| insomniac17 said: Who gets to decide what standards are required to vote? Why are those standards correct, versus another set of standards? Why should the people who selected the standards get to select the standards? Or, who gets to decide who should sit on this committee? Why should they get to decide who is on the committee? What happens if the committee oversteps its boundaries? What if some other people are more qualified to sit on the committee? Are they placed on there? And who gets to decide? ... I could keep asking these questions forever, really. Your idea involves a great number of arbitrary decisions. What makes those arbitrary decisions correct? How are they more correct than other arbitrary decisions that could be made? |
Your questions are, of course, very important and non-trivial. I didn't want to discuss them on the first post because it would have been a hell of a long post. In fact, wrong answers to the questions you ask is what leads to the terrible dictatorships or monarquies that have occurred so prevalently throughout the world's history.
However, I strongly believe there is a right answer for most of your questions. I'm not implying that I know these answers, but I am saying that the answer to the question you ask is most probably not: "Everything is relative, so it would be wrong" or along those lines, which is what most people assume is the answer to the questions you pose.
I won't discuss your questions in detail yet, but I will say that there are clear paths by which you may "increase" or "decrease" people's happiness, and these paths are not arbitrary. People's choices on leaders, however, do occur because of arbitrary factors.
