4 ms·

> They basically show that public desire over a given law has almost no impact on the probability of that issue being passed, and inversely public dissent on a

by ardy42 7y ago

> They basically show that public desire over a given law has almost no impact on the probability of that issue being passed, and inversely public dissent on a given law has almost not impact on the probability of that law failing to pass. I read the abstract, and that doesn't seem to contradict what I said, which was "...democracy, ...give[s] a bigger seat at the decision-making table to stakeholders outside of privileged leadership classes." I didn't say it'd always give the people the biggest seat, just a bigger one than they'd have otherwise. Furthermore, even if that study is correct, it would have a big blind-spot, since I can't imagine that it covers policy that "economic elites and organized groups representing business interests" would want but was never pursued by the government because it would be so contrary to public desire (and thus would never show up in any empirical data set). It's quite plausible that elite/business interests dominate certain areas of policy most of the time (probably the smaller and more technical types), but are overridden occasionally but in a big way by the public when it comes to certain large policy changes. >> it sounds like you're claiming that citizens of democracies have no more political voice than those of authoritarian countries like the PRC or North Korea, which is obviously false. > Is it obviously false? The current situation shows that democratic governments are more than capable of exerting Authoritarian control over society, sure you will argue that it is a "good reason" right now due to pandemic, but the fact this control is even possible shows where the power is, and how little freedom people really have. Yes. I, a member of the public, along with many others fully support stay-at-home orders, etc. Democracy doesn't mean every citizen gets to do whatever dumb thing they get it in their head to do because "freedom." > I did jump to an assumption based on past experiences here on HN and the context around your comments. Don't do that, please.

syshum 7y ago
>>Yes. I, a member of the public, along with many others fully support stay-at-home orders, etc. Democracy doesn't mean every citizen gets to do whatever dumb thing they get it in their head to do because "freedom." so do you support 100% of every measure, every state government has taken, or is that just a board support over closing the entire economy and putting millions out of work? Do believe there are any limits on government in a time or crisis, or more to the topic at hand do you believe in any limits on democracy or just pure 50.1% can tell the 49.9% what to do? I will admit I am not a strong supporter of pure democracy, I do prefer Constitutional Republics with strong protections for the minority from the excesses of the majority, the minority being the individual. History has shown the majority can not be trusted to rule over others any more than dictators can >Democracy doesn't mean every citizen gets to do whatever dumb thing they get it in their head to do because "freedom." In a free society you can as that "dumb thing" is not directly, and provably a danger to others, and there is some libertarian arguments for for some of the stay at home orders. However many of them have gone well beyond public protection and are a clear power grab and should be unconstitutional and are a clear violation of natural human rights But the prevailing opinion by the "majority" in this democracy is that your rights end when the crisis begins, meaning you have no rights at all, because in times of crisis is when you need your rights more than ever, right scan not and should not be "suspended" because of crisis, if they can they are not rights at all but privileges Of-course a democracy does not have to be a free society, most people associate democracy with freedom though
- kyuudou 7y ago
  >Constitutional Republics Very important distinction and thank you for making note of it. While our government is inspired by democratic (rule by the people) values and allows representation through the Legislative branch, it is also designed to protect basic rights and to delegate much else to the States. I think direct democracies work in small, culturally homogenous countries like Norway or a place where everyone is "on the same page" like Switzerland which really does have a direct democracy, but in such a large and heterogenous federation like the US it could get pretty scary pretty quickly. There is a mysteriously frightening dimension to crowd thought and mob rule that I think individuals don't think about until it's too late, too late to consider what the long-term repercussions of 51% suddenly agreeing on one thing might have.
- ardy42 7y ago
  > so do you support 100% of every measure, every state government has taken, or is that just a board support over closing the entire economy and putting millions out of work? Who knows? That's a pretty overbroad corpus of material you're citing. That said, I'm pretty comfortable with the state-level responses so far, given the federal government response has been so inept that it required such drastic corrective measures from the states. It would be insane to knowingly choose to sacrifice the lives of hundreds of thousands on the altar of the economy. > Do [you] believe there are any limits on government in a time or crisis, or more to the topic at hand do you believe in any limits on democracy or just pure 50.1% can tell the 49.9% what to do? There are, but those limits also cannot be understood to require a dysfunctional response to a crisis. Ultimately, the government has to be able to do the reasonable thing. And yes, "reasonable" is something that requires judgement and often cannot be mechanically predefined. > I will admit I am not a strong supporter of pure democracy, I do prefer Constitutional Republics with strong protections for the minority from the excesses of the majority, the minority being the individual. It's pretty clear that we haven't been talking about some fantasy unchecked majoritarian direct democracy, so it's a bit of a straw man to start injecting that in. > In a free society you can as that "dumb thing" is not directly, and provably a danger to others, and there is some libertarian arguments for for some of the stay at home orders. However many of them have gone well beyond public protection and are a clear power grab and should be unconstitutional and are a clear violation of natural human rights Eh, I disagree. Also those arguments that the government should only be able to order confirmed cases to stay home are pretty unreasonable, given the fact of asymptomatic carriers and woefully inadequate testing capability. > But the prevailing opinion by the "majority" in this democracy is that your rights end when the crisis begins, meaning you have no rights at all, because in times of crisis is when you need your rights more than ever, right scan not and should not be "suspended" because of crisis, if they can they are not rights at all but privileges See that's where you're misunderstanding things. Those rights are meaningless if the system that secures them is so rigid that it invites total rejection. You're right that a crisis can be a risky time, but fundamentalism is not necessarily the safest response.

