Democracy will always be controlled by government, never the people. With the citizen in charge, government control freaks and power mongrels realize that they would become obsolete. The 51% telling the other 49% how to live is ridiculous as are all forms of government.
Who lacks the intellectual abilities? It's the retards in government. The people just want to be left alone to live their best lives and government has NO clue and no responsibility to tell anyone what to do.
ONLY people who DO understand the intricacies of democracy and nation-building should be allowed to vote. The successful passing of a preliminary, personal test should be mandated before any "would be" citizen is allowed into the polling station !!!
I NEVER voted or joined any political movement all my life but disconnected from sick mass-society about 20 yrs. ago. NO taxes, no soldiers from my part. Let them do what they want, but NEVER try to coerce me to join the madness ...
The purpose of collecting votes from people is to know how they feel about an issue. Presumably after you - or someone - has informed them of it.
A bit rich to expect all people to be wholly informed of all things at all times. They have their own particular things keeping them busy.
They pay others for that.
Now note a vote does not necessarily mandate an action: it can in effect be no more than a canvassing of opinion. That has its own validity, raison d'etre at all time and requires universal suffrage.
And then following on from that even though entitled to vote a nil vote or declining to vote should be an option always available or that, too, is an honest expression of one's opinion as best can be expressed in the current circumstances.
Reverting back to issues there's many an issue is fundamental and requires little in depth knowledge for one to form a sensible justifiable opinion about, such as should we go to war with our brothers?
And: the 'intricacies of democracy and nation-building' ? Well I think you didn't really mean that. There are few people on the planet 'understand' those things and they argue fiercely amongst themselves as to which have the correct understanding.
Everyone here is talking about political systems in which public elections and political campaigns are basic to democracy; but, in the real world, public elections and political campaigns produce -- ultimately degenerate into -- aristocracy: rule by and for the super-wealthy; and that's NOT democracy. It's the opposite. Why is everyone here STILL presuming that public elections and political campaigns are basic to democracy?
because that's the definition of democracy. what you claim the operation of it leads to is not material. the point is if you want a social organisation that fits the title 'democracy' then you need voting and in the normal state of affairs and the public instinctive perception that means voting for representatives, i.e.: elections.
You seem to be saying that such an arrangement is not a democracy because it 'ultimately degenerates into...' something else. That's like saying that life is not life because it ultimately degenerates into death. Or even; a car is not a car for it ultimately degenerates into a mass of rusted metal.
You have a false 'definition' of what "democracy" MEANS. It means a REPRESENTATIVE Government -- a Government that represents the policy-priorities OF THE CITIZENRY, and NOT of only a minority of the citizenry. This is the REASON why the empirical political-science studies of America's Government have consistently found that it is NOT a democracy but instead represents the policy-priorities of a minuscule fraction of the American people: only the top richest one percent of the to richest one percent -- the wealthiest ten-thousandth of the U.S. population. This Government doesn't reflect merely "a minority" (less than half) of the population: it represents only one ten-thousandth of the U.S. population. You see, Arthur, you have been fooled by the billionaires' 'news'-media and book-publishers etc. to think that elections and political campaigns MEAN "democracy"; but that belief is FALSE -- that IS NOT what "democracy" MEANS. You've been fooled.
No. You are wrong. And I'll thank you to confining your remarks and speculations to the facts at hand, the question at hand, and leave persons out of it and stop ascribing values to my knowledge and understanding. If you can and would do that.
Democracy means rule by the people.
Representative democracy is a makeshift required by past technological limitations. Limitations that no longer exist.
As I think I have tried to point out to you before.
In case I have not and for the benefit of any passing idle reader:
Anarcho-capitalism is the way.
No government is the way.
"The public lack the intellectual ability that’s needed in order for an electoral democracy to work."
I couldn't agree more.
Democracy will always be controlled by government, never the people. With the citizen in charge, government control freaks and power mongrels realize that they would become obsolete. The 51% telling the other 49% how to live is ridiculous as are all forms of government.
Who lacks the intellectual abilities? It's the retards in government. The people just want to be left alone to live their best lives and government has NO clue and no responsibility to tell anyone what to do.
ONLY people who DO understand the intricacies of democracy and nation-building should be allowed to vote. The successful passing of a preliminary, personal test should be mandated before any "would be" citizen is allowed into the polling station !!!
Ask yourself what are you always voting for? In every case, it is more of the same old government tyranny only with different masters.
I NEVER voted or joined any political movement all my life but disconnected from sick mass-society about 20 yrs. ago. NO taxes, no soldiers from my part. Let them do what they want, but NEVER try to coerce me to join the madness ...
I cannot agree.
The purpose of collecting votes from people is to know how they feel about an issue. Presumably after you - or someone - has informed them of it.
A bit rich to expect all people to be wholly informed of all things at all times. They have their own particular things keeping them busy.
They pay others for that.
Now note a vote does not necessarily mandate an action: it can in effect be no more than a canvassing of opinion. That has its own validity, raison d'etre at all time and requires universal suffrage.
And then following on from that even though entitled to vote a nil vote or declining to vote should be an option always available or that, too, is an honest expression of one's opinion as best can be expressed in the current circumstances.
Reverting back to issues there's many an issue is fundamental and requires little in depth knowledge for one to form a sensible justifiable opinion about, such as should we go to war with our brothers?
And: the 'intricacies of democracy and nation-building' ? Well I think you didn't really mean that. There are few people on the planet 'understand' those things and they argue fiercely amongst themselves as to which have the correct understanding.
Everyone here is talking about political systems in which public elections and political campaigns are basic to democracy; but, in the real world, public elections and political campaigns produce -- ultimately degenerate into -- aristocracy: rule by and for the super-wealthy; and that's NOT democracy. It's the opposite. Why is everyone here STILL presuming that public elections and political campaigns are basic to democracy?
because that's the definition of democracy. what you claim the operation of it leads to is not material. the point is if you want a social organisation that fits the title 'democracy' then you need voting and in the normal state of affairs and the public instinctive perception that means voting for representatives, i.e.: elections.
You seem to be saying that such an arrangement is not a democracy because it 'ultimately degenerates into...' something else. That's like saying that life is not life because it ultimately degenerates into death. Or even; a car is not a car for it ultimately degenerates into a mass of rusted metal.
You have a false 'definition' of what "democracy" MEANS. It means a REPRESENTATIVE Government -- a Government that represents the policy-priorities OF THE CITIZENRY, and NOT of only a minority of the citizenry. This is the REASON why the empirical political-science studies of America's Government have consistently found that it is NOT a democracy but instead represents the policy-priorities of a minuscule fraction of the American people: only the top richest one percent of the to richest one percent -- the wealthiest ten-thousandth of the U.S. population. This Government doesn't reflect merely "a minority" (less than half) of the population: it represents only one ten-thousandth of the U.S. population. You see, Arthur, you have been fooled by the billionaires' 'news'-media and book-publishers etc. to think that elections and political campaigns MEAN "democracy"; but that belief is FALSE -- that IS NOT what "democracy" MEANS. You've been fooled.
No. You are wrong. And I'll thank you to confining your remarks and speculations to the facts at hand, the question at hand, and leave persons out of it and stop ascribing values to my knowledge and understanding. If you can and would do that.
Democracy means rule by the people.
Representative democracy is a makeshift required by past technological limitations. Limitations that no longer exist.
As I think I have tried to point out to you before.
In case I have not and for the benefit of any passing idle reader:
https://abrogard.com/blog/2023/12/25/dont-write-to-congress/