3 ms·

At least in the West, I'd say democracy has generally been fairly stable... but the forces opposed to it have strengthened or weakened over time. Anything whic

by ethbro 8y ago

At least in the West, I'd say democracy has generally been fairly stable... but the forces opposed to it have strengthened or weakened over time. Anything which deconcentrates or destroys capital (rapid innovation, war) relatively strengthens democracy. An age of peace, and lack of political will to prevent innovation-capture by current monopolies, results in democracy weakening relative to commercial interests.

OvermindDL1 8y ago
Not in the United States it's not at least. Even just the recent net neutrality pubic votes don't match what was done in the slightest. The USA is an oligarchy through and through.
- dantheman 8y ago
  There are many who don't want the government involved in 'net neutrality.' The FCC under Obama was acting in an antidemocratic manner when they claimed authority to enforce net neutrality. The executive expanding its power without the interaction of congress is far more anti-democratic than a vote that turned out a way that you didn't like. There are many who think the net is evolving in a great way and want to limit government interference until their is a real problem. If there's a real problem then pass a law and deal with the problem. Often times these harmless laws have terrible consequences and are difficult to undo.
  - lovich 8y ago
    Are many people != Large majority. The large majority publicly backed net neutrality and then the government choice the opposite choice, which only helped a set of large, rich companies. Yes in a democracy you will frequently deal with votes not going the way you want. Having powerful groups who can get the law changed to benefit them is a different issue and is indicative of a de facto oligarchy
    - frockington 8y ago
      I would say the large majority doesn't care about net neutrality in any meaningful way. Personally, I researched it and couldn't find any reason to a have a stance on the issue.
  - tomc1985 8y ago
    According to the ratio of public comments accepted by the FCC, the "many" who think the net is evolving are something like 3%
    - ambicapter 8y ago
      I think it was actually 0.3% when you took out duplicated comments. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=fcc+comments+99.7&t=ffsb&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=fcc+comments+99.7&t=ffsb&ia=web
parthdesai 8y ago
>At least in the West, I'd say democracy has generally been fairly stable Preface: I'm happy to be corrected, since i'm not very well-versed in this topic. In the US, is it even a democracy when a new party can't come up and win an election? You can legally lobby for a party which in reality is just a fancy word for a bribe, so how do you expect either of these parties to have a common's person best interest in mind when it comes to making policies? Compare this to India, where a person went on a strike, and then a group of people formed a party with the said person and he ended up becoming the Chief Minister of Delhi. Now, did he turn out to be good or not is another debate, but my point is, people were fed up with established parties, and it was actually possible for a new person to form a party and make a government out of it. Majority of the population wanted a change, and it was possible for them to get it.
- johannes1234321 8y ago
  The question is: Why can't a new party come up? Is it due to the system itself or the "will of the people"? The other question is: How democratic are those parties? - he primaries seem as such ...
  - rayvy 8y ago
    > The question is: Why can't a new party come up? Is it due to the system itself or the "will of the people"? I honestly and genuinely don't think that's much of a question. I encourage you to read Lawrence Lessig's "Republic, Lost"[1] - which talks about how the big money behind campaign financing makes average Joe's feel as if they're choosing a politician based on their will, which turns out to not really be the case. Rather, they're choosing from a select group of politicians already rubber stamped "OK" by deep pocketed donors. A good quote (not verbatim) from the book is basically how deep pocket donors have a sense of: "Let me choose the potential candidate options, and I don't really care who wins". So it's the "will of the people" only so far as the people's will aligns with something they have 0 control over - the intentions/ambitions of those with money - which doesn't sound much like free will. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Version-Lawrence-Lessig/dp/1455537012 https://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Version-Lawrence-Lessig...

by ethbro 8y ago

OvermindDL1 8y ago

Not in the United States it's not at least. Even just the recent net neutrality pubic votes don't match what was done in the slightest. The USA is an oligarchy through and through.

dantheman 8y ago
There are many who don't want the government involved in 'net neutrality.' The FCC under Obama was acting in an antidemocratic manner when they claimed authority to enforce net neutrality. The executive expanding its power without the interaction of congress is far more anti-democratic than a vote that turned out a way that you didn't like. There are many who think the net is evolving in a great way and want to limit government interference until their is a real problem. If there's a real problem then pass a law and deal with the problem. Often times these harmless laws have terrible consequences and are difficult to undo.
- lovich 8y ago
  Are many people != Large majority. The large majority publicly backed net neutrality and then the government choice the opposite choice, which only helped a set of large, rich companies. Yes in a democracy you will frequently deal with votes not going the way you want. Having powerful groups who can get the law changed to benefit them is a different issue and is indicative of a de facto oligarchy
  - frockington 8y ago
    I would say the large majority doesn't care about net neutrality in any meaningful way. Personally, I researched it and couldn't find any reason to a have a stance on the issue.
- tomc1985 8y ago
  According to the ratio of public comments accepted by the FCC, the "many" who think the net is evolving are something like 3%
  - ambicapter 8y ago
    I think it was actually 0.3% when you took out duplicated comments. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=fcc+comments+99.7&t=ffsb&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=fcc+comments+99.7&t=ffsb&ia=web

parthdesai 8y ago

>At least in the West, I'd say democracy has generally been fairly stable Preface: I'm happy to be corrected, since i'm not very well-versed in this topic. In the US, is it even a democracy when a new party can't come up and win an election? You can legally lobby for a party which in reality is just a fancy word for a bribe, so how do you expect either of these parties to have a common's person best interest in mind when it comes to making policies? Compare this to India, where a person went on a strike, and then a group of people formed a party with the said person and he ended up becoming the Chief Minister of Delhi. Now, did he turn out to be good or not is another debate, but my point is, people were fed up with established parties, and it was actually possible for a new person to form a party and make a government out of it. Majority of the population wanted a change, and it was possible for them to get it.

johannes1234321 8y ago
The question is: Why can't a new party come up? Is it due to the system itself or the "will of the people"? The other question is: How democratic are those parties? - he primaries seem as such ...
- rayvy 8y ago
  > The question is: Why can't a new party come up? Is it due to the system itself or the "will of the people"? I honestly and genuinely don't think that's much of a question. I encourage you to read Lawrence Lessig's "Republic, Lost"[1] - which talks about how the big money behind campaign financing makes average Joe's feel as if they're choosing a politician based on their will, which turns out to not really be the case. Rather, they're choosing from a select group of politicians already rubber stamped "OK" by deep pocketed donors. A good quote (not verbatim) from the book is basically how deep pocket donors have a sense of: "Let me choose the potential candidate options, and I don't really care who wins". So it's the "will of the people" only so far as the people's will aligns with something they have 0 control over - the intentions/ambitions of those with money - which doesn't sound much like free will. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Version-Lawrence-Lessig/dp/1455537012 https://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Version-Lawrence-Lessig...