4 ms·

It is quite proudly a Republic with Democratic characteristics. The only democracy is Switzerland. Switzerland solves the problem of populist tyrannical captu

It is quite proudly a Republic with Democratic characteristics. The only democracy is Switzerland. Switzerland solves the problem of populist tyrannical capture by having an Executive Council instead of a President. More recently, I’ve come to the conclusion that all Republics are doomed to fail. One should never let an “expert” make a decision for you. They will over time deceive you because they will always be a likely scapegoat. It is much better to get it wrong yourself because then you can face the truth instead of constantly being on the watch for a scapegoat and damaging the dynamics of decision making.

naturalauction 5y ago
>The only democracy is Switzerland. Switzerland solves the problem of populist tyrannical capture by having an Executive Council instead of a President. But women weren't allowed to vote (in every canton) until 1991. There is a ban on new minarets being constructed (but not other tall buildings). The anti-immigration referendum couldn't be implemented as would have led to dramatic consequences for Switzerland's relationship with the EU. From an outside perspective even Switzerland doesn't seem like a "true" democracy.
- throwaway292a9 5y ago
  how so? citizens don't want more noisy minarets, the people that want the minarets can stay in the middle east.
  - naturalauction 5y ago
    >citizens don't want more noisy minarets The referendum wasn't on noise or the legality of minarets broadcasting sound though, it was on the structures themselves. Churches can still build steeples (or even noisy belltowers). I fail to see why the simple construction of a minaret harms anyone any more than say a steeple of a church of a different denomination. If anything it just seems like legislation to tell Muslims that they are not welcome in Switzerland.
    - nojokes 5y ago
      Maybe people enjoy church bells but not the calls from the minaret?
      - naturalauction 5y ago
        But even minarets that don't make noise are banned. I also would not want to live next to a mosque that played loud noises 5-times daily as is done in many countries. But here in the UK most Mosques don't broadcast any noise at all despite having minarets. Like any other building, they have to apply for a permit if they want to do so.
    - nojokes 5y ago
      If anything it just seems like legislation to tell Muslims that they are not welcome in Switzerland. I think it is exactly that and this should be their right.
    - nojokes 5y ago
      I fail to see why the simple construction of a minaret harms anyone any more than say a steeple of a church of a different denomination. Minarets do not build themselves. There would be very possibly some money and influence involved from countries that do not share Swiss people values.
      - naturalauction 5y ago
        >There would be very possibly some money and influence involved from countries that do not share Swiss people values. But then why not address that by banning foreign funding of construction of religious buildings? If Swiss Muslims want to build a minaret on their mosque I personally don't see the harm. But it's clear that others disagree.
        nojokes 5y ago
        I do not know what is really going on here but I can think of something that is similar. Imagine that Swiss communists want to raise a 10m high statue of Stalin. From one point of view it is just a statue but from another point of view it is a huge symbol that in many ways advocates against what Swiss people value.
  - dang 5y ago
    Please don't post unsubstantive/flamebait comments to HN. Especially please don't cross into slurs. This one was borderline but it certainly fits the format that we don't want here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: if you could please stop creating accounts like this and definitely stop creating accounts to break the site rules with, we'd be grateful.
- mucholove 5y ago
  Switzerland is not an inclusive place. It is a democracy.
  - naturalauction 5y ago
    Perhaps, but I would cite some of these issues as examples of "populist tyrannical capture" that were not prevented by the Swiss system.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    Then it's not a democracy, because the excluded are denied their self-determination.
    - vmception 5y ago
      I’m not familiar with that definition The newest definition I’m aware of is “the original 51% attack”
- vmception 5y ago
