Gwazi Magnum

Control VS Freedom

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And that you are suggesting an outdated system, a already tried and exhausted system we have already built, improved and adapted on according to our current situation.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.

Control VS Freedom

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.

Example

Let's say that the person you love the most has just been shot. He or she is lying in the street, bleeding and screaming. A guy rushes up and says, "Step aside." He looks over your loved one's bullet wound and pulls out a pocket knife -- he's going to operate right there in the street.

You ask, "Are you a doctor?"

The guy says, "No."

You say, "But you know what you're doing, right? You're an old Army medic, or ..."

At this point the guy becomes annoyed. He tells you that he is a nice guy, he is honest, he is always on time. He tells you that he is a great son to his mother and has a rich life full of fulfilling hobbies, and he boasts that he never uses foul language.

Confused, you say, "How does any of that fucking matter when my [wife/husband/best friend/parent] is lying here bleeding! I need somebody who knows how to operate on bullet wounds! Can you do that or not?!?"

Now the man becomes agitated -- why are you being shallow and selfish? Do you not care about any of his other good qualities? Didn't you just hear him say that he always remembers his girlfriend's birthday? In light of all of the good things he does, does it really matter if he knows how to perform surgery?

In that panicked moment, you will take your bloody hands and shake him by the shoulders, screaming, "Yes, I'm saying that none of that other shit matters, because in this specific situation, I just need somebody who can stop the bleeding, you crazy fucking asshole."

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.

Control VS Freedom

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.

Example

Let's say that the person you love the most has just been shot. He or she is lying in the street, bleeding and screaming. A guy rushes up and says, "Step aside." He looks over your loved one's bullet wound and pulls out a pocket knife -- he's going to operate right there in the street.

You ask, "Are you a doctor?"

The guy says, "No."

You say, "But you know what you're doing, right? You're an old Army medic, or ..."

At this point the guy becomes annoyed. He tells you that he is a nice guy, he is honest, he is always on time. He tells you that he is a great son to his mother and has a rich life full of fulfilling hobbies, and he boasts that he never uses foul language.

Confused, you say, "How does any of that fucking matter when my [wife/husband/best friend/parent] is lying here bleeding! I need somebody who knows how to operate on bullet wounds! Can you do that or not?!?"

Now the man becomes agitated -- why are you being shallow and selfish? Do you not care about any of his other good qualities? Didn't you just hear him say that he always remembers his girlfriend's birthday? In light of all of the good things he does, does it really matter if he knows how to perform surgery?

In that panicked moment, you will take your bloody hands and shake him by the shoulders, screaming, "Yes, I'm saying that none of that other shit matters, because in this specific situation, I just need somebody who can stop the bleeding, you crazy fucking asshole."

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.

Making the Guild more active

Dinh AaronMk said
Given how the site runs right now I don't think it needs to be more active. We'll just crash it more and it'll die again.No, what needs to be worried about first is getting Mahz to stabilize this. THEN you can do a marketing campaign.

Good point.
The site has been crashing a lot lately.
And if we do want an active community, the site should be able to survive said activity.

My roommate: Let's call her "Henry"

Kaga said
Except the weirdest part is that, despite this argument, she still show her teeth... sort of. But, like, only the top row. Really it just looks like she's raising her upper lip. So I don't even know why she's presenting such an argument as if that's the problem here, which it's not. @_@

Then my best guess would be that she's bluffing (consciously or not) and there's something else at play.
That, or maybe the top lip raising like her smiling is unconscious and she doesn't realize she's doing it.

Control VS Freedom

Darcs said It's a much more simplified version where people vote directly on issues that pertain to them as oppressed to a senate or system fro representatives.

Ah I see what you mean.
Don't hold an overall election, just vote on each issue as it pops up.

Once again, great on paper.
But it holds two main flaws that I can think of from the top of my head.

