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.