Register
Events
Popular
More
Post #1
My thesis is this:
As a thread evolves and the subject doesn't turn to nazism, some sort of conclusion is usually found by the use of wikipedia articles and other sources.
Politicians on the other hand rely on their personal knowledge and their advisors.
If a person makes a statement based on assumptions, wouldn't the other members destroy his argument immediately?
And then there's the whole hivemind factor; if it's not good for the hive, it's not good for anyone.
But another reason to doubt this, is that if the writers aren't educated in a subject and don't know about certain variables, it might create a false conclusion. This also goes for politics.
What's your opinion?
Related articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_making
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_decision_making
-
-
Neither, only the people educated in the decision can make the best one, however in real life this mostly falls to the "dumb" public, who are in no way presented an unbaised choice or even given slightly unbiased information, especially with most of mass media relying on confirmation bias (only print it if it agrees with you, and with the public generally forgetting things which do not agree with their current beliefs)
-
the internet IS the general public, thus representing our views.
politicians can be bribed, corrupt.
simple, really.
-
But then again, the general public aren't experts, they might not know everything about a subject.
-
I think the general public and politicians are about equally qualified. As in neither one should be making decisions that affect everyone.
I believe that when a decision needs to be made, highly qualified people in its subject should be the ones that get together to reach a conclusion. Sort of like how Valve is run (not that I'm trying to be a Valve fan-boy, I just recently read an article that relates to what I'm saying). Instead of having one person (or one group, such as congress) that always has power over everything (not full power, but any amount of power at all), when someone is needed, they are temporarily put in charge, and when their work is done, they are removed. So for example, the oil pipeline bill that we keep trying to pass. Instead of having the same people bicker over it repeatedly, we find economists, ecologists, and whoever else we may need to discuss the financial aspects, ecological aspects, and anything else we need to discuss. Once a conclusion is reached, I'm not really sure how we'd decide whether it passes or not. If we let the people vote, they could undo all that work, and if we leave it to politicians, they could be "lobbied". If we leave all of it up to the professionals in their respective fields, they'd essentially be treated as politicians anyway. But I still feel that'd be a much better alternative to what we have now (in the U.S.).
-
Anyone who thinks that large groups of anonymous people on the internet can collectively act as a good decision maker needs to get off of their pedestal and go outside. Almost everything I have ever seen on the internet leads me to believe it is a hopeless barren place full of assholes who do shit they would never dare pull in real life because they are protected by the distance and anonymity of the internet.
If you don't believe me then take this example:
In Call of Duty (just an example this happens in the majority of online games) you constantly hear people calling each other "faggot" and "useless piece of shit", and it's not uncommon to hear people say "go kill yourself" and things like that. If you were playing a competitive game in real life, let's say soccer, would you dare call another player who you don't even know a "useless piece of shit"? No, because you know that they are right infront of you and they can do anything from getting you kicked out of the game to knocking your teeth out.
These risks are nonexistant on the internet so people go fucking crazy, because there's no consequences. I do not believe that such an environment is a breeding ground for good decisions.
That's not to say that politicians are any good at decision making either. They can be bribed, they're constantly being lobbied, in the US they've got their head so far up their respective party's ass they can see out it's mouth, and they're opposed by people who are exactly the same, creating a deadlock. But at least with them there is an air of civility.
-
The public can be misled and highly uninformed about a particular subject, as well as influenced heavily by the bandwagon effect. Public opinion can also be easily swayed by lies and misinformation (look at the Trayvon Martin case for example). Politicians have generally studied business and law extensively and they do in fact possess a superior understanding of these issues than the general public.
I believe a step in the right direction to fixing the issue with corrupt politicians would be to get rid of political donations and reconsider term limits. Direct democracy on the other hand would be a terrible idea. Instead of corporations donating to politicians they would find other ways to abuse the system such as bribing the media instead to feed people's heads with lies.
We elect qualified representatives to make decisions, uninformed people are not capable enough to consider the huge amounts of variables that go into these issues and make the best possible choice. I'd feel more comfortable with elected representatives who are qualified (academic credentials and experience) to make these decisions than trusting overconfident know-nothings and 14 year olds on the internet with getting a direct say with critical issues.
It would be tragically hilarious if people on the internet got a direct say in what we do. I could picture the minimum wage being tripled on day one with the teenagers in control, sending unemployment into the stratosphere and causing the economy to crash face-first.
-
Representative democracy exists for a reason.
That reason is because direct democracy is shit, and the majority vote tends to be a racist, homophobic, theocratic asshole.
Proposition 8 is what happened when we took politicians out of the equation. Super great bill, that one.
