Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (196921)	3/4/2023 4:31:03 PM
From: sense	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217713

Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something. There are clear and obvious instances showing why and where that is true, there is wisdom in the crowd. It's obviously NOT true... in instances where wisdom still requires a having a basis in information, experience, and understanding... So, you don't ask a million men... to decide for you what's in your own best interest... as, they don't know you, your circumstance, choices available, resources, etc., and each will see the question through the only lens they have to see it... their own ? Even then... the crowd likely to avoid "apparently or obviously stupid" choices better than "some" people... Similarly, you don't usually ask a crowd of random people... with no relevant ability... to determine "truth" in some esoteric question in science ? Which doesn't make them incapable of determining that what "experts" are doing is stupid... when it is the "experts" operating outside their span of control ? And, it is obviously more true... within limits still... in the degree that the question asked... is one they are qualified to judge... even in ways the "experts" are not. And, one of those instances... tends to be in selecting leaders... as we've been doing that a long time, and our survival tends to depend on it. But, that doesn't mean "how" we do that... is perfect... or that it isn't able to be subverted... And, that's pretty easy. Reagan... was an optimist... thus a better choice ? But, a lot of the social selection... when it is not subverted... is easily parsed as voters "selecting the fittest"... women vote for attractive men... men vote for charismatic or proven effective leaders... no one votes for defectives to lead them... so, FDR had to hide the wheel chair... ? So, how do you explain Biden... Fetterman... as anything other than "the system is broken" ? I think in Biden's case... its tough... as lots of evidence "it didn't happen"... legitimately. Fetterman... perhaps the result of the effort spent by one faction... trying to convince themselves that championing the underdog... requires appointing incapable leaders to avoid discriminating wrongly ? And, that results in the expected, in time... with that faction failing... or, resorting to extremes to avoid being forced to recognize it has... as election fraud ? Lots of "pundit" types knew it was "an incorrect result" very early... as Biden had NONE of that appeal that is required in some measure... He had the media lying for him... but, negatives being withheld still not the same thing as having subverted an ability to select based on "fitness"... that is obviously lacking... The "campaign from his basement" Biden ran... couldn't possibly succeed... unless... already knowing "the fix" was in ? The crowd is not capable of "brilliance"... but, also, by definition... not capable of "below average"... as is routinely proven true of individuals... Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides? Yeah. And, thus... why the fallback when socialism fails is always "Oh, well, we had the wrong guy in charge"... which seems it never sparks any bit of curiosity in the partisans... either about the selection process, much less inspire wonder re how "social" ever became the enabler for restoration of "monarchy". But, the same left wing nut jobs that castigate opponents as "royal"... sure do fawn over every left wing dictator they can find... gladly surrender control to him, if mostly over everyone else... until, ah... "no, that's just the wrong guy"... "The right guy" would almost by definition be someone with no interest in participation or demonstrated skill in politics ? Which, no, doesn't have me thinking the U.K. or the Commonwealth are "improving" now ? Any government will work if authority and responsibility are equal and coordinate. This does not insure good government; it simply insures that it will work. But such governments are rare--most people want to run things but want no part of the blame. This used to be called the backseat-driver syndrome. It was one of the things I found interesting in the comparison I saw in politics across the border... In the U.S., it appeared to me at the time, the division in the two party system fostered a fight that precluded agreement even on the obvious... so that, north of the border, the political food fight didn't mean that the pot holes didn't get filled... while south of it... My view has changed, now... as you can't look at San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, New York... or, BLM enabled in torching Kenosha... as really being a failure in a result of a natural product of division... as if its an "unintended consequence"... or a failure of "politics"... rather than a failure of one party... Which, however, is in fact now "our problem" both in the pot holes not getting filled... with more and even bigger ones being made everyday... with quite a few of them in Ukraine