Alf Bentley Posted 3 June 2018 Posted 3 June 2018 12 minutes ago, toddybad said: Have to say that Alf's by far the best poster a monumental gasbag who wastes far too much of his time in this thread. Fvck off, Alf! Can't argue with any of the above. Sorted!
bovril Posted 3 June 2018 Posted 3 June 2018 16 minutes ago, toddybad said: Have to say that Alf's by far the best poster on this thread. Meh, could do with trimming the posts down and contributing more to phunny photos and chebs. 1
Milo Posted 4 June 2018 Posted 4 June 2018 17 hours ago, toddybad said: Let's be honest, atm there is disharmony in society and parliament regarding Brexit. There's no way I'll stop railing against it based on the 1.9% swing from neutrality that we saw in the referendum. Particularly given, and this is where I'd say you know it, that nobody really know what they were voting for. Whilst you can talk up sovereignty as the be all and end all now, we both know that leave campaigners were saying very different things before the ref than they are now. This is another desperate shift in remainers mentality and language. Tediously irritating. Just as in every election ever held, people voted on broad stroke policy. The referendum was a simple yes/no vote. It was not a vote on the minutiae of how leaving would work. I agree with you and @Alf Bentley in many respects that leaving the EU will be problematic. But to say that the result of the vote should be in question because the people who voted leave did not take into consideration the customs union/Irish border/farming quotas, etc is disingenuous at best, and patronisingly insulting at worst. Alf's post below is great. 1
CarbonVirtine Posted 4 June 2018 Posted 4 June 2018 24 minutes ago, Milo said: But to say that the result of the vote should be in question because the people who voted leave did not take into consideration the customs union/Irish border/farming quotas, etc is disingenuous at best, and patronisingly insulting at worst. So which are you saying (just to be clear)? They did, or they didn't but neither should they have been expected to (consider the minutiae)? I get what you're saying about 'broad stroke policy' (and it's equally applicable to those that voted to remain) and agree - many/most people vote on the basis of general belief rather than detailed policy knowledge.
Guest Posted 4 June 2018 Posted 4 June 2018 31 minutes ago, Milo said: This is another desperate shift in remainers mentality and language. Tediously irritating. Just as in every election ever held, people voted on broad stroke policy. The referendum was a simple yes/no vote. It was not a vote on the minutiae of how leaving would work. I agree with you and @Alf Bentley in many respects that leaving the EU will be problematic. But to say that the result of the vote should be in question because the people who voted leave did not take into consideration the customs union/Irish border/farming quotas, etc is disingenuous at best, and patronisingly insulting at worst. Alf's post below is great. Does any of this mean that a second ref is a bad idea? Is there such a thing as too much democracy?
Buce Posted 4 June 2018 Posted 4 June 2018 3 minutes ago, toddybad said: Is there such a thing as too much democracy? Only when it gives the wrong result.
leicsmac Posted 4 June 2018 Posted 4 June 2018 I would hope and think that the entire point and benefit of direct democracy (as seen in the EU referendum) would be the concept of a well-informed voter base capable of coming to a decision based on as much information as possible and after considerable consideration of that information - otherwise, what would be the point? 1
Buce Posted 4 June 2018 Posted 4 June 2018 Just now, leicsmac said: I would hope and think that the entire point and benefit of direct democracy (as seen in the EU referendum) would be the concept of a well-informed voter base capable of coming to a decision based on as much information as possible and after considerable consideration of that information - otherwise, what would be the point? And therein lies the problem with Brexit. The voter base wasn’t well informed - by either camp - and we ended up with a result based on emotion, not intellectual reasoning.
