3 ms·

Direct democracy always beats representative democracy. In the representative democracy, people have not voted for the content of the laws that the law makers p

Direct democracy always beats representative democracy. In the representative democracy, people have not voted for the content of the laws that the law makers pass. That's why Rousseau calls "representative democracy" slavery. Direct democracy can work in small countries. Will it work in a country with 150M or 300M people? Will it work? Maybe, one has to schedule voting every 6 months, just like a train schedule.

nwienert 6y ago
Yea, except direct democracy leads to government scope creep, if you want that, move to Europe and get nannied. I don’t see us anywhere near a failed experiment and until anyone can make that case strongly, changing our fundamental structure is off the table. 3rd highest GDP per capita, most innovative country by far, extremely high tourism rate, most diverse country in multiple ways, consistently expanding healthcare / best cancer treatment the world / most innovative drug research, hugely successful progressive social movements, most philanthropic, cities that give the highest amounts of social welfare in per capita terms, you can go on. Of course you can point out many bad things, but that doesn’t invalidate that it’s not failing, just that it’s not perfect - and to be honest, much of the failures to me look like local ones, not Federal ones. Take Chicago for example. We need diversity of governance so we can find out what rule of law works best in the long run. Let Europe experiment with more direct democracy. Look at Singapore, Rwanda for the other side. Let the experiments run so long as they don’t trample on basic human rights. America is flawed, but for the same reason Google Chrome shouldn’t win out the browser wars, Representative Democracy should stay, it matches up well on the stats I care about, and it tends not to trample on freedoms nearly as much (something something three lions and a zebra).
- raincom 6y ago
  "Scope creep" is orthogonal to the issue Rousseau raised: representative democracy is a form of slavery. And in this slavery, masters are law makers; slaves are 99% of the population. The beneficiaries are K-street people, the elite from media, c-suites, politicians, the super wealthy, etc.
  - nwienert 6y ago
    The representatives are the slaves, if anything. Look how they can’t even keep their own opinions, they are forced to change to appease their base. Obama was against gay marriage. He wasn’t “free” to keep believing that: if he didn’t stop believing it, he was out. Period. Who is the slave? And it isn’t just rhetoric. If they don’t pass laws the people want, they’re out. Sure, they can enrich their cronies along the way. But you’re painting it way too black and white. I do agree that K street holds too much power, not politicians. And politicians aren’t totally corrupt, just about half or so.

nwienert 6y ago

Yea, except direct democracy leads to government scope creep, if you want that, move to Europe and get nannied. I don’t see us anywhere near a failed experiment and until anyone can make that case strongly, changing our fundamental structure is off the table. 3rd highest GDP per capita, most innovative country by far, extremely high tourism rate, most diverse country in multiple ways, consistently expanding healthcare / best cancer treatment the world / most innovative drug research, hugely successful progressive social movements, most philanthropic, cities that give the highest amounts of social welfare in per capita terms, you can go on. Of course you can point out many bad things, but that doesn’t invalidate that it’s not failing, just that it’s not perfect - and to be honest, much of the failures to me look like local ones, not Federal ones. Take Chicago for example. We need diversity of governance so we can find out what rule of law works best in the long run. Let Europe experiment with more direct democracy. Look at Singapore, Rwanda for the other side. Let the experiments run so long as they don’t trample on basic human rights. America is flawed, but for the same reason Google Chrome shouldn’t win out the browser wars, Representative Democracy should stay, it matches up well on the stats I care about, and it tends not to trample on freedoms nearly as much (something something three lions and a zebra).

raincom 6y ago
"Scope creep" is orthogonal to the issue Rousseau raised: representative democracy is a form of slavery. And in this slavery, masters are law makers; slaves are 99% of the population. The beneficiaries are K-street people, the elite from media, c-suites, politicians, the super wealthy, etc.
- nwienert 6y ago
  The representatives are the slaves, if anything. Look how they can’t even keep their own opinions, they are forced to change to appease their base. Obama was against gay marriage. He wasn’t “free” to keep believing that: if he didn’t stop believing it, he was out. Period. Who is the slave? And it isn’t just rhetoric. If they don’t pass laws the people want, they’re out. Sure, they can enrich their cronies along the way. But you’re painting it way too black and white. I do agree that K street holds too much power, not politicians. And politicians aren’t totally corrupt, just about half or so.