|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On September 26 2017 06:46 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 06:43 Nebuchad wrote:On September 26 2017 06:37 LegalLord wrote:On September 26 2017 06:36 Nebuchad wrote:On September 26 2017 06:28 LegalLord wrote:On September 26 2017 05:57 sc-darkness wrote:On September 26 2017 05:35 Velr wrote:Yeah, from a swiss viewpoint this whole "coalition" stuff seems, uhm, unnessesary. But well, diffrent countries diffrent systems, we are all still around  So what's the ideal? Referendums? Having a small, wealthy country that doesn't have issues of scale always is a huge boon. With the presumption that we agree "direct" democracy is a good thing. Practically or as a virtue? Probably both but depends what you mean by that. It's harder to put in place than other alternatives so less practical in that sense, but it's worth the effort. I mean, do you mean that we agree that practically, we should actively work towards a system where the direct political viewpoints of individuals become policy - or in the sense of a virtue, as in you want everyone to be represented as well as possible even if that doesn't end up being realistic?
I'd say both. Typically what happens is not exactly "the direct political viewpoints of individuals become policy" but rather "we will require your approval before we decide to do most stuff that matters", but the sentiment is the same.
|
On September 26 2017 06:36 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 06:28 LegalLord wrote:On September 26 2017 05:57 sc-darkness wrote:On September 26 2017 05:35 Velr wrote:Yeah, from a swiss viewpoint this whole "coalition" stuff seems, uhm, unnessesary. But well, diffrent countries diffrent systems, we are all still around So what's the ideal? Referendums? Having a small, wealthy country that doesn't have issues of scale always is a huge boon. With the presumption that we agree "direct" democracy is a good thing. Recognizing that we had good conditions to create a system that works well shouldn't be a freepass for not even trying. It's worth an attempt.
I'd not even consider Switzerland as an example of democracy. If you go have a referendum tomorrow: "Should everyone get an iPhone?", what do you think the result is going to be? Referendums only work if you limit them to highly educated people, and even that could fail. That's why we elect politicians to follow policies. Some fail, others succeed. Still better than relying on some random people to make the good decision.
Just as a recent example, you failed to match up pension age for both genders.
|
On September 26 2017 06:53 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 06:36 Nebuchad wrote:On September 26 2017 06:28 LegalLord wrote:On September 26 2017 05:57 sc-darkness wrote:On September 26 2017 05:35 Velr wrote:Yeah, from a swiss viewpoint this whole "coalition" stuff seems, uhm, unnessesary. But well, diffrent countries diffrent systems, we are all still around So what's the ideal? Referendums? Having a small, wealthy country that doesn't have issues of scale always is a huge boon. With the presumption that we agree "direct" democracy is a good thing. Recognizing that we had good conditions to create a system that works well shouldn't be a freepass for not even trying. It's worth an attempt. I'd not even consider Switzerland as an example of democracy. If you go have a referendum tomorrow: "Should everyone get an iPhone?", what do you think the result is going to be? Referendums only work if you limit them to highly educated people, and even that could fail. Just as a recent example, you failed to match up pension age for both genders.
There is no direction in your post. First you tell me that Switzerland isn't a democracy to you, which is nonsense. Then you put forward a scenario that couldn't happen and insist on the need for people to be educated, ignoring that it gives incentive to have an educated population, which is a good thing. And you conclude with a very superficial look on a divisive question and take this as proof of... I'm not even sure what?
|
I think you just get defensive as a Swiss so you start misrepresenting my post completely.
1. I never said Switzerland isn't a democracy. I just say it's not the example of democracy we should look for. Mass referendums is a disaster waiting to happen.
2. Divisive question? Not really. It's provocative but if you do that experiment, you will quickly see what a failure mass referendums is. It's good once in a while but it's in no way a regime you should have constantly. Also, it was an example when people think about their interests and not actually what makes sense.
Just imagine the whole of TL voting for StarCraft balance patches vs Blizzard making balance patches. It's similar.
TL - your ordinary people
Blizzard - imagine they're "elected politicians"
I'm not a fan of Blizzard but I doubt community can do much better. Only a few individuals maybe.
|
On September 26 2017 07:05 sc-darkness wrote:
I think you just get defensive as a Swiss so you start misrepresenting my post completely.
1. I never said Switzerland isn't a democracy. I just say it's not the example of democracy we should look for. Mass referendums is a disaster waiting to happen.
