What we need is a system of government where the people vote for policies, instead of personalities...

What we need is a system of government where the people vote for policies, instead of personalities. The office of President should be one of servitude -- an office worker who quietly implements the will of the people without ever appearing on television.

Other urls found in this thread:

fdrurl.com/PA
mises.org/library/molyneux-problem
anenome.liberty.me/why-stefan-molyneux-is-wrong-about-libertarians/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

ya know it's funny cause I've been thinking the same thing lately too

...

...

Great idea man. *hits joint*

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

Yeah cause democracy is a crazy idea

What we need is to just shut down voting stations in rural areas. Keep the uneducated riff raff from voting.

Its called Pure Democracy, it wouldnt work as people would be voting on every little thing, then again we are in the era a smart phones, an app could help but who polices that?

Gaddafi tried to install a form of government this way before he became a Corrupt tyrant

We sorta had that for the last 8 years, but now I guess it's time to start counting the body bags again since we have a republican in office.

>people vote for policies
Unfortunately, some policies are best decided by experts. If multiple experts come up with a few different policy options for the same issue, then people are going to vote for the most convincing expert...

People in Libya had free electricity. Don't beleive the propaganda - Gaddafi was a good leader and a stabilizing force in the middle-east.

That's not true at all. It's never been true of America. Politicians think they're better than regular people. All of them think that, that's why they run for office in the first place.

Yeah I cant work out if he was good or bad, I have noticed the media colludes this a bit

The left doesn't get to say that after firing the opening shots of the identity war. You don't get to take it back, you aren't forgiven, your violence won't be forgotten anytime soon either.

Enjoy your populist ultra-bully, we elected him just for you. How do you like white men, now? You having fun, bitch?

Some people are better than others. There's no shame in admitting that some people are trash. Take any rural county.

Democracy is a blanket term to cover up the true government policies of the west and its called Capitalism, Cash rules everything

Just make acid legal already, it would solve a lot.

This can be a problem. Much of the voting crowd doesn't know shit about politics. They've known that for centuries. That's why it doesn't happen now. The better choice is to vote for people that will hopefully follow through with the plans that they set out for them in the elections

...

ok, good, whatever...
but one thing.
WHY THE FUCK YOU PAINTED THE DOG?????

Direct democracy won't work in a nation of over 300 million people. But clearly representative democracy isn't working either. That's why we need to use SORTITION. Every American 18 and up gets their name put into a pot, and we draw names out until all the positions of government are filled. If you're too mentally incompetent to serve a term, you and your caretaker have to convince a federal judge to let you off the hook. Otherwise, you serve your term.

...

>he thinks he's right and I'm wrong but that's not true cause I'm right and he's wrong.

The post 2001+16theyearofourlord

People are easily misled by more intelligent people, it's a bad idea. I'm starting to lose faith in more democratic systems by the day.

...

DIE!!!!!

>I don't know how acid works

>people vote for policies, instead of personalities

People are getting emotional value from politics nowadays and instead of political value. Sounds like a huge deficit in emotional value in the rest of their lives.

That's a hard thing to fix.

It doesn't work because tyranny of the majority.

Everyone votes for more spending on them and no taxes for them, so the government ends up needing to pull money out of thin air.

>I don't get the joke

>I've never had purple microdot

You don't have full on hallucinations of pink elephants and dragons on LSD. That's what cartoons and movies have led you to believe.

Yes you can, but you need stronger acid or PCP. They are momentary, but you do see things. I've never seen mythical creatures, but have seen other people who really weren't there for brief periods.

um no.

you've never done acid.

>What we need is a system of government—
Already going the wrong direction mate

Hey you're free to think whatever you want. It makes no difference to me one way or the other.

Then you have bigger fucking problems chief. Acid does not make you flat out hallucinate people that aren't there. Hallucinations aren't even the most dramatic part about tripping

Moron detected, what's your alternative

Nyan dog.

It must hurt to be so stupid, comrade.

yeahnotreallythough

dude, the media says Pewdiepie is a fucking Nazi, you can't believe them.

Yea commiefirnia has that with propositions except it becomes a clusterfuck because people don't know shit (accept a law to increase school funding, reject a law to pay more taxes for school funding).

Something along the lines of fdrurl.com/PA

?

I'm not clicking your link, just name it.

