4 ms·

Is there actually any such thing as a democracy, and if so would we want it? A pure democracy would actually be a nightmarish form of totalitarianism in which

by api 11y ago

Is there actually any such thing as a democracy, and if so would we want it? A pure democracy would actually be a nightmarish form of totalitarianism in which the majority was able to enforce its norms upon any minority without any checks or balance. The US is a constitutional republic in which democratic institutions act as one check upon power.

disposition2 11y ago
The US is a constitutional republic in which democratic institutions act according to the wishes of those with the biggest checkbook except for a few limited cases...and even when the populace can defeat that, often the checkbook eventually wins. See CISA as the most recent example.
- sandworm101 11y ago
  It's too easy to blame the billionaires' checkbooks. US elections can be bought, but only indirectly. Money buys advertising, but the people still have the power not to listen to advertising. Just ask Jeb! Bush. I still blame the individual voters who choose to remain so ignorant.
  - beerbajay 11y ago
    It is systems that allow for bad results. Blaming the individual is silly. If people are ignorant, there is a system keeping them so.
  - LoSboccacc 11y ago
    In the big number game, you have half people dumber than average. In a system where the majority wins, that's self defeating.
  - disposition2 11y ago
    > Money buys advertising, but the people still have the power not to listen to advertising. Quite true. However, considering how the financier of these advertisements can be obfuscated or just not reported period, you're basically asking people to ignore all political advertising and be suspect about just about everything they read, hear or see.
    - api 11y ago
      "The people" are sort of a non entity. A person can resist propaganda, but a propagandist does not have to convince a person. A propagandist need only convince enough people to sway an election-- and any subset of people of any age or education will do. If the election is close it might only take a few percent. This indeed places a lot of power in the hands of the media and anyone who can buy it. Democracy is sort of a plutocratic oligarchy system where ordinary people are recruited to be intermediaries and are therefore given the illusion of power.
- Amezarak 11y ago
  CISA, for all its importance, is a niche issue. Most Americans don't care. Some of them are all for it. The only groups who have a problem with CISA are the technical community and some civil liberties advocates. CISA is not an example of a law passed in the face of popular opposition.
  - nightcracker 11y ago
    [citation needed]
  - michaelmrose 11y ago
    Most people will never be aware of every minor or even most major issues. I think the majority of people who were aware of it were against it.
michaelmrose 11y ago
You don't think there exists a middle ground between a minority of the rich running our country into the ground and running the country like American idol?
gkya 11y ago
For such pure democracy to be useful and desirable, the units of governance should be reverted to city-states, in which the citizens share common traditions and common problems. The European national state, or the US and alike are just too big for this. I live in a national state, and even after ethnical cleansing about the beginnings of 20th century, and years of fascism and social engineering, the state is too big to be able to peacefully agree on sth. in a way that nobody will feel out. Now, I'm in favour of city-states, but I do know that it's only a daydream. Postscript: I think that the US is sort of like the continuation of the Empire. D.C. is the new Rome. And it is indeed sort of a Senatus populusque americanus, in that people rule the state. But as Aulus Gellius says, here, people means patricians.
fallingfrog 11y ago
I upvoted you, because I think you are bringing up an important issue even if it is uncomfortable for us in the USA who believe in democracy on an almost religious level. This is something that John Stuart mill talked about; the fact that the life and welfare of a minority (say, Muslims or Jews in Germany) can trump the wishes of the majority. If an issue directly impacts you in that way then it might actually be terrible if the majority always gets their way. Gay rights might be another example- did the "moral majority" ever really have the right to deny gays the freedom to marry who they chose?

by api 11y ago

disposition2 11y ago

The US is a constitutional republic in which democratic institutions act according to the wishes of those with the biggest checkbook except for a few limited cases...and even when the populace can defeat that, often the checkbook eventually wins. See CISA as the most recent example.

sandworm101 11y ago
It's too easy to blame the billionaires' checkbooks. US elections can be bought, but only indirectly. Money buys advertising, but the people still have the power not to listen to advertising. Just ask Jeb! Bush. I still blame the individual voters who choose to remain so ignorant.
- beerbajay 11y ago
  It is systems that allow for bad results. Blaming the individual is silly. If people are ignorant, there is a system keeping them so.
- LoSboccacc 11y ago
  In the big number game, you have half people dumber than average. In a system where the majority wins, that's self defeating.
- disposition2 11y ago
  > Money buys advertising, but the people still have the power not to listen to advertising. Quite true. However, considering how the financier of these advertisements can be obfuscated or just not reported period, you're basically asking people to ignore all political advertising and be suspect about just about everything they read, hear or see.
  - api 11y ago
    "The people" are sort of a non entity. A person can resist propaganda, but a propagandist does not have to convince a person. A propagandist need only convince enough people to sway an election-- and any subset of people of any age or education will do. If the election is close it might only take a few percent. This indeed places a lot of power in the hands of the media and anyone who can buy it. Democracy is sort of a plutocratic oligarchy system where ordinary people are recruited to be intermediaries and are therefore given the illusion of power.
Amezarak 11y ago
CISA, for all its importance, is a niche issue. Most Americans don't care. Some of them are all for it. The only groups who have a problem with CISA are the technical community and some civil liberties advocates. CISA is not an example of a law passed in the face of popular opposition.
- nightcracker 11y ago
  [citation needed]
- michaelmrose 11y ago
  Most people will never be aware of every minor or even most major issues. I think the majority of people who were aware of it were against it.

michaelmrose 11y ago

You don't think there exists a middle ground between a minority of the rich running our country into the ground and running the country like American idol?

gkya 11y ago

For such pure democracy to be useful and desirable, the units of governance should be reverted to city-states, in which the citizens share common traditions and common problems. The European national state, or the US and alike are just too big for this. I live in a national state, and even after ethnical cleansing about the beginnings of 20th century, and years of fascism and social engineering, the state is too big to be able to peacefully agree on sth. in a way that nobody will feel out. Now, I'm in favour of city-states, but I do know that it's only a daydream. Postscript: I think that the US is sort of like the continuation of the Empire. D.C. is the new Rome. And it is indeed sort of a Senatus populusque americanus, in that people rule the state. But as Aulus Gellius says, here, people means patricians.

fallingfrog 11y ago

I upvoted you, because I think you are bringing up an important issue even if it is uncomfortable for us in the USA who believe in democracy on an almost religious level. This is something that John Stuart mill talked about; the fact that the life and welfare of a minority (say, Muslims or Jews in Germany) can trump the wishes of the majority. If an issue directly impacts you in that way then it might actually be terrible if the majority always gets their way. Gay rights might be another example- did the "moral majority" ever really have the right to deny gays the freedom to marry who they chose?