Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Brand says democracy doesn't work

ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 8:49:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://gawker.com...

He says there are people out there who have better ideas for a better world and that he is not the one with the answers, but i'm questioning whether or not he is just saying this to back up his baseless claim on the failure of democracy.

A failure in a true democracy is a failure of its people. I wonder what Brand would say to this
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2013 3:29:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 8:49:05 AM, ben2974 wrote:
http://gawker.com...

He says there are people out there who have better ideas for a better world and that he is not the one with the answers, but i'm questioning whether or not he is just saying this to back up his baseless claim on the failure of democracy.

A failure in a true democracy is a failure of its people. I wonder what Brand would say to this

I would disagree that democracy "doesn't work," though I agree that there are better options (though my ideal is a hybrid of democracy). It depends on how you defines "works."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2013 4:54:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/27/2013 3:29:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/26/2013 8:49:05 AM, ben2974 wrote:
http://gawker.com...

He says there are people out there who have better ideas for a better world and that he is not the one with the answers, but i'm questioning whether or not he is just saying this to back up his baseless claim on the failure of democracy.

A failure in a true democracy is a failure of its people. I wonder what Brand would say to this

I would disagree that democracy "doesn't work," though I agree that there are better options (though my ideal is a hybrid of democracy). It depends on how you defines "works."

Well he explains how democracies don't serve a lot of peoples' interests. Democracy, according to him, doesn't work not only because of this ( cause-effect relationship) but also because the politicians that run the institutions simply do not serve them. And it's because of this that he does not vote.

I haven't listened to this for a few days so correct me if i'm wrong.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2013 6:01:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/27/2013 4:54:37 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 10/27/2013 3:29:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/26/2013 8:49:05 AM, ben2974 wrote:
http://gawker.com...

He says there are people out there who have better ideas for a better world and that he is not the one with the answers, but i'm questioning whether or not he is just saying this to back up his baseless claim on the failure of democracy.

A failure in a true democracy is a failure of its people. I wonder what Brand would say to this

I would disagree that democracy "doesn't work," though I agree that there are better options (though my ideal is a hybrid of democracy). It depends on how you defines "works."

Well he explains how democracies don't serve a lot of peoples' interests. Democracy, according to him, doesn't work not only because of this ( cause-effect relationship) but also because the politicians that run the institutions simply do not serve them. And it's because of this that he does not vote.

I haven't listened to this for a few days so correct me if i'm wrong.

I haven't listened to him ever (that I'm aware of) but what does "works" mean? How do you measure what "works" and what doesn't? No social or political structure will serve the interests of 100% of the people. But to say that no political structure works would be meaningless. Also, I don't believe democracy ever claimed to always be in the interest of 100% of the people.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Quatermass
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2013 7:16:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Brand is right. But he doesn't know why he's right.

Democracy doesn't work because the general populace are not educated enough (especially in the area of politics) to arrive at decisions when voting for parties.

What is the difference between arriving at a decision and making a decision?

Making a decision is taking a piece of land. And saying you'll put a city capable of supporting one million people on that land.

Arriving at a decision is taking a piece of land, making a survey of the land's natural resources, geography, topography, geology, and then planning a city that supports a population number based on the gathered data.

People, when voting, simply make a decision. They are not, in general, educated enough to read through acts and bills and fully understand them to know which political party has the most efficient policies. They, instead, vote on an emotional basis, which is furthered by politicians making speeches designed to be emotionally appealing to different people of different persuasions.

Sadly democracy is a system where three hillbillies, two mormons, one scientologist and a member of the KKK know better than one scientist and one engineer.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 12:56:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Shame such a badass, free individual is such a repressive socialist. I'm sure he'd change his mind if he were exposed more to voluntaryism and libertarianism thought. The utterly predictable reaction from the anarchist community is detestable. Watch his interview with Alex Jones. He admitted that he wouldn't be against a more "libertarian" solution as long as it was egalitarian.

I love Russell Brand because he understands the problems and he is very funny. As the interviewer rightly pointed out, the solutions he casually threw out there are no different from the current system we have now. But Russell readily seemed to admit that we shouldn't look to him for solutions. As completely wrong as his proposed solutions are (and perhaps devoid of the fact that they've been tried over and over again, failing each time), he could possibly be just a few conversations with an intelligent, freedom-lover away from seeing the light.

We need to help him see the truth and the correct path. Not tear him down because he doesn't have a perfect solution to a problem that's 10,000 years in the making.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 3:19:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/27/2013 7:16:39 PM, Quatermass wrote:
Brand is right. But he doesn't know why he's right.

