Hong Kong leader: Democracy sucks dick guys you don't want it - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Megadave;46931154]Stalin begs to differ. Democracy may be "great" for the citizens, but is shit for anything authoritative.[/QUOTE] Are you serious is this guy serious

[QUOTE=AntonioR;46931502]Hong Kong is like the richest place on Earth, I don't see WTF they think different leaders would accomplish. World domination or something ? [B]There are probably some frustrated individuals out there that are eager to get their hands on that power and wealth and that is why they want "democracy".[/B][/QUOTE] Yea must be, kinda hard to see those individuals here though :rolleyes: [t]http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/china/hk-protest-sep-2014.jpg[/t] And democracy isn't really about wealth, it's about freedom and choice

[QUOTE=butt2089;46933339]And democracy isn't really about wealth, it's about freedom and choice[/QUOTE] wealth grants you both of those in any kind of political system

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];46931699']that's like some middle school political theory right there[/QUOTE] To a degree he is right. The best democratic system I've encountered was the original design for the US. This isn't to say it was the best government design period, as I think it needed to have significantly more socialist policies in there, but in terms of managing the drawbacks of democracy, the idea was pretty good. For starters not everyone should get to vote. A stupid backwards fucking hick dropout should not have the same democratic authority as a college professor. The Dropout's opinion is, as a whole, not as valid as someone with a PhD. The US originally handled this by restricting voting to white male land owners, which was racist and sexist as fuck, but white male landowners also tended to be educated, which was useful. Obviously we wouldn't, and shouldn't, do that today but I think your level of education should determine your voting rights. Make higher education free (at public universities) and then apply a vote multiplier based on level of education. People with a high school degree or GED would get no votes. High school degrees would get one vote. Bachelor's degrees would get two. Masters would get four. PhD's would get eight. This system has limitations in that your dropouts get no representation, and may be a highly disenfranchised portion of society, but given the damage the poorly educated can do in a society, I think the benefits there outweigh the risks. Also the poorly educated classes tend to vote Republican, which paradoxically is also the party that fucks them over the most. Meanwhile the higher the level of educational attainment the more likely a person is to vote blue, which helps the lower classes. In a very real way keeping the poorly educated from voting is actually in their best interest. In addition to restricting who could vote, there were also better guidelines about who you vote for. The PEOPLE were represented by a person in the house of representatives. The STATE GOVERNMENTS were represented by senators. State legislatures also elected senators, not the people because it was understood that mob rule was a terrible idea. The president didn't represent the people, he represented the UNION, which meant he too was intended to be elected by state legislatures. (The electoral college complicates this somewhat, but it is generally true) We designed an entire nation around allowing the people representation, but restricting it just enough so they wouldn't screw themselves too hard. It was a system that people elect ONE person in the federal government and ensured that the person they focused on electing was actually involved in the law making process. It placed the focus of the people on their representative, the one who mattered, rather than the president, who was little more than chief diplomat and largely inconsequential to the people. It understood the balance of power and the realities of unabated mob rule. The framework wasn't particularly kind or high minded, but rather it was realistic and compromising. Then we fucked it up with some amendments because we are dipshits.

[QUOTE=GunFox;46933792]A stupid backwards fucking hick dropout should not have the same democratic authority as a college professor.[/QUOTE] So what makes you think the college professor is any better at making decisions about who they want ruling over them than a hick? If you give power to scientists and teachers they're just going to spend more time involved in politics than actually doing science and teaching. I mean you can sit there dreaming about the good old days when America was run that way, but the truth is that such a system is a wet dream at best. It was designed for a country of a few million farmers and aristocrats on the eastern seaboard of America. Plus they owned slaves and women had no political representation. As a model for ideal government it's not a good start. Plus the system barely held the United States together until 1861, at which point it took a bloody 4-year war to reunify the country. Democracies in the rest of the world seem to be doing fine without the weighted voting either.

