Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
I think so to a point. A lot of people don't know wtf they are talking about though. That's like 98% of the population. If the people knew everything, we wouldn't need government officials.
It is quite obvious that you are not being taught anything in college.
How else can it be a government "Of the people, By the people, And for the people" if public opinion has nothing to say as to what government policy is?
When the people are not involved in government, all you have is a dictatorship.
That's what it's supposed to be PapaDawg, that's not what it is.. Government today is about who has the most money to buy their way in. And by who I don't just mean people, I mean Churches and Corporations and anyone who has enough money to get their agenda passed.
You are sadly misinformed.
Government is "buying" businesses with all this bailout money.
The unions have bought Obama and his cronies in the House and Senate.
What we have now is a dictatorship with Barack Hussein Obama at its head.
In human history, all dictatorships usually end in a revolt of the people or the dictator being deposed by the international community or by the hand of one of their own.
Or haven't you heard that familiar voice of our "captain" announcing "Please put your tray tables away in their locked position and put your seats in a fully upright position and fasten your seat belts folks, as we are about come back down to earth in a rather hard landing"?
This coming mid-term election will determine the fate of our once great United States . . .
It's obvious from what you say anyway that most people don't know what they are talking about. Yes. Thanks for clearing that up.
We don't need government officials in order to "know everything" or to resolve all of our public policy issues. In fact, it would be best if "public opinion" were forced more often to confront the costs or benefits of their choices more directly than being shielded by a government official. We might see some better decisions.
At least once people start to realize that their idiotic ways of thinking have some significant costs.
I'd say es, just because some kind of feedback is needed to keep government honest. True people are stupid, but if the people don't have the power, then who will? Elections are a stupid way to elect officials, but it's the best way we've figured out so far.
I don't believe I'm misinformed at all. I believe I just read and listen to a wider range of information than you.
The public only hears what the folks with the money have to say. When you have billions to spend, then that's what the public will hear. Public Opinion is what the people with money want it to be.
This is true to a point. However public opinion on a variety of subjects is actually diametrically different than elite opinion. Take immigration for instance. Most powerful interests benefit from immigration (as does everyone else). While ordinary people don't think they do and demonstrate most vociferously against it. If the monied interests were controlling public opinion, I'd suspect that we would arrive at a very different public opinion.
This happens often within economics. Protectionism is far more popular among the citizenry (for example unions) than among industry leaders or academics who might control those thoughts. As are farm subsidies or licensing laws for particular types of work. Opposition to things like vaccines or stem cell research comes out of popular resentment (or more likely, ressentiment) rather than some principled understanding of the issue that is somehow out of line with elite opinions. It's actually pretty hard to find an issue where there are popular notions not in opposition to elite public opinion (or in some cases, facts and/or reality).
What you really find is that yes, the types and range of opinions that people hear every day is constrained by fiscal realities of broadcasting a message, and that yes, there are lots of people who have very narrow worldviews by choice or as a consequence of that limitation (see the above). But no, those controlling interests compete enough against each other that we don't always end up with what they want, much less what we want.
I have a rather dim view of the mob as it is. I look at an issue like Park51 and say the mob is wrong on principle and would ultimately vote to apportion powers that could damage their own liberties as a consequence of fear or ignorance. Why should we ascribe powers to the mob rather than limit their power?
It is far better to leave the issues out of the hands of the people, and out of the hands of government where ever possible, and at best use the courts to protect ourselves against these overreaching authorities that we enable and support, through our indifference or our ignorance or our most unreasonable and uncharitable demands on others.
"It is far better to leave the issues out of the hands of the people, and out of the hands of government where ever possible, and at best use the courts to protect ourselves against these overreaching authorities that we enable and support, through our indifference or our ignorance or our most unreasonable and uncharitable demands on others."
So, according to this paragraph, you believe ONLY the courts should run this country?
What kind of nutso idea is that? Do you really want some judge to give you the laws under which you live – that you as an individual are just too stupid to govern yourself?
My basic point is that it is better, in most cases, not to have a law than to have one. A law can introduce many unintended consequences to a situation that may have otherwise been functioning about as well as expected, which leads to demands for new laws. And these new laws all have institutions which form around them and lobby for their continuance or support, regardless of the damage or help they offer. Therefore it is often better not to make a law and allow existing institutions (markets, social/cultural norms) the flexibility to solve problems themselves.
Courts cannot make new laws, hence why I prefer them to legislatures. Though they can sometimes egregiously interpret existing ones and often have, they can also throw egregious laws out. By contrast, reliance on legislatures and other popular institutions to govern leaves us with many basic rights that will be trampled upon in order to "solve" problems.