Alf Bentley Posted 4 June 2018 Posted 4 June 2018 10 minutes ago, leicsmac said: I would hope and think that the entire point and benefit of direct democracy (as seen in the EU referendum) would be the concept of a well-informed voter base capable of coming to a decision based on as much information as possible and after considerable consideration of that information - otherwise, what would be the point? Yep. That's what I was naively hoping for. I welcomed having a referendum as it was clearly an issue that a significant number had strong opinions about, and so many people (myself included) were under-informed about the pros and cons. But hopes for a rational, informed debate and decision were disappointed - by cynical campaigning on both sides. This is wisdom with hindsight, but I now wonder if an informed debate was even a possibility - particularly after years of austerity post-2008? The Remain campaign is rightly criticised for focusing excessively on "Project Fear" - "stick with nurse for fear of worse". But would the Remain campaign have had any credibility if it had suddenly started pointing out all the positives about EU membership and describing great dreams of future internationalism......when even pro-EU politicians had spent years carping or saying nothing about the EU? At a time when so many people were so pissed off about their standard of living and stressful lives, could a last-minute "positive Remain campaign" have ever worked? Which politicians had made an effort, over the long-term, to promote the benefits of the EU (even with caveats about the downsides)? The Lib Dems & SNP, to be fair to them - minor players. Blair and a few in Labour, with careful calibrations. Our politicians too often focus on saying what they think the public wants to hear, avoiding or cynically manipulating important issues for short-term electoral gain. This applies to issues other than the EU: both main parties promising good public services and low tax (impossible); local govt being systematically deprived of funds to keep national taxes low in the knowledge that voters won't blame central govt for poor council services; major issues being ignored like the implications of an aging population for pension funding, health spending and care services - or climate change; the Tories and their "increased spending on the NHS" (knowing that it was still not enough); Labour and its PFI schemes - another attempt to tell voters they can have public services without paying for them. Too many politicians act like the soft parents of spoiled children - scared to tell voters a few home truths and to provide some leadership. 1
CarbonVirtine Posted 4 June 2018 Posted 4 June 2018 (edited) 52 minutes ago, Buce said: The voter base wasn’t well informed - by either camp - and we ended up with a result based on emotion, not intellectual reasoning. Why should that be a problem? No, don't guffaw, I'm being serious. One doesn't have to pass an exam to vote (maybe we should, but that's another issue!) and we can decide issues by any means we so decide. To say otherwise is the kind of elitism that 'remain' gets accused of. Now I'm NOT saying that 'Remain' was the intelligent answer, I'm saying it doesn't matter how people decide (in a nod to Milo's post); be it by belief or reasoning. Belief colours us however rational we think we might be. Isn't it part of democracy to accept that people can make up their own minds according to their own belief/reasoning process? Further, if you can only decide based on reason, just how much does one need to know before being 'allowed' to vote. I know nothing of common agricultural or fishing policies for instance, yet I felt I effectively had the right to have a say in such matters when I cast my referendum vote. Edited 4 June 2018 by CarbonVirtine
Innovindil Posted 4 June 2018 Posted 4 June 2018 Starting the week off with the "you're all uninformed idiots". Boring. Can someone let me know what day is chalked in for the "you're all racists" please? I enjoy that one. Cheers fellas. 2
leicsmac Posted 4 June 2018 Posted 4 June 2018 10 minutes ago, CarbonVirtine said: Why should that be a problem? No, don't guffaw, I'm being serious. One doesn't have to pass an exam to vote (maybe we should, but that's another issue!) and we can decide issues by any means we so decide. To say otherwise is the kind of elitism that 'remain' gets accused of. Now I'm NOT saying that 'Remain' was the intelligent answer, I'm saying it doesn't matter how people decide (in a nod to Milo's post); be it by belief or reasoning. Belief colours us however rational we think we might be. Isn't it part of democracy to accept that people can make up their own minds according to their own belief/reasoning process? Further, if you can only decide based on reason, just how much does one need to know before being 'allowed' to vote. I know nothing of common agricultural or fishing policies for instance, yet I felt I effectively had the right to have a say in such matters when I cast my referendum vote. Absolutely, direct democracy allows a populace to make up its minds using whatever method they decide. The most obvious drawback to this, however, is simple self-interested human nature: a lot of humans will, by instinct, choose courses of action that benefit themselves and those around them only and (more importantly) in the short-term. I can see the argument here - people should be free to make whatever choices they desire and vote accordingly, and that sounds great - but that freedom comes hand in hand with the freedom to take the consequences later on, and if those consequences do not affect the individual that made the choices/those consequences are particularly dire, then that's the flip side of that freedom. As a simplistic, overdramatic example, total freedom of choice includes the freedom to choose extinction. That's the most fundamental flaw. 10 minutes ago, Innovindil said: Starting the week off with the "you're all uninformed idiots". Boring. Can someone let me know what day is chalked in for the "you're all racists" please? I enjoy that one. Cheers fellas. Hmmm...bit of a strawman there? I thought the discussion was wrt the limitations of an informed or uninformed populace as it applies to direct democracy?