2. Divisive question? Not really. It's provocative but if you do that experiment, you will quickly see what a failure mass referendums is. It's good once in a while but it's in no way a regime you should have constantly. Also, it was an example when people think about their interests and not actually what makes sense.
Just imagine the whole of TL voting for StarCraft balance patches vs Blizzard making balance patches. It's similar.
TL - your ordinary people
Blizzard - imagine they're "elected politicians"
I'm not a fan of Blizzard but I doubt community can do much better. Only a few individuals maybe.
Your post reads as I read it. Don't pass your failure to communicate as my misrepresentation. The divisive question was the recent vote on pensions, not the iPhone scenario. Btw we recently rejected basic income, which is more money than is required for everyone to buy an iPhone.
Absent from your post is the argument as to why mass referendums is a failure. It's just asserted, I can't really argue against it. I will say that we've been doing that for a while and we seem to be okay, so the "quickly" part seems dubious, at least.
|
There is no alternative to political participation systems. There are no stable control systems to the dynamic nature of people, which is why every non-liberal political and social-economic system has failed and will fail. People can learn and adapt from the inside, they can't be controlled from the outside forever without provoking a catastrophe.
|
On September 26 2017 07:17 Nebuchad wrote:
Your post reads as I read it. Don't pass your failure to communicate as my misrepresentation.
Great proof. Are you feeling like you're some sort of god to assert what's what based on how you read it?
On September 26 2017 07:17 Nebuchad wrote:
The divisive question was the recent vote on pensions, not the iPhone scenario
Good, now we can see that Switzerland's overhyped referendums don't actually work better than other systems as soon as you get a question which isn't so straightforward.
On September 26 2017 07:17 Nebuchad wrote:
Absent from your post is the argument as to why mass referendums is a failure. It's just asserted, I can't really argue against it. I will say that we've been doing that for a while and we seem to be okay, so the "quickly" part seems dubious, at least.
Well, I've already given the iPhone referendum as an example. Also, the pension age referendum you've recently had. If you want more, then I can quickly point you to the Brexit referendum. They all suffer from a similar problem - lack of information and education, lack of judgement about long-term effects, lack of sense about what's achievable.
Referendums are NOT a cure. They're just tools, which when used right and at the right time, could be nice. Not to be mistaken with daily/monthly referendums. You can't ask people questions which they need to be experts in.
|
On September 26 2017 07:35 sc-darkness wrote:
Good, now we can see that Switzerland's overhyped referendums don't actually work better than other systems as soon as you get a question which isn't so straightforward.
As already stated, you haven't demonstrated that, you have just asserted it. I don't even know why this is supposed to prove that a referendum system doesn't work in your view.
"Great proof. Are you feeling like you're some sort of god to assert what's what based on how you read it?"
What you wrote: I'd not even consider Switzerland as an example of democracy.
What you meant to write: I'd not even consider Switzerland as the ideal of democracy we should strive for.
If you're ready to go to "omg you're arrogant" rather than admit you made a small mistake on something this benign, why are we even discussing issues.
|
Read my last two paragraphs to see why I'm against mass referendums. Then, if you can, argue why that's not the case. The rest is just personal attacks between me and you.
|
On September 26 2017 07:35 sc-darkness wrote:
Well, I've already given the iPhone referendum as an example. Also, the pension age referendum you've recently had. If you want more, then I can quickly point you to the Brexit referendum.
The funny thing with people like you who argue this way against referendums is that you start with the idea that there is necessarily a good answer and a bad one; and of course, you're clever enough to see the good one, but sadly the majority of the people are too stupid to see it. How convenient...
|
On September 26 2017 06:53 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 06:36 Nebuchad wrote:On September 26 2017 06:28 LegalLord wrote:On September 26 2017 05:57 sc-darkness wrote:On September 26 2017 05:35 Velr wrote:Yeah, from a swiss viewpoint this whole "coalition" stuff seems, uhm, unnessesary. But well, diffrent countries diffrent systems, we are all still around So what's the ideal? Referendums? Having a small, wealthy country that doesn't have issues of scale always is a huge boon. With the presumption that we agree "direct" democracy is a good thing. Recognizing that we had good conditions to create a system that works well shouldn't be a freepass for not even trying. It's worth an attempt. I'd not even consider Switzerland as an example of democracy. If you go have a referendum tomorrow: "Should everyone get an iPhone?", what do you think the result is going to be? Referendums only work if you limit them to highly educated people, and even that could fail. That's why we elect politicians to follow policies. Some fail, others succeed. Still better than relying on some random people to make the good decision. Just as a recent example, you failed to match up pension age for both genders.
