4 ms·

It is a combination of feeling powerless and feeling afraid. The majority is more afraid of what will happen if the government does not find the information to

It is a combination of feeling powerless and feeling afraid. The majority is more afraid of what will happen if the government does not find the information to catch the person trying to hurt them, than they are about the government finding information about them and hurting them with it. Remember it is majority rules. Not even 80/20 but 51/49. You only need 51 percent of people to have less to hide. And people in the majority are typically not the ones that have things to hide for legitimate reasons. It is the people in the minority that are innocent of any wrongdoing , but be undesirable for some reason, that have something to fear.

thatcat 6y ago
Legislation isn't based on majority votes though...
- bnj 6y ago
  Sorry, it’s not clear if this is meant in sarcasm—- maybe I’m misinterpreting, but how exactly is legislation passed if not by majority vote?
  - cam_l 6y ago
    Not OP, but at least in oz we live in a representative democracy. That means that though 51% may support the current government, any one piece of legislation only needs to have the support of the majority in parliament. It could have zero support in the community. It happens often enough when people are polled on the legislation itself, rather than party preferences, people overwhelmingly support positions which may even be antithetical to both sides of parliament. Climate change legislation has enjoyed overwhlming support in oz for years, even amongst a slim majority on the right. People overwhelming support environmental protections. But our parliament this week, under cover of covid, pushed through a massive regression in environemntal protections without even letting their own party discuss the legislation, let alone the opposition or the media.
  - ekianjo 6y ago
    Representatives are not always representative.
    - devin 6y ago
      See: Wisconsin. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/wisconsin-e2-80-99s-governor-called-a-special-session-on-police-reform-republicans-stopped-it-after-30-seconds/ar-BB18AMSW https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/wisconsin-e2-80-99s-... > The maps have exceeded their designers high expectations all decade long. In 2018, for example, Wisconsin voters re-elected a Democratic U.S. senator, backed Evers for governor over two-term Republican incumbent Scott Walker, placed Democrats in every elected statewide office, and preferred Democratic assembly candidates by a margin of 190,000 votes. Republicans held the chamber, 64-35. They won 64 percent of the seats, with 46 percent of the votes. It would be difficult to call Wisconsin a democracy with a straight face at this point.
      - ekianjo 6y ago
        > It would be difficult to call Wisconsin a democracy with a straight face at this point. I think you don't understand how things are working. Senators are elected by the people, at the seat level. You can see what's happening here in this post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/04/several-layers-republican-power-grabbing-wisconsin/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/04/several-l... > [in 2018] They [Democrats] won 53 percent of the vote and only 36 percent of the seats. However, that can be explained in part by the fact that Democrats had far more seats in which they weren’t running against a Republican opponent. Nearly half of the votes the Democrats earned were in districts where their candidates didn’t face significant opposition. In contested races, Republicans won more votes than Democrats. If you get 90% of votes for one seat where there is virtually no opposition, that has no bearing to the other seat where you lost 48% to 52%. That's actual democracy, and even direct democracy. This is also confirmed by the 17th Amendment: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-17/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-17/ > The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > Legislation isn't based on majority votes though... This only makes it worse. This year 51% of the population voted for Party B, so they have 51% of the legislature. They vote as a block, so they vote in anything supported by the majority of the coalition that Party B represents. So then you get bad laws that are only supported by 26% of people (51% of 51%). Next year Party A has 51% of the legislature, but not the Presidency, so they can't repeal it. A possible solution to this would be to allow for the repeal of any law that wouldn't currently have what it takes to pass, i.e. anyone can resubmit any existing law as a new bill and if it fails to pass both houses and earn the President's signature, it effects repeal of the existing law.
  - kazagistar 6y ago
    It's even worse then that. The parties aren't even majority rule: everyone compromises on some issues, and is forced to select based on availability (which is determined by financials not democracy) and fear of the other side rather then positive belief, so I would argue that 26% is likely closer to 10% or less for many issues. And then of course there is the large chunk of people who find the views of both parties so uninspiring or outright disgusting to not want to vote at all. Its really surprising when any popular legislation is passed in any form, even watered down, in this mess of a system. Obviously though that is by design.
pooya13 6y ago
There can be filters and data can be anonymized, with all access recorded and audited by an independent panel. However that is not the current state of the surveillance state in the US. I think the majority would poll for the system with the safeguards in place as opposed to the current system that relies on trusting the state. Also the damage can be more subtle like the state pushing propaganda based on the private data of the citizens.
- kazagistar 6y ago
  Right now we habe regressive privacy, where people with more power have more privacy. We should have progressive privacy. Power over others is power to hurt others, and for a democracy to work, such power must be tempered by transparency and oversight, while the default for the masses should be strict privacy protections.
hkai 6y ago
Ah! Hence the federalism and checks and balances, the two we widely derided concepts. We already know ways to prevent the majority from imposing tyranny on the minority, we just decided that more absolute power is convenient.
- kazagistar 6y ago
  Federalism was about ensuring a very specific type of majority minority balance was kept, and is weak in most cases, and checks and balances in the USA broke down the moment ideologically coherent parties became a thing, exactly as had always been feared.
unishark 6y ago
I'd like to see polls on that. From what I've seen, people who worry about their privacy do things about it (like avoid google, pay cash, etc.) while people who don't care about privacy put evidence of their own crimes on facebook like idiots. Painting everyone with this giant brush of hypocrisy is over-simplifying a complex mix of people.
- Thorrez 6y ago
  > Painting everyone with this giant brush of hypocrisy is over-simplifying a complex mix of people. Was momokoko saying that anyone was a hypocrite?

