, and it will only decrease as the technology gets cheaper and more efficient, and it will, it is.

Technology (namely robotics and AI) are very real things, getting better by the day, and as we approach a point where more and more jobs can be done cheaper and to the benefit of everyone, we will need a major change on a global level.

Magic Magnum said Luck however is not an argument.
If 'luck' was it, then you'd only see a few big countries and then a ton of small isolated nations.
Clearly, we are full of big countries, and have next to no isolated nations.
So more than luck was involved. It's almost as if it's just a better way to function.
But nah, alliances, bigger projects, more resources couldn't possibly be good things could they?

Those things are great when we need all the guys we can get to saw the wood and hammer in the nails. Perfect for growth to a point where we can comfortable advance technology.

But what about when an automated assembly line can do it at half the cost and a fraction of the time?

Nah, we should stick with an antiquated an inefficient system because that's what they did in the past, shouldn't we?

Magic Magnum said But since we don't have a single case of a tiny nations/countries in the numbers you describe prospering compared to countries in the millions, it's clear that despite other factors big countries function better.

"better"
What do you define as better? I like to think, at the end of the day, the happiness of the citizen is what matters most.

Magic Magnum said Sure, you may have cities with said countries which flourish like Hong Kong. But that from resources gained from other places, if you took Hong Kong out and made them they're own country? They'd fall apart.

[citation needed]

(Also, Hong Kong isn't a Chinese city, it's a special administrative area)

Magic Magnum said So why do science now, when we can do science later?
News flash, science isn't a passive thing that humanity just 'unlocks' at certain time intervals.

When did I imply this?

Magic Magnum said We need researchers, scientists, organizations, resources, funding etc. to get there.
And the more pooled and collected it is, the better.

Sure? But you don't get MILLIONS of scientists all pooled toward making a common cold vaccine in a country of 300 million, that's inviting disorder.

A smaller amount of efficiently organized scientists, with the proper funding and freedom, works every time. More scientists doesn't equal more progress, if it did, Japan and Singapore wouldn't consistently be rated as being more technologically advanced than America, and the lists ranking the top scientific countries in the world would include Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Brazil, as opposed to the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark.

Magic Magnum said We will never get to your newer technology if you insist on dividing nations to the point that they are unable to fund the science needed to get there.

What is Singapore? I've already shown you that this isn't at all true.

Magic Magnum said And even once we do get to the newer technology, why butcher it? Wouldn't such new technology be even more powerful in the hands of a big collective group, rather than ripped apart into a ton of tiny ones?

Wouldn't the technology better be used where it can help people on a more local level?

Magic Magnum said I've lost track of the number of times you did this.
Taken my argument, used it as your own. And then use said argument against me as if I'm arguing your own point.
Seriously, cut it out. When you notice you're wrong, admit it. Don't spin it around make it look like that was your point the whole time.

You can't count the number of times I've done this because I haven't done it at all, brah.

(Also, if I can use your argument against you, that doesn't make me wrong, that makes your argument flawed)

Magic Magnum said Because what "I" was arguing was that education is not something you fix by assigning to a smaller government. Cause governments will still use a one size fits all approach. May it be for a population of 10 million, or 10 thousand. Education is handled by a student by student case, tailoring the lesson to the individual students in question. In other words, your smaller governments wouldn't accomplish shit in terms of improving education. They can fund it (which becomes bigger/better the more taxpayers you got), they set general standards or expectations. But they aren't the ones doing the teaching, they aren't the tree to bark at in terms of helping students directly.

Yes, and the federal government can't and doesn't handle education on a student by student basis, it'd be ideal, but it'd be too expensive. It's not what happens.

I mentioned the Digital Aristotle theory because I believe ultimately, technology will be able to handle this problem. With a smaller government being able to more efficiently handle and distribute the technology.

Magic Magnum said It is. But it also shows that you're system relying on everyone being good, moral and doing what they owe to people out of sheer good will wouldn't work.
Quite simply because, it's on their own prerogative which you have admitted to.

No, it relies on people being people, just like every other 'successful' system of government ever.
Some people will be shits, some people will be saints, most people will be alright with whatever as long as it doesn't hurt them.

