|
Post by piglet on Jan 3, 2024 13:02:28 GMT
It will be interesting to see peoples opinions on this, before i start id like to remind people that on another thread that i mentioned that a mental health expert who should know said that 85 per cent of people were a waste of time. What he meant by that was that they made no impact on themselves or anything else.
A camera crew were interviewing people in Red Square in Moscow, one bloke said the above, and his explanation was thus. Highly intelligent, educated, mature, good people, get up and go type people get the vote. That to be cognisant of politics, its resources, planning, future goals, development of all sorts, progress, science, fairness, long term planning, etc would be safe in their hands.
Persons who also get the vote are the 85 per cent, including criminals, anarchists, the mentally ill, personality disordered, alcoholics, the deluded, the evil,(psychopaths), etc.
This made me sit up.
After all, if you want to develop a cracking car, you wont ask a plumber.
Is it possible to refine politics to exclude the head bangers? To turn politics into a science, and exclude nonsense? theres plenty of that, to be kind, politics constantly re-invents the wheel, real progress is never made.
The first thing to go, i would guess, would be the first past the post nonsense, that politics can go beyond that and push politics into a higher sphere of function, minus the war between parties. Looking at it from this perspective democracy is rubbish, negative, destructive.
Under a scientific approach decisions would be made with proper research, cost and benefits etc, and not about whims and dogma. Such a government can still be ended if it ignores common sense.
Sounds good to me. To have mature responsible genuiusses in charge seems wondrous to me. They would also be wise enough to explain why decisions are made, like good parents explain to children why decisions regarding them and their welfare is made.
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 3, 2024 13:41:51 GMT
It will be interesting to see peoples opinions on this, before i start id like to remind people that on another thread that i mentioned that a mental health expert who should know said that 85 per cent of people were a waste of time. What he meant by that was that they made no impact on themselves or anything else. A camera crew were interviewing people in Red Square in Moscow, one bloke said the above, and his explanation was thus. Highly intelligent, educated, mature, good people, get up and go type people get the vote. That to be cognisant of politics, its resources, planning, future goals, development of all sorts, progress, science, fairness, long term planning, etc would be safe in their hands. Persons who also get the vote are the 85 per cent, including criminals, anarchists, the mentally ill, personality disordered, alcoholics, the deluded, the evil,(psychopaths), etc. This made me sit up. After all, if you want to develop a cracking car, you wont ask a plumber. Is it possible to refine politics to exclude the head bangers? To turn politics into a science, and exclude nonsense? theres plenty of that, to be kind, politics constantly re-invents the wheel, real progress is never made. The first thing to go, i would guess, would be the first past the post nonsense, that politics can go beyond that and push politics into a higher sphere of function, minus the war between parties. Looking at it from this perspective democracy is rubbish, negative, destructive. Under a scientific approach decisions would be made with proper research, cost and benefits etc, and not about whims and dogma. Such a government can still be ended if it ignores common sense. Sounds good to me. To have mature responsible genuiusses in charge seems wondrous to me. They would also be wise enough to explain why decisions are made, like good parents explain to children why decisions regarding them and their welfare is made. With some experience of human nature I would be very reluctant to put so much influence into the hands of a selected group. Such power has the ability to corrupt individuals who could simply, over time, convince people that all of their decisions were in the best of everyone. Thus sowing the seeds of dictatorship. My Personal preference would be to clean up Democracy as in reducing the ability of people to deliberately mislead others through dishonest propaganda. My one weakness in my idea of democracy would be to ban extremists from the far left and the far right, from propagating extremist views.
|
|
|
Post by Cartertonian on Jan 3, 2024 14:03:55 GMT
What you're talking about is a 'technocracy' and it's regarded with deep suspicion by most of democracy's most ardent supporters.
However, I do believe that some elements of this approach would be helpful, without actually threatening democracy.
The problem we have developed over the last decade or so has been a distrust of experts, that was accelerated by the covid experience. Sadly, all too many ordinary voters would rather listen to politicians telling them what they want to hear, than to experts telling them the truth.
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jan 3, 2024 15:45:23 GMT
Yes it’s quite easy to exclude the wastes of space
Reintroduce the property holding requirement to have a vote. Set it at say half a million. That should return us to pre 1832 levels.
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jan 3, 2024 16:08:07 GMT
What you're talking about is a 'technocracy' and it's regarded with deep suspicion by most of democracy's most ardent supporters. However, I do believe that some elements of this approach would be helpful, without actually threatening democracy. The problem we have developed over the last decade or so has been a distrust of experts, that was accelerated by the covid experience. Sadly, all too many ordinary voters would rather listen to politicians telling them what they want to hear, than to experts telling them the truth. ah but that’s the thing. As one who knew more than the prat at the podium because it was my specialist post graduate area of interest, i knew mist of what the experts were spouting was in fact horse piss
|
|
|
Post by piglet on Jan 3, 2024 21:52:54 GMT
Two other aspects include the average iq of people, which is 100. The ability to understand beyond the obvious, is stymied, that more abstract concepts, philosophies, long term actions wont be understood.
