* What if prop1 (things the rulers believe is right) is the same as prop2 (the will of the people)? -- i.e. false dichotomy
* What if prop2 is manifestly wrong (viz. "the people" are fuckwits)? -- i.e. omitted possibility
* What if "the rulers of my country" are "the people" (viz. it's a direct, rather than representative, democracy)? -- i.e. bias introduced by axiomatic assumptions (that "countries" have "rulers" who are not "the people")
* What if prop1 or prop2 entail actions taken outside your country, in someone else's country (where the "someone elses" disagree -- e.g. an invasion)? -- i.e. how do you treat externalities
If the point you're making is that LJ polls don't contain all the possible answers (3 and 4) then I'd agree, but assume that was implicit in all polls.
The will of the people and what the rulers believe to be right may sometimes line up, but they won't always, and the question can be answered for those cases.
I don't see "the people as fuckwits" as being a flaw at all. Some of the people will always be fuckwits, and some won't. That's people for you.
There are no countries with a direct democracy, nor do I anticipate there ever being so. Any committee that big is far too unwieldy to ever actually do anything.
And democracy necessarily only includes the people inside the group doing the voting. Their actions affect those outside of the group, of course. But you can't vote someone else's actions if they haven't agreed to it (unless you're voting the use of force). c.f. Mice voting that the cat should weat a bell, or the UN attempting to vote Israel out of Palestine.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
* What if prop1 (things the rulers believe is right) is the same as prop2 (the will of the people)? -- i.e. false dichotomy
* What if prop2 is manifestly wrong (viz. "the people" are fuckwits)? -- i.e. omitted possibility
* What if "the rulers of my country" are "the people" (viz. it's a direct, rather than representative, democracy)? -- i.e. bias introduced by axiomatic assumptions (that "countries" have "rulers" who are not "the people")
* What if prop1 or prop2 entail actions taken outside your country, in someone else's country (where the "someone elses" disagree -- e.g. an invasion)? -- i.e. how do you treat externalities
no subject
The will of the people and what the rulers believe to be right may sometimes line up, but they won't always, and the question can be answered for those cases.
I don't see "the people as fuckwits" as being a flaw at all. Some of the people will always be fuckwits, and some won't. That's people for you.
There are no countries with a direct democracy, nor do I anticipate there ever being so. Any committee that big is far too unwieldy to ever actually do anything.
And democracy necessarily only includes the people inside the group doing the voting. Their actions affect those outside of the group, of course. But you can't vote someone else's actions if they haven't agreed to it (unless you're voting the use of force). c.f. Mice voting that the cat should weat a bell, or the UN attempting to vote Israel out of Palestine.
no subject
Oh, why bother.
no subject
I was generally assuming a liberal democracy.
There is only so much one can do in a binary radio-button set :->
no subject
no subject