- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
"The government would own some things that are not practical for people to own, The military, NASA, The National Park and Service, the FBI etc. Just like they do now."
As you say, they already do this, so do we live under "democratic socialism" in every way except that "democratic socialism" is run via direct democracy?
"The people, with non-gerrymandered elections are not likely to elect an ignorant Government ."
I thought you were proposing a directly democratic system, not representative one?
"if everyone votes there is no advantage for "lobbying" so it would be difficult to impossible to be directed by ideologues."
Ideologues are using mainstream and alternative media (not lobbying) to direct people. I do appreciate that lobbying has negative influences on our political system. However under direct democracy the same special interest groups that lobby politicians will simply ramp up their media campaigns to propagandize the public.
"We have been a social democracy for years .. just not a REAL democracy. We wouldn't have an Electoral College if we were."
How would you change/replace the Electoral College system?
"it would take a year, or at least an impractical amount of time to gather votes. Today we could do it by phone or computer, with protectors of course. I'm sure we could come up with a safe way."
I'm 100% for creating a mechanism for the initiation of referendums by the people, as long as the majority of decisions are still made by elected representatives. It seems to me that the majority of people receive the entirety of their political knowledge from low quality sources, such as late night comedians. In addition, the average person has little knowledge relevant to statecraft and geopolitics. As such, giving the citizenry total control is a recipe for disaster.
"It depends what texts they are. Mythology and incoherent psycho babble are not to be taken seriously. The bible is full of that type of thing."
So whether a text is evidence or not is dependent on the content of the text?
"Good, because it's not even popsicle that it could be true."
Why is that?
"It would be a democracy rather than a republic"
Direct Democracies are republics, though I appreciate what you mean.
"one person, one vote on ALL voting matters with a strict separation of church and state."
I assume you would keep constitutional rights, but how would these constitutional rights be upheld? Further, do you see any potential for things to actually get worse under an ignorant civilian government whose passions can so easily be directed by ideologues and media?
"It would be DEMOCRATIC socialism"
Does this entail taking property from those that own the means of production?
"Eyewitness? The eyes you speak of are thousands of years old and you have no idea who's eyes they even are. For all we know the illuminati could have written the bible to deceive the masses."
So historical texts are also not evidence?
"Besides, even if things in the bible where actually witnessed historically it's much more likely, given what we know about natural phenomena thanks to SCIENCE that the stupid troglodyte retards who wrote the bible where merely mistaking natural phenomena for mystical bullshit."
I never said they were correct.
"Not really, if I was the head of a company and someone, even in their free time, attended a rally where they were chanting hatred against a certain group....especially if my company deals with members of that group, I wouldn't want them as my employee anymore."
As long as they are not a public face of the company, I see not why someone expressing an opinion outside of the workplace is a good reason to fire them. If they were, for example, to treat customers of other races negatively, this would be good reason.
I can agree with natural life extension ideas such as taking supplements of nutrients that we lose the ability to digest as we age (that are linked to the aging process). My problem, however, comes in when we consider the more extensive methods of life-extension, for example mechanical or nano-technological enhancements, genetic engineering and so on.
To begin, we have neurons not just in our brain but spread everywhere throughout our body, with particularly dense concentrations in our gut and heart. These gut and heart "brains" interact in a complex manner with our brain, with both top-down and bottom-up influence occurring (Source 1). When we take this information together with the fact that electrodes connected to the brain can control the brain (Source 2), it is not clear, as mechanical enhancements become smarter, that the only influence will be top-down. In other words, while one may influence the enhancement, one is likely to also be influenced by the enhancement. This doesn't even take into account the potential for purposeful abuse of this neuronal connection to the brain by the corporation or government that is making the enhancements (or a hacker).
Nanotechnology also holds vast potential for abuse as it would potentially give the creators control over human bodies at a cellular level. In the case that the technology were not so controllable (more automatic) then there is the issue that the nano-tech may run amok by itself, acting as a pathogen. This second case actually makes a lot of sense considering that one's immune system can be triggered merely by common food proteins and nano-tech is often self-replicating.
As for the genetic engineering of humans, this is a bad idea for a number of reasons. First of all, I would imagine a "Brave New World" scenario, where there are several different grades of human. The reason for this is because is everyone were (for example) a leader then society couldn't function. As we've already discussed elsewhere at length, creating a ruling class leads inevitably to the abuse of any underclasses.
