Comments on: Trust democracy?

By: Quelles mesures pratiques peuvent être prises pour améliorer des résultats de politique dans les démocraties ? | Liberté et Épanouissement

Mon, 28 Dec 2009 06:07:13 +0000

[...] semble augmenter le scepticisme ces jours-ci de la valeur de démocratie. La citation suivante d’un poste par John Humphreys sur les "Pensées sur la Liberté” le blog fournit un bon exemple de ce [...]

By: Andy H

Andy H — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 07:24:01 +0000

Democracy has it’s uses — it allows you to change government without any killing and it puts downward pressure on corruption.

Depends what you mean by ‘goverment’ and ‘corruption.’

The ruling party? Yes. The associated entrenched bureaucracy? Good luck.

Personal, direct, secret corruption? Yes. All you have to do to make it ‘respectable’ is declare it. Though it helps if it’s for your party to.

By: Todd Craig

Todd Craig — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 03:23:24 +0000

Discussions on the relative importance of grammar in conversation always remind me of this:

“[Should] one of the Company should seize the Opportunity of saying something; watch his Words, and, if possible, find somewhat either in his Sentiment or Expression, immediately to contradict and raise a Dispute upon. Rather than fail, criticise even his Grammar.” – Ben Franklin’s Rules for Making Oneself a Disagreeable Companion.

By: DocBud

DocBud — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 03:12:13 +0000

When I peer review reports I’m an absolute stickler, the client has a right to expect a professional report, and given that the reports are likely to be dissected by other professionals and may still be referenced in a decade’s time, it is not good for the company’s image.

I do think, however, that blog comments can be given a fair bit of latitude. If we are going to pick people up on spelling and grammar then they may well take their ideas elsewhere (or stop commenting altogether) or the comments get bogged down in discussions on correct spelling and grammar and the real subject gets lost. Half the population cannot correctly use apostrophes but I don’t think we need a comment pointing it out everytime someone makes a mistake unless the meaning is changed or not clear.

By: John Humphreys

John Humphreys — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 02:05:12 +0000

That's Humphreys, and personally I don't care much about grammar or spelling.

By: 'Nuke' Gray

'Nuke' Gray — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 00:29:34 +0000

I am aware that knitpickers have their uses- I just never realised that Humphries was one!

By: P.M.Lawrence

P.M.Lawrence — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 00:19:48 +0000

Thank you, JH. I was thinking of it as being like what happens when someone lets a draft through with typos, where they should be cleared up so that readers won’t see them and think “if they can’t be bothered to fix the little things, maybe they were just as sloppy with the important stuff and it’s not worth my while bothering to read anything they come out with”. Then someone asked for clarification, so I gave that.

By: John Humphreys

John Humphreys — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 00:05:30 +0000

DocBud & Nuke — I think language can be important. In this case it didn’t alter the meaning, but sometimes a subtle language shift can change the perception of debates. Consider the confusion over the words “freedom”, “anarchy”, “coercion”, “property”, “capitalism”, etc.

PML wasn’t rude, and a person isn’t a snob just because they correct a minor error.

By: DocBud

DocBud — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 21:42:29 +0000

Seems a very utilitarian idea, Tim, national welfare may increase but for some individual welfare may decrease, possibly marginally for the former and significantly for the latter.

By: Tim Andrews

Tim Andrews — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 14:37:27 +0000

Actually http://hanson.gmu.edu/futarchy.html is probably a better link for more info on it.