3 ms·

You're assuming representative democracy; there are other kinds of democratic systems. For example, the indecision could be easily resolved by referendum. Altho

You're assuming representative democracy; there are other kinds of democratic systems. For example, the indecision could be easily resolved by referendum. Although I admit that general population tends to vote pretty conservatively in referendums. > The average voter has to oppose people who are trained specialists in lying. I don't see how you could argue it's actually their preference. People have to oppose these people in all areas of life. By having democracy, you actually distribute power more equally and using money to gain influence becomes more costly (its much cheaper to buy a senator than to influence people to vote certain way, and the latter poses much higher risk). I don't think people are that stupid. I agree they can be temporarily confused by lack of information or fear, and that in representative democracy, there is a risk of the person lying. But that's a problem with that system, and there are many options how to prevent that. For example, in Switzerland, on some referendums, people can get a summary information with arguments for and against. And often the debate itself is very healthy. It seems to me this argument is blaming the victim. In all other areas of life, we call out the liar. Whether or not you can tell it's a preference depends on the information you have. Say a girl decides to sleep with a ladies' man, and he breaks up with her afterwards. If she knew, maybe she wouldn't do it. But at the time, she expressed her preference. > But at this moment in time, we have several important problems - like supergerms, climate change and depletion of fossil fuels As far as I know (at least in U.S. and my country), based on various opinion polls and so on, general public is pretty positive towards solving these problems. It's the actual politicians who are reluctant to act.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
> You're assuming representative democracy; there are other kinds of democratic systems. True. I'm basing on I need to learn more about those other systems, I might revise some of my opinions, which are currently based on my experiences with the democracies I know - Poland where I live from direct experience, and few big Western countries from news and reading stuff. > By having democracy, (...) using money to gain influence becomes more costly That's a win only if the cost is too high to pay; as it seems to me now, the cost is higher but not limiting, so the result is that more of society's resources are redirected towards that. See: presidential campaigns, and how much money, energy, time and manpower is wasted on what amounts to a zero-sum game. > I don't think people are that stupid. I agree they can be temporarily confused by lack of information or fear Yeah, I don't want to imply people are idiots - but it seems to me that the state of lack of information (and sometimes fear) is a constant in our societies. From what I read about the history of democracy, its basic assumption is that of a population well-educated in the issues to be decided. > and that in representative democracy, there is a risk of the person lying. But that's a problem with that system, and there are many options how to prevent that. For example, in Switzerland, on some referendums, people can get a summary information with arguments for and against. And often the debate itself is very healthy. I wish to know more. I'd love if someone with direct experience of Swiss process could tell how good is it. > In all other areas of life, we call out the liar. That's actually my core problem with continued existence of advertising/marketing industry (I include political campaigning under the term 'marketing' here). In other areas of life we don't tolerate such nonsense. If your friend tried to pull on you the stuff that is standard practice in marketing, you'd punch him in the face. And yet we accept this from companies and politicians, and we even turned it into a respectable occupation choice. > As far as I know (at least in U.S. and my country), based on various opinion polls and so on, general public is pretty positive towards solving these problems. It's the actual politicians who are reluctant to act. The issue I see here, and why I blame the democratic process for that, is that people may be "pretty positive towards solving these problems" as long as it doesn't require any sacrifices from them. Start talking about CO₂ emissions tax and suddenly you'll be violently opposed by people. Point out we need a new nuclear power plant, and the NIMBYsts wake up. This feeds back into the democratic process and so (that's why I think) politicians stay away from solutions. At this point we really need someone to force some solutions on people, whether they like it or not, and I don't see how (representative) democracy can help with that.
- asgard1024 11y ago
  > I need to learn more about those other systems, I might revise some of my opinions I really recommend looking at Switzerland; U.S. on state level also has lot of direct democracy and similar tradition. > the cost is higher but not limiting, so the result is that more of society's resources are redirected towards that It's not a failure of democracy, it's absence of it. Some people have more power due to economic inequality. > basic assumption is that of a population well-educated in the issues to be decided This is not really an issue. Switzerland and places in U.S. (not to mention Iceland) have more than 100 year tradition in direct democracy, do you think back then the population was better educated? And the sky didn't fall, in fact these places are some of the most advanced in the world. > And yet we accept this from companies and politicians, and we even turned it into a respectable occupation choice I agree. > people may be "pretty positive towards solving these problems" as long as it doesn't require any sacrifices from them In practice, not always true. There have been some examples in direct democracies where people voted for e.g. higher taxes. As long as it is fair, people can actually accept it quite well. But it requires lot of trust in the society, which Eastern Europe countries, for instance, may not have. Good democracy actually produces this trust. > At this point we really need someone to force some solutions on people The problem is once you start forcing solutions onto people, you have opened a really bad can of worms. Lot of dictators had good intentions in the beginning, but somehow their "forcing of solutions" got a little out of hands.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

