You can be as snarky as you want, but the fact is, I don't want the average dumbass on the street to have that much power over my life, and neither, I suspect, do you.
There has to be something resembling meritocracy in any functioning organization, and that includes a government.
I'm aware of the ethical implications, and I haven't made my mind on the matter (probably never will). I just said that it's not a silver bullet, and presented cases where it could go wrong.
That looks like the author is not saying "they'd rule themselves wrong", they're saying "they'd rule me against my wishes by voting conservative reactionary and ineffective laws into my life"
The feeling is probably mutual, for what that's worth -- as evidenced by the first amendment and a wave of religious-freedom restoration acts.
Postscript.
You'd think a little geographic diversity and a federal system would let people let each other live in peace but instead we have national culture wars.
> We can't give the lesser peoples self-rule, they'd rule themselves wrong!!
I'd normally take your side on this, but then there's the fact that the Southern United States still exists and is a major reason why U.S. law borders on jingoistic theocracy.
Please take a look at what happened in Athens a few thousand years ago. You'll see that even then people were susceptible to fear mongering and manipulation, so in effect the real power was in the hands of a few. People has always been stupid, there's no way around that, sorry.
No, you have to understand how human nature works. Unfortunately, it is much easier to get people worked up about populist issues than about something that matters. I think the record speaks for itself.
