tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9426656.post113976868989375216..comments2023-11-03T08:40:36.106+00:00Comments on Stottle's Blog: The Shortcut to DemocracyHarry Stottlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05317879122444519928noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9426656.post-44234965396527190712007-05-23T22:48:00.000+01:002007-05-23T22:48:00.000+01:00Took me a while but part of the answer to Macneil'...Took me a while but part of the answer to Macneil's objections to mob rule is contained in my <A HREF="http://stottle.blogspot.com/2007/03/democratic-cannibals.html" REL="nofollow">Democratic Cannibals</A> blog. The rest is part of the remaining parts of Chapter 7 which I'm still writing.Harry Stottlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05317879122444519928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9426656.post-1140029223668599182006-02-15T18:47:00.000+00:002006-02-15T18:47:00.000+00:00Right, we need experts and representatives to help...Right, we need experts and representatives to help sort out processes we don't understand. There just needs to be more accountability among them.<BR/><BR/>Although, I think you can honestly break complex issues down into simple terms if you try hard enough.DaveThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16089110256513437793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9426656.post-1139938047833905422006-02-14T17:27:00.000+00:002006-02-14T17:27:00.000+00:00The budgets comment was a non-jury point. The poin...The budgets comment was a non-jury point. The point was that letting everyone decide everything is a bad idea.Macneil Shonlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16382866616548432101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9426656.post-1139892048202789502006-02-14T04:40:00.000+00:002006-02-14T04:40:00.000+00:00Macneil, aren't you stretching things a bit. The ...Macneil, aren't you stretching things a bit. The idea was concerning cases heard by juries. Last I checked budgets aren't run by juries, only criminal and civil law suits are.<BR/><BR/>How exactly do you think a civil or criminal trial's jury would abuse this system. The power of nullification is already available technically, and it is practiced by accident sometimes. People would simply be informed of it. Judges would have some checks and balances placed on them via the jury. That can't be a bad thing. And finally, in extreme cases, the jury could attempt to have the law changed. But that would be referred to another court. To change a law, would still require a strong majority unless someone managed to stack the associated juries.<BR/><BR/>As long as we usually get representative juries, this would be an improvement. Politicians already implement and keep in place bad law because of special interests and the game of politics. Perhaps it's time we give the people a chance to get a little more hands on with the legislative process by becoming another part of the system of checks and balances.DaveThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16089110256513437793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9426656.post-1139879413802553012006-02-14T01:10:00.000+00:002006-02-14T01:10:00.000+00:00A little elitism, or, as I like to call it, repres...A little elitism, or, as I like to call it, representational-ism, can be necessary. Just look at what some people choose to do for their own personal finances: they hire someone else or have a family member make all investment decisions for them.<BR/><BR/>When a budget is passed, I'd rather it be done by a small group of elected representatives that gets passed for approval or veto by another elected representative. The people at large do not need to be concerned with every budget detail.<BR/><BR/>To be fair and practical, the law must be consistent. Judges likely would do a better job or interpreting the law as it is written than a jury would. When it comes time for a reversal of laws the people *do* rise up and change happens. I'm not sure what would be gained at all, except more strange edge cases and a loss of efficiency (engineering efficiency, though perhaps economic as well :-).<BR/><BR/>Does that mean you disagree about what I think of the overstretching of the commerce clause?Macneil Shonlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16382866616548432101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9426656.post-1139877461081319922006-02-14T00:37:00.000+00:002006-02-14T00:37:00.000+00:00Excellent stuff Mac. I completely disagree with (a...Excellent stuff Mac. <BR/><BR/>I completely disagree with (almost) every word you've said, but its going to take me a while to put together the response that comment deserves. <BR/><BR/>Just one thing you might want to consider. <BR/><BR/>Think about the mechanism I am describing. A Jury only controls the outcome of a single case. If that result is a particularly "perverse" challenge to the existing statute, then it will probably fail to convince even the arbitration juries. And if it does get beyond them, then the debate goes nationwide and they have to convince the entire electorate. Everyone gets their say. <BR/><BR/>What you have to justify, is the elitist position of arguing that - given such a process - regardless of this or that being the popular view, "We" know better than all of you and "We" are not going to allow it. <BR/><BR/>I can tell you straight. I do not and will not concede that ANYONE has the legitimate authority to make that decision in defiance of the majority view.Harry Stottlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05317879122444519928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9426656.post-1139848302256173372006-02-13T16:31:00.000+00:002006-02-13T16:31:00.000+00:00I think a lot of this depends on the assumption th...I think a lot of this depends on the assumption that the people will automatically choose what's best. Mob rule always pushes asside the interest of minorities so we know this isn't true.<BR/><BR/>Many of the laws are put in place for non-trivial reasons and it can take years of indepth study to fully appreciate them. For example, the establishment clause of the constitution draws a line between church and state. It's a matter of debate where that line is actually drawn, but letting a jury decide that the 10 commandments should be allowed on public property says more about their own aesthics and biases than it does what makes good policy, particularly when you need to consider the interests of minority groups.<BR/><BR/>People with unpopular ideas might soon find their first ammendment rights in jeopardy. Suggesting uncomfortable ideas is vital to the advancement of science, but if too many people feel that they "like freedom of speech, but there should be limits because this idea is dangerous" then say bye-bye to freedom of speech.<BR/><BR/>To get the democracy you want, there should be more local autonomy. It's absolutely ridiculous how far congress has stretched the commerce clause, for example. If each state had more say in what laws they want to enforce then you'll find a happier state where their own personal interests are better met. That would mean legal drugs in California, and perhaps legal polygamy in Utah.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, on the other side of this, imagine your plan was put into place and the *best* of all possible results came about. How different would that really be than what we have today? Already judges go where the people go as our culture changes. I always assume we'll get the worst we can get, and thus think of policy in terms of its worst implementation. The worst implementation of jury rule is just too scary for me.Macneil Shonlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16382866616548432101noreply@blogger.com