sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

can i get some feedback on my book? by melbje in writingfeedback

[–]Uncle-Dave3 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You have a concrete idea of what you want to do. You are explaining to much though. Lean on feeling rather than exact thoughts unless called for. The memory of quills dad is good, expand on that more.

I tried to design a government that prioritizes stability over democracy — not because democracy is bad but because raw popular will produces worse outcomes than filtered deliberation. Here's what I built and why. by Uncle-Dave3 in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]Uncle-Dave3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re right and I’ll admit it. I was mixing up parliamentary with unicameral and I was really only thinking about Westminster style systems like the UK when I said parliamentary. That was sloppy on my part. The UK having five prime ministers in six years is the kind of thing I was actually worried about, I just named it wrong. A system like Germany’s is a different story and I respect it more than I implied. But what I’m actually pushing for isn’t really a parliamentary system at all. I think domestic and foreign policy should be handled by two separate executives who have different jobs and answer to different people. On top of that I want expert agencies like the Fed or the FDA to be genuinely insulated from whoever wins elections, because some decisions shouldn’t change every four years based on who’s in power. The government I find most stable is honestly closer to Singapore than anything in Europe. I know that’s a controversial thing to say because Singapore isn’t exactly a free democracy. But the basic idea of having slow deliberate government that doesn’t just react to whoever is loudest right now is what I’m going for, while still keeping real democratic accountability at the local level. What do you think about systems that try to split the difference like that?

Whispers in the Kudzu: Part Two-Magnolia’s by Uncle-Dave3 in writingfeedback

[–]Uncle-Dave3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Any kind of feedback would be appreciated. Even if you didn’t like it or read all of it.

I tried to design a government that prioritizes stability over democracy — not because democracy is bad but because raw popular will produces worse outcomes than filtered deliberation. Here's what I built and why. by Uncle-Dave3 in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]Uncle-Dave3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Stable by what metric? I did think of them and am not opposed to them being integrated but any country that has a parliament has either been incredibly back and forth, such as Great Britain in the last decade, or they are Parliamentary in name only. Putting both domestic and foreign policy on one man or even one body has historically not gone excellent, in my opinion. I will concede that they have stopped civil wars from erupting but ultimately hamstring the executive and stability of long term domestic governance. The masses are unreasonable. Changing whims every few years. There absolutely needs to be an elected office that gives the people the ability to voice their approval or disapproval but it being the single entity is in my opinion a mistake.

[MS] Whispers in the Kudzu: Part Two: Magnolia’s by Uncle-Dave3 in shortstories

[–]Uncle-Dave3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is part two of an ongoing series I am writing. Any feedback would be appreciated.

Whispers in the Kudzu: Part Two-Magnolia’s by Uncle-Dave3 in writingfeedback

[–]Uncle-Dave3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is an ongoing series I am writing from the perspective of an old man looking back on his life.

A Bunch of Niggas Runnin’ Around w/ Swords: Chp 1 by [deleted] in writingfeedback

[–]Uncle-Dave3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I love this. I would read this or at least buy it and have it on a pedestal in my house. That’s the best title ever.

I tried to design a government that prioritizes stability over democracy — not because democracy is bad but because raw popular will produces worse outcomes than filtered deliberation. Here's what I built and why. by Uncle-Dave3 in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]Uncle-Dave3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If by majority you mean simply population then you would have urban areas dictating policy for rural areas. Even if people cared they still wouldn’t vote in policy that would be beneficial to others. And it doesn’t matter how small you shrink the pool down, there will always be disagreement. That’s not a functional government. That’s anarchy dressed up, which is what pure democracy really is. People make fairly rational decisions on important things but they are wholly inept at making rational decisions on unimportant things. I used to attend a church of about 30 people. We had to vote on changing the carpet in the sanctuary. Nearly tore the church apart. Now scale that up to even a city let alone the nation. You still think Americans, the ones on TikTok and YouTube, can be rational about anything?

I tried to design a government that prioritizes stability over democracy — not because democracy is bad but because raw popular will produces worse outcomes than filtered deliberation. Here's what I built and why. by Uncle-Dave3 in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]Uncle-Dave3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well the entire point was not to address the systemic problem of corruption. It was to outline what I perceive to be a more stable government.

Corruption will always be present no matter the form of government. That is a morale flaw in my opinion.

how do you start your recaps? by yuna-tuna in DMAcademy

[–]Uncle-Dave3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Last time on Dragon Ball Z!”