And education, even people with advanced iqs wont grasp advanced ideas without an educational base, the difference is seriously alarming between an educated person and uneducated, its like night and day.
A third has occured, that everyone is different, taking into account the values Karl Jung put on personality, that that alone can mean that any two people wont agree on anything. For instance, an intj will never get along or agree with an isfj. Ever.
This means that in an heirarchy, a final say, a boss will be needed, all things cannot be enacted or chaos will ensue. The group gets smaller constantly. Cartertonian touches on something more, a technograpy, that solutions to problems can be found through logic, knowledge, education alone. Not so. To bring it all together will require an infj, Jung was one himself.
These people seem to have connections beyond understanding, one foot in the hereafter, and are guided by intuition, feelings, the universe. No one understands them, they dont understand themselves, in past times they were a seer. Look at the Russia problem, it came as a shock when things blew up, not so if we had an infj led government.
Biden, Sunak are doers, not people who can see things coming. For gods sake the Russia thing was apparent in 2015, no concept apart fron now was ever on the table, and that the present was built a long time ago, and that ten years from now is being constructed now. You can apply that to the NHS, the deficit, immigration, etc.
To be prime minister is dog eat dog, climbing a career path. The chances of the right person or people ever getting into power is slim oe non existent, but the chances of it happening can be improved.
Maybe that Russian bloke touched on something useful. Another problem is that those that can dont appear like powerful able people, they have an aura that doesnt say that, look at Gordon Brown, an aggressive destructive psychopath, most people will think thats good. Maybe one day there will be a prime minister that can see it all.
Fat chance. Plod on as sholes. Im refering to our present politicians. Oh 85 percent of parliament are a waste of time, infjs male and female are one to three percent, intjs slighly more. thats about two people in a hundred, thats abour 6 or 7 in all in parliament, there will be less though, those people wont be attracted to politics. Probably. Martin Luther king was an infj, and the recently sacked cambridge manager, he performed a miracle with united.
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 3, 2024 22:09:20 GMT
What you're talking about is a 'technocracy' and it's regarded with deep suspicion by most of democracy's most ardent supporters. However, I do believe that some elements of this approach would be helpful, without actually threatening democracy. The problem we have developed over the last decade or so has been a distrust of experts, that was accelerated by the covid experience. Sadly, all too many ordinary voters would rather listen to politicians telling them what they want to hear, than to experts telling them the truth. Yes, improve our democracy, hold MPs to account.
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 3, 2024 22:11:40 GMT
What you're talking about is a 'technocracy' and it's regarded with deep suspicion by most of democracy's most ardent supporters. However, I do believe that some elements of this approach would be helpful, without actually threatening democracy. The problem we have developed over the last decade or so has been a distrust of experts, that was accelerated by the covid experience. Sadly, all too many ordinary voters would rather listen to politicians telling them what they want to hear, than to experts telling them the truth.the experts got it wrong...
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Jan 3, 2024 22:14:42 GMT
What you're talking about is a 'technocracy' and it's regarded with deep suspicion by most of democracy's most ardent supporters. However, I do believe that some elements of this approach would be helpful, without actually threatening democracy. The problem we have developed over the last decade or so has been a distrust of experts, that was accelerated by the covid experience. Sadly, all too many ordinary voters would rather listen to politicians telling them what they want to hear, than to experts telling them the truth. Yes, improve our democracy, hold MPs to account. To improve our democracy the HoL as it stands now needs closing down and a replacement that is democratically elected,preferably no party people but all independents.
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jan 3, 2024 22:17:13 GMT
What you're talking about is a 'technocracy' and it's regarded with deep suspicion by most of democracy's most ardent supporters. However, I do believe that some elements of this approach would be helpful, without actually threatening democracy. The problem we have developed over the last decade or so has been a distrust of experts, that was accelerated by the covid experience. Sadly, all too many ordinary voters would rather listen to politicians telling them what they want to hear, than to experts telling them the truth.the experts got it wrong... Don't confuse academics with experts.
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 3, 2024 22:43:00 GMT
Yes, improve our democracy, hold MPs to account. To improve our democracy the HoL as it stands now needs closing down and a replacement that is democratically elected,preferably no party people but all independents. I'm not entirely against some reform of the HoL. But I suspect an elected House would expect to be to have more say in politics, after all they would be the voice of the people. I would definitely like to see a balancing control of politically opinion of members. Not much good if it turned out to be dominated by an excess of Tory or Labour minded individuals.
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jan 3, 2024 22:55:17 GMT
Democracy has no reason not to be improved, rather than be stale for hundreds of years.
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 3, 2024 22:59:00 GMT
Democracy has no reason not to be improved, rather than be stale for hundreds of years. How?
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jan 3, 2024 23:04:06 GMT
Democracy has no reason not to be improved, rather than be stale for hundreds of years. How? By direct democracy, sure I know politicians are still miffed about it, so are remain, because they are not grown up enough in democracy terms, which is the fault of politicians in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 3, 2024 23:23:09 GMT
Democracy has no reason not to be improved, rather than be stale for hundreds of years. How? Make MPs more accountable for their comments, especially for their accusations and insinuations.
|
|