He’s not the first but I was thinking about that. I can’t remember the critic but early on in the American experiment someone described it as mob rule.
Similar but I would prefer a representative democracy but where the representatives need to be national experts on what they are deciding. So for instance if it’s medicine then the representatives need to be physicians and medical scientists, and previous heads of hospitals. If it’s dealing with the environment then the representatives need to be environmental scientists, civic engineers, and so on. Aka have the most informed people for that which you are trying to make decisions. Even better, have their policies reviewed by a body of their peers the same way scientific publishing works to get a measure on how good or bad their ideas are. Even better, test their ideas when they’ve been implemented to see if they’re actually working.
I wasn’t making a political point with the video, but your points are interesting.
I agree that, as far as I understand it right now, body-reviewed policies are the democracy we should have.
How about also requiring someone to have experience or a degree in a specific field to vote on specific issues? For example, I’ve been working in tech for a decade, I should be able to vote on technology policies, but not on medical policies.
That’s a fair additive although it can be difficult to define the boundaries. Particularly tech can have a far reaching influence and arguably global influence these days. If the scope of the policy is narrow then I can imagine that being functional, if the scope is potentially global then that may become an issue.
https://youtu.be/QFgcqB8-AxE
He’s not the first but I was thinking about that. I can’t remember the critic but early on in the American experiment someone described it as mob rule.
Similar but I would prefer a representative democracy but where the representatives need to be national experts on what they are deciding. So for instance if it’s medicine then the representatives need to be physicians and medical scientists, and previous heads of hospitals. If it’s dealing with the environment then the representatives need to be environmental scientists, civic engineers, and so on. Aka have the most informed people for that which you are trying to make decisions. Even better, have their policies reviewed by a body of their peers the same way scientific publishing works to get a measure on how good or bad their ideas are. Even better, test their ideas when they’ve been implemented to see if they’re actually working.
I wasn’t making a political point with the video, but your points are interesting.
I agree that, as far as I understand it right now, body-reviewed policies are the democracy we should have.
How about also requiring someone to have experience or a degree in a specific field to vote on specific issues? For example, I’ve been working in tech for a decade, I should be able to vote on technology policies, but not on medical policies.
That’s a fair additive although it can be difficult to define the boundaries. Particularly tech can have a far reaching influence and arguably global influence these days. If the scope of the policy is narrow then I can imagine that being functional, if the scope is potentially global then that may become an issue.