thatcat 6y ago

Legislation isn't based on majority votes though...

bnj 6y ago
Sorry, it’s not clear if this is meant in sarcasm—- maybe I’m misinterpreting, but how exactly is legislation passed if not by majority vote?
- cam_l 6y ago
  Not OP, but at least in oz we live in a representative democracy. That means that though 51% may support the current government, any one piece of legislation only needs to have the support of the majority in parliament. It could have zero support in the community. It happens often enough when people are polled on the legislation itself, rather than party preferences, people overwhelmingly support positions which may even be antithetical to both sides of parliament. Climate change legislation has enjoyed overwhlming support in oz for years, even amongst a slim majority on the right. People overwhelming support environmental protections. But our parliament this week, under cover of covid, pushed through a massive regression in environemntal protections without even letting their own party discuss the legislation, let alone the opposition or the media.
- ekianjo 6y ago
  Representatives are not always representative.
  - devin 6y ago
    See: Wisconsin. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/wisconsin-e2-80-99s-governor-called-a-special-session-on-police-reform-republicans-stopped-it-after-30-seconds/ar-BB18AMSW https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/wisconsin-e2-80-99s-... > The maps have exceeded their designers high expectations all decade long. In 2018, for example, Wisconsin voters re-elected a Democratic U.S. senator, backed Evers for governor over two-term Republican incumbent Scott Walker, placed Democrats in every elected statewide office, and preferred Democratic assembly candidates by a margin of 190,000 votes. Republicans held the chamber, 64-35. They won 64 percent of the seats, with 46 percent of the votes. It would be difficult to call Wisconsin a democracy with a straight face at this point.
    - ekianjo 6y ago
      > It would be difficult to call Wisconsin a democracy with a straight face at this point. I think you don't understand how things are working. Senators are elected by the people, at the seat level. You can see what's happening here in this post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/04/several-layers-republican-power-grabbing-wisconsin/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/04/several-l... > [in 2018] They [Democrats] won 53 percent of the vote and only 36 percent of the seats. However, that can be explained in part by the fact that Democrats had far more seats in which they weren’t running against a Republican opponent. Nearly half of the votes the Democrats earned were in districts where their candidates didn’t face significant opposition. In contested races, Republicans won more votes than Democrats. If you get 90% of votes for one seat where there is virtually no opposition, that has no bearing to the other seat where you lost 48% to 52%. That's actual democracy, and even direct democracy. This is also confirmed by the 17th Amendment: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-17/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-17/ > The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> Legislation isn't based on majority votes though... This only makes it worse. This year 51% of the population voted for Party B, so they have 51% of the legislature. They vote as a block, so they vote in anything supported by the majority of the coalition that Party B represents. So then you get bad laws that are only supported by 26% of people (51% of 51%). Next year Party A has 51% of the legislature, but not the Presidency, so they can't repeal it. A possible solution to this would be to allow for the repeal of any law that wouldn't currently have what it takes to pass, i.e. anyone can resubmit any existing law as a new bill and if it fails to pass both houses and earn the President's signature, it effects repeal of the existing law.
- kazagistar 6y ago
  It's even worse then that. The parties aren't even majority rule: everyone compromises on some issues, and is forced to select based on availability (which is determined by financials not democracy) and fear of the other side rather then positive belief, so I would argue that 26% is likely closer to 10% or less for many issues. And then of course there is the large chunk of people who find the views of both parties so uninspiring or outright disgusting to not want to vote at all. Its really surprising when any popular legislation is passed in any form, even watered down, in this mess of a system. Obviously though that is by design.

pooya13 6y ago

There can be filters and data can be anonymized, with all access recorded and audited by an independent panel. However that is not the current state of the surveillance state in the US. I think the majority would poll for the system with the safeguards in place as opposed to the current system that relies on trusting the state. Also the damage can be more subtle like the state pushing propaganda based on the private data of the citizens.

kazagistar 6y ago
Right now we habe regressive privacy, where people with more power have more privacy. We should have progressive privacy. Power over others is power to hurt others, and for a democracy to work, such power must be tempered by transparency and oversight, while the default for the masses should be strict privacy protections.

hkai 6y ago

Ah! Hence the federalism and checks and balances, the two we widely derided concepts. We already know ways to prevent the majority from imposing tyranny on the minority, we just decided that more absolute power is convenient.

kazagistar 6y ago
Federalism was about ensuring a very specific type of majority minority balance was kept, and is weak in most cases, and checks and balances in the USA broke down the moment ideologically coherent parties became a thing, exactly as had always been feared.

unishark 6y ago

I'd like to see polls on that. From what I've seen, people who worry about their privacy do things about it (like avoid google, pay cash, etc.) while people who don't care about privacy put evidence of their own crimes on facebook like idiots. Painting everyone with this giant brush of hypocrisy is over-simplifying a complex mix of people.

Thorrez 6y ago
> Painting everyone with this giant brush of hypocrisy is over-simplifying a complex mix of people. Was momokoko saying that anyone was a hypocrite?