- Joined
- Feb 6, 2010
- Messages
- 3,779
- Reaction score
- 1,079
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Why are we treating the average person like they have the answers?
At the risk of sounding like a Fascist, why does there seem to be this big push now to listen to what the average person says? It seems to be something the Republicans have picked up of late more than most.
Public opinion polls, sites that let you advocate about what to cut or what to fix in the government, balance the budget games, etc etc.
Why are we treating the average person like they have the answers?
This is a good example that was posted in another thread
Eric Cantor || Republican Whip || YouCut
The average person has NO idea what it takes to run our government and even less of how the money is actually distributed. It's easy to make reactionary grumbles when things arent going exactly how we want them, but why treat these like they're the next big solution?
I agree that SOME people have SOME good ideas and that an outsider perspective is often helpful, but calling on the average person to make budget decisions about their government seems like a toweringly dumb idea; especially when you consider how crappy most Americans are with their own personal finances anyways.
It's obvious the experts aren't perfect, but I dont really see that somebody who has a vague (and probably wrong) idea of what's going on could do a better job than someone with actual education or experience in the pertinant subject. It's like asking a tattoo artist to do your appendectomy; yeah he might have SOME idea of what to do and the chances of getting a stupid surgeon aren't bad, but that doesn't change the fact that you're DOWNGRADING and think it's a good idea.maybe because it has become painfully obvious that the "experts" don't????? :shrug:
The founders of the US didnt seem to see a problem with keeping the average person out of government, for the most part.any concern for living in a society that is guided by the masses who aren't smart enough to do the guiding?
Isn't such a climate ripe for disaster? Do you prefer just removing the pretense of having a say in how things are run?
The founders of the US didnt seem to see a problem with keeping the average person out of government, for the most part.
Really? A minute ago you weren't in favor of keeping the average person out of government, yet when you heard the founders did it, you immediately flipped a 180.If the argument is to follow more closely, the thinking of the founders, then sign me up!
than someone with actual education or experience in the pertinant subject.
Not being the kind of guy who collects Congressional trading cards, I dont know.and just how many members of congress have any actual education or experience with the pertinent subjects?
Really? A minute ago you weren't in favor of keeping the average person out of government, yet when you heard the founders did it, you immediately flipped a 180.
This is an honest question; do you just follow whatever you think (or what someone tells you) the founders did/intended to do?
Ok, that wasn't terribly clear.I was? Where? I thought I asked a couple of loaded questions
I dont see what those questions have to do with the topic.so you see, I didn' really give you my insight at that time, I asked you for yours.
Ok, that wasn't terribly clear.
I dont see what those questions have to do with the topic.
I was honestly confused by what you were saying.You jumped the gun, but that's ok.
They also lived in a far simpler world than we do currently.The founders had an extremely limited view of the role of government. I obviously love their views, but I didn't introduce that meme, you did.
I simply asked a question. My own personal solution would be to smack people's hands away from the populism buffet and tell them they cant have anymore until they finish their education. Part of the problem as I see it is people have unrealistic ideas of how government works because they've never been properly taught. This is the kind of stuff you need to spend time on in high school, three months of US Government classes for 30 minutes a day doesnt cut it.I agree with you that in the present climate, Joe Sixpack can't possibly have a handle on the right thing to do, but who decides who does have a handle on what to do?
That is what I'm not getting. you identified a problem, but what is your solution?
My own personal solution would be to smack people's hands away from the populism buffet and tell them they cant have anymore until they finish their education. Part of the problem as I see it is people have unrealistic ideas of how government works because they've never been properly taught. This is the kind of stuff you need to spend time on in high school, three months of US Government classes for 30 minutes a day doesnt cut it.
No, as much as I facepalm at people who slobber about stopping foodstamps or making people pay for police and fire services (both serious suggestions I was given once), people should have the right to at least have some say in their government.would you be in favor of denying the ignorant the right to vote? since they have unrealistic ideas of how govt works...surely they can't be trusted to elect those who run the govt.
They also lived in a far simpler world than we do currently.