To gunfox Sorry but, how about instead of preventing 'dropouts' from voting, that education is reformed to prevent those 'backwards hicks' from being backwards hicks? And why should someone be given more votes based on their career path? Even if everyone could, not everyone would want to study at university. Some people might want to do a trade because they enjoy it, why should they have to also go to a university so they can get the voting power they should be entitled to? If you want people to make sensible choices in life aka not be idiots, why not just teach them how to do that at high school? I like how your argument also boils down to how the 'intellectuals' vote for Democrats and the idiots vote for Republicans, and the whole premise of your argument is doing whatever you think is necessary to give that one party more power over the other, even if it goes as far as actually denying people the right to vote. Thats ridiculous! You know, if you were actually the intellectual you imply yourself to be, you would realise that your two-party political system and Presidential governance are each terrible, and you would advocate for proportional representation and parliamentary governance. The only thing I somewhat agree with is about how Senators are elected. Only because, as far as the voter is concerned, it's unnecessary duplication.

[QUOTE=GunFox;46933792]To a degree he is right. The best democratic system I've encountered was the original design for the US. This isn't to say it was the best government design period, as I think it needed to have significantly more socialist policies in there, but in terms of managing the drawbacks of democracy, the idea was pretty good. For starters not everyone should get to vote. A stupid backwards fucking hick dropout should not have the same democratic authority as a college professor. The Dropout's opinion is, as a whole, not as valid as someone with a PhD. The US originally handled this by restricting voting to white male land owners, which was racist and sexist as fuck, but white male landowners also tended to be educated, which was useful. Obviously we wouldn't, and shouldn't, do that today but I think your level of education should determine your voting rights. Make higher education free (at public universities) and then apply a vote multiplier based on level of education. People with a high school degree or GED would get no votes. High school degrees would get one vote. Bachelor's degrees would get two. Masters would get four. PhD's would get eight. This system has limitations in that your dropouts get no representation, and may be a highly disenfranchised portion of society, but given the damage the poorly educated can do in a society, I think the benefits there outweigh the risks. Also the poorly educated classes tend to vote Republican, which paradoxically is also the party that fucks them over the most. Meanwhile the higher the level of educational attainment the more likely a person is to vote blue, which helps the lower classes. In a very real way keeping the poorly educated from voting is actually in their best interest. In addition to restricting who could vote, there were also better guidelines about who you vote for. The PEOPLE were represented by a person in the house of representatives. The STATE GOVERNMENTS were represented by senators. State legislatures also elected senators, not the people because it was understood that mob rule was a terrible idea. The president didn't represent the people, he represented the UNION, which meant he too was intended to be elected by state legislatures. (The electoral college complicates this somewhat, but it is generally true) We designed an entire nation around allowing the people representation, but restricting it just enough so they wouldn't screw themselves too hard. It was a system that people elect ONE person in the federal government and ensured that the person they focused on electing was actually involved in the law making process. It placed the focus of the people on their representative, the one who mattered, rather than the president, who was little more than chief diplomat and largely inconsequential to the people. It understood the balance of power and the realities of unabated mob rule. The framework wasn't particularly kind or high minded, but rather it was realistic and compromising. Then we fucked it up with some amendments because we are dipshits.[/QUOTE] That weighted voting system just pushes America away from democracy. The white male land-owners aren't representative of the people and their opinions aren't somehow more valid than anybody else's opinions. I agree that mob rule is a very real risk of true democracy, and I agree that the 17th Amendment wasn't the most forward-thinking amendment we've made, but disenfranchising individuals [I]on the basis of social status[/I] is incredibly backwards. I advocate that everyone above the age of 18 should be able to vote. I vehemently oppose how the current system refuses felons the right to vote. I believe that every citizen of the United States should have an unalienable right to vote and take part in the political process. If you decide to limit that based entirely on social status, you're disenfranchising enormous parts of the country on the basis that "they're stupid" without taking into account any of the intricacies of how our society works. What if you drop out of high school to take advantage of an incredible startup career and you become wildly successful? You don't get a vote, suck it up. Yes, the less-educated tend to vote red and the more-educated tend to vote blue. So what? You don't fix that by disenfranchising the section of the population that you disagree with, you fix that by educating people. Free education is a great idea, I agree, but disenfranchising people who take alternate paths? That's crazy. The rich and successful and educated aren't more deserving of a vote than the average citizen - a single vote per person is one of the greatest social equalizers in our society.