Nobody except the laziest, most egoistic individuals would vote yes in any first (and maybe even second, this is such a basic concept even former soviet republics should get it right) world country because most people realize the purchase of iphones would be financed from their taxes. Swiss society is among the best educated in the world, you can trust it to vote reasonably on general issues.
I do agree that direct democracy can result in poor decisions due to emotional or uneducated voting though, but I think the Swiss are in such a comfortable situation that they won't get too many opportunities to "fuck up" their votes in the next few decades.
|
On September 26 2017 07:48 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 07:35 sc-darkness wrote:
Well, I've already given the iPhone referendum as an example. Also, the pension age referendum you've recently had. If you want more, then I can quickly point you to the Brexit referendum. The funny thing with people like you who argue this way against referendums is that you start with the idea that there is necessarily a good answer and a bad one; and of course, you're clever enough to see the good one, but sadly the majority of the people are too stupid to see it. How convenient...
So was Brexit a good outcome from that referendum? Based on what? Having extra 350 million pounds for NHS which is NOT going to happen? Immigration will be greatly reduced (also debunked by leavers themselves)?
How can you vote in such a referendum when lies are spread at a massive level?!
|
On September 26 2017 07:47 sc-darkness wrote:
Read my last two paragraphs to see why I'm against mass referendums. Then, if you can, argue why that's not the case. The rest is just personal attacks between me and you.
Do you not see how "Switzerland is not even a democracy" may stop the conversation with swiss people until that is cleared up? If you made the same statement with regards to germany, i would also demand that you either expound on that or retract your statement before we can talk about some technical details that you suddenly care about very much after making a sweeping generalization without backing it up in any way.
If you make a sweeping and controversial statement, you should be willing to defend it. If you are not willing to do that, either don't make that statement, or apologize afterwards.
On September 26 2017 07:49 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 06:53 sc-darkness wrote:On September 26 2017 06:36 Nebuchad wrote:On September 26 2017 06:28 LegalLord wrote:On September 26 2017 05:57 sc-darkness wrote:On September 26 2017 05:35 Velr wrote:Yeah, from a swiss viewpoint this whole "coalition" stuff seems, uhm, unnessesary. But well, diffrent countries diffrent systems, we are all still around So what's the ideal? Referendums? Having a small, wealthy country that doesn't have issues of scale always is a huge boon. With the presumption that we agree "direct" democracy is a good thing. Recognizing that we had good conditions to create a system that works well shouldn't be a freepass for not even trying. It's worth an attempt. I'd not even consider Switzerland as an example of democracy. If you go have a referendum tomorrow: "Should everyone get an iPhone?", what do you think the result is going to be? Referendums only work if you limit them to highly educated people, and even that could fail. That's why we elect politicians to follow policies. Some fail, others succeed. Still better than relying on some random people to make the good decision. Just as a recent example, you failed to match up pension age for both genders. Nobody except the laziest, most egoistic individuals would vote yes in any first (and maybe even second, this is such a basic concept even former soviet republics should get it right) world country because most people realize the purchase of iphones would be financed from their taxes. Swiss society is among the best educated in the world, you can trust it to vote reasonably on general issues. I do agree that direct democracy can result in poor decisions due to emotional or uneducated voting though, but I think the Swiss are in such a comfortable situation that they won't get too many opportunities to "fuck up" their votes in the next few decades.
I can see a situation where giving everyone a smartphone/tablet device might be a good decision. For example, if you want to move some legislative power to a digital platform (since you already are a direct democracy), it might make sense to make sure that every citizen has access to it for legitimacy. This could in theory lead to make referenda faster and less expensive in the long run.
|
He is obviously under the impression that there is a universal truth system out there, that allows us to evaluate that something like the Brexit-referendum can be judged as bad. There isn't. You have to pick ideological axioms first to determine a value for something. But this still only allows for a personal evaluation of a matter.
|
I find it amusing that some people worry about possible "mistakes" with direct democracy, when you witness every year some catastrophic decisions taken by representative ones. For instance, do you think bankers would have ran with the loot after the 2008 crisis had people been directly consulted about what should have been done?
|
Maybe misworded post, but I never said Switzerland isn't democracy. If you feel that way, you're a strawman.
