Quote:
Originally posted by Nodrog
The problem with systems that rely on a "well informed public" is that if the public were sufficiently "informed". they would generally reject the proposed system in the first place (either because it is an outright "bad system", or because it is redundant if the public are sufficiently intelligent).
|
valid, unfortunately there is no indication of any system that will function well without an informed public.
so the best you can do is to create one that doesn't specifically make things worse without such a public, i.e., one with checks and balances.
your informed public, who have no such need of such a system, will be intelligent enough to foresee the possibility that for whatever reason a future public might not be as wise as they. and they will develop institutions that will prevent those ignorant pugs from really ****ing up the world.
Quote:
Originally posted by Nodrog
A system that is fundamentally incompatable with humanity is a "bad system", no matter how good it looks on paper. Surely reality is the final arbiter when it comes to defining the worth of a proposed social model, rather than how it sounds theoretically?
|
noting your insistence on function in reality,
one would assume you would give examples from reality to demonstrate whatever point you were making.
how wrong one would be.
ps: i agree that systems that turn out to be **** when they are used aren't good systems. i think you had a larger point though.