-
One of the worst this state's ever had, after the proposition that slashed property taxes.
-
The people don't know what's good for them, and politicians are capable of making decisions based on twisted agendas, and may ignore the people who they represent. Still, I would trust a politician over the internet for decision making. The majority of the people on the internet are probably not even in their 30s, and many of them would have literally no experience with politics or how the system works. Give administrative power to the internet for any country and it would just collapse straight away I'm willing to bet.
Really though, these decisions should be debated on and acted upon by actual experts, not elected representatives.
-
As far as policy and law goes? Politicians. Because that's their career. But the politicians need to be in line with the demands of the people. In America, only the Supreme Court should be making radically different or highly controversial decision- in congress, law and policy should be by the will of the people- a "the people command and the government obeys" type of deal. The executive, Mr. President, should have no say in the matter, since he exists to enforce congressional and judicial decisions, not to make policy himself.
I guess what I'm saying is that most politicians will know better than any one person in the general public, hence more than the public itself, usually, because that's their goal in life, as is. But the people as a whole should be involved enough and informed enough to determine for themselves, and government should reflect that in its policy. Only the regulatory body of the court should exist to provide counter-majoritarian opinions, as a moderator to prevent majority dictatorship.
And I think that when you really get down to it, that's not far off from the intent of the American government structure as was intended when it was created, if you assume that the post-Constitution government was more or less an evolution of the government under the Articles of Confederation. The intent was to keep that populist/states' rights powers while creating a stronger government that limits any one or the entire group from becoming abusive or overpowered. Hence the balance of powers.
From the get go, though, the system was fucked with and abused so who knows.
My point is, that a politician should be subservient to his constituents' popular will- this shit like CISPA, NADA, etc, should never even be an option. The only time a politician should have supreme lawful power over the populace should be in the regulatory actions of the Courts. Politicians need to make laws based on popular support, want, and need- not increasing of state power, subjugation, or unnecessary limitation. This is why I love the Supreme Court so much- now a days, they're the only branch of the Federal Government that really tends to support this idea, when you have Congress looking to enforce their ideology on people and limit our liberties and rights, and the president looking to increase his power and his oversight.
-
The problem is, that the wide public is even more infuenceable.
On top of that it is more often than not uninformed and lacks a will to inform itself. Obviously direct democracy elements are good and needed. And law making processes should be more transparent if possible, but overall I would not want the wide public make the majority of decisions.
Wide public decisions might work in small communes where everyone knows each other and where these decisions only impact said community. But once you begin to increase the amount of people as well as the disconnect between the people you get problematic voting.
-
I don't think the internet itself should have any say in policy. I mean, come on. http://www.whatdoestheinternetthink.net/
Just type in Hitler, or genocide.
-
There was also that bill to make a bullet train we could never afford.
-
I'm not sure you can use that site as a legitimate claim.
Edited:
Does this thread make you feel the same way?
So what if we remove the anonymity? And people would have to stand for what they meant?
And using COD is a low shot, do you honestly expect anything intelligent to come out of that game?
Edited:
But isn't the internet an excellent channel for this? It's fast, simple and concrete.
-
The bavarian federal minister for culture and media visited us during the development of an alpha and
he had absolutely no idea what the hell we where doing or what videogames actually are.
Even though, elements like UI and final meshes where included.
He is just representing his bureau... but not really understanding it.
A collective knows more about specific topics than a single "expert"
-
http://www.usnews.com/education/arti...l-on-education
I agree with your point on the Supreme Court.
-
It's a complete catch22, politicians are the people intelligent enough to make decisions but they can be bribed to fuck over the citizens, but at the same time the majority of citizens are fucking retarded and should in no way whatsoever be allowed to make decisions that affect other people.
-
But what about experts on the internet?
-
Wow, all the republican candidates I put in were around 60% positive while Obama was 72% negative. How exactly is this thing calculated?
-
I believe if a politician is real and puts the people above himself we should listen to him/her.
But then there is people in general.... People can influence stupid decision making.
-
Majority of the public will always be dumb, majority of politicians will always be dumb.
However, I do think that forums are a better way of debating than live discussion, simply because of the ability to source claims. In a live discussion you always hit the wall of not being able to verify your information, something that can be done easily and on the fly on the internet. Is it perfect? Not fucking close. But it's better than not being able to at all.
-
Well that's only in the US of A really.
-
Well no, a lot of people in Europe really hate Gypsies. And Muslims.
I wouldn't call that an improvement over the US.
-
“To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality." ― Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
People ought to be left to make their own decisions, even if they make the wrong ones.
-
Politicians.
Of course they have be receptive to what the general public wants, but they should protect minorities and keep the public from destroying itself.
