Fundamental Question Of Governance

It would appear that we've got legions of tyrants and only a small few dedicated to actual liberty.

It bores me that the card-carrying libertarian got it right, but it amuses me that one of the others is n0 more than six years old.

Shame on you authoritarian swine for giving decency and moderation a bad name. Have things your way and we'd quite literally be bending over for your will, I don't doubt.

But worst of all, that most unspeakably terrible of crimes has been committed. You made a communist look good in comparison, folks, and for that you are condemned to the very final level of Hell for betraying freedom. All that is good in the world has been torn asunder by your obtuse understanding of liberty and democracy. Anyone who voted in favor of 'the capable' is no better than Stalin, Hitler, or Mao. Tsk tsk forums, you have disappointed me.

No matter, for despite your obvious failings to understand democracy you have all provided semi-competent responses to the second question. The right answer, of course, is the delegate, who exists (as a representative should) as an informed extension of his constituency. Trustees aren't all that bad either, provided they have actually been given the license to act independently, so even those among you who choose the incorrect response can sleep at night.

Wait a second. No you can't. You bastards hate democracy. NO SLEEP FOR YOU.

I think this thread has been a success.

Lol, I was the only one who agreed with Kali.

So what... popularity should always trumiph over those who are capable? I'd rather live happily with my wants and needs meet in a time of great progress than vote for the the two people who are the most popular in the nation.

Sorry for the bad grammar, I fail at proff reading.

Well the bigger question is: "Can the capable lead without being popular?" The answer is no. At least not in a democratic or representative style of government.

You and your ilk are the kind of thing that cause a Brave New World to emerge.

The factories have already started the first Alphas.

The popular, A government running against the people's wishes will crash and burn, even if they are doing the right thing, because in your eyes it may be right, in the peoples eyes it may be wrong.

You didn't vote in the poll, so you don't count.

QQ harder Kali. Why should the popular man gain control over an electrical grid as opposed to the man who has an actual understanding of electrical current and its distribution?

"A man chooses. A slave obeys."

Tyranny can never be allowed to prevail, even when it's beneficial.

Hurray we agree!!!

You would really rather put a sequence vital to our survival in the hands of a petty manipulator operating on idealist guide lines then an man with a coherent understanding of the sequence?

Its official, Kali has become Communal Egalitarian Pinko scum.

We don't elect power plant operators. We elect policymakers.

Freedom before all. People have a right to voluntary self-organsation and public rule free of a state hierarchy.

Isn't the purpose of the policymaker to regulate the activity of the finical forces that control the plant operators?

The purpose of the policymaker is to do what his constituents want him to do. Typically that involves creating policy.

Creating policy that does what? Controls the sequences they need? Why not simply remove the forces that require regulation and let actual members of the sequence do their jobs?

Do they need the policymaker to control their lives? Why can't they do it themselves?

But are we not assuming a perfect world?