Took the words right out of my mouth

[Al Swearegen]

It's not about people not knowing what's good for them, exactly, but rather with them not having the necessary skills or knowledge. The idea of them being able to make an informed choice is absurd, a lot of the time. Yet it's what they are asked to do.

Of course, some people have additional problems--they might, for example, be unable to manage their own households and so find themselves chronically in debt, yet they are asked to vote in what would essentially require a university-level course in global finance.

No, no I get it Odeon.
People are ignorant. It is the "collective will" not the individual will that matters. The best people to determine the rights and the will of the people is a small group of people who can rightly gauge that. The elites are always going to appreciate and understand the best for the people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations

Because the elites in Government had far better understanding of education, religious beliefs needed for the soul, social capital and civilised customs and social mores.

So, on this basis they KNEW what what BEST for these silly, backward Aboriginal people. They had no business raising children and in their horrible backwards way.

Kids were still being taken right up to the 1970's (Yes that is in MY lifetime).
This is shame for Australia. (Yes, Sweden may be the rape capital of the world BUT we have had our own problems too).

But that may in your mind be ancient business. But something that you said about how the average person is stupid and too ignorant to vote in their economic benefit (paraphrasing LOL)

I knew this guy. He was at the time about 25. He was a Boner at an abattoir. Salt of the Earth. Spoke laconically and simply. Country bloke. He had been working since he was 14 and in his own words was "Not that great at school"
He was decidedly worse than he let on. He was unable to read or write more than his own name. By any reading, he would be about as far removed from the economically educated University Graduates that ought to be able to make economic decisions on behalf of the country's economy.
I was having drinks with him on my veranda one night and he mentioned that he had holidays coming up. I asked him what he was going to do. He said "Oh just going to my house and gonna do some painting and cleaning up the property a bit".
It kind of threw me. "My house"? He lived just down the road from me.
I asked him what he meant by going.
"Nah, not THAT house. That is the one me and (his brother) own."
I asked him if it wasn't that house, which did he mean?
He said it was one in Donnybrook and he was slowly renovating it and fixing it up.
I got it. It was their second house. I said "Oh right, sorry I did not realise you have two house"
He said, "No our house here is jointly owned by me and my brother. I rent out the other ones by the one in Donnybrook I am doing up to sell."
I asked him about the other ones. He told me he had two more houses. He said that they were owed by the bank because unlike the one he had with his brother or the one in Donnybrook, THEY had mortgages on them.

This kid knew his body would be broken down by the age of 35. He had been saving and investing in property off the sweat of his brow since 14. He was on track. He financially (in the way that he conducted his own personal finances) would have shown up most oh so clever university educated economists.

I do not agree with your idea that people cannot vote in their best interests or that only an elite can make the decisions that reflect the interest on an entire population. I understand entirely the nee for elites to run at the top for expediency BUT that in no way says that if THEY think one thing and the population collectively thinks another that they must be right. It just doesn't.

As i said before the "I know better than the unwashed plebs"snobbery is at best poor and at worst the worst hateful demagoguery

[benjimanbreeg]

It's not about people not knowing what's good for them, exactly, but rather with them not having the necessary skills or knowledge. The idea of them being able to make an informed choice is absurd, a lot of the time. Yet it's what they are asked to do.

Of course, some people have additional problems--they might, for example, be unable to manage their own households and so find themselves chronically in debt, yet they are asked to vote in what would essentially require a university-level course in global finance.

Maybe you ought to use more energy investigating the crooks who desperately want people to think the kind of tripe you just spewed out.  Begging corrupt pigs to tell us what to do because we're too stupid to handle it all, is precisely what you are meant to think. 

[odeon]

It's not about people not knowing what's good for them, exactly, but rather with them not having the necessary skills or knowledge. The idea of them being able to make an informed choice is absurd, a lot of the time. Yet it's what they are asked to do.

Of course, some people have additional problems--they might, for example, be unable to manage their own households and so find themselves chronically in debt, yet they are asked to vote in what would essentially require a university-level course in global finance.

No, no I get it Odeon.
People are ignorant. It is the "collective will" not the individual will that matters. The best people to determine the rights and the will of the people is a small group of people who can rightly gauge that. The elites are always going to appreciate and understand the best for the people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations

Because the elites in Government had far better understanding of education, religious beliefs needed for the soul, social capital and civilised customs and social mores.

