I'm not arguing with you about the staff size, I'm arguing with you about the amount of time they typically spend "researching".
It has nothing to do with elitism - it has to do with purpose. We hire nuclear engineers to be experts in nuclear engineering. We don't take someone off the street because we accept that they are not qualified to make that decision. Similarly, we hire legislators to determine how to spend government money - that's their whole purpose of existing. We do that because we recognize how silly it would be to have people who's lives are not dedicated to understanding the Federal Budget to decide how to spend the federal budget. It's simply a matter of common sense. I don't want my doctor learning how the federal budget works - I want him to focus on being a great doctor. It's not a negative that he's not informed about it any more than it's a negative that the grocery store clerk doesn't understand how to operate a NASA Space Shuttle. It's simply not his job, and being a part time hobbyist at it is not going to result in a good outcome.
According to your reply, you would have advised Leonardo di Vinci to stick to one science or art so he would be more focused. One does not need to understand nuclear physics to understand the pros and cons of nuclear power -- and be able to check or not check funds devoted to the building of nuclear or non-nuclear power plants.
It's not about putting a little more thought and effort into it. The federal budget has thousands upon thousands of programs. To understand it properly, you'd have to dedicate your career to it. There isn't a single person on this board - and I'd argue we're more educated and have more free time than most - that is qualified to make any of those decisions. Just because Congress has all sorts of problems doesn't mean it can't be worse. It can always be worse - and dramatically so. Keep in mind, every 4 years, we ask citizens to make one big decision on who should be President, and we let each side spend many months and millions of dollars explaining their stand. And yet, approximate half the GOP base doesn't know that Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts. How educated to do you think people are really going to get on 1000 different agencies and programs that they need to select from every year? You get say now - you get to elect people every 2, 4, or 6 years. If people don't do that well, what makes you thinks they do better with technical details of 1000 different issues they don't understand well? No, they are about reality. A society of 300 million people has to delegate things. Everyone can't be involved in every signle decision. There's no other rational way to make it work.
If the staff spends ANY time researching it's still a huge jump over what the average American can put together.
Bad counter sir. Using a historical genius as a comparison for normal humans is silly. Pros/cons is so simplistic. It is significantly more nuanced than a simple understanding of pros and cons.
No - because he's an individual citizen and can get involved in what he wants. Your proposal would require him to try to master everything, regardless of his skill set or interest level. Ummm, you damned well do need to know just how much funding is truly required to safely and properly operate and protect your nuclear reactor if you're going to be deciding whether to increase or decrease funding for that nuclear reactor.
I don't know your profession, but let's say that you are petroleum engineer. You (and Major) are saying that you should keep your nose in your own field and not ponder any other science or technology -- you would lose focus on what you do best.
So, unless you believe people are dullards with no capacity to make intelligent decisions, educate them -- provide the information needed to perform to your self-imposed standards.
No. Just as I don't expect my accountant to be an expert on nuclear physics, I don't expect everyone in America to become an expert on the Federal Budget. It's a stupid and highly unproductive waste of everyone's time. I'd rather do what we do in every single other part of society: get people to specialize in that field, and then trust them to do it. Tell me - how much time do you think it would take for you to truly understand the South Texas Nuclear Project, and the proper levels for its budget? Multiply that by hundreds of thousands of programs every single year and that's the amount of time you're consuming from every single person's life to fulfill this bizarre idea - time that could be used productively at work or enjoying life or raising kids or whatever else.
If I required you to learn about every single program in the federal budget against your will, it would take time away from some other pursuit you prefer and which provides more value to your life.
While I certainly do not make any claim to be a member of the intelligensia, I do have familiarity with a wide range of topics regardless of whether the topic at hand is defense, education, power, climate, economy, etc. Am I an expert on any of the aforementioned topics? ... no. Can I learn about the basic mechanics of each topic to evaluate its relative importance to me? ... yes. Would those studies take time away from movies and video games? ... yes. However, I place more value on making responsible decisions than indulging baser pursuits. Where we differ is that I believe most people are of that mindset and you believe that people are not as capable or desirous of knowlege as you ... and that is elitist.