by ardy42 7y ago

syshum 7y ago

>>Yes. I, a member of the public, along with many others fully support stay-at-home orders, etc. Democracy doesn't mean every citizen gets to do whatever dumb thing they get it in their head to do because "freedom." so do you support 100% of every measure, every state government has taken, or is that just a board support over closing the entire economy and putting millions out of work? Do believe there are any limits on government in a time or crisis, or more to the topic at hand do you believe in any limits on democracy or just pure 50.1% can tell the 49.9% what to do? I will admit I am not a strong supporter of pure democracy, I do prefer Constitutional Republics with strong protections for the minority from the excesses of the majority, the minority being the individual. History has shown the majority can not be trusted to rule over others any more than dictators can >Democracy doesn't mean every citizen gets to do whatever dumb thing they get it in their head to do because "freedom." In a free society you can as that "dumb thing" is not directly, and provably a danger to others, and there is some libertarian arguments for for some of the stay at home orders. However many of them have gone well beyond public protection and are a clear power grab and should be unconstitutional and are a clear violation of natural human rights But the prevailing opinion by the "majority" in this democracy is that your rights end when the crisis begins, meaning you have no rights at all, because in times of crisis is when you need your rights more than ever, right scan not and should not be "suspended" because of crisis, if they can they are not rights at all but privileges Of-course a democracy does not have to be a free society, most people associate democracy with freedom though

kyuudou 7y ago
>Constitutional Republics Very important distinction and thank you for making note of it. While our government is inspired by democratic (rule by the people) values and allows representation through the Legislative branch, it is also designed to protect basic rights and to delegate much else to the States. I think direct democracies work in small, culturally homogenous countries like Norway or a place where everyone is "on the same page" like Switzerland which really does have a direct democracy, but in such a large and heterogenous federation like the US it could get pretty scary pretty quickly. There is a mysteriously frightening dimension to crowd thought and mob rule that I think individuals don't think about until it's too late, too late to consider what the long-term repercussions of 51% suddenly agreeing on one thing might have.
ardy42 7y ago
> so do you support 100% of every measure, every state government has taken, or is that just a board support over closing the entire economy and putting millions out of work? Who knows? That's a pretty overbroad corpus of material you're citing. That said, I'm pretty comfortable with the state-level responses so far, given the federal government response has been so inept that it required such drastic corrective measures from the states. It would be insane to knowingly choose to sacrifice the lives of hundreds of thousands on the altar of the economy. > Do [you] believe there are any limits on government in a time or crisis, or more to the topic at hand do you believe in any limits on democracy or just pure 50.1% can tell the 49.9% what to do? There are, but those limits also cannot be understood to require a dysfunctional response to a crisis. Ultimately, the government has to be able to do the reasonable thing. And yes, "reasonable" is something that requires judgement and often cannot be mechanically predefined. > I will admit I am not a strong supporter of pure democracy, I do prefer Constitutional Republics with strong protections for the minority from the excesses of the majority, the minority being the individual. It's pretty clear that we haven't been talking about some fantasy unchecked majoritarian direct democracy, so it's a bit of a straw man to start injecting that in. > In a free society you can as that "dumb thing" is not directly, and provably a danger to others, and there is some libertarian arguments for for some of the stay at home orders. However many of them have gone well beyond public protection and are a clear power grab and should be unconstitutional and are a clear violation of natural human rights Eh, I disagree. Also those arguments that the government should only be able to order confirmed cases to stay home are pretty unreasonable, given the fact of asymptomatic carriers and woefully inadequate testing capability. > But the prevailing opinion by the "majority" in this democracy is that your rights end when the crisis begins, meaning you have no rights at all, because in times of crisis is when you need your rights more than ever, right scan not and should not be "suspended" because of crisis, if they can they are not rights at all but privileges See that's where you're misunderstanding things. Those rights are meaningless if the system that secures them is so rigid that it invites total rejection. You're right that a crisis can be a risky time, but fundamentalism is not necessarily the safest response.