So, on this basis they KNEW what what BEST for these silly, backward Aboriginal people. They had no business raising children and in their horrible backwards way.

Kids were still being taken right up to the 1970's (Yes that is in MY lifetime).
This is shame for Australia. (Yes, Sweden may be the rape capital of the world BUT we have had our own problems too).

But that may in your mind be ancient business. But something that you said about how the average person is stupid and too ignorant to vote in their economic benefit (paraphrasing LOL)

I knew this guy. He was at the time about 25. He was a Boner at an abattoir. Salt of the Earth. Spoke laconically and simply. Country bloke. He had been working since he was 14 and in his own words was "Not that great at school"
He was decidedly worse than he let on. He was unable to read or write more than his own name. By any reading, he would be about as far removed from the economically educated University Graduates that ought to be able to make economic decisions on behalf of the country's economy.
I was having drinks with him on my veranda one night and he mentioned that he had holidays coming up. I asked him what he was going to do. He said "Oh just going to my house and gonna do some painting and cleaning up the property a bit".
It kind of threw me. "My house"? He lived just down the road from me.
I asked him what he meant by going.
"Nah, not THAT house. That is the one me and (his brother) own."
I asked him if it wasn't that house, which did he mean?
He said it was one in Donnybrook and he was slowly renovating it and fixing it up.
I got it. It was their second house. I said "Oh right, sorry I did not realise you have two house"
He said, "No our house here is jointly owned by me and my brother. I rent out the other ones by the one in Donnybrook I am doing up to sell."
I asked him about the other ones. He told me he had two more houses. He said that they were owed by the bank because unlike the one he had with his brother or the one in Donnybrook, THEY had mortgages on them.

This kid knew his body would be broken down by the age of 35. He had been saving and investing in property off the sweat of his brow since 14. He was on track. He financially (in the way that he conducted his own personal finances) would have shown up most oh so clever university educated economists.

I do not agree with your idea that people cannot vote in their best interests or that only an elite can make the decisions that reflect the interest on an entire population. I understand entirely the nee for elites to run at the top for expediency BUT that in no way says that if THEY think one thing and the population collectively thinks another that they must be right. It just doesn't.

As i said before the "I know better than the unwashed plebs"snobbery is at best poor and at worst the worst hateful demagoguery

First of all, I'm not in favour of "a top elite". In an ideal world, it would be a better idea than democracy, but OTOH, in an ideal world, the man on the street would have the necessary knowledge and insight to make democracy work.

Realistically, democracy is a better option because I would trust the "top elite" as little as I would the common man. There is very little to say that the elite was any better.

I wouldn't trust a concept such as a "collective will", though. I think it's a pipe dream and wishful thinking. There is very little to suggest that humanity as a collective entity knows what's good for it or the planet. It's a nice thought but unless you provide proof beyond wishful thinking, my answer will be "seriously?", shrug and then move on to the next post.

I do think that under the circumstances, democracy is the best available option, but would like to let the people whom we elected do their jobs than hold referendums to satisfy popular demand.

[odeon]

It's not about people not knowing what's good for them, exactly, but rather with them not having the necessary skills or knowledge. The idea of them being able to make an informed choice is absurd, a lot of the time. Yet it's what they are asked to do.

Of course, some people have additional problems--they might, for example, be unable to manage their own households and so find themselves chronically in debt, yet they are asked to vote in what would essentially require a university-level course in global finance.

Maybe you ought to use more energy investigating the crooks who desperately want people to think the kind of tripe you just spewed out.  Begging corrupt pigs to tell us what to do because we're too stupid to handle it all, is precisely what you are meant to think.

Maybe you should attempt to prove me wrong and actually discuss the topic at hand, because right now, you are making my point for me.

[Queen Victoria]

It's not about people not knowing what's good for them, exactly, but rather with them not having the necessary skills or knowledge. The idea of them being able to make an informed choice is absurd, a lot of the time. Yet it's what they are asked to do.

Of course, some people have additional problems--they might, for example, be unable to manage their own households and so find themselves chronically in debt, yet they are asked to vote in what would essentially require a university-level course in global finance.

