If humans are not allowed to make their own decisions based on the notion that "humanity is fundamentally flawed", what is inherent in the politician that makes them un-flawed, and therefore fit to rule others?
If humans are not allowed to make their own decisions based on the notion that "people don't know what is best for them", what makes those people suddenly knowledgable enough to know what is best for others?
If humans are not allowed to make their own decisions based on the notion that "people don't know what is best for them", how should they be expected to know who to vote for in order to get what is best for them?
If humans are not allowed to make their own decisions based on the notion that "people are selfish", what is inherent in the politician that makes them selfless?
If humans are not allowed to make their own decisions based on the notion that "humans are irrational", what magic spell is cast that suddenly makes a politician rational?
Some are less flawed than others -- try and vote for them.
Um, people are allowed to make their own decisions unless they are children, insane or criminally dangerous. Including who to vote for to contribute on their behalf to collective decisions (decisions that effect other people and so are not purely personal).
You and I are both flawed - how do we know we are not making a flawed judgment of which politicians are less flawed?
"Including who to vote for to contribute on their behalf to collective decisions"
Yeah, making decisions on behalf of others: what size drinks they can buy, what level of water should be in their toilet bowls, what countries their money is used to invade, the lowest wage they are allowed to work for, what kind of information to teach their children, how much they should be spied on, etc.
We are all flawed how can we judge anything then?
For example since you and I are both flawed who are we to say murder is wrong?
We can't possibly be trusted to judge that, obviously murder should be legalized.
You need to learn to examine to logical conclusion of your argument.
I'm not actually arguing that humanity is inherently flawed, I'm simply pointing out the practical problems with arguing it, and then support the idea of giving incredible power to a certain group of people.
We use objective evidence like whether the person has every successfully done stuff that required leadership and a good plan.
And deciding what is or is not a collective decision is a collective decision--one we can all take part in.
by Aaron Babb5 years ago
I feel that what our form of government promotes isn't the best candidate willing to make tough, unpopular decisions, but rather to elect the most charismatic likable person that would die before they purposely do...
by Onusonus5 years ago
They are actually trying to ban circumsision in Sanfrancisco.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/1 … 63945.html
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.