Originally Posted by
protonitron
By arguing that I was wrong to like that aspect of his idea you are actually implying that this aspect should not be part of it. Saying that his idea is better without that aspect is saying it would be better without experts being put in categories or pools.
You said it's hardly democratic, but who cares because it might work better. I said the people won't go for it because it's just more of what they've got already.
Originally Posted by
protonitron
I am sorry if you expected me to pretend he never made the suggestion and not address it because you believe that is not what the discussion is meant to be.
Bit paranoid and you've misunderstood me. I said this is the topic being discussed to realign your thinking to the point I raised about Pig's solution not being democractic (since that's what this thread is all about). In other, more basic words, the point of this thread is that our system is no longer democratic. Pig's solution doesn't change this, and so that should be a major red flag.
Originally Posted by
protonitron
As you said, the main think we need to discuss is how much power people get, not how we stop corruption.
No. I never said this, and I don't see how you can disconnect corruption from determing how much power the people get. They're intimately linked.
Originally Posted by
protonitron
I apologise for looking critically at immortalpig's idea rather than just pointing out that your original suggestion would be an inefficient mess.
Look kid, the point of this discussion is to brainstorm solutions. I'm not telling you or anyone else to not to do that. I'm critically examining Pigs idea too. Just because I disagree with you and make my points about it doesn't mean that I'm telling you to not to do the same.
Originally Posted by
protonitron
If you only want us to discuss distribution of power, don't say the only reason the representation system fails is that it get corrupted, and don't spend so much time talking about corporations and corruptions.
Again, the topic of this thread is about solutions to the current problem. I'm not limiting the scope of what you or anyone else is talking about, so long as it fits into the topic, which it does.
Originally Posted by
protonitron
Most of my apologies were sarcastic and I am genuinely sorry about that, but what I am trying to say is that you are using "this isn't what we should be discussing" argument against me arguing against your misinterpretation of my opinion on part of pig's suggestion.
We've cleared this up now. That's not what I was saying - I was saying that the point that it's not democratic is a big one, and it should play a more important role in your critical analysis of the problem.
Originally Posted by
protonitron
Although I might be misreading the situation, I think you are under the impression that I think immortalpig's ideas method of stopping corruption also stops inequality. However, you are the only person who is arguing that inequality is caused by corruption.
Yeah, you did misread it. Pig's solution isn't democratic. That's my main problem with it. In my big long response to Pig earlier in this page I also mentioned that I don't think it's necessary, since we don't need citizens to be experts, just have good judgement, to be capable of making decisions on national affairs.
Last edited by Ele; Nov 23, 2014 at 02:14 AM.