How important is the will of the people?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Absolutely, provided that's what the people want.

So if a madman convinces enough people that he is their national savior, you would shuffle into the gas chamber with a smile on your face?

Dude applications of this sort here is just pure slop political bull crap.

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Absolutely, provided that's what the people want.

So if a madman convinces enough people that he is their national savior, you would shuffle into the gas chamber with a smile on your face?

Dude applications of this sort here is just pure slop political bull crap.

Please explain. If the "will of the people," defined as "what the majority of voters want," is paramount, there can be no protection for minority views... or people who are members of minority groups.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Absolutely, provided that's what the people want.

So if a madman convinces enough people that he is their national savior, you would shuffle into the gas chamber with a smile on your face?

Dude applications of this sort here is just pure slop political bull crap.

Please explain. If the "will of the people," defined as "what the majority of voters want," is paramount, there can be no protection for minority views... or people who are members of minority groups.

Well we cant assume, as is the modern flow, that the majority is always suspect and that more truth resides with the minority. Besides the real question now days, with the close elections, nearer to 50/50, that now it looks as like the "minority" voters are being crushed by two large and separate groups.

Or one group is a collection of minority groups said to be on its way to majority and so what then?

a reply to: Logarock

I'm not sure you clarified anything. I have explained why the "will of the people" is always suspect; indeed it is an ill defined abstract concept that morphs seamlessly into "reasons of State. Clearly, you are hinting at something specific but refuse to express yourself clearly. That is no way either to persuade or educate.

originally posted by: DJW001
Please explain. If the "will of the people," defined as "what the majority of voters want," is paramount, there can be no protection for minority views... or people who are members of minority groups.

I'm not great with history but how many black guys voted to end slavery?

If minorities have a problem it is up to them to educate the majority to encourage change and then it's up to the people. All the most important social movements happened that way.

The KKK might want slavery to be brought back. Do we say yes because they are a minority? Of course not.
It's up to them to go door knocking and try to convince people, preferably starting in Compton.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Logarock

I'm not sure you clarified anything. I have explained why the "will of the people" is always suspect; indeed it is an ill defined abstract concept that morphs seamlessly into "reasons of State. Clearly, you are hinting at something specific but refuse to express yourself clearly. That is no way either to persuade or educate.

Only that the minority is often wrong and as suspect as the majority. Look at all of the oppression that rose up out of a minority party. Nazi, Communists....one time little cells of political thinking.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

The main problem with electing a megalomaniac, is that it is inevitable that one way or another, a presidency occupied by one, will necessitate less power for the individual and more for the state.

That applies to both Trump, and Hilary, because they are both megalomaniacs, and neither one of them can be trusted to take a dump without taking someone's day and making it ten thousand times worse, for no reason other than their own amusement. They are filth. Their ilk are filth. They are not going to be loyal to the people or the constitution of the states that they are seeking to lead. Why? Because they seek to lead at all.

Not a one of them is campaigning on a ticket which includes concepts like a broadening of public outreach and involvement with government, local and national. Not a one of them is campaigning with slogans like "You, the people are the owners, and we are but your mouthpiece, your right arm. We serve no masters but the people, we seek no glory or honour for ourselves, but will seek these things in the name of our nation, how so ever ordered to do so by the people. We are not the owners of this country, you are, and we are but your functionaries. Please be wise when you direct us to do your bidding."

Because they do not wish to run on such a ticket, you can be certain that the last thing that either of them ought to be, is elected to the presidency.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
It could equally be explained by the complexity of the problem and the various potential answers. Not every question has only one best answer.

Yes, every question has only one best answer. A question might have several good answers, but there can only be one best.

Here's the thing though, society often makes irrational demands based on uninformed opinions about feelings. For example, wanting to protect their job by kicking out illegal immigrants. When decisions based on facts are made, many people can't handle it, because it means someones interpretation of reality is wrong if there's a disagreement over an action.

Our system has an interesting way of dealing with this. It's basically designed to be stuck in gridlock until the answer is self evident, at which point everyone falls in line. The problem with this approach is that it requires others to experiment. If you want to be a leader in the world, that's an ineffective system. If you just want to coexist alongside everyone else it works fine.