First, the "manure" part is the sequence of dictators that you try to associate the point of view I describe with, even though I have explicitly said that it does not forbid dissent, not even in Congress, and tried to clarify the idea of an "official voice".
Second, if you are poorly informed, blather about priesthoods does not make you any better informed. This started because I was trying to describe the conditions under which I might or might not have confidence in someone's opinion, based on my own knowledge of the subject. I might just as well have described my own assessment of what I needed to know at given points in my life.
When I graduated college, I learned that I did not know enough about economics to have a useful opinion on the subject, so I made it my task to learn something about the it. I found out that I needed to learn more by discovering that I didn't know fundamental things about the subject.
The very idea of representative democracy is that the people do not have the time or resources to inform themselves on most issues, in order to have a useful opinion. What they do have is sense of confidence or lack thereof in those who represent them, and that is what is generally expressed at the ballot box. Referenda are rarely a good idea, and then, generally revolve around an issue where public sentiment has been especially focused.
Third, if you were to tell me about an aspect of New Zealand society that I was unfamiliar with, I would at least have the good grace to try to understand what you are telling me before making much of a comment. |
