Originally Posted by
ImmortalPig
He doesn't say that in what you paraphrased. Of course, I didn't read his entire speech, but I don't see any reason why "well Kennedy said so" is a good argument in anything other than a legal sense.
'Well Kennedy said so' is perfectly legitimate, seeing as how he's the guy that made the ruling that makes it so.
Originally Posted by
ImmortalPig
Sure, but it's still impossible for every voting citizen to be an expert on every topic at hand.
We don't need every citizen to be an expert. All we need is for them to be informed enough to make responsible decisions.
Originally Posted by
ImmortalPig
Really? You think it's a better impetus than the current situation where citizens are lied to and manipulated and decisions are made by random corporations?
No, you're right. Your proposed idea, and the current situation, are probably just as bad.
Originally Posted by
ImmortalPig
What a meaningless statement. What is the point in democracy if consensus or meaning is not required? You are simply making decisions for the sake of it then.
Thought you meant a unanimous type deal. Obviously not.
Originally Posted by
ImmortalPig
This is a false dichotomy, as above, we could have trained professionals make decisions in their area of expertise.
You're proposing to remove the people from decision-making. You're divesting the people from the state. This is not a good thing. It's a bit wanky, but bringing up the Greeks again, they recognised this too. Aristotle wrote, "To take no part in the running of the community's affairs is to be either a beast or a god".