Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Is It Possible To Run A Government Through...

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 2:54:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
...debate?

Is it plausible to sustainably run a full scale government fairly according to it's stated principles which decides on policy, not by majority vote, but through formal intellectual debate where a winner is fairly (somehow?) decided?

Would you approve of such a system?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
OllerupMand
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 3:02:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Can't you already see the system like that? The winner of the debate is just decided by majority vote.

I mean who should get into the goverment can be seen as a debate, but in theory there is also a debate on each issue before they are voted on.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 6:25:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 2:54:26 AM, FREEDO wrote:
...debate?

Is it plausible to sustainably run a full scale government fairly according to it's stated principles which decides on policy, not by majority vote, but through formal intellectual debate where a winner is fairly (somehow?) decided?

Would you approve of such a system?

And there's your problem. All bills are debated before it is voted on. Doesn't mean much though.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 6:35:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 2:54:26 AM, FREEDO wrote:
...debate?

Is it plausible to sustainably run a full scale government fairly according to it's stated principles which decides on policy, not by majority vote, but through formal intellectual debate where a winner is fairly (somehow?) decided?

Would you approve of such a system?

Unfortunately it'd just devolve into something unpleasant. Turns out clever people aren't necessarily better, or better enough if you think there's some causation.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 6:42:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 6:25:06 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/23/2012 2:54:26 AM, FREEDO wrote:
...debate?

Is it plausible to sustainably run a full scale government fairly according to it's stated principles which decides on policy, not by majority vote, but through formal intellectual debate where a winner is fairly (somehow?) decided?

Would you approve of such a system?

And there's your problem. All bills are debated before it is voted on. Doesn't mean much though.

This. Fewer minds are changed by debate than would seem. Debate generally just entrenches decisions. I'm not sure how this would be anything other than majority rule.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 10:17:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You must remember the simple fact that these are politicians e're talking about, the core principle behind their existence is that they will argue forever and refuse to agree and by giving each an equal vote we prevent them from taking any actions and hence preserve our liberties.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2012 12:26:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 6:25:06 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/23/2012 2:54:26 AM, FREEDO wrote:
...debate?

Is it plausible to sustainably run a full scale government fairly according to it's stated principles which decides on policy, not by majority vote, but through formal intellectual debate where a winner is fairly (somehow?) decided?

Would you approve of such a system?

And there's your problem. All bills are debated before it is voted on. Doesn't mean much though.

Well, instead of electing our politicians, they could be selected out of the top percentile of multi-doctorates.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
OllerupMand
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2012 12:31:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2012 12:26:02 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 8/23/2012 6:25:06 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/23/2012 2:54:26 AM, FREEDO wrote:
...debate?

Is it plausible to sustainably run a full scale government fairly according to it's stated principles which decides on policy, not by majority vote, but through formal intellectual debate where a winner is fairly (somehow?) decided?

Would you approve of such a system?

And there's your problem. All bills are debated before it is voted on. Doesn't mean much though.

Well, instead of electing our politicians, they could be selected out of the top percentile of multi-doctorates.

They would still have oppinions and then we come back to Maikuru

Fewer minds are changed by debate than would seem. Debate generally just entrenches decisions. I'm not sure how this would be anything other than majority rule.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2012 12:57:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Is it plausible to sustainably run a full scale government fairly according to it's stated principles which decides on policy, not by majority vote, but through formal intellectual debate where a winner is fairly (somehow?) decided?
It's never possible "somehow." Human actions are only possible by particular types of means. You will never build a computer "Somehow," only by learning proper principles of electronics and such.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2012 12:59:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2012 12:57:15 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Is it plausible to sustainably run a full scale government fairly according to it's stated principles which decides on policy, not by majority vote, but through formal intellectual debate where a winner is fairly (somehow?) decided?
It's never possible "somehow." Human actions are only possible by particular types of means. You will never build a computer "Somehow," only by learning proper principles of electronics and such.

It was meant that I was leaving that open as a discussion point.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2012 1:01:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
We already have that system. The majority of our legislators cite law as their profession; a profession in which is graded by how good at argumentation you are rather than the truth behind the topic at hand. This kind of trade is bred in debate teams and such.

The problem is that we have a legislative system that has more of a paramount concern on debating for the sake of disagreeing rather than coming together and agreeing on what is ultimately best for our country.
turn down for h'what
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2012 1:09:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2012 12:59:36 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 8/24/2012 12:57:15 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Is it plausible to sustainably run a full scale government fairly according to it's stated principles which decides on policy, not by majority vote, but through formal intellectual debate where a winner is fairly (somehow?) decided?
It's never possible "somehow." Human actions are only possible by particular types of means. You will never build a computer "Somehow," only by learning proper principles of electronics and such.

It was meant that I was leaving that open as a discussion point.

And it was meant that it was horribly wrong of you to throw such a pile of stupid out there without specifying means, so someone might actually be tricked into thinking you had something good in mind.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.