Summations Only

Yes, but so is your Cato cite. I don't see any links to Congressional records, contemporary news sources, or anything else.Citing someone else's assertions doesn't prove anything.

Hey frako. Yes, we would need safeguards. We don’t throw out all the things that we know are good like constitutions and bills of rights. The only thing that I am suggesting that we throw out or try to reduce is the incongruity between the opinion of the electorate and the actions of the government. That is what I see at the root of the protests. If these people who are protesting had a direct voice they would have little cause to be in the street protesting. Even with the safeguards we don’t let the teenagers vote.This is a key point. While I agree that we need safety nets and structure and stability, I disagree that countries would immediately fall into ruinous anarchy if we actually started to ask people what they wanted to do. Would you vote for 16 gov’t salaries for everyone? I understand fiscal responsibility as do you and the vast majority of the electorate of any given country. We understand it from a personal perspective. Consequences would still apply. You can’t just vote a new car for everyone because the bills still show up.The ideal is one where the finest of intellects serve as a guide and the electorate hold the reigns of power directly. Not really so far off from what we have now except for the disproportionate influence of the successful. The distortion of influence.The devil will be in the machinery. How do you ask everyone everything? Somehow you have to aggregate the pertinent issues and condense them into something that you and I can deal with. The reason that I think it is the right thing to do is because it seems to naturally continue the evolution of government.You have to be an optimist though. Since we all have this great propensity for having faith in things we should have faith in our own nature. We should learn to fly.

Why would you want to?Mob rule isn't pretty.

It is not a mob when everyone has a voice. I would want to because I support the notion that people should actually have an equal say in the affairs of government.We should, eventually, be able to do away with politicians completely but the beauracrats will likely have to stay.

This time it's Dallas

quote:

---

We implore all people to:

​

1. Refrain from Buying or Selling any goods or services including but not limited to, any petroleum products, consumer goods or bank transactions; starting at 12:01 am to 11:59pm on November 30th, 2011.

​

2. Refrain from working for a wage starting at 12:01 am to 11:59pm on November 30th, 2011 excluding those individuals that provide emergency and necessary functions including but not limited to Police, Fire and Medical personnel.

​

3. Join or form local groups to peacefully protest against the above stated elements.

---

Also, OWS are planning to march on Washington:

quote:

---

The 20 mile a day/2 week march from Liberty Square to DC is set to leave this Wednesday, November 9 at noon. On Wednesday we'll be leaving Liberty Square and marching to the New York Waterway/Hudson River Ferry and onward to Elizabeth, NJ. This is our first stop. Everyone is welcome to join this two week march. If you'd like to participate, but can't commit for two weeks you're welcome to join us for the day or help send us off!

​

The march is being organized by a few of us here at OWS. We will be in DC by Nov 23 for the Congressional Super Committee meeting. This committee has the power to keep the Bush tax cuts (that only benefit the top 1%) or let them expire. We want to be there to fight for the 99%! We will also be connecting with Occupy Philly and Occupy Baltimore along the route, and, of course, Occupy DC!

---

At least Cato's assertions asserted information. Your assertions asserted nothing; nada; not even anything relative to Cato's assertions.I'm waiting to learn from you what it is about Cato's assertions that you consider to be false.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In other words. You got nothing.

Except that they didn't. I don't have to prove that they're false, Buz. I simply have to point out that neither you nor Cato demonstrated them to be true. It continues to astound me that, after all this time, you don't understand how positions are supported by evidence.

One interesting aspect of representative democracy (at least to me) is that they can pass a law that is beneficial to society that would probably not pass a general vote amongst the public. For example, civil rights laws may not have passed if put in front of the general public, and certainly not in the South. In some ways, we expect a representative government to pass laws that are good for the country, even if they are unpopular. While we may distrust government in some ways, we distrust the judgement of the hoi polloi even more.On top of that, representative democracies protect us from our own military. If not for an elected "head of state" there would be nothing stopping a general from becoming a dictator.

It was not just the South; we tend to forget the events that happened in Newark and Hoboken and Manhattan and Detroit and Indianapolis and Chicago and Harlem and Rochester and Cleveland and York, PA and North Omaha, NE and Camden, NJ.

The easiest way to try this form of goverment is a small change in referendum laws.In my country if you gather 4000 signatures to fight a law the state hasto provide you with the time to collect 40 000 signatures after that the state hasto put the law on a referendum where the people vote if they like it or not.The simple change would be that in the same fasion one could propose a new law instead of taking down an old one and the people would vote if they like it or not. The second little change would have to be that this law automatically passes parliament and is in acted according to our laws. the law comes in effect 30 days after it is published in a free form of paper (the paper only has laws, in it that have been toyed with and companies that go bankrupt so that every person and debt holder is informed of either, u just have to read the blasted thing. )

So in other words, we don’t, as a whole, know what is good for us. Yet, as individuals we do or that some know better than others. This may be true but I do not think that the rules of mob mentality necessarily apply to a group of individuals expressing their opinions in private and one at a time.I am not sure that I agree that civil rights legislation would not have passed when it did had it been put to a referendum at the time. You and jar may be right but I think that the whole paradigm would change under a system of direct democracy. For example, I may have voted conservative in the last federal election because I liked their economic policies but now I find myself in complete opposition to their crime policy. If I had an actual say on both issues the vote would be different.Chose a current issue like tax reform. What would the results be if the US had a referendum today about instituting a progressive income tax or universal health care? What would the vote have been regarding the invasion of Iraq? What would the vote be when the question is Do you want to go over there and kill these people? I see all kinds of problems and challenges with the implementation of direct democracy. They would have to be sorted during a reasonable pace of change. I am speaking in big sweeping theoretical terms. If everyone had a say, would the armies get bigger or would they disappear? Why should we collapse in a vortex of selfishness? Most of the people that I know are good people and they want what is good for other people. The perception of fairness is instinctive.If our governments actions were a direct and theoretically perfect reflection of our citizens opinions would the world not be a better place?

I don't believe so. Being informed well enough to make good decisions is a full time job, and most people don't have the time to be informed about everything important. Most people today don't have an informed opinion about climate change.Also, in many cases, the opinion of one expert scientist/economist/engineer is worth more than the opinion of any number of people who form opinions based on their personal world view.Direct government is great for picking the color of the flowers on the White House lawn, or whether some street in VA ought to be named after Jefferson Davis. But for complicated issues where the outcome makes a difference, I think we are better served by paying the right people to make informed decisions if we aren't going to inform ourselves.

In big sweeping terms, should we heed the will of the people on every issue? It is a long way from being physically possible but is it a good idea at all?I am not going to go out and gather 40k signatures to bring some issue to a vote but I will vote.

When the straight man says lines like this, the comedian half of the team is superfluous. The audience is already doubled over.