Alternatively, I'd imagine a "Gattaca" type society (another dystopia), where everyone can choose their child's genetics. However, due to the fact that nobody would choose certain genes (for example tall genes would always be preferred over short ones) over time humanity would become more genetically homogeneous. Aside from the increased risk from pathogens, we would also be less diverse in our thinking, behavior and interests, as temperament (personality) is in part genetically determined (Source 3). This, obviously, would stagger our progress as a species. Further, different genes give advantages in different situations and as such we would be reducing humanity's ability to deal with unforeseen problems. Moreover, such trait selection could also cause genetic diseases several generations in the future that cannot be foreseen now. Finally, it's possible that certain genes (such as ones causing greater submissiveness) would be forced on people, under the pretext that such genes are better for society.
"That's assuming they are even thinking about the cost of their actions... When you go against a group of people chanting hate and try to stand against them, you hold more courage in you then they ever will."
They know pretty well about ANTIFA, doxxing and, in the U.K., the law. Further, you're assuming the same about people on the other side; that they all believe they are likely to be physically attacked.
"Some are genuinely surprised that they lost their jobs because they joined a White Supremacist rally."
It's wrong that people lose their jobs because they hold a point of view, regardless of what that point of view is.
"For them, it doesn't take courage to hate something, hating is easy, it takes courage to overcome your hate and see a different side."
It doesn't take courage to hate, it does, however, take courage to express that hate when it comes with great risk.
The most important right, free speech, allows for peaceful recourse against an abusive government. It's a pity we don't have freedom of speech in the U.K. and people get arrested for mildly offensive jokes (Source 1).
"I think there is a difference between cost and courage."
Yes but I don't see how one can be courageous without perceiving themselves as being at risk of paying a cost for their behavior. Further, the greater the cost willingly risked, the greater their bravery.
"you simply don't know what a person is thinking or capable of doing when they proudly display their anger at a group or racism for all to see."
This is a reference to a risk of cost. I'm sure that if there were stats available we'd find that saying racist things is more likely to get you fired or socially ostracized than challenging a racist person's views is likely to get you assaulted (also the former costs are higher).
"unjustified, unchecked hierarchy in the workplace"
The workplace hierarchy is justified by the fact that the employer provided everything necessary for you to do your job. If you don't need their resources, connections, knowledge etc. then you can simply work for yourself.
As for being unchecked, the employee-employer relationship is controlled by law. This is why employers are not allowed, for one example, to abuse this relationship to coerce employees into sex acts.
You mean the person that both finances and administrates the business? To finance and administrate the business. If a group of people want to collectively do this I have no problem, as long as they provide the funds to do so.
Without being rude, do you understand just how much work goes into managing a business?
"For instance, we better understood our personal schedules/hours available better than the 'manager' in charge of dictating the schedules (which would often have to be revised)."
Swapping shifts is incredibly common in regular jobs.
"We knew the minor details of who is performing efficiently at what tasks, while who is not, or otherwise 'slacking'... as well as who best works with who"
You can inform your employer of this in a regular job. As aforementioned, accepting bottom-up influence is key to running a successful business.
"I just gave you the example of Worker Co-ops--"
This example doesn't disprove that "The abilities of those within any group will always be greatly different, unless ability level is a determining factor of group membership."
"have you looked into them before?""
I have, yes.
"Frankly, there isn't anything all that complex involved in running a book store. Thus, there is no need for the top-down hierarchy. "
Is it perhaps also related to the fact that the people who invest in co-ops have an entrepreneurial nature, and above average IQ? This also links to the fact that book-shop workers are generally relatively intelligent.
"When I attended local Community College, I worked at Pizza Hut as a second job to help pay for living expenses. Now, there was a top-down hierarchy, though no need for it--as, again, there was nothing very complex about running/managing a Pizza shop. Then, I submit, it would work more smoothly if it were a direct Democracy (i.e. worker co-op)."
Why would it work more smoothly? I appreciate that companies should accept bottom-up influence and doing so is often beneficial. An example of how companies already do this is by actively seeking feedback and suggestions and (if not anonymous) rewarding the best ideas with promotions. However I don't agree that, for example, most pizza shop workers understand how best to run and budget a business. More importantly, the financier would simply be running a charity for the benefit of his workers (unless everybody contributes financially, as with the bookstore co-op).
"I prefer Direct Democracy to our current system"
Why? While I hate the corporate and special interest group influence over our current system, these could be removed by simple amendments to representative democracy. Further, it seems the case that the majority of people's minds are mostly shaped by propaganda from establishment media sources, which would in theory mean that the same groups would control the choices. As I say, I'd prefer direct democracy if we had an intelligent well-informed populace.
"I think direct Democracy works very well when the group involved is of similar abilities, however once the abilities of the group becomes very greatly differed (i.e. the range is significantly different from top to bottom), then Meritocracy is the superior system."
The abilities of those within any group will always be greatly different, unless ability level is a determining factor of group membership.