Buce Posted 4 June 2018 Posted 4 June 2018 18 minutes ago, CarbonVirtine said: Why should that be a problem? No, don't guffaw, I'm being serious. One doesn't have to pass an exam to vote (maybe we should, but that's another issue!) and we can decide issues by any means we so decide. To say otherwise is the kind of elitism that 'remain' gets accused of. Now I'm NOT saying that 'Remain' was the intelligent answer, I'm saying it doesn't matter how people decide (in a nod to Milo's post); be it by belief or reasoning. Belief colours us however rational we think we might be. Isn't it part of democracy to accept that people can make up their own minds according to their own belief/reasoning process? Further, if you can only decide based on reason, just how much does one need to know before being 'allowed' to vote. I know nothing of common agricultural or fishing policies for instance, yet I felt I effectively had the right to have a say in such matters when I cast my referendum vote. The simple answer is that a decision based on emotion is a transient thing and too often is a bad decision. That applies whether you are an individual or a society.
CarbonVirtine Posted 4 June 2018 Posted 4 June 2018 7 minutes ago, leicsmac said: The most obvious drawback to this, however, is simple self-interested human nature: a lot of humans will, by instinct, choose courses of action that benefit themselves and those around them only and (more importantly) in the short-term. Again, what's the problem with that? If we all voted on the basis of self-interest, would those 'self-interests' balance themselves out across the board and, in so doing, achieve the result that most wanted? Quote that freedom comes hand in hand with the freedom to take the consequences later on, and if those consequences do not affect the individual that made the choices/those consequences are particularly dire, then that's the flip side of that freedom. All decisions have consequences, even 'right' decisions, for ourselves and for others. I agree with your implication that there needs be a willingness to accept consequences and that goes hand-in-hand with taking the responsibility of voting. As they say, be careful what you vote for, you may just get it!
CarbonVirtine Posted 4 June 2018 Posted 4 June 2018 2 minutes ago, Buce said: The simple answer is that a decision based on emotion is a transient thing and too often is a bad decision. Define 'bad decision'. All decisions, however made, could be seen as 'bad' for someone. Democracy, almost by its nature, is at best compromise and at worst means somebody will get hard done by. To continue from my post above, acceptance of the right to decide requires acceptance of consequence. Or in Brexit parlance, 'suck it up'!
ealingfox Posted 4 June 2018 Posted 4 June 2018 Remain wasn't an unknown quantity so not sure why people think voters were uninformed about it - we'd all lived through it for 40 years.
leicsmac Posted 4 June 2018 Posted 4 June 2018 5 minutes ago, CarbonVirtine said: Again, what's the problem with that? If we all voted on the basis of self-interest, would those 'self-interests' balance themselves out across the board and, in so doing, achieve the result that most wanted? All decisions have consequences, even 'right' decisions, for ourselves and for others. I agree with your implication that there needs be a willingness to accept consequences and that goes hand-in-hand with taking the responsibility of voting. As they say, be careful what you vote for, you may just get it! Because it doesn't look long-term or widely enough, and because of that, unfortunately, it doesn't balance out in the way that is suggested here. Like it or not the world is interconnected and quite often decisions made to benefit the self end up being bad for lots of people down the line - including the person that made the decision in the first place. All decisions most certainly have consequences, but again, when those consequences are particularly dire (such as going to war or hint hint ignoring the way humans act is changing the Earth) then the importance of making a decision that takes the future into account is paramount - in the most extreme circumstances the people may not get the chance to make the decision again ever. The freedom to make choices based on your own impulses is a fine thing, but a natural corollary of that is that it is that same freedom that could easily lead to catastrophe. Just now, CarbonVirtine said: Define 'bad decision'. All decisions, however made, could be seen as 'bad' for someone. Democracy, almost by its nature, is at best compromise and at worst means somebody will get hard done by. To continue from my post above, acceptance of the right to decide requires acceptance of consequence. Or in Brexit parlance, 'suck it up'! 2 To use an obvious example, a decision made where more people suffer and die than would have done if the decisions had not been made. Unless pure numbers isn't the way that we should judge such things.