Magic Magnum said You completely skipped over my how risk/effect argument.
And how not all risks are dead on the same.
Some risks are smart, others are not.
This risk you are suggesting, is not one of the smart ones.
There's a reason terms called "Smart risks" and "Calculated risks" exist.

And you say this, based on...?
You're ignoring that I clearly pointed out that the risk is about the same no matter the scale.

Magic Magnum said So just to make this completely clear.
Me highlight how your risk is bad and ineffective does not make me afraid of risk, and it does not mean we should hide in our beds.
It just means, your risk is bad, your risk won't work, it is poorly thought out.

My risk is the same as yours, it has worked (I could list more examples, but I assume, despite all the things you're conveniently ignoring in my argument, you can work Google to look it up), and it isn't the risk that's poorly thought out, it's your argument.

Magic Magnum said You do to understand the specifics, we needed one to discover it was a problem in the first place, you need one to know how to actually counter/correct it.

There's a lot more to fixing a car than changing a tire.

Yes, anyone can plant a could of herbs. But GMO allows it to grow faster, better, get better yield, be healthier etc. It's the equivalent of a 5 year old drawing in a colouring book, and leonardo making the Monalisa. Both art/food, both painting/farming, but on completely different levels, and value.

And medical knowledge is far more complex than washing your hands. If you have ever seen a doctor, or gone to the hospital, or even got sick and went to a drug mart for cough syrup you understand this. So I suppose you think that if you got into the doctor with the chicken pox, or ebola all you need to do is wash your hands. Right?

So yes, without education/training you 'might' grab the bare basics.
But as you have demonstrated, you need far more to actually fully understand the field, do all the work involved etc.
Infact, I don't even claim to be an expert in these things. I just know these are 'some' of the things involved.
You didn't even acknowledge these as parts of the job... Let alone understand how to do it.

Oh, I'm aware that professionals are professionals because they know the specifics of an area.
What I'm arguing, the thing you keep ignoring, is that basic understanding is all you need to vote smartly, and that most people posses a fairly basic understanding or a lot of things that pertain to them.

Magic Magnum said Yes you are your own person. You don't have to make yourself an expert in a field you lack interest or time for.
But that means, if you don't other to educate yourself, you should not be trusted with important jobs/task that require said education.
No one is banning anyone from doing certain things, we simply expect the person to know what they are actually doing.

Cool. So if I don't know surgery, I can't do surgery, that's fine.

But stopping people from voting because they don't know the specifics of the thing they're voting on? That is not cool.

Magic Magnum said I had a grandparent die from a heart attack when I was younger, am I now trained/knowledgeable in how to deal with them?
Am I now an expert enough that I should be allowed to help make decisions in regards how to treat others who suffer from heart attacks?
Has losing someone is medical condition, magically blessed me with advanced and complex knowledge on the subject?

Of course it hasn't. Being affected by something is not the same as understanding it. And it sure as hell is not the same as knowing how to counter it, prevent it or treat it.

"Should businesses have at a minimum one professional trained in dealing with heart attacks on the premises at all times?"
"YES/NO/OTHER"

Wow real hard decision, I'd better not make it, I'm no doctor after all.

Magic Magnum said I never said it was a city-state flaw.
I said it was a flaw with mobile voting.

The point

Space

The atmosphere

Some clouds

A ghost

More clouds

Your hat

Some air

Your head

Magic Magnum said Maybe in current voting, because you only ever vote on one thing, whose in charge.
But with your proposed voting? Where every citizens is now expected to take on every profession? That is what turns it into a profession. That is what now makes it comparable to surgery.

No, it doesn't.

It just gives citizens more power in regards to what happens to them. I am saying that the average citizen is about as qualified to vote on these matters as congress is today., with the bonus that the average citizen isn't going to be prone to the same type of lobbying our congress is currently plagued by.

Magic Magnum said -Democracy: Anyone can vote for a leader, even if they understand nothing of politics.
In our current system I was simply saying the expectation of vote should be raised to be those with some political knowledge and understanding.
Or at the very least those who can prove to have attended a speech or two, and not simply sat at home and is coming in to vote for their favourite colour.
Requirement? Yes, but a low one.

And I'm saying "some political knowledge and understanding" is too subjective and susceptible to bias. Literally the only requirement for voting should be that you are a citizen.

