How important is the will of the people?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Logarock

Dude you cant be taken seriously on Trump considering that Clinton and other Dems have made its clear they intend to subordinate personal rights provided by the constitution. Trump has demonstrated to date no such thing.

Trump has declared himself the "law and order candidate,' who will allow torture, limit the ability of the media to say what it will, increase surveillance on American citizens, set limits on bank transactions by certain minorities, interrupt free trade... need I go on?

Not all of these points challenge constitutional rights. The bank already controls transaction within limits to all customers. James Madison and other well known american minds didn't think much of "free trade" as you mean it.

The only right that is protected for the "media" is the right to serve as a tool of redress to the government. Most of what is going on in the press is not really a demonstration of this right. The press today gets away with all sorts of slander and lies hiding behind something that really doesn't protect it.

a reply to: TheBulk

I never met them. Must be a local problem.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Rather than pointing out the various flaws in both candidates which is unproductive can we all find common ground that the will of the people is most important?

No. The will of the people is fickle. You don't let children choose their diet, or they would choose Happy Meals all the time! Mob mentality always leads to injustice.

a reply to: windword
Thanks, looks like we are tied.

2x "Yes"
2x "No"

I'm actually really surprised. I was sure that the passion in this election was due to the passion of democratic principles. It's always nice to be proved wrong.

But you're missing something important here.

You're talking about the will of a naive and misled people.

You can't follow anyone's will if they are misguided.

a reply to: MRuss
How do we decide who is naive and mislead?

The fact that I think I'm not naive or mislead doesn't mean I'm not. In fact you could argue that it proves I'm naive and mislead.

a reply to: DJW001

Trump said that if it comes to American's security he believes that we should be able to waterboard, or by what other means to get to the truth. I agree! Geesh, they cut our heads off, burn us alive, slowly roast us above an open fire, pour acid on us, rape us, etc.
I also think that our President and others should be given lie detector tests. I'm sick of the liars crying out their 5th Amendment rights!

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

You are quite correct, the Liberal Elites that operate and control the MSM truly believe " people cannot be trusted to elect their own leaders". The idea of "Democracy" or the Democratic Republic is dead to them. They see the country as an Oligarchy of the Enlightened Liberal Elites. Those of us who disagree with them, but more importantly, people without the credentials and bonee fides to align themselves with and be recognized by the Enlightened Elites has being philosophically "correct" in their views, are considered to be.............THE DEPLORABLES.

The "Deplorables" must daily be subjected to MSM brainwashing and be told what to think because left to their own devices, they will always do the wrong thing.

In a sense, what's also going on is the demoralization of the US. So many will be so turned off by this whole process that I suspect the turnout will be extremely low. But worse, this election will set the stage for the US descending into a national malaise the likes of which it hasn't touched since Jimmy Carter days. But my guess is this malaise will be far longer lasting and much deeper than the one of Carter's era.

a reply to: TonyS

Don't worry: if Trump wins all those liberals will be seen to be the danger to America that they are and dealt with accordingly. Those FEMA camps will not go to waste.

a reply to: cutecumberquet

Trump said that if it comes to American's security he believes that we should be able to waterboard, or by what other means to get to the truth. I agree!

And who gets to decide who is a danger to America's security? The guy who admires Putin and Saddam?

a reply to: Logarock

The press today gets away with all sorts of slander and lies hiding behind something that really doesn't protect it.

There are libel laws. Freedom of speech is literally the first amendment in the Bill of Rights. It's not about redress, it is about open discourse. Suggest that a hate web page of your choice be banned from ATS and see the cries of "censorship."

originally posted by: DJW001
And who gets to decide who is a danger to America's security? The guy who admires Putin and Saddam?

Absolutely, provided that's what the people want.
Whilst I would deny the admiration claims that's irrelevant, he could admire Hillary and provided people choose him he should be the one to decide.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
I agree with that however this starts a debate about the best form of government etc. etc.
Democratic principles seem to be the best so far, so we have either have a broken system or a worse system.

Although in an attempt to put this back on track perhaps I could appeal to your Super Moderator'ness and ask if you could be the first to answer the question "can we all find common ground that the will of the people is most important? "

It's either "yes" for reasons or "no" for reasons.

Are democratic principles really the best? Elected officials have short careers and therefore have little incentive to act in the best interests of the people they represent. The people end up getting screwed because people are fickle and don't show loyalty. Special interests with money are more loyal. Dictators on the other hand largely maintain power through keeping their people happy, because they don't have a limited term it's much more important to maintain a high favorability rating.

