invite response« First « Previous Comments 51 - 55 of 55 Search these comments
Dan8267
2012 Aug 6, 12:53am
And who will be the "WatchDog" for those writing the software?
No one. Dan is completely unbiased and has all of our best interests at heart! ;-)
Everyone. The software should be transparent and the code publicly available.
Transparency is superior to trust. It cannot be corrupted or broken.
freak80
2012 Aug 6, 1:54am
The Media practices "Manufactured Consent" in that they only allow a debate to happen in a narrow band of "Acceptable" subject matter.
How else could we get from "homosexual behavior is a psyhological disorder" to "those who question homosexual behavior have a psychological disorder" in only 15 years?
People are sheep. And the "powers that be" know it.
justme
2012 Aug 6, 10:49am
justme says
I cannot agree with this. Do you not understand that if we replace the legislature with random sheep then all the sociopath wolves (think lobbyists and donors) will simply surround the sheep and threaten to tear them to pieces unless they do as they are told?
Justme, I gotta disagree. "Jury Duty" Citizens generally didn't want the job to begin with, and they may or may not wish to be re-elected. In addition, they aren't practiced liars and they'll easily get caught if their $39k/year legislative job suddenly allows them the ability to buy a vacation home, a BMW, and a month-long vacation to Monte Carlo.
Your argument is that random selection of lawmakers should work because random selection of citizens for jury duty generally works pretty well.
BUT people who are on jury duty generally do not get paid by criminals for finding them innocent, nor do they get paid by the proscution to find people guilty.
That is one heck of a big difference. And I think that is why your argument is flawed.
justme
2012 Aug 6, 10:59am
So let me get this straight:
You rip into the proposed system of sortition based on what you THINK will happen but then declare that our current system is definitely failing.
And what are the lobbyists going to do to people who don't need campaign contributions, btw? It is clear you haven't even thought this out.
No, you didn't get it straight. Pointing out that the proposal of random legislator selection is even worse than what we currently have is a completely defensible position to have.
By the way, you seem to think money in the form of "campaign contributions" is the only way to corrupt a legislator. A randomly picked legislator can be corrupted in any number of different ways:
For example, they can be promised a fat job by a private corporation if they vote a certain way. Or they can be threatened with loss of their old job unless they obey. The possibilities for coercion and/or payoffs are endless.
What does that tell you of the man.
He was not among the "Sheeple"... He lived and died by his convictions!
« First « Previous Comments 51 - 55 of 55 Search these comments
Think about it:
Who is it that gets power? Nice people, or sociopaths?
The people who get power are generally those who are willing to do almost *anything* to get it, no matter how devious.
I really don't understand this humanistic belief that "good government" is just around the corner. I'd say the belief is no more "rational" than religious belief.
The only thing good about Democracy is that we can have a "bloodless revolution" every two years if necessary. As the old saying goes, "politicians are like diapers...they should be changed often, and for the same reason." We can at least replace the current sociopaths with different sociopaths every election cycle.