Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
objecting a point that is not there is what you failed, miserably, to understand

That happens often in on-line (and not just on-line) discussions. It also happens that you meet on people who don't accept your most cherished, most basic ideas about the world. No need to take offence. (I write this as someone with rather strong disagreements with Drew, though probably entirely in other fields than you.)

yes, it is true that oil companies that know more about oil than you and I do, would make the decisions about their companies.

Methinks Drew was more thinking about energy policy and regulations, things presently outside of the decisionmaking power of those companies, and in the control of nominally democratic-controlled authorities and legislatives. (I.e., you object to something that wasn't there too.) Which is quite right so: oil companies want to maximise their profit, not minimise a country's energy dependence or awoid Peak Oil or guard your health safety.

They learn step by step, as plumbers and lawyers do, as every single person does. They learn step by step, as plumbers and lawyers do, as every single person does. What is more, politics is not mathematics, it is not an exact science. It is about mindset, rational thinking, proper assessment and critical estimation

Here I disagree with both of you. Drew assumes no special skill is assumed, you assume that special skill is all benevolent. I contend there is skill involved, unfortunately it is not the skill to get the best solutions for all but the skill to gain and retain power. There is a selection process. The best we can do is setting the selection criteria - i.e., let politicians advance on the basis of their good solutions to common problems.

Unfortunately, for the very same reason you don't trust democratic opinion, you shouldn't trust the elite model either: those elites are selected by a similarly 'dumb' population. (In a democracy, we are governed by those we deserve.)

It seems to me that you despite politicians.

Well... how old are you? :-) </snark, no need to be offended>

Well, Mr. Jones, I would like to assure you that there is still living the idea of being "politically correct."

I'm not sure you are using "politically correct" in the sense normally used in the English language. Did you mean it as 'doing the correct thing politically'? ('political correctness' in English means to use euphemisms used to awoid normal words that carry an offensive ring, say "black" instead of "negroe" or "mentally ill" instead of "crazy", or even to cleanse out sensitive material from works of art - say a film adaptation of Alexander The Great's life with a love story but without his homosexual relationships.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Feb 21st, 2006 at 07:20:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Perfect.

Here I disagree with both of you. Drew assumes no special skill is assumed, you assume that special skill is all benevolent. I contend there is skill involved, unfortunately it is not the skill to get the best solutions for all but the skill to gain and retain power. There is a selection process. The best we can do is setting the selection criteria - i.e., let politicians advance on the basis of their good solutions to common problems.

Well, okay.  I'd like to change my vote to DoDo's interpretation. ;)

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Tue Feb 21st, 2006 at 08:52:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series