Magic Magnum said -Your voting system: Bring every possible issue there is to citizens. Every complex matter, every matter that requires skill and care.
That is far more responsibility than current democracy. That requires far more skill and understanding.
So quite logically more responsibility = more understanding/training needed.

Your system expects citizens to be making choices on everything, so logically people should have an understanding on everything.
An impossible standard, therefore making it an impossible system.

It's impossible to have complete understanding on anything though. By that logic, no one should ever vote ever because of the risk for human error.

That is an impossible standard to hold people to. My system asks that you have basic understanding of the things that directly relate to you, and it encourages but doesn't require further education.

Magic Magnum said There is a different on practicality due to simple time and life span requires to specialize in a certain field, and background check.
And on hoping every human being is moral. You can't test/confirm that people are loyal.

Except I don't care about the subjective morality every human being has. I care that SOME of them are aware enough about what they do and where they live that they have a basic understanding of it and that SOME of them vote.

Magic Magnum said You can test/confirm if people are trained.
They are called exams, colleges and universities have them all the time.

And I'm sure they're all infallible and tailored to each student.

Magic Magnum said And since people like you, have no knowledge on a matter such as a Physics exam. It is not people like you checking it, because you wouldn't even know if they were right. Instead the person checking it is someone who understands physics, someone who can actually tell if the person understands the content.

#assumptions

Magic Magnum said The numbers are still big enough though that although numerically it is a lot smaller, it holds little effect in practicality.
It's still enough faces that they blur, that they becomes numbers, that you can't really connect.

Except I explained how to very easily avoid that.

Magic Magnum said Plus on top of that this would require far more people to be going into political fields, taking away people from other fields such as scientists, engineers, teachers etc.
Not only will this barely make a dent, it will drain resources.

This conclusion based on, what? You not liking the idea?

Magic Magnum said How is assigning more work, demands and responsibility adding pressure?
Is this honestly being asked?
Go to school, ask your teacher for 10 times the amount of homework, do it all and then come back to me and tell me that it didn't add more pressure.

It's not? It's alleviating the pressure of conforming to a detached federal government.

(Also, again, your example has nothing to do with the argument)

Magic Magnum said WWII was not a matter of "Eh, we're bored. Let's go shoot some germans. We could use some dead people".
It was an alliance of many countries starting a conquest to conquer and destroy everyone, doing mass genocide, and stripping many rights from people.
That was war that had to be joined for survival, and so our lives would not become living hells.

Now, let's give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's rewind, and pick another war. One that wasn't needed for survival.
Such as say, the war in Iraq. That war was rather pointless, it was for the oil.
Ok, yes you have a point here. The war of Iraq was done without people really knowing what it was about, and got people killed.
This is a problem, this needs to be addressed. In fact, it is a problem being slowly addressed as countries have been getting less and less prone to going to war. The rate has been decreasing.
In fact, drafting is basically illegal now in many places it used to be legal. And people are far more easily now able to stand up to the government and try to get them to stop.
Hell with Afghanistan it did happen, the armies eventually pulled out.

*and sent in robotic killing machines without the approval of the majority of American people

Magic Magnum said But this does not require also letting complete novices making life and death voices in matters such as medical, road safety etc.
You can address this issue with war, without sabotaging ever safety concern in the country.

Novices, the citizens aren't making those life and death choices though, they just influence how the experts go about making them.

Magic Magnum said Current voting? No.
Your proposed style? Yes it is.

Once again, suggesting that all citizens no matter how uneducated get a say over stuff such as how food is grown, how roads are maintained, if we use vaccines etc. Is extremely dangerous.
All you need is one "Vaccines cause autism" conspiracy to run rampant, and next thing you know all vaccines are illegal and people are dying left and right.

That's a flaw, it's not a reason to completely disregard my system, it can easily be solved with general education and awareness.

Magic Magnum said I am making a hypothetical situation to make a point.
So your mother in said hypothetical is a hypothetical mother.
She doesn't need to be based on your real mother, because that's not relevant to the point being made.

Except this hypothetical situation is based an real life. For it to be applicable there needs to be all the context that would be present in real life.

Magic Magnum said Considering I'm the one making the hypothetical?
Yea, I'm pretty damn sure there's no magic in the situation.