To put this in context, if a dictator had the 8% approval rating our Congress has, they would find themselves overthrown and probably executed. But with our system, we have the illusion of change and we think we can vote in fixes. That doesn't work though because it's a systemic problem, we can change whose in office but we can't change the underlying problems.

And to answer your question, no... the will of the people is not the most important. The people as a collective group have an average understanding of every issue, which is to say we have virtually no understanding. How can we say the most important thing, is to enforce the policies desired by those who don't even know an issue well enough to have an informed opinion on it?

originally posted by: cutecumberquet
a reply to: DJW001

Trump said that if it comes to American's security he believes that we should be able to waterboard, or by what other means to get to the truth. I agree! Geesh, they cut our heads off, burn us alive, slowly roast us above an open fire, pour acid on us, rape us, etc.
I also think that our President and others should be given lie detector tests. I'm sick of the liars crying out their 5th Amendment rights!

You are aware lie detectors don't work, right? In fact they're not even legally admissible evidence anymore. They're a little more accurate than voodoo but not by much. Also, I find it strange that you want to assert our rights by voting on citizens to elevate to a status where you can strip them of theirs.

The problem with waterboarding is that it doesn't get us information. Everyone knows the US is going to play nice and that we're not going to kill them. Waterboarding might be unpleasant, but it doesn't leave lasting effects and we're not going to do anything worse. If you can hold out against it, what are we going to do? Notice that their tactics are focused on killing people, not extracting information from them.

a reply to: DJW001

" .........it elects officials who best represent the views of their constituents. "



There lies the Rub in a Democratic Republic . Very Few of Our So Called " Elected Representatives " Represent the Views and Beliefs of their Constituents in Today's Politics . The reason being is that the Political System in America has been Hijacked by Corporate and Special Interests that Bribe and Control the Behavior of those Representatives when it comes to the Laws they Pass and Enforce , along with the Policies they ex-spouse to the Public at large . In Short , the System of Government our Founding Forefathers envisioned for these United States has been Compromised by the Very Freedom they bestowed upon Us . It is the Duty of the Citizenry to Prevent that from Happening by more thoughtful Choices in Electing their Leadership or suffer from those Bad Choices that will eventually result in Tyranny .

originally posted by: Aazadan
How can we say the most important thing, is to enforce the policies desired by those who don't even know an issue well enough to have an informed opinion on it?

I would say it is because even the most informed people differ on solutions. The best way seems to be finding the solution that most people prefer to keep the majority happy.

To me it seems like the only way to get around the fact that "Every madman is convinced of his own rationality".

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
I would say it is because even the most informed people differ on solutions. The best way seems to be finding the solution that most people prefer to keep the majority happy.

To me it seems like the only way to get around the fact that "Every madman is convinced of his own rationality".

When the most informed people differ on solutions, that's a sign that (assuming politics have been removed from the equation) we simply don't know enough to come to a conclusive answer.

The stance I take on this, is that it's not actually important to follow the best policy or make the best decision, it's merely important that we can make a long string of good decisions, and that we can do so efficiently (needing years to determine one broad plan is better than another broad plan is no good).

Without the advice of several experts in the field you probably won't be able to have an informed opinion. Without an informed opinion, is it even possible to tell the good from the bad? Sometimes after being taught, people still can't tell that difference.

I actually think that our current system is pretty good at making strings of good decisions while avoiding the bad ones. We never get the optimal decisions, but that's probably a good thing because it allows for compromise. But, with that being said our current system also ignores the will of the people almost completely.

originally posted by: Aazadan
When the most informed people differ on solutions, that's a sign that (assuming politics have been removed from the equation) we simply don't know enough to come to a conclusive answer.

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

Also we have to work with the information we have at the time and we can't assume what new information may appear. Sometimes decisions need to be made on only the poor evidence we have at the time.

Lots of good decisions have bad results and lots of bad decisions have good results.

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?

a reply to: DJW001
Not at all, although I would be equally upset if a Dictator got me shuffling.
Of course democratic ideals have gotten us to the point where the majority think murder is wrong so the laws reflect that.

But sticking with the heightened rhetoric, I would definitely prefer to be part of a genocide lead by majority support than a genocide lead by the views of one person. Neither would have me smiling as I shuffle though.