No, as much as I facepalm at people who slobber about stopping foodstamps or making people pay for police and fire services (both serious suggestions I was given once), people should have the right to at least have some say in their government.
I DO think however we need to have standards about who can run for office with regards to education.
Coupled with minimum standards for education for office holders, I'd like to see a large education initiative at the lower educational levels. Start as young as you possibly can, teach them what government is, how it works, and what they can do to change it.
The irritation gets even higher when people display less than no familiarity with how their own government works. I'm not saying you should have the names of all members of the House and Senate memorized, but you should at least have a passing familiarity with the basics of government.
Our world today is made up of far more component parts and an almost un-quantifiable amount more information than the time of the founders. Our lives move at the speed of light compared to theirs. We arent necessarily smarter, we just have a more complex world now and I think ideas from a time before even the invention of electricity are probably not the best bricks to use to build a government.I don't know about "far simpler", but for expedience, I'll go along with that.
So because it is more complicated, the chance that people can successfully have a say in operations is reduced. Doesn't that mean we should try our best to eliminate the type of environment where critical decisions are made by people?
There are plenty of qualified economists in this country, last I checked.Take the Federal Reserve. They have a a powerful switch. Set it one way and we lower interest rates. Set it another, and we raise them.
Now I take it you are saying, that switch is too damn complicated. Don't let Joe Six pack have a say in the how that switch is operated. Fine. joe Six Pack has no say. Who does? How do we know if that guy is doing it right?
Possibly, now would it be FEASIBLE to remove that switch altogether?Wouldn't it be safer to remove the switch altogether?
Damage from ignorance can be minimized if you have a pool of qualified applicants.even if, as you said, they have no clue how the govt is run? isn't that much like letting your plumber remove your appendix?
what does it matter how qualified the candidates are if you are going to let any and every idiot vote? you know the one's I am talking about. the ones who vote based on race, gender, party, how cool the guy's name sounds, how handsome they are, etc
I think as soon as you start putting things like education requirements for voters on, then you start a discrimination of class. Poorer people who dont have access to education are going to be ineligible to vote in greater numbers and you've created an aristocratic democracy where the voices of the poor are ignored simply because they're poor.coupled with minimum standards for education for office holders....I'd like to see minimum standards for voters. being 18 and a non-felon citizen is settting the bar very low
Yes, I do.but you still think that these retards with no familiarity with the basics of govt should be allowed to vote?
Poorer people who dont have access to education are going to be ineligible to vote in greater numbers and you've created an aristocratic democracy where the voices of the poor are ignored simply because they're poor.
There are plenty of qualified economists in this country, last I checked.
Possibly, now would it be FEASIBLE to remove that switch altogether?
Hrrm you're right during the bush admin there were alot of ideological appointments over completely qualified people.
At the risk of sounding like a Fascist, why does there seem to be this big push now to listen to what the average person says? It seems to be something the Republicans have picked up of late more than most.
Public opinion polls, sites that let you advocate about what to cut or what to fix in the government, balance the budget games, etc etc.
Why are we treating the average person like they have the answers?
This is a good example that was posted in another thread
Eric Cantor || Republican Whip || YouCut
The average person has NO idea what it takes to run our government and even less of how the money is actually distributed. It's easy to make reactionary grumbles when things arent going exactly how we want them, but why treat these like they're the next big solution?
I agree that SOME people have SOME good ideas and that an outsider perspective is often helpful, but calling on the average person to make budget decisions about their government seems like a toweringly dumb idea; especially when you consider how crappy most Americans are with their own personal finances anyways.
At the risk of sounding like a Fascist, why does there seem to be this big push now to listen to what the average person says? It seems to be something the Republicans have picked up of late more than most.
Public opinion polls, sites that let you advocate about what to cut or what to fix in the government, balance the budget games, etc etc.
Why are we treating the average person like they have the answers?
Perhaps because the genius elected officials in both parties have destroyed the economy and spent us into a 14 trillion dollar hole...and obviously havent done to good a job in the whole 'solution' game...
It couldnt have anything to do with the larger global economic situation, or possibly the preceding elected officials who got us here. But it sucks now, screw the people trying to fix it. Hehe!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?