Zombie moms are pretty magical, bro.

Magic Magnum said Unless if you mean to argue there's magic in real life?
In which case, proof and evidence. Cause atm you have zero scientific backing.

You clearly weren't basing your example off of real life, so I was wondering what went in this magical hypothetical world of yours.

Magic Magnum said No, you simply refused to believe it.
You think those street surgeons woke up with the skill?
They still learned somewhere, they still practiced somewhere.
Not as well as a professional, not as skilled as a professional.
But it's still something they had to acquire, they didn't wake up one day and go "Huzzah! Time to do open heart surgery!".

Point

Your head (again)

Magic Magnum said You'd be dead, because you just walked out with your heart bleeding out.
And once again, hypothetical. It can be assumed for the sake of the example you found some means to pay for the operation.

And even if you don't, you lacking insurance doesn't somehow means skill and knowledge isn't a thing.
It just means you lack insurance.

That's cool, apparently in this hypothetical world it's in my families genes to rise from the dead.

Magic Magnum said You failed to mention Bowties, or Lightsabers.
How am I to answer this question without you talking about Bowties?

Sadly, this isn't even an exaggeration of what you're doing... :/

That you don't know the different between arguing/Socratic questioning and hypothetical examples speaks volumes.

Magic Magnum said I AM RIGHT BECAUSE I TURNED ON MY CAPS LOCK!

No, I'm right because of your consistent use of flawed arguments, I turned on caps lock because you kept glossing over my own argument.

Magic Magnum said WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!

Jesus, dude.

It's an argument on the internet regarding a system of governing that will probably never be tried on an obscure website for roleplaying. Calm down plz, senpai.

Magic Magnum said Once again, stop trading your argument with my own.
In the very part this quote was replying to I had outright said that being more open/exposed helps empathy.
But what I also said was that you need to actually do that, make it more open.
Simply cutting down on the number of citizens and calling it a day is not going to do that.

Once again, that I can use your own argument against you so easily only goes to show how flawed it is. In the same vein, oversimplifying my argument to give your argument more strength is a fallacy.

Magic Magnum said There's the argument to be made of you have been taught/trained.
You have yet to prove you know how to drive, by doing so you put lives at risk.

Oh I've proved I know how to drive. Having a license isn't some definitive golden standard that makes you an infallible driver, I think American car crash records show us that.

Magic Magnum said But since you have repeatedly ignored the concept of skill and experience being a thing

I never once ignored those concepts. My entire point to you is that they aren't, and never will be, as clear cut as you'd like them to be.

Magic Magnum said it's safe to assume you'd apply the same logic here.

There you go assuming things again.

Magic Magnum said Now if you excuse me, I'm going to stick my 1 year old cousin in the car, and have her drive. Driving affects her, her parents drive her around.
Therefore should know how to drive, right?

Well yeah, all one year olds have full muscle function and autonomy over their own brains.

Magic Magnum said Not freedom, Anarchy.

You say that like they aren't synonyms.

Magic Magnum said Ah, and that's the issue.
They all look out for themselves.

#generalizing

Magic Magnum said The NRA's might go and try to legalize every gun because they have a gun fascination.
The westboro baptists will try to force God on everyone because it fills their religious ego.
Mothers of an autistic child might try to drain every penny into autism therapy, at the expense of funding for any other kids treatment.
The people who hate taxes will try to get rid of government outright, make it so if someone lacks the case, they should die starving on the street.

They care about an issue, as long as it affects them personally.
But the second it might benefit everyone else, but not them specifically?
Yea, good luck getting them to co-operate.

Especially when people are short sighted, they are largely motivated by immediate gains rather than long term investment.

You are aware that the NRA is the biggest and most powerful lobby group in the country, right? These things aren't going to ever go away, but people who go to extremes like them tend to be in the minority. Unless you get a country full of NRA folks, in which case-- good for them. Let them run it how they want it.

Magic Magnum said University and College are rather big on grades. If you don't get the grades you fail.
And there isn't any "Pay 1000 dollars to get this question right" option anywhere.

Oh it's there. But I'd say that it's not prevalent enough to be a concern. Most college grads did have to go through the ringer, no denying it.

Magic Magnum said The whole can't afford to get in part? That's a valid concern.
But that's solved by government funding, not getting rid of the entire expectation of being trained on something before doing it.