  Direct representation is true democracy. Does democracy mean something else to you? I think you are confusing your indoctrination of good and inclusive with democracy. Or Vice versa. I’ve seen that alot.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > I think you are confusing your indoctrination of good and inclusive with democracy. People like to talk about good and inclusive as if they aren't universal values. Good is a value in every culture and religion; it's human nature; we aren't sociopaths. Just off the top of my head, there's the fundamentals of the Bible, 'love they neighbor, love thy god'. There's the Mandate of Heaven in Imperial China, which said only a good ruler keeps heaven's mandate and thus their power. Inclusive is not only part of good, it's necessary to democracy: It requires respecting the votes and believing in the rights of everyone, and practically, freedom requires respecting your neighbor. The question is, why work so hard to undermine good, including inclusiveness, democracy, and human rights? What an incredible heritage we've been given; what an optimistic history and what opportunity we have to build something even more amazing for the next generation. It takes an very cynical politics to try to undermine that - to give that up for yourself, for an entire generation, for our descendants. People from Washington to Lincoln to Churchill to Gandhi to MLK to all those who have died and struggled in service have worked to bequeath to us our free and good, in large part, society. With everything we've been given, what will we bequeath? Hate, authoritarianism, and climate change? What a shame our generation would be, among the others, if that was what we produced. The question is, what can we accomplish?
    - vmception 5y ago
      These really aren’t definitions of democracy Constitutions provide inclusiveness, constitutions are not unique to any system of governance, and can be the basis for any form of governance Collaboration with the people willing to abide by the system isn’t unique to any system of governance, and is required by all systems Democracy is just rule by majority
      - 5y ago
wolverine876 5y ago
> It is quite proudly a Republic with Democratic characteristics. Americans have long referred to themselves, quite proudly, as a democracy. The distinction is otherwise a technicality for political scientists. A recent political trend has one group, which fears getting outvoted, saying that it's not, that it's a 'republic' (they, of course, that they won't be the ones excluded from power). But the distinction is theoretical - government by the people, for the people, of the people, to use just one phrase, is what defines the US and the US is a democracy. We the people created the government and make the law. > More recently, I’ve come to the conclusion that all Republics are doomed to fail. Well the evidence is pretty bad. The most stable, successful form of government in history is modern democracy. If you want failure, look at the disasters of authoritarian governments, with their civil wars, weak economies, and governing calamities (e.g., hyperinflation, needless wars, etc.).
- mucholove 5y ago
  I think you are confounding a few things. In Switzerland you have 4 referendums a year where the demos, the people, make decisions in concert. In most republics, all you get to do is elect a representative. Some US states do hold referendums like California. This means that some republics do have representatives and the people share decision making power. This however does not happen at the level of the American Federal government. So far as I know, you can only vote on having someone speak for you and you are not part of the decision. These representatives are much more susceptible to capture than the entire demos. It would be nice if the etymology of Rep in Republic came from Representation because that is all you get for sure. Sadly, that is not the case. As to the stability of governments—I would also agree that a Republic is more robust and long lived than a tyranny. However, I still hold that a Republic is likely to end in tyranny because the incentive and the likelihood to capture becomes enticing and likely. We do not disagree here. Would like to know if the distinction between the decision making power of a Swiss citizen and the decision making power of an American citizen seem meaningfully different to you as they do to me. The difference becomes even more stark if you compare the Dominican Republic and Switzerland as the Dominican Republic has even less democratic aspects than the US Federal Government (which incidentally has fewer Democratic characteristics than US states)