Buce Posted 4 June 2018 Posted 4 June 2018 8 minutes ago, CarbonVirtine said: Define 'bad decision'. All decisions, however made, could be seen as 'bad' for someone. Democracy, almost by its nature, is at best compromise and at worst means somebody will get hard done by. To continue from my post above, acceptance of the right to decide requires acceptance of consequence. Or in Brexit parlance, 'suck it up'! 2 A decision that wouldn't have been made if you were sufficiently informed. 1
Innovindil Posted 4 June 2018 Posted 4 June 2018 24 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Hmmm...bit of a strawman there? I thought the discussion was wrt the limitations of an informed or uninformed populace as it applies to direct democracy? Let's not call a sheep a cow for the sake of saving face. The argument is, as it has always been, is how can we show that the population are uninformed idiots and thus, made the wrong decision. Democracy isn't perfect. It has never been. The trouble is the only way to effectively make it better would be to have a hive of omnipotent beings that can somehow have all the knowledge in the world and somehow retain enough humanity to use it for the good of the people. Not going to happen. So we do the best we can with what we have. Which is everyone gets an equal say. I've been told, repeatedly, I was uninformed and my decision was wrong. I don't see that, my main objective of being better off after the vote has been met, yes, you can argue that looking after myself is wrong if it comes at a cost of the collective, but if a majority votes the same way, I will assume that the majority will be better off. Not perfect, but the best we have. I'm not some slack-jawed idiot living in the countryside, I have an above average IQ, a decent job, hell, a decent life right now. I live and prosper in one of the most culturally diverse cities on the planet. Yet after reading this entire thread, reading every news article posted, listening to every ridiculous smear, I would still, if given another chance, vote leave. So I'd suggest next time the vote comes up, get better campaigners. Or we'll just become a dictatorship and be done with it. Or we'll just go for your morbid fantasy of destroying the planet. 3
CarbonVirtine Posted 4 June 2018 Posted 4 June 2018 3 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Because it doesn't look long-term or widely enough When is "enough"? How does anyone decide that they know enough, or have looked broadly enough? With any decision, from buying a loaf of bread to voting, each of us decides when to stop considering the issue and we make a decision. Each of our 'enoughs' is different and you can't draw a line. I understand the call to a common understanding (both of the word meanings specifically and of the desire to do the right thing generally) and I of course accept that. Indeed, I go about my daily life with such considerations, you have to otherwise you'd grind to a halt. You aim for ideals but inherent in that is acceptance of outcome.
Guest Kopfkino Posted 4 June 2018 Posted 4 June 2018 3 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Because it doesn't look long-term or widely enough, and because of that, unfortunately, it doesn't balance out in the way that is suggested here. Like it or not the world is interconnected and quite often decisions made to benefit the self end up being bad for lots of people down the line - including the person that made the decision in the first place. All decisions most certainly have consequences, but again, when those consequences are particularly dire (such as going to war or hint hint ignoring the way humans act is changing the Earth) then the importance of making a decision that takes the future into account is paramount - in the most extreme circumstances the people may not get the chance to make the decision again ever. The freedom to make choices based on your own impulses is a fine thing, but a natural corollary of that is that it is that same freedom that could easily lead to catastrophe. To use an obvious example, a decision made where more people suffer and die than would have done if the decisions had not been made. Unless pure numbers isn't the way that we should judge such things. I'm sorry Mac, but I think your determination to make everything about the problem of time-inconsistency and the damage we do to the planet/human extinction/all other doomsday scenarios is getting plain daft. I particularly think the time-inconsistency argument against democracy is really weak when any decision-making suffers such an issue. Should Wat Tyler have not made the decision to lead the peasants revolt because it led to enhanced workers rights and started the process of more inclusive political and economic institutions which in turn delivered more rights to the people, less control for the elites, further inclusive institutions and so on; eventually this led to the industrial revolution and the mass burning of fossil fuels since that possibly puts the planet in a precarious situation. After all, had he not done so and had Western Europe been like Eastern Europe in ceding further power to the elites at the time, we might well not have any problem with climate change beyond nature's own. The boom in the population as a result means far more might die in any catastrophic scenario than would of had we not had some development. Essentially, at what level of decision to have to think of its long-term consequences and how long into the future must I think?