[QUOTE=Deng;46933928]So what makes you think the college professor is any better at making decisions about who they want ruling over them than a hick? If you give power to scientists and teachers they're just going to spend more time involved in politics than actually doing science and teaching. I mean you can sit there dreaming about the good old days when America was run that way, but the truth is that such a system is a wet dream at best. It was designed for a country of a few million farmers and aristocrats on the eastern seaboard of America. Plus they owned slaves and women had no political representation. As a model for ideal government it's not a good start. Plus the system barely held the United States together until 1861, at which point it took a bloody 4-year war to reunify the country. Democracies in the rest of the world seem to be doing fine without the weighted voting either.[/QUOTE] Voting is already weighted in the US. I live in Montana where there is only a million people. We have less reps than senators. Yet I still vote for two senators like everyone else. Meanwhile in California they have 38 million people and still two senators. My vote, for literally no reason other than geographic location, is THIRTY EIGHT TIMES stronger than somone in California. And, because the lower population states tend to disfavor education, you wind up with the poorly educated by over represented. The only reason we are afloat is because we generate ridiculous amounts of GDP. Our system is severely hamstrung as it stands. As far as people with higher degrees becoming more involved in politics, that is a good thing. I WANT the people with crticical though training to get a heavier vote amount. Not only would we benefit from smarter decisions l, but it would state at a political level that we are a society that values education.

[QUOTE=GunFox;46933792]post[/QUOTE] While I agree that people should be educated before voting, I think it's very very bad that only the intelligent people should vote, because frankly it's the intelligent people who will try to usurp the dumber people.

We should abolish civilization and revert to being animals.

honestly if we're going on about USA's system of democracy, simply being forced to take a standardized test on the electoral system and branches of government, and any other related subjects, then passing the test before their vote is considered valid would be enough. along with supplying reference materials to any that request it so people are actually educated about what they're voting on. the main problem is how the test is made, implemented, etc. it might help get voters more interested in who they're actually voting for and the political system itself, but it's up to the voter themself so if they want to just choose a random name out of a they still can; some people might actually learn that you can willingly vote for nobody at all as well. though this might harm our voter turnout because more effort is required to actually vote, but at the same time if someone doesn't even know the basic information then their vote isn't really worth much in the first place imo. atm anybody can just walk up to a booth and choose a random name from a dice roll as long as they're a citizen, which usually doesn't require much more than simply being born here

[QUOTE=HeroicPillow;46934444]honestly if we're going on about USA's system of democracy, simply being forced to take a standardized test on the electoral system and branches of government, and any other related subjects, then passing the test before their vote is considered valid would be enough. along with supplying reference materials to any that request it so people are actually educated about what they're voting on. the main problem is how the test is made, implemented, etc. it might help get voters more interested in who they're actually voting for and the political system itself, but it's up to the voter themself so if they want to just choose a random name out of a they still can; some people might actually learn that you can willingly vote for nobody at all as well. though this might harm our voter turnout because more effort is required to actually vote, but at the same time if someone doesn't even know the basic information then their vote isn't really worth much in the first place imo. atm anybody can just walk up to a booth and choose a random name from a dice roll as long as they're a citizen, which usually doesn't require much more than simply being born here[/QUOTE] You do realise that a testing system was once used in the US for the purpose of preventing African Americans from voting, you know? What's to stop such a system from similarly disenfranchising a demographic of society? Anybody can walk up to a booth and vote for any candidate, as they are allowed to. But why would someone bother if they are just going to pick a candidate at random? They might as well not vote, which up to three quarters of enrolled voters didn't in some states for your last House of Reps election.

[QUOTE=GunFox;46934279]Voting is already weighted in the US. I live in Montana where there is only a million people. We have less reps than senators. Yet I still vote for two senators like everyone else. Meanwhile in California they have 38 million people and still two senators. My vote, for literally no reason other than geographic location, is THIRTY EIGHT TIMES stronger than somone in California. And, because the lower population states tend to disfavor education, you wind up with the poorly educated by over represented. The only reason we are afloat is because we generate ridiculous amounts of GDP. Our system is severely hamstrung as it stands.[/quote] Then change it so that it's proportional? [quote]As far as people with higher degrees becoming more involved in politics, that is a good thing. I WANT the people with crticical though training to get a heavier vote amount. Not only would we benefit from smarter decisions l, but it would state at a political level that we are a society that values education.[/QUOTE] We tried it in Britain and all we got was snooty aristocrats in charge.

