Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And for what it's worth, the "Mission Accomplished" banner was put up by the ship because they had finished their cruise and were headed home. If you look at the text of the speech Bush gave that day (under the banner), several times he mentioned how much work was left to do.
John McCain was a naval aviator who flew many combat missions, even getting shot down. I believe the country would be in a better place had he been selected over Bush, but that's way in the past... and that's Democracy.
Bush 41 was an aviator in WW II and was shot down IIRC. John F Kennedy was a PT boat commander in WW II. Dwight D. Eisenhower was Supreme Allied Commander in WW II. Harry Truman served in WW I I think. Teddy Roosevelt led his horseless Rough Riders in the charge up San Juan Hill. I think that Harding or Coolidge may have served in the Civil War or the Spanish American War, too.
In the 19th century, US Grant, James Garfield, Chester Arthur, and William McKinley all served in the Civil War. Zachary Taylor was a hero of the Mexican War and Benjamin Harrison served in frontier Indian wars. Andrew Jackson, of course, was the hero of the War of 1812. George Washington, of course, was the hero of the War for Independence, and chose not to be either a king or a dictator.
The number of Congressmen and Senators who either served in the Civil War or in WW II is significant because those two wars defined their entire generations respectively.
For those of you who may have forgotten, the POTUS is the Commander In Chief of all US armed forces. We Americans have never disdained military leaders, but have expected them to be civilians when they run for public office. Civilian control of the military is considered a cornerstone of American representative democracy.
So lets say for example an issue on economics came up, everyone who has a masters degree or higher can vote on that issue. Majority still rules. On the environment, climate scientists are asked to vote. Urban planners vote on issues they are experts on and so on...
One of the issues with this would be the possible creation of an "elitist class' that holds the power to make decisions but if you have a big enough population of experts voting and a constitution which intrenched some concepts such as universal free higher education and concepts like that then couldn't this be a much better form of governance?
Basing the right to vote on education attainment won't work because of the following:
If education attainment does not equate with any of the following, then the proposal's justification fails
1) Accurate knowledge of the totality of political issues at hand,
2) A proper balance of self-interest and greater societal interest.
3) Increase in empathy, sympathy, etc. for the plight of those of lower socio-economic status - at least sufficient to compel the educated to force the government to do something about the plight of those of lower socio-economic status than themselves.
4) Lack of class snobbery or status jockeying (both in petty, judgmental senses of the phrases)
5) (usually going along with 2 & 3, and probably the result)...Lack of greed and corruption
6) (as a result of 5) Corruption of the degree-granting process (merely paying money automatically grants a degree)
7) Dumbing down the degree requirements in order to equalize the voting power of individuals.
Not to mention think that Universities, think tanks, etc are the most moral institutions in existence. But they are not. The author of The Turner Diaries, a central piece of white supremacist and antisemitic literature, was a PhD professor in physics from Oregon St. Several years ago, Dutch psychologist Diederik Stapel, perpetrated a huge academic fraud. Don't even ask about Josef Mengele!!!!!
This wouldn't lead to a more intelligent society. It'd lead to government "of, by, and for, the cultural and intellectual elites".
Basing the right to vote on education attainment won't work because of the following:
If education attainment does not equate with any of the following, then the proposal's justification fails
1) Accurate knowledge of the totality of political issues at hand,
2) A proper balance of self-interest and greater societal interest.
3) Increase in empathy, sympathy, etc. for the plight of those of lower socio-economic status - at least sufficient to compel the educated to force the government to do something about the plight of those of lower socio-economic status than themselves.
4) Lack of class snobbery or status jockeying (both in petty, judgmental senses of the phrases)
5) (usually going along with 2 & 3, and probably the result)...Lack of greed and corruption
6) (as a result of 5) Corruption of the degree-granting process (merely paying money automatically grants a degree)
7) Dumbing down the degree requirements in order to equalize the voting power of individuals.
Not to mention think that Universities, think tanks, etc are the most moral institutions in existence. But they are not. The author of The Turner Diaries, a central piece of white supremacist and antisemitic literature, was a PhD professor in physics from Oregon St. Several years ago, Dutch psychologist Diederik Stapel, perpetrated a huge academic fraud. Don't even ask about Josef Mengele!!!!!