An elected representative can devote their time to studying the issues and listening to testimony of experts, while the average Joe makes sheet metal in a factory. Most people just don't have the time to go in depth about every issue and aren't really qualified to make an informed decision that affects the entire country.
-
In an ideal world, politicians should be well read and make decisions that are as realistically free from bias as is attainable.
Fortunately this is not the case, but like PvtCupcakes said, most average people just don't know enough to make an informed decision. On that precedent alone I think politicians are a more viable choice.
-
Their decisions are going to be influenced by the bandwagon effect/mob mentality and lacking an in-depth understanding of what they're voting on. I'd much rather have the responsibility go to people who are qualified (with education and experience) to make big decisions and understand both their short and long term effects, rather than assigning that responsibility to people who haven't got a fucking clue.
-
Personally, I think the Internet/people would make a better decision, because in my opinion the people are the ones who, mainly have to live with the change. If the government made up an idea, then held a public vote, rather than an internal parliament vote, I think the country might be more people friendly, or would the country be biased towards the main ethnic group living there? That's the delema.
-
I'm not sure, although politicians can be corrupt at times, the internet is usually fueled by mob mentality when it comes to debates. People usually go along with whatever is popular on the site they are on.
-
I'm not sure if anybody has thought of this, but isn't the internet mainly populated by certain subsets of the general public. You could say that the majority of the internet is united in a particular opinion, but does the majority of the entire public agree with it?
Just an example which may or may not be absolutely correct: The majority of people I see around the internet are quite liberal with socialist leanings, so around the time of the last UK general election I wasn't surprised that I hardly saw any support for the Conservatives online. But as we saw, when it came to the polls, the conservatives had the most votes, gained a load of parliamentary seats and formed a coalition with the lib-dems to take power, etc. (Yeah I know only 36% voted for the conservatives, so there were a hell of a lot of people who didn't want them either. It's the best example I can come up with right now)
From what I saw at the time, if it was up to the internet to choose the party running the country, either the lib-dems or (from what I saw, probably more likely) Labour would have won, even though the general public didn't vote for them.
Is it right to assume that the internet knows what's best for everyone, including the people who don't discuss things on the internet?
-
Yes, the people who frequent forums, Reddit, or 4chan are not even close to a good representative sample of the general population.
That's why polling organizations don't just post their poll on Reddit and go by thumbs up.
-
That's like picking between taking a shot of arsenic or cyanide. Both kill you just the same.
-
The consensus you're going to reach really depends on whereabouts on the internet you're looking. Unless you manage to get EVERYONE on the internet to pitch in, it's unlikely you're going to get results that aren't skewed to one particular viewpoint or the other.
Also, consulting wikipedia was mentioned in the OP. Isn't that then just leaving things in the hands of people who write wikipedia articles? Wikipedia isn't a creditable or referencable academic source for a reason.
-
What does citing sources have to do with government? And why, if you are making an argument in front of a congress or parliament, would you be unable to prepare sources to cite. Unless you are talking about some sort of debate. But I have never heard of a government based on debate.
What does this have to do with the thread?
Edited:
Not everybody has access to the internet so this would disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of people right away.
-
everything should be based on debate
but then i get off to it so i guess im a bit biased
-
This has absolutely nothing to do with anything. It's a joke site with joke calculations.
-
No no no, I mean people should be left to make their own decisions, not anyone else's. No person or body of people suddenly gets the legitimate claim to the monopoly of coercion, unless a society is collectively silly enough to give it to them. I believe moral condemnation should be reserved purely for acts that aren't consented to, and it's up to each individual, not a body of supposed professionals, or a monarch, or even >50% of the population, to decide when this is the case.
The problems of anarchism are limited to coordination problems, not problems of coercion. I'm actually going to be writing my dissertation on how the coordination problem can be solved by the anarchist shortly.
Edited:
My point is, either way, even if the internet could be made into the perfect polling station, its resulting government would still be an inherently immoral system.
-
I havn't read any replies, but this is just what makes politics shit.
Politics works ofcourse, but not in a good way anywhere.
Especially in the USA, you can choose between the republicans or the democrats and they have their opinions.
Politics aren't personal at all, i know there's no much better ways but at least they could do the system a little better.
We have it somewhat better here in sweden, but not much
-
The fact still stands that not everybody has access to the internet, so it cannot be used to make government decisions as if it were some sort of direct democracy (ignoring the fact that direct democracy is shit, which Lankist explained at the start of this thread).
![[Seed Eater]'s Avatar](image.php?s=2ebcfaca9275e7f9a1d8745067e96fbe&u=435930&dateline=1365822529 "[Seed Eater]'s Avatar")
