You are doing an excellent job of helping me demonstrate the way I
adjust my opinions as I gain additional information. When you denigrate
the idea of living our ordinary lives in peace and security you put my
original impression that you are 'uncommonly thoughtful' to a severe test.
re: "When I talk about "democratic deficit" I talk about the fact
that citizens have no meaningful ways of impacting
governmental decisions, every four years they get to chose
the puppet on the left or the puppet on the right."
That is a well-stated description. I like the idea of calling our
present-day politicians puppets. We'll do well to devise a method that
replaces them with our best people.
re: "... to say that representative politicians possess some
higher gift of decision making as a form of expertise...
does not seem plausible."
Your conclusion is pre-ordained by your phrasing. There is a huge
difference between 'representative politicians' and political
representatives.
Who could deny that 'representative politicians' elected, as you say, as
puppets of vested interests, have no 'gift of decision making'?
Certainly not me. But that is not the same thing as selecting political
representatives who demonstrate their ability to make decisions in the
people's interest.
re: "There is one thing I don't understand in your line of
argument and I might as well ask you out right. I can
understand you saying that it's wrong for you to impose your
will on others because you lack the knowledge. But you can
be briefed and you have just as much ability to understand
what the experts tell you as a politician does. So to just
say they are somehow superior to yourself in terms of their
capacity to assimilate expert advice just seems like a cop
out."
The issue is not whether I have as much ability to understand what the
experts say as a politician, it is whether I have as much ability to do
so as some other citizen. I probably have greater ability than most
politicians, but I don't even come close to having the ability of some
of my peers.
re: "However, what really surprises me is the inconsistency. You
don't apply that principle evenly. You say it's wrong for us
to make binding decisions over others but we should find
good people to make them for us! So, to me it sounds like
you wouldn't mind living in a dictatorship where you don't
have a say, as long as the dictator does a good job of
deciding everything on our behalf and allows us to 'live our
ordinary lives in peace and security'."
Like your opening paragraph, this assertion is nothing short of absurd.
re: "Let me ask you, what makes you think we have the expertise
to pick good people of competence and integrity... and that
we have the right to impose our chosen candidate on others?
Is that not making a binding decision over others?"
Your phrasing distorts your question:
* if we select good people because of their competence and integrity, we
are not imposing them.
* We are not 'imposing our chosen candidate on others', 'others' chose
the candidate.
* We are not 'making a binding decision over others', 'others' are
making the binding decision for themselves.
re: "What makes you think you have adequate knowledge to be able
to make that decision?"
Nowhere have I said or implied that I "have adequate knowledge to be
able to make that decision?". Quite the contrary! Everything I've
suggested is predicated on finding, among ourselves, the people who have
the requisite ability.
Society is dynamic. The needs of the people vary, in nature and in
intensity. The only ones who know what those needs are, and how best to
meet them, are the people, themselves.
Not everyone wants to participate in the political process, and even
fewer have a sensible grasp of the circumstances that face us. On top
of that, our interest in political matters waxes and wanes throughout
our lives. Even so, at all times, there are many people distributed
among us with the ability and energy to represent our interests. We
don't know who they are, or where they are, so we need a means of
finding them and raising them to positions of leadership.