1) It requires constant voting
It demands constant attention and focus, which can have one of two (most likely both) effects.

a) People invest large portions of their day into voting. This can lead to time taken away from work, family or simply relaxing before the next day of work. Thereby helping to contribute to more stress build up, thereby more burn-outs, and reduced performance in all aspects of life.

b) A lot of people might just say "screw it". Voting is demanding and time intensive. Yes, this does help fix the "Unmotivated/caring citizens vote" issue that typical democracy might hold. But it doesn't address the "Those who have no clue what they're doing" from voting. Cause Knowledge and motivation are two very different things. Which is fine, great even if you're in school and learning about something. But disastrous when expected to help make a decision on a matter you know nothing about.

2) It essentially rules out the expert/advisors.

Granted, the government is hardly experts on most matters. But they do tend to consults experts and advisors when making decisions. But would most citizens? Probably not.

---

And this is on top of democracies current problems with stuff such as "Majority rules".
Where people might vote for something like "All people must pray in schools" even if it violates the rights of those not religious, or of a different religion.
Just because most people agree with an issue, doesn't mean that's the right answer/opinion to be having.

Now, could I just be overly negative? That's rather likely.
I do honestly rather like the idea of voting on specific matters, it can host some benefits such as people potentially only voting on stuff they know about.
But it's still something that needs to have it's flaws pointed out early. And just because some people might use it right, doesn't mean all people will.

Darcs said Sure, if you can manipulate LITERALLY EVERY MEMBER OF A CITY-STATE.

Note I argued that when under the impression of what you were saying was "Only privileged folk may vote".
In which case, it would be rather easy since you've already narrowed down the demographic that votes.
And on top of that, have a monopoly and whose allows to vote to begin with.

But, that was a misunderstanding on my part. So this part is honestly irrelevant.

Darcs said removing the gridlock of the senate and the HoR, and granting the people more power.

And instead you have a gridlock of citizens.

Darcs said Wait, that everyone can vote isn't a flaw, it's like the best part about democracy.

It is because you get people who may enter an election with a sole focus.
Some self centered such as "Mah Guns" or "Mah God must be forced on all the children".
Some based on certain feelings/prejudices "Gays shouldn't marry", "Screw the Cops! Treat them like they're all assholes!".
Some more selfless such as "Will the government help my autistic son?".
And will focus on said issue at the exclusion/neglect of all others.

Or you may get people who vote for whatever their friend says.
Or those who pay zero attention to the election or candidates and simply go "Hmm. Liberals? Yea, I'm a Liberal. I don't care what they say. I vote for them".
Essentially our current system allows for people to vote based on biases, prejudices, or worse yet people who could not care about it in the slightest.

My roommate: Let's call her "Henry"

Kaga said
I would assume that she can recognize a smile on someone else, though I don't understand how, seeing as how she doesn't understand a smile as I describe it to her.Like, she was surprised to hear that you're supposed to show your teeth. She said she thought that "showing your teeth is a sign of aggression". And I was like, "Well, yes, it is... among chimps, and probably some other ape species, but not among humans, generally."She then said that the reason she thought that showing your teeth implied aggression was because, in her hometown, she used to hang out with "vampire people" who would hiss and "bare their fangs" at people. She then demonstrated what this looked like. I then told her that while teeth are involved in that gesture,

It's probably the teeth thing.
A lot of people don't show their teeth when they smile, especially if more reserved by nature (or simply reserved when on the spot, or feel as if they're imposing too much).
Like most of the time when I smile I don't show my teeth, you have to be making me laugh for my teeth to show (Or I'm purposely making a very creepy/disturbing smile).



And being raised around odd people such as "vampire people" tends to produce odd people.
And if showing teeth was something she learned culturally to associate with a negative, it's no surprise that she's reluctant to show it. Or associate it with something positive.
Though, I'm simply trying to find a rational/explanation for Henry's reasoning here. I fully admit Henry's off, and therefore no defense I can give is bound to make perfect sense.
Except to Henry maybe.

Welcome Back to the Guild

Kaga said
Posts for the others will come in good time.And "good time" can mean anything from later today to, like, Thursday, depending on how things go.Sorry.

That's fine, I get it's a hectic time for people right now. :)

My roommate: Let's call her "Henry"

Kaga said
I don't think you understand.It isn't a fake smile. It's a million miles away from a fake smile. It does not look like what a smile should look like. (Like, why does she feel the need to open her eyes super-wide?). And she also wasn't aware that the thing that she does when she's genuinely happy . It's like she legit does not understand the concept of smiling.

