Posted: May 13, 2018 6:20 pm
by Xerographica
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Democracy is the least unfair system that I am aware of. It's not perfect, but it's the best we currently have.

My main point is that there's no evidence that voting is better than spending at ranking things.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Now with regards to your argument/analogy:
1. Books are a matter of taste not objective facts.

I agree.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:2. This means you have no objective basis to assert that one way would elevate trash and the other treasures. Especially since you haven't even properly defined what 'trash' or 'treasures' refers to exactly.

Like you pointed out... trash and treasure are subjective, so it would be pointless for me to try and define them. But if voting puts Harry Potter at the top, while spending puts Adam Smith or Charles Darwin at the top, then this is something you should seriously consider before endorsing voting as the best way to elect presidents.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:3. You haven't justified your assertion that voters would elevate trash and spenders treasure.

The proof is in the pudding. Sure, I could say that the point of education is that it's correlated with income. Is there any evidence that this is true? Does there need to be? If so, then you should agree that there also needs to be evidence either for, or against, the effectiveness of voting compared to spending.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:4.
Reasonable people expect executions to be supported by evidence.

Reasonable people wouldn't accept executions.

The majority of jurors accepted the execution of Socrates. Were they reasonable? In any case, I'm guessing that they would have been far more reasonable if they had been obligated to put their money where their votes were.