I stated, in other words, that to extend morality outside your own life to the recognition that all life has value and dignity, is a worthwhile model of a non-relative moral.
While that might be a worthwhile thing for everyone to do, I don't think that's how people operate. I don't disagree that this model would be useful in avoiding people fighting/killing/violence et al , I just don't think that's how people work.
I get what you guys are saying. I certainly know our system isn't perfect, ummm, just look at the White House. I just don't see how any of these being proposed would be better and would not lead to basically a tyrant(s) ruling over us.
And, as I said, when only a certain portion of the public gets to vote and that portion all has the same thing in common, that would tend to not have any variance of views, wouldn't it? Also, I mean duri g the last 100 year's this country has fought for the right for women and blacks to vote. A bloody fight, mind you. And, we would just take away that right for the majority of the country?
Its just seems fanciful in my mind. There be no way I could see the majority of America wanting that. Maybe it would be better, you'd never know until you try, I guess.
Just like democracy, any system only works insofar as it avoids corruption. You can have a tyrant in a democratic system - this is why we have term limits in the first place - but its probably less likely than, say, a dictatorship, or a divine monarchy.
People in the thread kept saying that the system was bad, so I asked them to suggest something else. I think the given examples provide interesting alternatives, and they align well with my general feeling that 'letting everyone vote' is a silly idea.
An ideal governance system, to me, has to start with agreeing on whats 'right' and whats 'wrong'. We never have had an agreement on what that is, so its difficult for a bunch of people with different starting points to come to a common end. (not even mentioning that these things change over time).
But once you've done that, once everyone agrees on what the government should do, you then need a system that prevents corruption. The way we attempted to set up our democracy tried to do that, and probably do a good job for a while, but its a mess at this point. Many of the rules are archaic and don't make sense. There's too many people, imo, that have spent their whole lives in the system, to many family political dynasties, too many old names. Any system that's been around long enough will eventually be subsumed by those who wish to control it.
Anyway, if you assume that you've accomplished those two things, any conceivable governing system is probably just as good as the next. In fact, if you assume the above, letting a bunch of people randomly select a leader based on their charisma alone is probably one of the worst ways to do it.
Think of it like the Vatican/Pope. You get a bunch of people who are ostensibly only interested in the enrichment of humanity. All of them are devoted to the cause for their whole life. Stick them in a room, and let them decide who among them they think is the best of the best. IMO, that would probably lead to a better leader (assuming minimal corruption), than our current system. It lessens the chance that a demagogue of any description takes control...
But I don't know where you'd ever find a sufficiently large and diverse enough group that are so altruistic as to be immune from corruption.
Any system will be hacked eventually. The trick is to prevent that eventuality for as long as possible, make it
hard, but also to have mechanisms in place to reverse it once it happens.
For the US, I think a big part of that would be to stop allowing people/families to build political dynasties, to be entrenched in the system for a lifetime, for generations. That kind of nonsense leads to corruption - you don't want people around so long that they start meta-gaming our democracy lol (which has probably been happening for a long time). And for that, at least trump wasnt another clinton/bush/kennedy/etc.