Maybe you ought to use more energy investigating the crooks who desperately want people to think the kind of tripe you just spewed out.  Begging corrupt pigs to tell us what to do because we're too stupid to handle it all, is precisely what you are meant to think.

Maybe you should attempt to prove me wrong and actually discuss the topic at hand, because right now, you are making my point for me.

NO.  Just NO.  Not another call-out. 

[Al Swearegen]

It's not about people not knowing what's good for them, exactly, but rather with them not having the necessary skills or knowledge. The idea of them being able to make an informed choice is absurd, a lot of the time. Yet it's what they are asked to do.

Of course, some people have additional problems--they might, for example, be unable to manage their own households and so find themselves chronically in debt, yet they are asked to vote in what would essentially require a university-level course in global finance.

No, no I get it Odeon.
People are ignorant. It is the "collective will" not the individual will that matters. The best people to determine the rights and the will of the people is a small group of people who can rightly gauge that. The elites are always going to appreciate and understand the best for the people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations

Because the elites in Government had far better understanding of education, religious beliefs needed for the soul, social capital and civilised customs and social mores.

So, on this basis they KNEW what what BEST for these silly, backward Aboriginal people. They had no business raising children and in their horrible backwards way.

Kids were still being taken right up to the 1970's (Yes that is in MY lifetime).
This is shame for Australia. (Yes, Sweden may be the rape capital of the world BUT we have had our own problems too).

But that may in your mind be ancient business. But something that you said about how the average person is stupid and too ignorant to vote in their economic benefit (paraphrasing LOL)

I knew this guy. He was at the time about 25. He was a Boner at an abattoir. Salt of the Earth. Spoke laconically and simply. Country bloke. He had been working since he was 14 and in his own words was "Not that great at school"
He was decidedly worse than he let on. He was unable to read or write more than his own name. By any reading, he would be about as far removed from the economically educated University Graduates that ought to be able to make economic decisions on behalf of the country's economy.
I was having drinks with him on my veranda one night and he mentioned that he had holidays coming up. I asked him what he was going to do. He said "Oh just going to my house and gonna do some painting and cleaning up the property a bit".
It kind of threw me. "My house"? He lived just down the road from me.
I asked him what he meant by going.
"Nah, not THAT house. That is the one me and (his brother) own."
I asked him if it wasn't that house, which did he mean?
He said it was one in Donnybrook and he was slowly renovating it and fixing it up.
I got it. It was their second house. I said "Oh right, sorry I did not realise you have two house"
He said, "No our house here is jointly owned by me and my brother. I rent out the other ones by the one in Donnybrook I am doing up to sell."
I asked him about the other ones. He told me he had two more houses. He said that they were owed by the bank because unlike the one he had with his brother or the one in Donnybrook, THEY had mortgages on them.

This kid knew his body would be broken down by the age of 35. He had been saving and investing in property off the sweat of his brow since 14. He was on track. He financially (in the way that he conducted his own personal finances) would have shown up most oh so clever university educated economists.

I do not agree with your idea that people cannot vote in their best interests or that only an elite can make the decisions that reflect the interest on an entire population. I understand entirely the nee for elites to run at the top for expediency BUT that in no way says that if THEY think one thing and the population collectively thinks another that they must be right. It just doesn't.

As i said before the "I know better than the unwashed plebs"snobbery is at best poor and at worst the worst hateful demagoguery

First of all, I'm not in favour of "a top elite". In an ideal world, it would be a better idea than democracy, but OTOH, in an ideal world, the man on the street would have the necessary knowledge and insight to make democracy work.

Realistically, democracy is a better option because I would trust the "top elite" as little as I would the common man. There is very little to say that the elite was any better.

I wouldn't trust a concept such as a "collective will", though. I think it's a pipe dream and wishful thinking. There is very little to suggest that humanity as a collective entity knows what's good for it or the planet. It's a nice thought but unless you provide proof beyond wishful thinking, my answer will be "seriously?", shrug and then move on to the next post.

I do think that under the circumstances, democracy is the best available option, but would like to let the people whom we elected do their jobs than hold referendums to satisfy popular demand.