CarbonVirtine Posted 4 June 2018 Posted 4 June 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Innovindil said: I've been told, repeatedly, I was uninformed and my decision was wrong. I 'liked' your post because, whilst we came to different decisions, I agree 100% with the process you went through to make it. And, more importantly, your acceptance/awareness of the context within which one makes decisions. Quote So we do the best we can with what we have. The above really does summarise my position too. I really hope I don't sound patronising because I genuinely don't intend to be. Edited 4 June 2018 by CarbonVirtine
leicsmac Posted 4 June 2018 Posted 4 June 2018 13 minutes ago, Innovindil said: Let's not call a sheep a cow for the sake of saving face. The argument is, as it has always been, is how can we show that the population are uninformed idiots and thus, made the wrong decision. Democracy isn't perfect. It has never been. The trouble is the only way to effectively make it better would be to have a hive of omnipotent beings that can somehow have all the knowledge in the world and somehow retain enough humanity to use it for the good of the people. Not going to happen. So we do the best we can with what we have. Which is everyone gets an equal say. I've been told, repeatedly, I was uninformed and my decision was wrong. I don't see that, my main objective of being better off after the vote has been met, yes, you can argue that looking after myself is wrong if it comes at a cost of the collective, but if a majority votes the same way, I will assume that the majority will be better off. Not perfect, but the best we have. I'm not some slack-jawed idiot living in the countryside, I have an above average IQ, a decent job, hell, a decent life right now. I live and prosper in one of the most culturally diverse cities on the planet. Yet after reading this entire thread, reading every news article posted, listening to every ridiculous smear, I would still, if given another chance, vote leave. So I'd suggest next time the vote comes up, get better campaigners. Or we'll just become a dictatorship and be done with it. Or we'll just go for your morbid fantasy of destroying the planet. If you think that some folks are calling you and other Leave voters ignorant and uninformed directly, then fair enough - I believe it. Churchill called democracy the worst form of government other than all those that have already been tried and I think that's about right. It is an imperfect system, but it is the best one we have now - however, please don't confuse criticism of the flaws in that system with wanting another type that has been used already - that is not where I'm coming from and if that wasn't clear then I apologise. In my own opinion - and let me be clear on this - it is indeed the best system of governance available to humans as they are right now. Anything more idealistic does, as you say, require human capacity beyond what we have now. With that said, I think a discussion of the flaws that it has it not unreasonable. 12 minutes ago, CarbonVirtine said: When is "enough"? How does anyone decide that they know enough, or have looked broadly enough? With any decision, from buying a loaf of bread to voting, each of us decides when to stop considering the issue and we make a decision. Each of our 'enoughs' is different and you can't draw a line. I understand the call to a common understanding (both of the word meanings specifically and of the desire to do the right thing generally) and I of course accept that. Indeed, I go about my daily life with such considerations, you have to otherwise you'd grind to a halt. You aim for ideals but inherent in that is acceptance of outcome. And there is where the theoretical argument falls down, sadly, because you can't really quantify in any meaningful way how much knowledge is indeed enough - and I am well aware that my discussion on this matter is almost all theoretical and idealistic. As I said above, please don't mistake my criticisms of the current system here for wanting another one that has been used already - it isn't so. Perhaps in the future humans might advance to be capable of something different, but we'll see. Got to have those ideas to progress, right? 10 minutes ago, Kopfkino said: I'm sorry Mac, but I think your determination to make everything about the problem of time-inconsistency and the damage we do to the planet/human extinction/all other doomsday scenarios is getting plain daft. I particularly think the time-inconsistency argument against democracy is really weak when any decision-making suffers such an issue. Should Wat Tyler have not made the decision to lead the peasants revolt because it led to enhanced workers rights and started the process of more inclusive political and economic institutions which in turn delivered more rights to the people, less control for the elites, further inclusive institutions and so on; eventually this led to the industrial revolution and the mass burning of fossil fuels since that possibly puts the planet in a precarious situation. After all, had he not done so and had Western Europe been like Eastern Europe in ceding further power to the elites at the time, we might well not have any problem with climate change beyond nature's own. The boom in the population as a result means far more might die in any catastrophic scenario than would of had we not had some development. Essentially, at what level of decision to have to think of its long-term consequences and how long into the future must I think? That's alright, Kopf. Perhaps my viewpoint on this is coloured by frustration but I make no apologies for worrying about the future beyond the end of my own life when hardly anyone else seems to. You're absolutely right in that often decisions have completely unforeseen and unplannable consequences and as such, we can't be really too sure about how the future is going to pan out once a decision has been made (beyond certain key events that we have sufficient data for) - so perhaps it's a better thing just to make those decisions, adapt to things as we go and let things just crinkle out as best they may. It's worked so far, huh? At the same time, I can't shake the feeling that is being irresponsible towards future generations and that some things are known and require planning for...but maybe I'm wrong and that's just my own bias showing. Honestly, I don't know. I'm not any kind of visionary, after all - just another average Joe currently getting over personal trauma and giving their take on the world.
