Is 'Democracy' like 'Equality' ?

[dimreepr]

19 hours ago, studiot said:

Well it would be helpful if you has indicated that your expansion comments were not in opposition to what I meant but additional to it.

I was responding to your assertion ( which I agreed with) that for practical operational reasons individuals were (and still are) called or elected to represent a whole bunch of people, usually geographically defined.

I am simply pointing out that historically many (most?) of these individuals actually only represented their own personal interests and noboby else's.

In a system where everyone has to vote, the representative and the voter will have the same 'self-interest', one being an extention of the other; the government would be formed from the cooperation of the most self-interested people, so to speak...

For instance, people with down syndrome would naturally vote for the most eloquent person (probably a fellow) that understood their need's; and one day, when the star's align, he would be bezzy mates with the big kid in the playground; only if everyone gets a chance at life/to vote... 😇

[swansont]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

In a system where everyone has to vote, the representative and the voter will have the same 'self-interest', one being an extention of the other; 

I think this is untrue, as evidenced by the fact that there are people who don’t get elected, having an opposing viewpoint on some issue. The winner is aligned with a majority of voters, but not all. 

If there is more than one issue, you will have people whose interests align on one issue but not another. A wealthy representative’s self-interest would not align with poor constituents on some economic matters, for example.

 

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

A wealthy representative’s self-interest would not align with poor constituents on some economic matters, for example.

Indeed, it wouldn't balance...

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, swansont said:

I think this is untrue, as evidenced by the fact that there are people who don’t get elected, having an opposing viewpoint on some issue. The winner is aligned with a majority of voters, but not all. 

If there is more than one issue, you will have people whose interests align on one issue but not another. A wealthy representative’s self-interest would not align with poor constituents on some economic matters, for example.

 

The way I see such a system working, is ground up not (ground down, pun intended) top down; IMO, even the economy would prosper.

As in my down syndrome example; it would be like tracing a drop of water down a pain of glass, or up, depending on how you interpret the metaphor 

[swansont]

38 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The way I see such a system working, is ground up not (ground down, pun intended) top down; IMO, even the economy would prosper.

The system you described can only exist if there is only one issue and everyone agrees on the approach. If that’s not the case, there will be representatives whose self-interest is not aligned with the voters’

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

The system you described can only exist if there is only one issue and everyone agrees on the approach. If that’s not the case, there will be representatives whose self-interest is not aligned with the voters’

I think we're talking past each other, my point is that, if everyone gets to vote, then everyone gets to present a menu...

[studiot]

33 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I think we're talking past each other, my point is that, if everyone gets to vote, then everyone gets to present a menu...

One issue that has not been raised about voting is how the 'winner' is decided.

In some systems I could end up 'voting' for the candidate I wished to vote against.

 

Life is never that simple.

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, studiot said:

Life is never that simple.

What makes you think, I think that?

[studiot]

16 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What makes you think, I think that?

My head hurts with all that thinking. I need a cool beer.

[Alysdexic]

What's this about equality? Nobody's equal. Equality is fake.

Dèmocraty ouht be destroyed as most people don't deserve an election or its offspring. What if one instead could grab power through a meritocratic oligarchy, punish all liars like parents and teachers and preachers, enforce breeding and bearing control by brains and looks, abolish constitutions and their amendments and codes as not being based on truth-accounting, and do away with every wer who is based in Family Guy?

There must be a best set of standards for natural, human, and civil rights and laws that inevitably exclude or forbid the dissentient. Utilitarianism treats everyone equally, which I would and do not, nor does reality, when inequal classes self-emerge. There must be dictation fro the best class to every class. Some would hav to go for the sake of progress. In my observations of how everyone talks (or soloicizes), this could be everyone below +1 sigma IQ, 115, 83% of the population. This includes law enforcement officers who aren't allowed to be too clever so they don't doubt or question their orders: google police IQ. And it most likely includes public teachers. On reddit and tumblr are 100s of testimonials of public teachers who belittle, chide, demote, cheat, ignore, insult, or otherwise abuse overachievers so that the other students don't look bad or for they're that ignorant. These teachers, who mostly fail further qualification exams, often must be corrected of a fact or a belief [by a student] and they react with dismissal at best. If this group no longer existed, the legislators would more likely agree on a heavy tax for breeders. If society discouraged breeding it should be motivated to further solutions for ageing-related disorders and decay, especially death itself. All formerly irreversibil disabilities, accidents, or losses should follow. A person may eventually choose one's stage of maturity, go back and forth easily as mood or need calls for like the immortal jellyfish. Then the exclusive definitions of classifications of humanity would break down.

(Did you know commonwealth, republic, and dèmocraty are the same word in three ytonges?)

[TheVat]

Hey, when they implement your controlled breeding program and extermination of the less sentient, what do you think your prospects will be?  Would you be "on the spectrum" by any chance?

What happens when your "best class" dictates that you climb in the boxcar?  

Edited November 23, 2023 by TheVat
slightly less venomous

[mistermack]

3 hours ago, Alysdexic said:

Dèmocraty ouht be destroyed

I'd vote for that !

[Alysdexic]

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

Would you be "on the spectrum" by any chance? 

Which? 

[ralfy]

In a way, yes, because it implies that each individual is equivalent, esp. in light of elections. In addition, it may be part of declarations that imply similar, like a Bill of Rights.