The little shit does not matter. The general Administrative running of a country, we leave to senior Public Servants of one rank/title or another. But they ARE Public Servants. They serve the public. On the big issues. The nation changing ones. It is up to them to find out what the public want and to act on that response and that is the need for a referendum.

You want to secede from the Monarchy....referendum
You want to leave the EU.....referendum
Lower voting age......referendum
Introduce the military draft......referendum

These are the types of things that the public need to be asked about. No Public Servant is going to be across what the country collectively wants and it is necessary that these public servants know what the public wants so that they can serve the public. Because without a referendum they are doing what? Guessing? Doing what is easiest? Doing what fits into an agenda? None of that is serving the public.

Which comes to the next point. Does the public know what is best for them? Yes. The public is made up of individuals and these individuals have an assortment of perspectives and reasons why they may want something. Some may be inspired and some fucking crazy. That is not up to a Public Servant to second guess. Collectively the majority of a country deciding on a course of action is the country deciding on a course of action. The individuals may have had differing reasons but the demand for a specific course of action is the result. There is only one way to tap into the nation's thoughts. A public servant has only their own understanding and own perspective and an entire nation will have millions of different perspective and understandings that that public servant cannot tap into.

[odeon]

And I disagree. Referendums are a populist's way of handling a short-term problem.

Now, I know you'd like things to be different, and it's sweet in a way that you trust people like that. You'd like them all to be the same. But they are not.

[odeon]

It's not about people not knowing what's good for them, exactly, but rather with them not having the necessary skills or knowledge. The idea of them being able to make an informed choice is absurd, a lot of the time. Yet it's what they are asked to do.

Of course, some people have additional problems--they might, for example, be unable to manage their own households and so find themselves chronically in debt, yet they are asked to vote in what would essentially require a university-level course in global finance.

Maybe you ought to use more energy investigating the crooks who desperately want people to think the kind of tripe you just spewed out.  Begging corrupt pigs to tell us what to do because we're too stupid to handle it all, is precisely what you are meant to think.

Maybe you should attempt to prove me wrong and actually discuss the topic at hand, because right now, you are making my point for me.

NO.  Just NO.  Not another call-out.

Not everyone is like Al.

[Al Swearegen]

And I disagree. Referendums are a populist's way of handling a short-term problem.

Now, I know you'd like things to be different, and it's sweet in a way that you trust people like that. You'd like them all to be the same. But they are not.

Its a way of a politician with an issue that is pressing and unable to be avoided or delayed, to make without too much backlash. The reason is that he or she can always say "It was the will of the public. Hey don't blame me, all of you are responsible for this decision" and he or she will be right.

Regardless of how well the public may feel about being consulted, this is the rationale. It is specific to BIGGER issues that have had discussions and grumblings about and which a "wrong" answer may be either or both decisions. In fact putting it to referendum may be a way of denouncing responsibility in a way that not doing so would have blown back regardless of the decision.

Take Brexit as an example that was a case of damned if you do and damned f you don't. Clearly half the UK wanted to leave and half did not. Whatever decision you made without a referendum was going to get a shitload of blowback. Referendum solves it. The will of the people.

The only thing left is whether the people should have will and whether the will of the public should be ignored. This should be a no-brainer unless you enjoy a totalitarian regime.

[odeon]

Which is where we will continue to disagree.

[Al Swearegen]

Which is where we will continue to disagree.

I am not a big fan of dictatorships and people making decisions for me or overly regulating me.

[odeon]

Which is where we will continue to disagree.

I am not a big fan of dictatorships and people making decisions for me or overly regulating me.

Those annoying experts can be so incomprehensible at times.

[Al Swearegen]

Which is where we will continue to disagree.

I am not a big fan of dictatorships and people making decisions for me or overly regulating me.

Those annoying experts can be so incomprehensible at times.

Indeed. Jargon can be incomprehensible.
You know there can be a difference between smart and correct? Between informed and right? between expertise and indisputable.
Yes we expect that experts will have all the answers to everything in their field and in terms of what is in the public's best interests they will know it better than any member of the public. Its why they are employed in the role. Some times though on the bigger issues, they need input from the public they both represent and are employed by.

[odeon]

<insert suitable ninja cat here>

[Al Swearegen]

<insert suitable ninja cat here>

[pimg]http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/d/df/Ninjacat.jpg[/img]