On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 12:32 AM, Juho Laatu <juho4...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 8.7.2011, at 8.55, Russ Paielli wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Juho Laatu <juho4...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> >> What didi people think before the nowadays generally agreed idea that all >> countries should be democratic. Maybe some idealists discussed the >> possibility that one day ordinary people might rule the country. I'm sure >> many others laughed at them and told them that such changes are dangerous >> and will never work, particularly since they are not in the interest of the >> current rulers, nor any other rulers that might overthrow the current >> rulers. So reforms are just a joke and idealistic dreams like democracy will >> never work. There would quickly be some new rulers that would kick the poor >> commoners out and probably even kill them. >> >> > I'll probably get a bit off topic here, but I think it is important to > understand that democracy itself is almost worthless without > Constitutionally guaranteed individual rights (as distinct from bogus "group > rights"). That's what the American revolution was all about. The founders > certainly did not want a "pure" democracy. They know very well where that > majority rule would lead a tyranny of the majority. That's why they gave us > the Bill of Rights. > > Let me just correct that sentence: They know very well that majority rule would lead to a tyranny of the majority. > > I think we are on our way from laws of jungle to something more civilized. > We can invent better and more fine tuned models on how we should operate in > order to achieve whatever we want to achieve. This is not completely off > topic since decision making methods are one essential component and tool in > making our societies work well. > > > The main problem with our political system today is that far too few people > understand what freedom and individual rights mean. The Bill of Rights is > just the start of it. Property rights are essential to any real notion of > freedom, and they are also essential to prosperity. When half the population > thinks the gov't should take from those who have "too much" and give to > others who "don't have enough," we are in trouble. Yet that's exactly where > we are. The greatest election methods in the world cannot save us from those > kind of voters. > > > Yes, not too much of that, although most societies of course expect those > that are well off to take care of those that would otherwise be in trouble. > > Yes, I agree. But the well off should *voluntarily* take of the less fortunate. They should not be forced. I find it ironic that secular Leftists are constantly trying to impose Christian morality on us. Well, not all of Christian morality. They have no use for the sexual morality part of it, but they are gung-ho for what they consider to be the economic morality of Christianity. But they get that completely wrong, of course. Jesus preached voluntary charity -- not gov't redistribution of wealth! The two are very different. There are also solid practical reasons for not forcing the rich to be "charitable." For one, they can usually do more for the general good by running successful businesses that employ people. When you think about it, a rich person who has the lion's share of his wealth invested wisely is actually doing great things for society. If his investment wasn't providing jobs and things that people want or need, then the investment would not be successful. So long as they live reasonably modestly, they aren't "taking" any more from society than most other people. I could go on about how the recipients of public "charity" consider it their "right," hence have little incentive to get off of it, but I'll leave it at that. I need to get to bed. Good night. --Russ P. > Are some CEOs overpaid? Yes, I think some are. I happen to believe that > some CEOs and boards are ripping off their own shareholders, and I would > like to see the gov't do something to give shareholders more say in the > matter. But the solution is not to just arbitrarily "raise taxes on the > rich," as so many want to do. People who don't understant the distinction > are dangerous, because they fundamentally believe that the gov't really owns > everything and let's us keep some of it out of sheer benevolence. If the > gov't really owns everything, it owns you too. > > > One interesting question is if government is considered to be "us" or > "them" or "it". I tend to think that the government and rest of the society > (like companies) should serve the people, not the other way around. In a > well working democracy we can decide how those structures serve us in the > best possible way (allowing e.g. freedom and wealth to all). > > > > >> Today many of us live in democracies and people can make changes if they >> so want. Actually that was the case already before the age of democracy. >> Changes were more difficult to achieve then. Now making such improvements >> should be comparably easy. And despite of having democracy the world is not >> perfect yet. Improvements are still possible. The key problem is actually, >> as you say, to agree on the targets, and make a model that majority of the >> rulers (voters) agree with, and that looks plausible enough so that people >> can start to believe in that change. >> >> > The fundamental problem now is that too many of us actually want to go back > to a state in which gov't is our master rather than our servant. If gov't > can arbitrarily take from you when it thinks you have too much, it is the > master, and we are the servants. Why is that so hard for some to understand? > > > I think this is a chicken and egg problem. If government is "us", then all > the money it takes is because we have agreed to proceed that way. In > practice things are more complicated, and governments easily become money > hungry beasts that take and spend all the money they can grab. > > If we go back to the EM topics, good methods need good and simple and > credible models and philosophies to allow regular people (voters) to make > sensible decisions on which routes to take. One does not work well without > the other. > > Juho > > > > --Russ P. > > -- > http://RussP.us > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info > > > > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info > > -- http://RussP.us
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