Maybe she just didn't think she smiled naturally?
Understands what it looks like, but has no idea how to imitate one when asked.
Plus eyes do tend to get somewhat bigger when one smiles, but not enough that I'd call it a notable feature.
Or something to explain away Henry's tendency to have super-wide eyes.

I don't know, like I said I may just not be grasping it right because I haven't seen this smile myself.

Does she recognize a smile when she see's it on someone else though?
Because honestly, this sounds more like a case where she just thinks that she specifically isn't capable, but understands what a smile is.
And because she thinks she isn't, she tries very hard to overcompensate for it.

Control VS Freedom

Derp, I forgot that I had made a post here that people might have replied to. :/

darkwolf687 said Actually, thats wrong. Several european Countries (notably the Holy Roman Empire) had an elected king. Admitedly elected by the rich and important, and in the case of the HRE it devolved to the point where it may as well have been hereditary.

True, though it was not the norm.
Plus the added flaw like you said, it devolves to the point of basically being hereditary anyways.

darkwolf687 said The trouble with what your saying is that "Monarchy" and "Democracy" are broad and sometimes overlaping terms. You can have hereditary monarchy, you can have appointed monarchy etc. Democracy is the same, you can have republics, you can have communes (obviously there are no soverign communes, because they simply dont work as a national system.).Hell, you can even have both monarchy and democracy at the same time (Constitutional monarchy with an elected governing body, or a monarch voted in by the people).

I know that, the UK is living proof of that.
I was making the comparison of when one system is directly compared to another though.
Plus, cases like the UK are a special case.
They are not a Monarchy that holds any political power (Other than signing laws, but they never deny a proposed law. It's a formality, one they can very easily be thrown out over if they try using it to deny a law).
By all intents and purposes they are a tourist attraction, employee's who are hired to be something for tourist to come and look at. That's why they manage to co-exist with a Democracy. Because the Monarchy is a Monarchy in name only, it holds none of the legal effects or powers that most Monarchies used to (Including UK's in the past).

I should clarify though. I do not hate Monarchs, I'm not going to look at a Monarch and go "You're a Monster!" simply because they are a Monarch.
You can definitely get some good Monarchs, but simply because Monarchy does have some good eggs doesn't mean the system is not prone to creating bad eggs.
Which to be fair, so is Democracy. But generally Democracy produces less bad eggs than a Monarchy does.

darkwolf687 said Likewise, democracies can still be dominated by rich brats who bought their way to the top or had more money to spend on a political campaign, and in the past it was common to restrict voting to the well off anyway, or they would be the only ones literate enough to vote.

True, but it's harder. And is still reliant on getting public approval.
While all a Monarch needs to do is be born, or simply out sprint the other on sitting on the throne and make one sneaky power play.

darkwolf687 said however, with a certain gentleman "Democracy is the worst type of government, except all the other types which have failed."

Which is basically what I'm saying here.

Yog Sothoth said Besides a monarchy, I would say that a diverse authoritarian government could also work if done right

The issue with those is they don't really allow freedom of speech or independent thought.
So if someone goes bad/wrong, you can be very badly punished for disagreeing.

And all systems that rely on trying to kill/silence opposing thought are systems that history has slowly been eradicating.

Darcs said I think a of democracy is ideal, taking into mind size of the population, size of the territory, neighboring countries or autonomous zones, agriculture, economy and general level of technology. I think an Athenian Democracy ((OPEN TO EVERYONE), with some bits thrown in from Communist Marxism, Anarchism and Socialism) would be great on a city and town level.

Your main issue there is that it restricts it to men voting.
Yes this can be fixed by letting women vote, but then it's honestly not much different from normal democracy.
And I doubt the argument here is "A system where women can't vote is better".

So I'm assuming you mean some sort of system to prioritize more eligible voters.
Which might seem nice on paper. But in practice, it's far too open to abuse. Essentially turning a democracy into a "Only those who agree with me can vote" sort of system.
As much as I admit a big flaw of democracy is that anyone can vote, even if they care nothing at all for the world around them I do realize implementing a system to address it is very risky.