I said later that I don't consider Switzerland to be the best model of democracy.
|
On September 26 2017 07:50 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 07:48 TheDwf wrote:On September 26 2017 07:35 sc-darkness wrote:
Well, I've already given the iPhone referendum as an example. Also, the pension age referendum you've recently had. If you want more, then I can quickly point you to the Brexit referendum. The funny thing with people like you who argue this way against referendums is that you start with the idea that there is necessarily a good answer and a bad one; and of course, you're clever enough to see the good one, but sadly the majority of the people are too stupid to see it. How convenient... So was Brexit a good outcome from that referendum? Based on what? Having extra 350 million pounds for NHS which is NOT going to happen? Immigration will be greatly reduced (also debunked by leavers themselves)?
Even if we agree that Brexit was a bad result for that referendum, it doesn't invalidate the whole concept of having referendums. Unless you're willing to say that the capacity to elect an orange idiot invalidates representative systems.
|
On September 26 2017 07:53 TheDwf wrote:
I find it amusing that some people worry about possible "mistakes" with direct democracy, when you witness every year some catastrophic decisions taken by representative ones. For instance, do you think bankers would have ran with the loot after the 2008 crisis had people been directly consulted about what should have been done?
I assume few bankers would be jailed, then the banking system would collapse due to some populistic "reforms" and we would be in a middle of giant economic crisis right now, while the rest of the bankers would laugh at us poor peasants from their estates outside of the reach of the European law enforcement.
|
On September 26 2017 07:50 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 07:48 TheDwf wrote:On September 26 2017 07:35 sc-darkness wrote:
Well, I've already given the iPhone referendum as an example. Also, the pension age referendum you've recently had. If you want more, then I can quickly point you to the Brexit referendum. The funny thing with people like you who argue this way against referendums is that you start with the idea that there is necessarily a good answer and a bad one; and of course, you're clever enough to see the good one, but sadly the majority of the people are too stupid to see it. How convenient... So was Brexit a good outcome from that referendum? Based on what? Having extra 350 million pounds for NHS which is NOT going to happen? Immigration will be greatly reduced (also debunked by leavers themselves)? How can you vote in such a referendum when lies are spread at a massive level?!
Demagogy and lies are part of literally every political campaign, it's not a serious counter-argument.
Also by definition, being able to make choices implies the possibility to make mistakes. With your reasoning, it sounds like you're in favor of a technocratic regime which would take the supposedly "good" decisions on its own because people are irrational/unreasonable/stupid/whatever.
|
On September 26 2017 07:53 TheDwf wrote:
I find it amusing that some people worry about possible "mistakes" with direct democracy, when you witness every year some catastrophic decisions taken by representative ones. For instance, do you think bankers would have ran with the loot after the 2008 crisis had people been directly consulted about what should have been done?
Do you think people would have dealt with this better? I don't. This is one of those questions which you need to be an expert in. It's about the whole financial system. This is beyond my and your understanding unless you're a person who deals with economy at a professional level.
Representatives/government have a more organised group of experts to deal with this sort of situation. Of course, they might also get it wrong, BUT they're likely to have a degree in this sort of stuff, so it's likely they know more than you and me.
On September 26 2017 08:02 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2017 07:50 sc-darkness wrote:On September 26 2017 07:48 TheDwf wrote:On September 26 2017 07:35 sc-darkness wrote:
Well, I've already given the iPhone referendum as an example. Also, the pension age referendum you've recently had. If you want more, then I can quickly point you to the Brexit referendum. The funny thing with people like you who argue this way against referendums is that you start with the idea that there is necessarily a good answer and a bad one; and of course, you're clever enough to see the good one, but sadly the majority of the people are too stupid to see it. How convenient... So was Brexit a good outcome from that referendum? Based on what? Having extra 350 million pounds for NHS which is NOT going to happen? Immigration will be greatly reduced (also debunked by leavers themselves)? How can you vote in such a referendum when lies are spread at a massive level?! Demagogy and lies are part of literally every political campaign, it's not a serious counter-argument. Also by definition, being able to make choices implies the possibility to make mistakes. With your reasoning, it sounds like you're in favor of a technocratic regime which would take the supposedly "good" decisions on its own because people are irrational/unreasonable/stupid/whatever.
Possibly. I guess it depends on circumstances. I need to read more about pros and cons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
