Would you rather politicians did

Explain

What the people want.

Right is subjective. Any form of morality is. If you ask a goose stepping Nazi if what Hitler was doing was right, they'd say yes. Obviously to an outsider, that's a hell no. But again, morality is purely subjective. To ask that they do what's "right" is to ask them to morally arbitrate. And honestly, do you want Nazis or Commies? That's how you get Nazis and Commies.

What is best also falls into that trap. This idealistic look creates an arbitrary look at what's good for people without taking into account their considerations. Every politician by the base is going to do what they think is best unless they're basically evil and aren't out to get reelected.

What people WANT is different, it doesn't fall into those traps, it just goes with what people desire.

To do what's right is to do what's best for people.

This poll will show which way people want to say that.

A lot of people aren't smart enough to know the implications of what it is they want.

A politician's job should be to research what is legitimately best for his/her denizens and try to implement it. That does include listening to constituents but not necessarily agreeing if the constituent has incomplete, outdated, or falsified information.

I would rather they did not

Do what's right even if it's not best for the people; do what's best for the people even if it's not what they want; do what people want only if it meets the the first two conditions

The West has representative democracies/republics rather than direct democracies for a very good reason

Paratroopa1 posted...

Do what's right even if it's not best for the people; do what's best for the people even if it's not what they want; do what people want only if it meets the the first two conditions

Two Word: SUBJECTIVE MORALITY.

What's right in a politicians eyes is not necessarily what's right in the people's eyes.
What's best for the people might not be what they have as best.

What they want is what they want.

The road to hell is paved with one thing: Good Intentions . Very seldom do people set out to do evil. It's in pursuit of what they believe is right and best that the greatest evils of all time have been perpetrated. What was right for Germany was to reclaim their power. What was best for the German people was conquest and the Final Solution.

To have a "right" that a Politician should try to pursue you have to have a concrete morality. And Objective Morality is not a thing that actually exists. A best goes along with the same.

Everyone is different, and following a belief that a leader should do what's right, what's best for the people above their will is precisely how freedom dies and how you get Nazis and Commies, the world's worst villains.

holy shit dude 'what's right' in this case is like 'don't fucking do slavery even if the economy booms as a result of unpaid labor ok'

Airship_Canon posted...

What people WANT is different, it doesn't fall into those traps

lol you need to look up Nazis and Commies

NFUN posted...

The West has representative democracies/republics rather than direct democracies for a very good reason

Because Direct Democracies are overly complex despite their seeming simplicity, and if you can't get a couple hundred people to agree on shit, you certainly can't get hundreds of millions. A direct democracy would fail at the first budget crisis because there'd be too many damn ideas for any one of them to gain enough traction.

Representatives are their to streamline the stupidly complex part of running the system, not to arbitrate.

Airship thinks 1 person doing what's right will cause evil

But 100 million people doing what's right is obviously immune to evil

foolm0r0n posted...

Airship_Canon posted...

What people WANT is different, it doesn't fall into those traps

lol you need to look up Nazis and Commies

You need a history check on the rise of both systems and what they aimed to do.

You need a history check

foolm0r0n posted...

Airship thinks 1 person doing what's right will cause evil

But 100 million people doing what's right is obviously immune to evil

100 million people = 100 million different definitions of right and wrong. There's a reason why democracies are universally superior to any single leader system.

Airship_Canon posted...

There's a reason why democracies are universally superior to any single leader system.

Cool now explain why 100% of Nazis and a huge % of Communists came from democracies

Paratroopa1 posted...

holy shit dude 'what's right' in this case is like 'don't fucking do slavery even if the economy booms as a result of unpaid labor ok'

Again, you miss the point of "subjective morality". You look at this situation and go "yeah that's evil", but fail to get that there's someone on the other side of the coin, back in say 1828 and such, who sees the economic boon as more "right" than avoiding the human suffering.

What you're asking for is someone who does YOUR specific definition of right.

That's precisely why Democracy exists- because there is no universal "right". There no universal "best".

For another round, take for instance the Gay Marriage debate not too long ago.
It's not hard to find someone who believes wholeheartedly that Gay Marriage is quite the opposite of Right, they believe keeping it illegal is doing what's RIGHT. Now, you can disagree, but that doesn't make you right, because the thing is to make that claim is to make a claim that you're worthy of being considered superior, which is not only boastful but wrong in and of itself- what makes you better? What makes your "Right" more valid than theirs?

Now you can claim that you have a large amount that agree with you, but then what of the Politician- if he doesn't believe Gay Marriage is right, and that it being kept illegal is for the best, well, by the ideation that Right > Best > Wants, well, then keep that shit illegal- it's doing what's right, it's doing what's best, and wants be damned.

The reasoning for [representative] democracy is simply that, rather than be granted power to do what's right, politicians are beholden to keep their constituents happy, which means conforming to their collective wants. And because it is forcibly adapted to the people's desire, rather than something subjective is why democracy is the best form of government. (With Direct Democracy's failings being not in the overall effect- but in the fact that governing is a lot more complex than it looks)

Electing politicians who do "the right thing" instead of electing politicians who are beholden to the people's wants is how you get fucking evil. Believing that Politicians should do what's good is how you get villains. Concentrating power on a handful of people, which is inevitable when you want people only to do what's right, not what's wanted, leads to dictatorship- even tribal lead and military coup bullshit does.

Airship_Canon posted...

What you're asking for is someone who does YOUR specific definition of right..

uh yeah

why would I ask for someone who doesn't do that

Airship_Canon posted...

Again, you miss the point of "subjective morality". You look at this situation and go "yeah that's evil", but fail to get that there's someone on the other side of the coin, back in say 1828 and such, who sees the economic boon as more "right" than avoiding the human suffering.

yeah but they'd be wrong

you can introduce subjectivity into all three of these. "what the people want" is subjective, "what's best for them" definitely is. it's pointless to introduce because it makes all three options exactly the same.

you're just trying to justify your shitty politics tbh

Paratroopa1 posted...

Airship_Canon posted...

What you're asking for is someone who does YOUR specific definition of right..

uh yeah

why would I ask for someone who doesn't do that

Now, think- what makes your specific definition of right better than anyone else's?
And furthermore, what makes that different from your political wants that'd make it valid enough to be a different case enough to make it worth superceding.

Airship_Canon posted...

Paratroopa1 posted...

Airship_Canon posted...

What you're asking for is someone who does YOUR specific definition of right..

uh yeah

why would I ask for someone who doesn't do that

Now, think- what makes your specific definition of right better than anyone else's?
And furthermore, what makes that different from your political wants that'd make it valid enough to be a different case enough to make it worth superceding.

oh gee if only I thought about stuff then maybe I would have understood the subjective nature of morality, wow

or if you thought about it maybe you'd understand the fucking question

Things caused DIRECTLY by democracy that Airship thinks democracy is immune to:
Nazism
Communism
Gay marriage ban

I wonder what else he'll add to the list