This wouldn't lead to a more intelligent society. It'd lead to government "of, by, and for, the cultural and intellectual elites".
That was my point, too. There's nothing that guarantees elites of any kind would act in the national interest. In fact, there's probably a lot of evidence to the contrary.
Universal suffrage works just fine. If you're a citizen, you should be able to vote. I would have very limited restrictions. You'd have to have an address so that you can't vote in different places in the same election, and you should be considered an "adult", which is 18 for most things. I'm not sure that I'd require much else.
I’d love to hear your ideas, defences and/or critics on my statement ☺
Plato didn't like democracy and neither do I.
Every form of government tends to perish by excess of its basic principle. Aristocracy ruins itself by limiting too narrowly the circle within which power is confined; oligarchy ruins itself by the incautious scramble for immediate wealth. In either case the end is revolution. When revolution comes it may seem to arise from little causes and petty whims; but though it may spring from slight occasions it is the precipitate result of grave and accumulated wrongs; when a body is weakened by neglected ills, the merest exposure may bring serious disease.
Then democracy comes: the poor overcome their opponents, slaughtering some and banishing the rest; and give to the people an equal share of freedom and power.
But even democracy ruins itself by excess–of democracy.
Its basic principle is the equal right of all to hold office and determine public policy. This is at first glance a delightful arrangement; it becomes disastrous because the people are not properly equipped by education to select the best rulers and the wisest courses ---
"As to the people they have no understanding, and only repeat what their rulers are pleased to tell them" --- Protagoras
--- to get a doctrine accepted or rejected it is only necessary to have it praised or ridiculed in the Lame-Stream-Media or by Celebrities on Social Media. Mob-rule is a rough sea for the ship of state to ride; every wind of oratory stirs up the waters and deflects the course. The upshot of such a democracy is tyranny or autocracy; the crowd so loves flattery, it is so hungry for honey, that at last the wiliest and most unscrupulous flatterer, calling himself the "protector of the people" rises to supreme power. --- Plato (with some literary license by Mircea to update it to the 21st Century)
Although it is probably not plausible in real life, I would ideally like to see a system in which only intelligent, informed people vote. This suggests two options:
(1) A highly rigorous educational system that somehow insures that every child grows up to be truly educated.
(2) Some sort of test that must be passed before a person can vote.
Just curious: if some sort of pre-voting test were required, what are some minimal basic questions that every voter ought to be able to answer?
Let me help you simplify an otherwise excellent thought process.
Power shifts. From King and Clergy to King and Nobility. Now enter the merchant class and the bankers. Periodically strike them all down and enter in Generals and Warlords. The power of a government will ebb and flow with the the scope it is desired to govern. The Pilgrims most likely didn't have lawsuits over plow IP infringement cases, use of cell phones while riding on horses. I may be wrong, but I doubt they cared about the Middle East.
Democracy isn't so bad. When the time comes, perhaps AI will create a better system.
Democracy was invented in ancient Greece for city states. In total a few thousand people (at most) were allowed to vote.
America of 2016 is a country of 300M (!) with voting rights to all. The differences within the population are huge: people from endless backgrounds, social status, wealth, religions, race, city dwellers, farmers, rural areas, etc, etc.
The original democracy was based on people having much in common.
What do American people have in common? What keeps this society together?
Bottom line: the question is not if democracy failed, but what is a better alternative?
Winston Churchill once famously stated, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter” and I think with this one he hit the nail on the head. Let me explain to you why I think the idea of democracy is completely insane!
**************
I’d love to hear your ideas, defences and/or critics on my statement ☺
The problem with the alternatives is you wind up giving absolute power to some very imperfect people. In fact dictatorships are plagued by worse governments, overall, than the U.S. which is a somewhat dysfunctional democracy.
Remember, in a democracy, the majority will trumps the minority.
But in the republican form, the sovereign individual's endowed rights are NOT subject to a vote, nor the government.
To illustrate:
" Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
- - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.
The endowed natural rights and liberties are not derived from nor subject to the constitutional governments instituted to SECURE ENDOWED RIGHTS.
Of course, if you CONSENT, you may waive your endowed rights for government privileges, etc., etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
