For a controlling entity to limit participation by creating a state like "accredited" is saying "we know what is best for you, just trust us to make your decisions..."
Controlling who can invest under the guise of protection is a problem that will continue while we remain complacent. I wouldn't presume to say that everyone knows what is in their best interest but I don't need or want a nanny.
Right On @anthony160 that would be the definition of "democracy" where the "elite" rule over the "commoner".
In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy." I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction.
A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.
Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]
Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.] https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm
Agreed, bias increases as groups enact more regulation with"predefined" outcomes. A consequence of this mindset is that it can control our perception to the extent that even an astute observer can be among the last to notice signs of a paradigm shift, unlearning can be very difficult.
In the words of Thomas Robert Dewar:
"Minds are like parachutes. They only function when open"
When I think of improving society it usually refers to the increase of information or knowledge, or that perspectives are broadened, and not to the implementation of a rigid system of expectations.
For a controlling entity to limit participation by creating a state like "accredited" is saying "we know what is best for you, just trust us to make your decisions..."
Controlling who can invest under the guise of protection is a problem that will continue while we remain complacent. I wouldn't presume to say that everyone knows what is in their best interest but I don't need or want a nanny.
Right On @anthony160 that would be the definition of "democracy" where the "elite" rule over the "commoner".
In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy." I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction.
A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.
Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]
Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]
https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm
Agreed, bias increases as groups enact more regulation with"predefined" outcomes. A consequence of this mindset is that it can control our perception to the extent that even an astute observer can be among the last to notice signs of a paradigm shift, unlearning can be very difficult.
In the words of Thomas Robert Dewar:
In reference to "The Utility of the Union in respect to Revenue", the genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise laws.
When I think of improving society it usually refers to the increase of information or knowledge, or that perspectives are broadened, and not to the implementation of a rigid system of expectations.