Gwazi Magnum

Welcome Back to the Guild

Anyone wanna talk?

I'm fine with doing a skype meet up if it's for a purpose.
Voice chat while playing a game for example.

But I wouldn't add random people to skype simply for the purpose of sitting around chatting.
That's what google+ and tinychat is for.

My Parents Will Be the Death of Me

Descended From

Well I'm related to myself!
So you all know what to do. :P

Control VS Freedom

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.

My Parents Will Be the Death of Me

Wake up, forum.

Spams been crashing for me constantly.
As in, all the other pages will load fine (although slowly) and works.
But Spam will constantly send me to the "Guild is down" page, moments that I actually manage to get in spam are uncommon as a result.

Control VS Freedom

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.

Welcome Back to the Guild

As the three approached the wide open area Gwazi aimed for his belt and pulled out a throwing dagger to try to open the fight with. Once they got there Gwazi took the second the ratbug would have been distracted by Rae and Books talking to line up his shot. He then threw the dagger, aiming right between the things eyes. And not waiting to see if it hit the creature or not he pulled out his sword and began to run up to the thing "We're not going to let you try to harm anyone else" he said as running closer to the ratbug.

Welcome Back to the Guild

Kaga said “Oh and, don’t worry,” she turned around and told Gwazi before hurrying after them. “I can’t change anyone else. Just myself.” she reassured him, before turning back around and hurrying after the girls.

Did you teleport?
I was the one who started running first, so I'd be ahead of the girls. Not behind.