>Yet, they think they understand complex social initiatives because it's more 'down to earth'.
To what precisely do you refer? Most people defer to someone who makes coherent arguments for their positions, rather than using gunpowder. The former group usually consists of experts.
If I don't have the greatest grip on airport security, that doesn't mean I can't defer to Bruce Schneier because I find his argument more coherent than John Pistole.
>Sure, but how do we identify who is right, out of the thousands of people who are wrong? I'm not arguing that the government is perfect. I'm simply saying it might be the most practical system.
In the end, the same way we choose who gets into the government in the first place -- popular opinion. This is not to say that popular opinion is always right, and in fact it is quite often wrong, but people are generally swayed by logic, and it just so happens that things which are close to the truth tend to be more convincing that utter lies. The responsibility of the government to popular opinion is the foundation of any democracy.
(Of course, I, as an individual, make judgments using logic, not popular opinion -- this much is clear -- but I am not a particularly special individual)
I was pretty angry about the above case you pointed out as well, but I do not believe it is a general descriptor for the majority of incidents. In any case, I understand the point you're making, and appreciate the clarification.
> In the end, the same way we choose who gets into the government in the first place -- popular opinion. This is not to say that popular opinion is always right, and in fact it is quite often wrong, but people are generally swayed by logic, and it just so happens that things which are close to the truth tend to be more convincing that utter lies. The responsibility of the government to popular opinion is the foundation of any democracy.
If we're using popular opinion, then I feel it'll just be government 2.0.
The point I really disagree with is: people are generally swayed by logic. That's not true. People are generally swayed by emotion - and there's a clear distinction. The best example of this is in hypnosis, where hypnotists induce a change in emotional state in order to break down barriers.
In any case, thanks for the discussion - it's made me consider some new views.
Well, obviously. That's the point. Government 1.0 sucks.
>The point I really disagree with is: people are generally swayed by logic. That's not true. People are generally swayed by emotion
These are not mutually exclusive. In general, humans try to be consistent -- hence the rise of philosophy multiple independent times in multiple independent cultures.
Yes. Here, do you need examples?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/a-pound-of-f...
>Yet, they think they understand complex social initiatives because it's more 'down to earth'.
To what precisely do you refer? Most people defer to someone who makes coherent arguments for their positions, rather than using gunpowder. The former group usually consists of experts.
If I don't have the greatest grip on airport security, that doesn't mean I can't defer to Bruce Schneier because I find his argument more coherent than John Pistole.
>Sure, but how do we identify who is right, out of the thousands of people who are wrong? I'm not arguing that the government is perfect. I'm simply saying it might be the most practical system.
In the end, the same way we choose who gets into the government in the first place -- popular opinion. This is not to say that popular opinion is always right, and in fact it is quite often wrong, but people are generally swayed by logic, and it just so happens that things which are close to the truth tend to be more convincing that utter lies. The responsibility of the government to popular opinion is the foundation of any democracy.
(Of course, I, as an individual, make judgments using logic, not popular opinion -- this much is clear -- but I am not a particularly special individual)