5 ms·

> We can fight it by electing the correct people. Can we? Please explain how that would work... Your faith in democracy is admirable, although misplaced.

LegitShady 6y ago
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time…
- marta_morena_25 6y ago
  I am not suggesting to replace democracy... The thing is that we don't have a democracy in most countries. It's more like the government is throwing a bone to people. Real power comes through lobbying. So in a way, lobbyists have the actual power to elect, and therefore they are the actual electorate in our democracy. The "normal" person is simply just getting his bone as well to keep quiet. And looking at the fact that 40% of USA still support Trump, that may actually be a good thing.
  - LegitShady 6y ago
    The best way to ethically secure your rights are to secure everyone else's as well.
- chrischen 6y ago
  Democracy can both be not perfect and also conducive to a surveillance state. That being said, the experiment is on-going so we can’t definitively say Democracy is the best system (unless of course you are a nationalist, in which case any system which is adopted by us is by definition the best system because we are in it).
  - LegitShady 6y ago
    >and also conducive to a surveillance state The thing that is conducive to a surveillance state is the centralization of power and information. In some cases this is a strong federal government, but Facebook is as big a problem as Sabre is as big a problem as Amazon etc. But democracy is not more prone to the development of centralized power than any other system. The issue today is large corporations as well. When Take Two can send private investigators to intimidate a youtuber at his home there is no way to have people's rights be secure. >That being said, the experiment is on-going so we can’t definitively say Democracy is the best system Whoever said this? It's directly contradicting Churchill's quote, so not really part of a response to what I said.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
phs318u 6y ago
I had to stop and think about why the, "can we?" argument annoys me. I feel that it reflects (at its most extreme) a belief that if the system isn't perfect and the candidates beyond question, that there's no benefit in making a choice. However, I feel that there's an opportunity cost to perfectionism. We (in Western democracies) have been able to make some progress in some areas (while clearly acknowledging things are far from perfect, or even completely broken in some areas), while we're "in" an imperfect system. Surely, there's some possible benefit to making a "least worst" choice, while that choice still exists? And if not, what's the alternative?
- shkkmo 6y ago
  This is not about perfection, this is about not supporting a system the is explicitly designed to exploit wedge issues to avoid having to make an significant amount of change to a status quo that is completely broken in almost every way.
  - phs318u 6y ago
    I live in Australia where voting is mandatory. My belief is that this tends to mitigate the appeal to extremes because a majority of the voting public tends to be relatively centrist on most issues, meaning that a strategy of appealing to the extremes, will lose you the valuable middle. It tends not be as much of a winning strategy here as it does in the US. Of course, the downside is that change is often very incremental. As I get older though, I'm finding that's not such a bad thing. Democracy can withstand small perturbations and stay relatively stable.
    - runarberg 6y ago
      Centrism is inherently conservative, and will lean towards whatever the current system is. A “centrist” party in the Soviet Union would be just another communist party, and a centrist party in Australia is likewise just another capitalist party. Likewise a centrist party in the USA would be another run of the mill capitalist, pro-military, pro-police. pro-surveillance. It would basically just be the current Democratic party except it wouldn’t fight for immigration rights, abortion rights, nor gay rights. A lack of centrist parties is not what is wrong with American politics currently.

LegitShady 6y ago

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time…

marta_morena_25 6y ago
I am not suggesting to replace democracy... The thing is that we don't have a democracy in most countries. It's more like the government is throwing a bone to people. Real power comes through lobbying. So in a way, lobbyists have the actual power to elect, and therefore they are the actual electorate in our democracy. The "normal" person is simply just getting his bone as well to keep quiet. And looking at the fact that 40% of USA still support Trump, that may actually be a good thing.
- LegitShady 6y ago
  The best way to ethically secure your rights are to secure everyone else's as well.
chrischen 6y ago
Democracy can both be not perfect and also conducive to a surveillance state. That being said, the experiment is on-going so we can’t definitively say Democracy is the best system (unless of course you are a nationalist, in which case any system which is adopted by us is by definition the best system because we are in it).
- LegitShady 6y ago
  >and also conducive to a surveillance state The thing that is conducive to a surveillance state is the centralization of power and information. In some cases this is a strong federal government, but Facebook is as big a problem as Sabre is as big a problem as Amazon etc. But democracy is not more prone to the development of centralized power than any other system. The issue today is large corporations as well. When Take Two can send private investigators to intimidate a youtuber at his home there is no way to have people's rights be secure. >That being said, the experiment is on-going so we can’t definitively say Democracy is the best system Whoever said this? It's directly contradicting Churchill's quote, so not really part of a response to what I said.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

phs318u 6y ago

I had to stop and think about why the, "can we?" argument annoys me. I feel that it reflects (at its most extreme) a belief that if the system isn't perfect and the candidates beyond question, that there's no benefit in making a choice. However, I feel that there's an opportunity cost to perfectionism. We (in Western democracies) have been able to make some progress in some areas (while clearly acknowledging things are far from perfect, or even completely broken in some areas), while we're "in" an imperfect system. Surely, there's some possible benefit to making a "least worst" choice, while that choice still exists? And if not, what's the alternative?

shkkmo 6y ago
This is not about perfection, this is about not supporting a system the is explicitly designed to exploit wedge issues to avoid having to make an significant amount of change to a status quo that is completely broken in almost every way.
- phs318u 6y ago
  I live in Australia where voting is mandatory. My belief is that this tends to mitigate the appeal to extremes because a majority of the voting public tends to be relatively centrist on most issues, meaning that a strategy of appealing to the extremes, will lose you the valuable middle. It tends not be as much of a winning strategy here as it does in the US. Of course, the downside is that change is often very incremental. As I get older though, I'm finding that's not such a bad thing. Democracy can withstand small perturbations and stay relatively stable.
  - runarberg 6y ago
    Centrism is inherently conservative, and will lean towards whatever the current system is. A “centrist” party in the Soviet Union would be just another communist party, and a centrist party in Australia is likewise just another capitalist party. Likewise a centrist party in the USA would be another run of the mill capitalist, pro-military, pro-police. pro-surveillance. It would basically just be the current Democratic party except it wouldn’t fight for immigration rights, abortion rights, nor gay rights. A lack of centrist parties is not what is wrong with American politics currently.