Quote from: m.roth on September 27, 2018, 08:18:39 AM

Quote from: francishutch on September 27, 2018, 03:18:06 AM

Quote from: m.roth on September 25, 2018, 07:13:59 PM

Quote from: francishutch on September 24, 2018, 04:03:21 PM

True democracy will always fail because you let the uneducated make decisions that forcefully impose the will of their often stupid decisions on the entire population. What we need is a small government where the only role of government is protecting the natural rights of all people in the state (defined in a constitution), protected by a republic, where only the educated can vote for officials responsible for protecting the rights of citizens. Tyrants love democracy because their will can be imposed by manipulating the uneducated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLJBzhcSWTk

And how do you define educated? You think it's fair, uneducated people are also part of this planet and should be heard or not? And officials will never protect the rights of citizens, they will always decide for whats most favorable for them! I begin to think that goverments should run on blockchain fully democratic within a framework, which ensures a basic law and regulation.

Educated in this context means to have an education in the subject where the decision is being made. In regards to politics, the minimum voting age should be increased back to 21 and require the voter to own property. Ownership of property serves two purposes, people that own property have more at stake by being governed and deserve a higher stake than someone who doesn't have property, and it acts a requirement that someone will have to learn how to require.

Uneducated people do not deserve a voice for subjects which they do not know anything about. When they're given a voice all they produce is noise.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
― Winston S. Churchill

And how would you practically manage that only in-the-subject-educated voters can vote? And you don't see any interest conflicts when only property holders can vote? The world was not made for an elite, it is for everyone and it's hypocrite to think educated people vote for the best solution suitable for everyone (for the greater good for themselves). And what has the ownership of property to do with the decision if let's say cannabis should be legal or not?

Coming back to the beginning, how would you define educated concerning this question? We know that cannabis has many medicinal benefits but there are people prone to develop mental and other health issues, when smoking too much. Further there is a massive amount of "taxes" going to the black market instead of the state. Further the war on drugs is extremely costly and the money would be probably better invested in education of proper use. Sorry to go off-topic a bit, but you see the problem here, who is educated in such a complex question?

This is a question of opinions and attitudes, calculating pros an cons which are perceived differenty by everyone, but everyone should be able to express their feelings. So it's for the government or politicians to present us the facts as genuine as possible in a manner where everyone can understand the topic. We need better and more reliable facts and less propaganda and false promises, thats what we need.

I really urge you to watch this video explaining Socrates views on democracy, as my arguments won't compare to Socrates criticisms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLJBzhcSWTk

The way I look at it, since everyone has the ability to own property there is no conflict of interest by only allowing property owners to vote and if someone can't figure out how to acquire property to increase their status in society they should not be able to make decisions that affects the lives and property of others. Similarly, why should non-property owners have the power to vote on policies that affect property owners, when they themselves own no property?

In my opinion this is a good measure. Maybe a better one would be an increased minimum age and a question on the poll "Are you sure you're qualified to make this decision? If you are not qualified, please do further research and come back to the next election." Of course voters could be instructed to lie, but it's better than what we have today where many people are advocating against even requiring voters to have a valid ID.

The government has no moral authority to say what an individual does with their own body and property as long as the individual is not stealing from, directly threatening or harming someone else. Politicians use fear mongering to bend the will of the people to vote on laws/policies that take rights away from minorities for the financial gain of their cronies, this is why we have a war on drugs. The tax analogy is one people use to persuade governments to legalize something that they have a natural right to do as a human being. The mob should not be able to decide what other people can and can't do.

Democracy has been idealized in society as the founding principal of the west, but what we really need is a Constitutional Republic, where the constitution is based solely on the natural rights of man(man as in mankind). Democracy in the USA has lead to millions of laws being written and enforced daily that violate the natural rights of citizens that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were drafted to protect. In Venezuela, democratic elections lead to a socialist dictator that ruined the economy and has left the population unable to feed themselves, had the voters been more educated on socialism they most likely wouldn't have voted for Hugo Chavez in the first place.

The governments only job should be defense and protecting the natural rights of all individuals in the country, anything else is a violation of human rights.