Buce Posted 4 June 2018 Posted 4 June 2018 5 minutes ago, leicsmac said: If you think that some folks are calling you and other Leave voters ignorant and uninformed directly, then fair enough - I believe it. Churchill called democracy the worst form of government other than all those that have already been tried and I think that's about right. It is an imperfect system, but it is the best one we have now - however, please don't confuse criticism of the flaws in that system with wanting another type that has been used already - that is not where I'm coming from and if that wasn't clear then I apologise. In my own opinion - and let me be clear on this - it is indeed the best system of governance available to humans as they are right now. Anything more idealistic does, as you say, require human capacity beyond what we have now. With that said, I think a discussion of the flaws that it has it not unreasonable. And there is where the theoretical argument falls down, sadly, because you can't really quantify in any meaningful way how much knowledge is indeed enough - and I am well aware that my discussion on this matter is almost all theoretical and idealistic. As I said above, please don't mistake my criticisms of the current system here for wanting another one that has been used already - it isn't so. Perhaps in the future humans might advance to be capable of something different, but we'll see. Got to have those ideas to progress, right? That's alright, Kopf. Perhaps my viewpoint on this is coloured by frustration but I make no apologies for worrying about the future beyond the end of my own life when hardly anyone else seems to. You're absolutely right in that often decisions have completely unforeseen and unplannable consequences and as such, we can't be really too sure about how the future is going to pan out once a decision has been made (beyond certain key events that we have sufficient data for) - so perhaps it's a better thing just to make those decisions, adapt to things as we go and let things just crinkle out as best they may. It's worked so far, huh? At the same time, I can't shake the feeling that is being irresponsible towards future generations and that some things are known and require planning for...but maybe I'm wrong and that's just my own bias showing. Honestly, I don't know. I'm not any kind of visionary, after all - just another average Joe currently getting over personal trauma and giving their take on the world. How are things in that regard, Mac?
Guest Kopfkino Posted 4 June 2018 Posted 4 June 2018 3 minutes ago, leicsmac said: That's alright, Kopf. Perhaps my viewpoint on this is coloured by frustration but I make no apologies for worrying about the future beyond the end of my own life when hardly anyone else seems to. You're absolutely right in that often decisions have completely unforeseen and unplannable consequences and as such, we can't be really too sure about how the future is going to pan out once a decision has been made (beyond certain key events that we have sufficient data for) - so perhaps it's a better thing just to make those decisions, adapt to things as we go and let things just crinkle out as best they may. It's worked so far, huh? At the same time, I can't shake the feeling that is being irresponsible towards future generations and that some things are known and require planning for...but maybe I'm wrong and that's just my own bias showing. Honestly, I don't know. I'm not any kind of visionary, after all - just another average Joe currently getting over personal trauma and giving their take on the world. I think it's an admirable viewpoint, I certainly wouldn't want to discourage anyone thinking beyond their lifetime but there is a limit. We have different world views and yours is always interesting but I find it frustrating that its near always defined by the bad things humans do and the consequence of that. Certainly are steps we should be taking that we are failing to take and I absolutely support your frustration of politicians not standing up to the big oil lobby or being ambivalent about the consequences of our actions etc but I'm just not sure a discussion about direct democracy warrants it. On the point of direct democracy: Well that's it, we can never be fully informed about the consequences of our decisions. Buce's article in the exercise thread demonstrates that, in the past people were told to increase protein consumption, now we're more sceptical of that. So even science doesn't always know when it thinks it does, let alone social outcomes that depend on subsequent behaviour. Of course direct democracy does require an engaged polity that tries to be informed, and it needs to adapt to its decisions rather than know the consequence of its decision. Take an economics example, if you, ceteris paribus, accurately forecast a financial crisis in 2 years, the forecast will be wrong because behaviour adapts and one of two things happens: its worse than you predicted or it doesn't happen. Either way, what could have been accurate information turns out to be wrong because we adapt. And decisions have to made, but you can't know what the future is whether you're expert or pauper. I think the value of democracy is in its process rather than its outcome so I prefer pauper to decide the consequences they face rather than the expert. I think you're right in saying in having the freedom to decide we are also free to suffer the consequences. Anyway all the best with your personal situation. It's always a strange experience when I'm back home and nip into Hinckley for some reason, always some odd event that makes me smile.
Recommended Posts