5 ms·

Money & power are greater than protesting/democracy is what people are waking up to. It's been that way since forever but a lot of dogma keeps people docile to

Money & power are greater than protesting/democracy is what people are waking up to. It's been that way since forever but a lot of dogma keeps people docile to the idea that change is made from the "people" instead of a few elect individuals by birth with circumstances of wealth and power.

kingkawn 6y ago
If the broad population decides you’re done; you’re done. Doesn’t matter what wealth or power you think you’ve got.
- anm89 6y ago
  Have you ever seen congressional approval ratings? This is not true.
  - xoa 6y ago
    >Have you ever seen congressional approval ratings? I have, have you? General approval ratings for Senators and Representatives tend to be extremely high, and in turn the reelection rate of incumbents is quite high as well. Or did you mean "approval of Congress as a whole"? If you did that's silly because people do not vote for Congress as a whole, people vote for their own representatives within that body. Since the population is not perfectly uniform in its beliefs or priorities, that means inevitably even the most perfect hard working representatives will certainly not get their way all the time, and will probably flat out lose fights sometimes, which means that the body as a whole will be making one group or another mad almost all of the time. That's the reality of organizing a diverse group of people though towards goals too big for them to handle individually. It would make no difference for any system of governance whatsoever short of some sort of compulsive mind control, the population will be angry about decisions some of the time. If you were going to object to GP, a better (scarier) counter point would be that as technological advancement has ever more eclipsed individual human power, it's not at all guaranteed that at some point a totalitarian regime couldn't emerge backed (and/or run) by sufficient tech to be internally long term stable even against the wishes of the majority population. Or for another side, that could simply do away with said majority of the population.
- fc373745 6y ago
  This is not true at all. Lobbying has more power in congress than actual voting does.
  - icebraining 6y ago
    The population has other ways of enforcing its will besides voting. But you need a broad consensus, not a slight majority.
- kubanczyk 6y ago
  This may be true in a minor bubble. The population can only decide things if enabled by quite a unwieldy and brittle scaffolding (separation of powers, free elections, free speech). In a general case, as long as the living conditions don't get some sudden slump (i.e. if the frog is being boiled slowly) all limits are off for a ruler/dictator.
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  Which is why authoritarian regimes control what the broad population decide, thinks, and sees.

kingkawn 6y ago

If the broad population decides you’re done; you’re done. Doesn’t matter what wealth or power you think you’ve got.

anm89 6y ago
Have you ever seen congressional approval ratings? This is not true.
- xoa 6y ago
  >Have you ever seen congressional approval ratings? I have, have you? General approval ratings for Senators and Representatives tend to be extremely high, and in turn the reelection rate of incumbents is quite high as well. Or did you mean "approval of Congress as a whole"? If you did that's silly because people do not vote for Congress as a whole, people vote for their own representatives within that body. Since the population is not perfectly uniform in its beliefs or priorities, that means inevitably even the most perfect hard working representatives will certainly not get their way all the time, and will probably flat out lose fights sometimes, which means that the body as a whole will be making one group or another mad almost all of the time. That's the reality of organizing a diverse group of people though towards goals too big for them to handle individually. It would make no difference for any system of governance whatsoever short of some sort of compulsive mind control, the population will be angry about decisions some of the time. If you were going to object to GP, a better (scarier) counter point would be that as technological advancement has ever more eclipsed individual human power, it's not at all guaranteed that at some point a totalitarian regime couldn't emerge backed (and/or run) by sufficient tech to be internally long term stable even against the wishes of the majority population. Or for another side, that could simply do away with said majority of the population.
fc373745 6y ago
This is not true at all. Lobbying has more power in congress than actual voting does.
- icebraining 6y ago
  The population has other ways of enforcing its will besides voting. But you need a broad consensus, not a slight majority.
kubanczyk 6y ago
This may be true in a minor bubble. The population can only decide things if enabled by quite a unwieldy and brittle scaffolding (separation of powers, free elections, free speech). In a general case, as long as the living conditions don't get some sudden slump (i.e. if the frog is being boiled slowly) all limits are off for a ruler/dictator.
srtjstjsj 6y ago
Which is why authoritarian regimes control what the broad population decide, thinks, and sees.