Democracy doesn't work because the general populace are not educated enough (especially in the area of politics) to arrive at decisions when voting for parties.

What is the difference between arriving at a decision and making a decision?

Making a decision is taking a piece of land. And saying you'll put a city capable of supporting one million people on that land.

Arriving at a decision is taking a piece of land, making a survey of the land's natural resources, geography, topography, geology, and then planning a city that supports a population number based on the gathered data.

People, when voting, simply make a decision. They are not, in general, educated enough to read through acts and bills and fully understand them to know which political party has the most efficient policies. They, instead, vote on an emotional basis, which is furthered by politicians making speeches designed to be emotionally appealing to different people of different persuasions.

Sadly democracy is a system where three hillbillies, two mormons, one scientologist and a member of the KKK know better than one scientist and one engineer.

Ignorance and apathy aren't valid excuses in trying to demerit the efficacy of democracy.

In the day and age in which we live, democracies are a form of governance found typically in evolved economies, with the majority of its people within the middle class. These countries possess high levels of infrastructure, meaning good levels of telecommunications, roads, education, and so forth. With ample access to these public goods (and i'm not exclusively referring to the U.S.A), there is no excuse as to why any citizen of such a country does not participate in the well being of his/her own home. If you're able and refuse to participate, you are acknowledging that you possess indifference towards the path of your country. Brand says he doesn't vote due to the claim that politicians serving a country do not try to meet the needs of his kind (his class). This case is absurd because how can he blame the politicians for failing to serve their needs if the politicians elected were not chosen partially (the votes of a certain social class) to serve the interests of Brand and his druggy friends? If the whole of a certain class decides to weigh in, then the elected officials will invariably take into account the demands of the class. Why? Because if this official was elected on behalf of this class (even partially), then this class is expected to gain from voting for this official (that is the essence of a just democracy). Of course there are always several classes to take into account. But inhibiting the input of a certain class is surely going to hamper the progress of said class when the official(s) elected was not elected (partially) to serve the class' needs.

You say that the general populace isn't informed enough (in politics especially?) to make healthy decisions for themselves. What more does an individual need to know than to express his own needs? You ask for economic stability and more jobs? Well, in a just democracy, you can expect these outcomes. It is not the job of the individual to know how to make things work; that's why you elect officials to do it for you: they know how to do it (yes this is controversial obviously so please don't try to take me up on this point).

Government of the people, by the people, for the people
SloppyJoe6412
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 11:50:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
As Churchill said, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

I don't personally like Churchill but he's right on target there.
SloppyJoe6412
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 11:58:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/27/2013 7:16:39 PM, Quatermass wrote:
Sadly democracy is a system where three hillbillies, two mormons, one scientologist and a member of the KKK know better than one scientist and one engineer.

I take exception to that. I'm an engineer, yet my ability to make the right decision on deep government issues is as good as the hillbillies', the morons', the scientologist's and the KKK guy's, and based on the scientists I know, they often need help to tie their own shoelaces.

When it comes to making the "right" decision on complex issues which involve both technical knowledge and social sensitivity, and involve input from a myriad of specialists, all my years of college education and professional practice aren't worth squat.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 12:45:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/27/2013 7:16:39 PM, Quatermass wrote:
Sadly democracy is a system where three hillbillies, two mormons, one scientologist and a member of the KKK know better than one scientist and one engineer.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson was wrong when he said there needs to be scientists and engineers instead of lawyers and businessmen. Many of the founders were lawyers and businessmen. But they came from all trades, so your economic skill largely doesn't matter.

Scientists don't know jack crap about politics. Just watch Bill Nye get uncomfortable when pressed by Libertarian Penn Jillete.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Quatermass
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 3:09:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 12:45:29 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/27/2013 7:16:39 PM, Quatermass wrote:
Sadly democracy is a system where three hillbillies, two mormons, one scientologist and a member of the KKK know better than one scientist and one engineer.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson was wrong when he said there needs to be scientists and engineers instead of lawyers and businessmen. Many of the founders were lawyers and businessmen. But they came from all trades, so your economic skill largely doesn't matter.

Scientists don't know jack crap about politics. Just watch Bill Nye get uncomfortable when pressed by Libertarian Penn Jillete.

If you read my post, I'm not suggesting scientists and engineers become politicians. I'm suggesting politics is obsolete. Global Warming isn't a political problem, for example, it's an engineering/environmental problem. I'm suggesting politics be scrapped altogether.