> Crowds are dumb. The only time you want to follow the "wisdom of the crowd" is when the crowd is your marketable commodity.
We're settled, then, because this is where we disagree :)
I believe in the power of the people of taking decisions for themselves (even if the decisions are dumb), while you suggest than an informed elite should have the upper hand (if I read you correctly). I could go on and on about why I believe in what I said above (maybe the fact that I grew up under an authoritarian regime), but that doesn't belong in here, and I'm pretty sure you have your good reasons for believing in what you said.
If you're saying that mob rule has the power to irrationally stop nuclear power production, I agree with you.
If you're saying this is the way things ought to be, I'm not sure if I agree but I think you have a valid point about the democratic form of government.
If you're saying a dumb herd of people's panicky reactions to a scary situation actually mean nuclear power is more dangerous than other forms, you're dead wrong.
I don't think other people here understand which of these arguments you're making, either.
Yeap, you're right on the first 2 points I was trying to make.
Reguarding this
> If you're saying a dumb herd of people's panicky reactions to a scary situation actually mean nuclear power is more dangerous than other forms, you're dead wrong.
I didn't say that people's reaction to nuclear power changes it into something "dangerous", I was only saying that if people decide not to fund nuclear development anymore (say, by not allowing their Governments to subsidize said industry) then its voice should be listened to, even if to some it may sound "dumb" or "panicky". This is why I said that if the voice of the majority isn't listened to we're back to Technocracy, i.e. a small group of informed elite taking vital decisions for the rest of us.
Actually, it's a plutocracy. People don't listen to technocrats unless they have a good idea for generating wealth/power.
The reason you don't leave any serious decisions in the hands of the masses is because it leads to instability, which is the worst thing that can happen to a government.
In every form of government, you have a minority bloc which makes the most important decisions unilaterally. The remaining decisions are, depending on the visible form of government, passed on to various degrees to the public so that they may feel they are participating in the running of their country's affairs.
There is, of course, some give-and-take when a special interest group gains too much power, but those can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
We're settled, then, because this is where we disagree :) I believe in the power of the people of taking decisions for themselves (even if the decisions are dumb), while you suggest than an informed elite should have the upper hand (if I read you correctly). I could go on and on about why I believe in what I said above (maybe the fact that I grew up under an authoritarian regime), but that doesn't belong in here, and I'm pretty sure you have your good reasons for believing in what you said.
I guess history will decide.