[QUOTE=Deng;46934552]Then change it so that it's proportional? We tried it in Britain and all we got was snooty aristocrats in charge.[/QUOTE] Why would we have two houses in congress that do the same thing? And allowing people with more education access to greater authority is a simple way to offset poor decisions by the lower classes. Seriously, look at the US. We make terrible decisions all fucking day long. Good luck getting socialized medicine to pass despite a MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE that suggests it would save hundreds of billions of dollars and give people better access to health care. Look at the size of our military. We live in a fortress state that, the conventional military of the entire world combined, still couldn't assault. It is utterly ridiculous. We exist because we have such ridiculous levels of GDP that we can be stupidly inefficient, but we are rapidly seeing that fail. We need a government that is free to do what is best, not what the mob demands.

[QUOTE=GunFox;46934657]We need a government that is free to do what is best, not what the mob demands.[/QUOTE] Why not just close down Congress and convert the President into a dictator? I mean, the dictator is free to do what they think is best regardless of what the 'mob' demands, and you seem to really hate democracy so that's right up your alley. There's also that you want to see the Democrats into government through whatever means necessary, including disenfranchising large portions of society from voting, and completely prevent Republicans from holding office. Are you a fan of China's governance perhaps?

[QUOTE=Antdawg;46934684]Why not just close down Congress and convert the President into a dictator? I mean, the dictator is free to do what they think is best regardless of what the 'mob' demands, and you seem to really hate democracy so that's right up your alley.[/QUOTE] Because despite being trained to think in extremes, there are actually shades of grey in between. We operate in them to some degree already, despite claims to the opposite. I know of no instances of pure democracy, almost everyone elects some form of representation. We don't embrace pure democracy because we know it isn't a good idea. So creating a system that recognizes that a portion of your population are simply never going to make good decisions and will always be easy to manipulate while also recognizing that you still NEED the people to have a say in their government in order to keep it from turning into a dictatorship is the line that must be walked. Our government was originally designed to balance those two and then we broke it. Now we do things like focus heavily on the presidential election for no goddamn reason and ignore the elections of the people who actually make the laws. I know, this sucks to hear and goes against basically everything western society stresses, but people are not smart. Recognizing this and accounting for it is an important component of nation design. What the people want is frequently not what is best.

[QUOTE=GunFox;46934741]Because despite being trained to think in extremes, there are actually shades of grey in between. We operate in them to some degree already, despite claims to the opposite. I know of no instances of pure democracy, almost everyone elects some form of representation. We don't embrace pure democracy because we know it isn't a good idea. So creating a system that recognizes that a portion of your population are simply never going to make good decisions and will always be easy to manipulate while also recognizing that you still NEED the people to have a say in their government in order to keep it from turning into a dictatorship is the line that must be walked. Our government was originally designed to balance those two and then we broke it. Now we do things like focus heavily on the presidential election for no goddamn reason and ignore the elections of the people who actually make the laws. I know, this sucks to hear and goes against basically everything western society stresses, but people are not smart. Recognizing this and accounting for it is an important component of nation design. What the people want is frequently not what is best.[/QUOTE] Yes. People should have a say in government. But the only people who should have a say are Democrat supporters. Fuck everyone else, they aren't allowed to vote. That's all I'm reading matey

[QUOTE=GunFox;46934279] As far as people with higher degrees becoming more involved in politics, that is a good thing. I WANT the people with crticical though training to get a heavier vote amount. Not only would we benefit from smarter decisions l, but it would state at a political level that we are a society that values education.[/QUOTE] what if I don't believe in the country's education system and decide not to pursue a college degree? what if what I enjoy doing in life does not really require a degree? What if I'm more interested in starting a business than going to college? (steve jobs? bill gates? zuckerberg?) what if, in general, the education system in a hypothetical country was set up in a way so that specific, already existing demographics would have a greater chance at succeding and progressing through it? (which is sadly true in many countries, and IMO, including yours!) Wouldn't that tip the scale on those who are priviliged? I'm not really sure if I understand your point correctly, but I think it has too many ways to be exploited or to transform into a system of oppression, rather than of democracy.