Sounds to me like we need a smaller federal budget/less programs, not less participation in governance. Once again, another argument against complexity. And also, a large part of the reason voter turnout is low is because of a natural apathy and disconnect that people feel from the actual civic process. Like I said before, letting people plug directly into that process would likely increase the amount they care. Once again, another argument against complexity. We've needlessly created a middleman that pulls us further away from the civic process, or at the very least, given too much power to too few people which creates an even bigger gap. I'm not surprised a federalist such as yourself and Deckard are against this, but you're not making a really solid case against the concept, but rather you seem to be making a very good case against what we have now. On a similar note, this doesn't have to be an *all or nothing* idea. It can be implemented as a hybrid, or with qualifiers, or with opt-in clauses, etc. So, to be outright dismissive of it is kind of unfair. It's an interesting concept that I guarantee you has future merit. We get to vote on referendums on the local level (voter turnout is notoriously low for those), but the people who tend to vote in special elections tend to be the most civics minded and well educated (not a big surprise really), so, in essence, it's "self selection" that keeps the tardos from mucking things up. Part of that participation problem is also how it is conducted (get off work, travel somewhere, stand in line, vote, etc.), not very convenient or practical. Also, another thing to consider on the issue of representative vs. participatory democracy... our populace has VASTLY outgrown our government in terms of representation. The amount of people a House Rep or Senator represents has grown far out of proportion compared to the original framework that was put together. That, to me, is also endemic of this problem. Ron Paul, for all his faults, is one of the major proponents of fixing this, to his credit.
The thought that people must "master everything" in this system is a red herring. Like you said, figuring out the basic direction you want to go with federal programs isn't hard. And the argument that it's "too complex" for the average person to participate or understand it is not an argument against their participation, it's an argument against complexity. We can still have representative democracy and government that fights over and handles the details/finer points, but most people are smart enough to know the pros/cons of things on a base level and make broader determinations about the directions they want their government to go. And besides, it's not like it has to be a mandatory thing, either.
I just wanted to point out that you're a couple of hundred years off. The Federalist Party hasn't had any influence worth mentioning since the War of 1812. I'm also a supporter of states rights, believe it or not. I can't help it if this idea thumbs has had (he says it's his idea) is completely off the reservation. This isn't Austin, where we have local elections all the time, and for a host of different things. The country has become too large for micro-managing, and that is what this would attempt. I don't care how nice to you a pie in the sky idea sounds, it's still pie in the sky. If I were in a better humor, I would simply laugh. What scares me is that otherwise intelligent people take stuff like this seriously. Give me a break.
The only way to fix it is for both sides to give a little. Cut welfare some and cut military spending some. Slow down the amount of foreign aid, we shouldn't be borrowing from China to give to other countries. It isn't a quick fix, but if we can start getting on the plus side of taxes vs spending, slowly the budget will be fixed.
Give me a break, and what's with the attitude? "Well I disagree with you, buddy."? Seriously? I'm not your buddy, guy. <object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ONqYuqWY8iM?version=3&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ONqYuqWY8iM?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object> That's a pretty vague statement. In the spirit/context of the discussion, Federalist is meant to mean one that supports/condones a larger federal government, and based on your posting history, I believe this to be true about you. Nor do I think your endorsement of State's Rights is all that strong or genuine. Not that you care. It's more than likely his idea, and I don't get why you're being a dick about it to him. In fact, I literally had the exact same idea and subsequent discussion with my coworkers about this concept after reading through the contraception thread this morning. So? No it wouldn't, it's the exact opposite, really. Or at least it certainly doesn't have to be. It's voluntary participation on a very broad, generalized level. Not exactly rocket surgery. How is it any more nuanced than having to research the issues and pick somebody to vote on? Seems about on the same level to me. You can make it as complex as you want to, or as simple as you need it. Good, I laugh at your small mindedness. So agree to disagree.
Well, I won't disillusion you about things too much, but I think you should consider that a voluntary system (i.e. self selecting) might make it to where those who participate in this little social experiment are a bit more than the "average" American. So we don't have Cletus voting for that giant cross in Alaska, etc.
Well, **** you. In case I missed it, point out to me where I said "Buddy." Don't worry. I won't make that mistake in future. As for thumbs, he's perfectly capable of speaking for himself. I'm also perfectly capable of disagreeing with him, and you. I could really care less what you think of me, but at least get your crap straight, if you're going to throw it out there. Adios.
