3 ms·

The 200 year-old idea that democracy means majority rules is rather naive. Naive in the sense that it assumes a simplistic model of political dynamics where eve

The 200 year-old idea that democracy means majority rules is rather naive. Naive in the sense that it assumes a simplistic model of political dynamics where every voter is an independent agent, and this assumption has not stood up well to history. The impact of political movements and demogogues, as well as economic coercion of the working classes, has shown that it is in fact possible for a democracy to be controlled by minority interests. It turns out that most people are vulnerable to the influence of thought leaders with their own agenda, can be manipulated to act against their interests, and so it can not be said that the majority of voters exercise political agency.

icu 10y ago
Hi philipov... I would be really interested to hear your proposed solution.
- philipov 10y ago
  I think it'll take many changes along the lines of: a constitutional convention to patch holes in the bill of rights; restoring financial independence to states so they can act as a check on the power of the national government; and universal basic income to eliminate financial coercion of the electorate. But I'm not convinced that will work, or even that it's possible. There are serious practical and political barriers. I think the existence of private institutions that are "too big to fail" is a very dangerous situation to be in. On the other hand, it's not clear how it's possible to prevent our political process from being captured by special interests while also avoiding descent into tyranny of a different form.
  - icu 10y ago
    Wouldn't the first step be to abolish the welfare state? That way it eliminates financial coercion of the electorate and stops the viability of r-selection reproduction that resulted in the demographic shift that enables these sorts of politicians in the first place?
    - sangnoir 10y ago
      > Wouldn't the first step be to abolish the welfare state? Universal Basic Income is the very definition of welfare state, and the purpose of which is to counter the effect special interests coercion. To abolish it would be to empower the lobbyists and too-big-to-fail corporates
    - philipov 10y ago
      No, I think the first place to start is figuring out how, even assuming you come up with a plan that works, to ever get it implemented it in good faith when both political parties represent a threat to free society. Both sides of the aisle have already been captured, and will never allow legislation that threatens their hold on power. They will eviscerate it with amendments and poison it with riders.

icu 10y ago

Hi philipov... I would be really interested to hear your proposed solution.

philipov 10y ago
I think it'll take many changes along the lines of: a constitutional convention to patch holes in the bill of rights; restoring financial independence to states so they can act as a check on the power of the national government; and universal basic income to eliminate financial coercion of the electorate. But I'm not convinced that will work, or even that it's possible. There are serious practical and political barriers. I think the existence of private institutions that are "too big to fail" is a very dangerous situation to be in. On the other hand, it's not clear how it's possible to prevent our political process from being captured by special interests while also avoiding descent into tyranny of a different form.
- icu 10y ago
  Wouldn't the first step be to abolish the welfare state? That way it eliminates financial coercion of the electorate and stops the viability of r-selection reproduction that resulted in the demographic shift that enables these sorts of politicians in the first place?
  - sangnoir 10y ago
    > Wouldn't the first step be to abolish the welfare state? Universal Basic Income is the very definition of welfare state, and the purpose of which is to counter the effect special interests coercion. To abolish it would be to empower the lobbyists and too-big-to-fail corporates
  - philipov 10y ago
    No, I think the first place to start is figuring out how, even assuming you come up with a plan that works, to ever get it implemented it in good faith when both political parties represent a threat to free society. Both sides of the aisle have already been captured, and will never allow legislation that threatens their hold on power. They will eviscerate it with amendments and poison it with riders.