[QUOTE=barttool;46935575]what if I don't believe in the country's education system and decide not to pursue a college degree? what if what I enjoy doing in life does not really require a degree? What if I'm more interested in starting a business than going to college? (steve jobs? bill gates? zuckerberg?) what if, in general, the education system in a hypothetical country was set up in a way so that specific, already existing demographics would have a greater chance at succeding and progressing through it? (which is sadly true in many countries, and IMO, including yours!) Wouldn't that tip the scale on those who are priviliged? I'm not really sure if I understand your point correctly, but I think it has too many ways to be exploited or to transform into a system of oppression, rather than of democracy.[/QUOTE] Currently the country is run by people who are wrong. Take, for instance, the concept of crime. In the United States you are currently the safest you can be almost since industrialization. Mass shootings? Static. Violent crime? Been trending down for DECADES. Yet our politicians constantly push for us to be "tough on crime". A person promising to be " fair" or to rehabilitate offenders would almost never be elected in the US because people have the perception that they need to be tough on crime. Our downward trending crime rates don't even correlate with changes in crime policy. So not only are we safe, but the measures people take out of fear aren't even responsible for our current state. Not only do strong punishments for violent crime (the hallmark of being tough on crime) fail to deter crime, but can occasionally result in a small increase. So we incarcerate people by the millions in the US and create a market for PRIVATE PRISONS that house hundreds of thousands of people, often imported from several states away (good luck getting your family to visit you from California when you are housed in Georgia. This happens.). It is disgusting and by no means isolated and is entirely avoidable. All because we let people vote who have no business voting and have even fucked up the check against that by rldestroying the point of the senate.

[QUOTE=GunFox;46935769]Currently the country is run by people who are wrong. Take, for instance, the concept of crime. In the United States you are currently the safest you can be almost since industrialization. Mass shootings? Static. Violent crime? Been trending down for DECADES. Yet our politicians constantly push for us to be "tough on crime". A person promising to be " fair" or to rehabilitate offenders would almost never be elected in the US because people have the perception that they need to be tough on crime. Our downward trending crime rates don't even correlate with changes in crime policy. So not only are we safe, but the measures people take out of fear aren't even responsible for our current state. Not only do strong punishments for violent crime (the hallmark of being tough on crime) fail to deter crime, but can occasionally result in a small increase. So we incarcerate people by the millions in the US and create a market for PRIVATE PRISONS that house hundreds of thousands of people, often imported from several states away (good luck getting your family to visit you from California when you are housed in Georgia. This happens.). It is disgusting and by no means isolated and is entirely avoidable. All because we let people vote who have no business voting and have even fucked up the check against that by rldestroying the point of the senate.[/QUOTE] You are right about this, but what is your alternative? Trusting in a oh-so-benevolent intellectual elite that will rule the country 'in the right way'? If the people in power are chosen mostly by a certain group of people, don't you think those running for positions in government would cater to the interests of *those* people in particular? Even educated, rich people tend to be greedy and selfish at least to some degree, especially in capitalistic societies. Coming from a region that has had its fair share of authoritarian rulers who thought they were ruling 'in the right way' I can tell you that that almost never works, and when it does, it only works for a limited amount of time.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;46934767]Yes. People should have a say in government. But the only people who should have a say are Democrat supporters. Fuck everyone else, they aren't allowed to vote. That's all I'm reading matey[/QUOTE] Yup, the guy who is well known for his love of weaponry (and even has the word "gun" in the forum nickname) is a democratic mouthpiece. Clearly this is true, and not you just trying to backup your own political standing. Try again. [editline]15th January 2015[/editline] Gunfox's plan does have a problem - you simply end up in benevolent oligarchy, because it's only a matter of time before a new system of powers is created to keep certain groups in control. Equally, the groups in power can cut off the access to education for anyone else.