But the alternatives aren't different, user. You'd have more intelligent people (not the "best" people) ruling over the less intelligent in any other form of government involving a sizeable state.

At least with regards to forms of government that approach the overarching term known as "Democracy", there's more of a chance you not only end up with intelligent people (moreso people who know how to obtain power and swindle others towards an end), but "the best" people as well.

Granted, no guarantees. But that depends on the population under the leader.

the "utopia" in transistor was like that
it's a good game

If you're so retarded as to be afraid of website links then you aren't worth talking to, ja ne.

You think you have a way of running a modern society without government and you can't even manage to name or even vaguely describe it. I wouldn't be calling anyone else retarded.

I think we should focus more on the restriction of government side, like a super-powered judicial branch than increasing democracy. Don't increase power for the people, decrease the power of and restrict the central state entity from doing horrible things.

pure democracy is pure faggotry

Your "description" is in the link I provided, it is an audio file specifically. I do not feel I can give a better description, or introduction, than that of the original creator, that within the link, so I do not, it has nothing to do with capability, it is a choice.

Resorting to insults without even glancing at the argument presented to you, demanding meaningless and counter-productive replies, and then having the tenacity to pretend you have the high ground. It's not even insulting, just disappointing.

Ｉ ｗｉｌｌ ｎｏｔ ｒｅｐｌｙ ｔｏ ｔｈｅ ｓａｍｅ ｉｎｓｏｌｅｎｃｅ ａｇａｉｎ．

>claims to have a system that can run a modern society without government
>is incapable of describing it

hmmm

Huh. Well, for the first user, I think you may be right about the whole ratification and fixing of the "checks and measures" deal when it comes to government. A "good" government at least makes sure that the leader can't dick it up proper, yet keep it running "smoothly".

For the second user. Maybe it's because of my end, but it isn't playing. 9 hours of audio sure is something though. But I remember looking at Stefan Molyneux. I'm unsure if I really think highly of most of what he says, especially in regards of the world that we will have to approach sooner or later.

An IQ test should also be mandatory for voters and those to be elected.
>Some people are stupid enough to get it very wrong.
>Pic nonrelated

I don't think too highly of it myself, personally I hate it. But there's nothing I can do, I can't counter the vast majority of what he says in that book, believe me I've looked, and so by the rules I have set I must believe in it, until such a time comes that someone comes up with something better, or at least proves it wrong.

>Can't they just print more money??!1?

mises.org/library/molyneux-problem
"I also cannot logically argue that it is wrong for some people to murder, but right for other people to murder. Since all human beings share common physical properties and requirements, proposing one rule for one person and the opposite for another is invalid — it is like proposing a physics theory that says that some rocks fall down, while other rocks fall up. Not only is it illogical, it contradicts an observed fact of reality, which is that human beings as a species share common characteristics, and so cannot be subjected to opposing rules". (p. 44, emphasis omitted)

anenome.liberty.me/why-stefan-molyneux-is-wrong-about-libertarians/
>see image

I've read all of that previously, it wasn't adequate. I don't know why you quoted from UPB instead of the article, but whatever.

What aspects of the two sources that I have provided, are not adequate?

For instance, in the article there is a paragraph:

If "rape" is a moral good, then "not raping" must be a moral evil — thus it is impossible for two men in the same room to both be moral at the same time, since only one of them can be a rapist at any given moment — and he can only be a rapist if the other man becomes his victim. (p. 66)
—Quote from Stefan

They counter with: "Incredibly, Molyneux takes the rule he is considering to be one that requires people to be continuously engaged in rape. It never occurs to him to take the rule as mandating, "at some time or other, you ought to attempt rape,""

This lacks even a basic understanding of what Stefan said. The rule proposed was "Rape is good." If I were to reverse Stefan's example and make a rule "Rape is bad." then at ALL times you would be required to NOT rape in order to be considered morally good, it cannot be sometimes. Therefore using the original example "Rape is good." It must be at all times that one must rape in order to be considered morally good.

They proposed the rule "at some time or other, you ought to attempt rape" but this is an entirely different moral rule, similar to Pilgrimage requirements in many religions (e.g. "You must travel to the holy city at least once")
Because of the fast prune time of Sup Forums I cannot explain in any more depth, and this was explained in his book in the first place so I don't know why it was even an argument they used.