I didn't suggest we get rid of the entire expectation of being trained on something before doing it, though. I'm suggesting we look at education differently.

Magic Magnum said Often times it's all their economic state can afford them. They lack the ability to get higher skilled/qualified help.
Plus, paranoia of certain countries, degree's can't be helped. Some poor guy might see a professional doctor as a drug dealer, that doesn't make the doctor a drug dealer. That makes the poor guy misinformed, most likely as a result by the stuff told by their friends and media.

But you can't generalize and say that's the case every time.

#subjective #generalizing #context

Darcs said
Peisistratos wasn't even a tyrant, though. His reign was seen as moderate and similar to a constitutional government. Also, in fearing tyrants, you aren't fearing a style of government, you're fearing human nature.People aren't inherently one thing or another, and where tyrants crop up, others will crop up to oppose them----AND THAT'S A ROCK FACT.

In re Peisistratus, he was anti-democratic. He got stuff done. And when he died, his sons ruled dictatorially.

Dionysus I of Syracuse was a popularly chosen bad tyrant.

Absolutely tyrants are part of human nature, but what convinces people to accept a tyrant?

1. Security concerns. Your micro democracies are essentially unable to defend themselves, so very rapidly if not actually reform the United States they will make alliances and engage in offensive-neorealistic conquests. The United States today is without peer, consequently, we don't engage in "War of the Spanish Succesion" style wars of containment, nor do we constantly subjugate like Napoleonic France. When we had ONE peer in the USSR, the world was worse as a result.

2. Identity politics. The more identities there are, the harder it is to appease enough of them to ride them into power.

So Boerd said 1. Security concerns. Your micro democracies are essentially unable to defend themselves, so very rapidly if not actually reform the United States they will make alliances and engage in offensive-neorealistic conquests. The United States today is without peer, consequently, we don't engage in "War of the Spanish Succesion" style wars of containment, nor do we constantly subjugate like Napoleonic France. When we had ONE peer in the USSR, the world was worse as a result.

The political climate isn't the same though. These micro-democracies would have access to modern technology and education, and relations with each other in a way similar to the UN. Conquest doesn't happen today because conquest is expensive and generally looked down upon by people, especially toward democracies.

So Boerd said 2. Identity politics. The more identities there are, the harder it is to appease enough of them to ride them into power.

I think that's a problem big and small governments would face.

The political climate isn't the same though. These micro-democracies would have access to modern technology and education, and relations with each other in a way similar to the UN. Conquest doesn't happen today because conquest is expensive and generally looked down upon by people, especially toward democracies.

1. Say conquest is dead to Putin in Ukraine and China in the Senkaku and Spratlys.
2. Conquest is expensive only when the others resist. How much would the little cities of Alaska be able to resist a Russian invasion, when all of Ukraine can not? And in light of Russia and China, the country would reform into the US rather than be conquered

So Boerd said 1. Say conquest is dead to Putin in Ukraine and China in the Senkaku and Spratlys.

Okay, you got me. That's literally the only contemporary example of this, though, but you're right, it is significant.

Now, the HOPE is that the world will react accordingly to this EVENTUALLY, we'll need to wait and see though. There's also that there is a very strong Russian culture in Crimea and we don't have the full story regarding that, approval ratings in Crimea toward Putin say, to me, that we aren't getting the full story.

So Boerd said 2. Conquest is expensive only when the others resist. How much would the little cities of Alaska be able to resist a Russian invasion, when all of Ukraine can not? And in light of Russia and China, the country would reform into the US rather than be conquered

But lets be real though, the UN, let alone the US and our allies would never abide by this. Russia wouldn't even try it because Putin is smart enough to know they'd never get away with it in the global stage.

But lets be real though, the UN, let alone the US and our allies would never abide by this. Russia wouldn't even try it because Putin is smart enough to know they'd never get away with it in the global stage.

There is no US. It is broken up into thousands of micro democracies in this hypothetical.

So Boerd said There is no US. It is broken up into thousands of micro democracies in this hypothetical.

But there is a UN? and thousands of other micro-democracies possibly allied whose best interest might be to fend off Russia?

What would even be Putin's strategic reasoning in directly taking on the west?