[QUOTE=barttool;46936877]You are right about this, but what is your alternative? Trusting in a oh-so-benevolent intellectual elite that will rule the country 'in the right way'? If the people in power are chosen mostly by a certain group of people, don't you think those running for positions in government would cater to the interests of *those* people in particular? Even educated, rich people tend to be greedy and selfish at least to some degree, especially in capitalistic societies. Coming from a region that has had its fair share of authoritarian rulers who thought they were ruling 'in the right way' I can tell you that that almost never works, and when it does, it only works for a limited amount of time.[/QUOTE] Because we can watch the trends that point out that the people with higher levels of education already make the choices that benefit people with low levels of education. It is called being a liberal. Meanwhile the lower the education level, the more likely people are to vote against their own interests. The system that I'm suggesting recognizes that the lower social classes are not only not well informed enough to make wise decisions when voting, but are also able to be actively manipulated by the Republican party into supporting their ideals. The Republican party proves time and time again that they don't give a flying fuck about anyone but the wealthy. Basically people with an education are too ignorant and gullible to take part in government. Sounds fucking terrible, but it is the reality of the world we live in and I'm tired of watching people suffer endlessly because we are unwilling to admit that education matters at a fundamental level. Teaching people to think critically and how to analyze data is a necessity for democracy to continue. Offering a free education as far up the chain as you can go and rewarding you for struggling to reach the upper echelons of the scholarly world by placing additional faith in you as a voter is an entirely reasonable solution. We argue over such pathetic shit. Gay marriage should be a non issue. They are two adults, who gives a fuck if they get married. Medicare should be universal. Everyone is born with a body, so we should make sure everyone is taken care of regardless of class. Criminals should be pitied and helped if possible, not shunned and shut out from society, not just because it is the right thing to do, but because the data backs it up as the solution that stops further crime. By removing the power of the uneducated, we remove them as targets for manipulation.

[QUOTE=HeroicPillow;46934444]honestly if we're going on about USA's system of democracy, simply being forced to take a standardized test on the electoral system and branches of government, and any other related subjects, then passing the test before their vote is considered valid would be enough. along with supplying reference materials to any that request it so people are actually educated about what they're voting on. the main problem is how the test is made, implemented, etc. it might help get voters more interested in who they're actually voting for and the political system itself, but it's up to the voter themself so if they want to just choose a random name out of a they still can; some people might actually learn that you can willingly vote for nobody at all as well. though this might harm our voter turnout because more effort is required to actually vote, but at the same time if someone doesn't even know the basic information then their vote isn't really worth much in the first place imo. atm anybody can just walk up to a booth and choose a random name from a dice roll as long as they're a citizen, which usually doesn't require much more than simply being born here[/QUOTE] universal education should ultimately be a champion principle of both representative government and market economics in general if voters and consumers are sufficiently educated as to be effective thinkers and decision makers, whether in choosing products or candidates, their agency and efficacy expands, and the system can better self-regulate without having to get into the gross and inefficient process of regulation.

[QUOTE=joes33431;46937126]universal education should ultimately be a champion principle of both representative government and market economics in general if voters and consumers are sufficiently educated as to be effective thinkers and decision makers, whether in choosing products or candidates, their agency and efficacy expands, and the system can better self-regulate without having to get into the gross and inefficient process of regulation.[/QUOTE] Market economics end goal is not to present education as universal, as it's a service, and end goal of a market economics is to provide a market for services, and although the idea is that the market should assistant consumers so as to allow for the growth of the market, the human nature of trying to maximize gain overrules the market's natural expansion objectives.