> You're assuming representative democracy; there are other kinds of democratic systems. True. I'm basing on I need to learn more about those other systems, I might revise some of my opinions, which are currently based on my experiences with the democracies I know - Poland where I live from direct experience, and few big Western countries from news and reading stuff. > By having democracy, (...) using money to gain influence becomes more costly That's a win only if the cost is too high to pay; as it seems to me now, the cost is higher but not limiting, so the result is that more of society's resources are redirected towards that. See: presidential campaigns, and how much money, energy, time and manpower is wasted on what amounts to a zero-sum game. > I don't think people are that stupid. I agree they can be temporarily confused by lack of information or fear Yeah, I don't want to imply people are idiots - but it seems to me that the state of lack of information (and sometimes fear) is a constant in our societies. From what I read about the history of democracy, its basic assumption is that of a population well-educated in the issues to be decided. > and that in representative democracy, there is a risk of the person lying. But that's a problem with that system, and there are many options how to prevent that. For example, in Switzerland, on some referendums, people can get a summary information with arguments for and against. And often the debate itself is very healthy. I wish to know more. I'd love if someone with direct experience of Swiss process could tell how good is it. > In all other areas of life, we call out the liar. That's actually my core problem with continued existence of advertising/marketing industry (I include political campaigning under the term 'marketing' here). In other areas of life we don't tolerate such nonsense. If your friend tried to pull on you the stuff that is standard practice in marketing, you'd punch him in the face. And yet we accept this from companies and politicians, and we even turned it into a respectable occupation choice. > As far as I know (at least in U.S. and my country), based on various opinion polls and so on, general public is pretty positive towards solving these problems. It's the actual politicians who are reluctant to act. The issue I see here, and why I blame the democratic process for that, is that people may be "pretty positive towards solving these problems" as long as it doesn't require any sacrifices from them. Start talking about CO₂ emissions tax and suddenly you'll be violently opposed by people. Point out we need a new nuclear power plant, and the NIMBYsts wake up. This feeds back into the democratic process and so (that's why I think) politicians stay away from solutions. At this point we really need someone to force some solutions on people, whether they like it or not, and I don't see how (representative) democracy can help with that.

asgard1024 11y ago
> I need to learn more about those other systems, I might revise some of my opinions I really recommend looking at Switzerland; U.S. on state level also has lot of direct democracy and similar tradition. > the cost is higher but not limiting, so the result is that more of society's resources are redirected towards that It's not a failure of democracy, it's absence of it. Some people have more power due to economic inequality. > basic assumption is that of a population well-educated in the issues to be decided This is not really an issue. Switzerland and places in U.S. (not to mention Iceland) have more than 100 year tradition in direct democracy, do you think back then the population was better educated? And the sky didn't fall, in fact these places are some of the most advanced in the world. > And yet we accept this from companies and politicians, and we even turned it into a respectable occupation choice I agree. > people may be "pretty positive towards solving these problems" as long as it doesn't require any sacrifices from them In practice, not always true. There have been some examples in direct democracies where people voted for e.g. higher taxes. As long as it is fair, people can actually accept it quite well. But it requires lot of trust in the society, which Eastern Europe countries, for instance, may not have. Good democracy actually produces this trust. > At this point we really need someone to force some solutions on people The problem is once you start forcing solutions onto people, you have opened a really bad can of worms. Lot of dictators had good intentions in the beginning, but somehow their "forcing of solutions" got a little out of hands.