[QUOTE=GunFox;46937071]Because we can watch the trends that point out that the people with higher levels of education already make the choices that benefit people with low levels of education. It is called being a liberal. Meanwhile the lower the education level, the more likely people are to vote against their own interests. The system that I'm suggesting recognizes that the lower social classes are not only not well informed enough to make wise decisions when voting, but are also able to be actively manipulated by the Republican party into supporting their ideals. The Republican party proves time and time again that they don't give a flying fuck about anyone but the wealthy. Basically people with an education are too ignorant and gullible to take part in government. Sounds fucking terrible, but it is the reality of the world we live in and I'm tired of watching people suffer endlessly because we are unwilling to admit that education matters at a fundamental level. Teaching people to think critically and how to analyze data is a necessity for democracy to continue. Offering a free education as far up the chain as you can go and rewarding you for struggling to reach the upper echelons of the scholarly world by placing additional faith in you as a voter is an entirely reasonable solution. We argue over such pathetic shit. Gay marriage should be a non issue. They are two adults, who gives a fuck if they get married. Medicare should be universal. Everyone is born with a body, so we should make sure everyone is taken care of regardless of class. Criminals should be pitied and helped if possible, not shunned and shut out from society, not just because it is the right thing to do, but because the data backs it up as the solution that stops further crime. By removing the power of the uneducated, we remove them as targets for manipulation.[/QUOTE] Levels of education do not purely dictate levels of intellect, and it's not a good benchmark to determines who gets the right to vote. You're also suggesting the creation of what becomes a nanny state, where the highly educated, who are also more then likely going to be wealthy, essentially dictate the legal decisions of the poor and lame. the intended purpose of allowing everyone an equal playing field was to prevent one side from gaining too much power over the other. While in practice it's far from perfect, such as our more or less de facto 2 party system, it does still afford the public a chance to bring about change. While uneducated persons may be easier to sway, anyone is susceptible to corruption. By doing what your suggesting we would be unevenly placing the majority of power in the hands of people that are just as susceptible to corruption as the rest of us who just so happen to have attended college. Pretending that the highly educated are somehow going to have higher morals and ethics is nonsense.

[QUOTE=gufu;46937208]Market economics end goal is not to present education as universal, as it's a service, and end goal of a market economics is to provide a market for services, and although the idea is that the market should assistant consumers so as to allow for the growth of the market, the human nature of trying to maximize gain overrules the market's natural expansion objectives.[/QUOTE] i should have rephrased i didn't mean a pure market economy; rather, it just seems natural that for an economy with fewer regulations to succeed (which ultimately is more efficient), the consumer needs to be have all the necessary information to self-regulate.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;46937217]Pretending that the highly educated are somehow going to have higher morals and ethics is nonsense.[/QUOTE] In truth this changes nothing, as we have not had any statesmen in our government who did not have higher education of some sort (and not to forget of a starting family budget to work with).

[QUOTE=gufu;46937258]In truth this changes nothing, as we have not had any statesmen in our government who did not have higher education of some sort (and not to forget of a starting family budget to work with).[/QUOTE] That's not entirely true. [url]http://www.nationaljournal.com/pictures-video/an-unlikely-path-members-of-congress-without-bachelor-s-degrees-pictures-20110923[/url] But yes generally speaking most have a college degree, and theyre all just as susceptible to greed and corruption as the rest of us.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;46937309]That's not entirely true. [url]http://www.nationaljournal.com/pictures-video/an-unlikely-path-members-of-congress-without-bachelor-s-degrees-pictures-20110923[/url] But yes generally speaking most have a college degree, and theyre all just as susceptible to greed and corruption as the rest of us.[/QUOTE] Most of those folks still have some sort of higher education, a number of them finishing it afterwards. Others are heads of businesses of some kind, thus being of a well-funded background. [editline]15th January 2015[/editline] And as an additional note, that website looks awfully designed.

[QUOTE=GunFox;46934657]Why would we have two houses in congress that do the same thing?[/QUOTE] Well you were complaining about how representation in the senate is piss poor. There could be a way to make it proportional while at the same time making sure its the older and more experienced politicians in there. [quote]Seriously, look at the US. We make terrible decisions all fucking day long. Good luck getting socialized medicine to pass despite a MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE that suggests it would save hundreds of billions of dollars and give people better access to health care. Look at the size of our military. We live in a fortress state that, the conventional military of the entire world combined, still couldn't assault. It is utterly ridiculous. We exist because we have such ridiculous levels of GDP that we can be stupidly inefficient, but we are rapidly seeing that fail. We need a government that is free to do what is best, not what the mob demands.[/quote] The reason the USA turned into an economic and military superpower is precisely because of what the "mob demands". Democratic nations tend to have the most efficient methods of moving information around and responding to the needs of the people. The less democratic, the slower and more inefficient the process. Your system is basically a 19th century solution to 21st century problems. It's not going to work out.