naturalauction 5y ago

>The only democracy is Switzerland. Switzerland solves the problem of populist tyrannical capture by having an Executive Council instead of a President. But women weren't allowed to vote (in every canton) until 1991. There is a ban on new minarets being constructed (but not other tall buildings). The anti-immigration referendum couldn't be implemented as would have led to dramatic consequences for Switzerland's relationship with the EU. From an outside perspective even Switzerland doesn't seem like a "true" democracy.

throwaway292a9 5y ago
how so? citizens don't want more noisy minarets, the people that want the minarets can stay in the middle east.
- naturalauction 5y ago
  >citizens don't want more noisy minarets The referendum wasn't on noise or the legality of minarets broadcasting sound though, it was on the structures themselves. Churches can still build steeples (or even noisy belltowers). I fail to see why the simple construction of a minaret harms anyone any more than say a steeple of a church of a different denomination. If anything it just seems like legislation to tell Muslims that they are not welcome in Switzerland.
  - nojokes 5y ago
    Maybe people enjoy church bells but not the calls from the minaret?
    - naturalauction 5y ago
      But even minarets that don't make noise are banned. I also would not want to live next to a mosque that played loud noises 5-times daily as is done in many countries. But here in the UK most Mosques don't broadcast any noise at all despite having minarets. Like any other building, they have to apply for a permit if they want to do so.
  - nojokes 5y ago
    If anything it just seems like legislation to tell Muslims that they are not welcome in Switzerland. I think it is exactly that and this should be their right.
  - nojokes 5y ago
    I fail to see why the simple construction of a minaret harms anyone any more than say a steeple of a church of a different denomination. Minarets do not build themselves. There would be very possibly some money and influence involved from countries that do not share Swiss people values.
    - naturalauction 5y ago
      >There would be very possibly some money and influence involved from countries that do not share Swiss people values. But then why not address that by banning foreign funding of construction of religious buildings? If Swiss Muslims want to build a minaret on their mosque I personally don't see the harm. But it's clear that others disagree.
      - nojokes 5y ago
        I do not know what is really going on here but I can think of something that is similar. Imagine that Swiss communists want to raise a 10m high statue of Stalin. From one point of view it is just a statue but from another point of view it is a huge symbol that in many ways advocates against what Swiss people value.
- dang 5y ago
  Please don't post unsubstantive/flamebait comments to HN. Especially please don't cross into slurs. This one was borderline but it certainly fits the format that we don't want here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: if you could please stop creating accounts like this and definitely stop creating accounts to break the site rules with, we'd be grateful.
mucholove 5y ago
Switzerland is not an inclusive place. It is a democracy.
- naturalauction 5y ago
  Perhaps, but I would cite some of these issues as examples of "populist tyrannical capture" that were not prevented by the Swiss system.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Then it's not a democracy, because the excluded are denied their self-determination.
  - vmception 5y ago
    I’m not familiar with that definition The newest definition I’m aware of is “the original 51% attack”
vmception 5y ago
Direct representation is true democracy. Does democracy mean something else to you? I think you are confusing your indoctrination of good and inclusive with democracy. Or Vice versa. I’ve seen that alot.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > I think you are confusing your indoctrination of good and inclusive with democracy. People like to talk about good and inclusive as if they aren't universal values. Good is a value in every culture and religion; it's human nature; we aren't sociopaths. Just off the top of my head, there's the fundamentals of the Bible, 'love they neighbor, love thy god'. There's the Mandate of Heaven in Imperial China, which said only a good ruler keeps heaven's mandate and thus their power. Inclusive is not only part of good, it's necessary to democracy: It requires respecting the votes and believing in the rights of everyone, and practically, freedom requires respecting your neighbor. The question is, why work so hard to undermine good, including inclusiveness, democracy, and human rights? What an incredible heritage we've been given; what an optimistic history and what opportunity we have to build something even more amazing for the next generation. It takes an very cynical politics to try to undermine that - to give that up for yourself, for an entire generation, for our descendants. People from Washington to Lincoln to Churchill to Gandhi to MLK to all those who have died and struggled in service have worked to bequeath to us our free and good, in large part, society. With everything we've been given, what will we bequeath? Hate, authoritarianism, and climate change? What a shame our generation would be, among the others, if that was what we produced. The question is, what can we accomplish?
  - vmception 5y ago
    These really aren’t definitions of democracy Constitutions provide inclusiveness, constitutions are not unique to any system of governance, and can be the basis for any form of governance Collaboration with the people willing to abide by the system isn’t unique to any system of governance, and is required by all systems Democracy is just rule by majority
    - 5y ago

wolverine876 5y ago

> It is quite proudly a Republic with Democratic characteristics. Americans have long referred to themselves, quite proudly, as a democracy. The distinction is otherwise a technicality for political scientists. A recent political trend has one group, which fears getting outvoted, saying that it's not, that it's a 'republic' (they, of course, that they won't be the ones excluded from power). But the distinction is theoretical - government by the people, for the people, of the people, to use just one phrase, is what defines the US and the US is a democracy. We the people created the government and make the law. > More recently, I’ve come to the conclusion that all Republics are doomed to fail. Well the evidence is pretty bad. The most stable, successful form of government in history is modern democracy. If you want failure, look at the disasters of authoritarian governments, with their civil wars, weak economies, and governing calamities (e.g., hyperinflation, needless wars, etc.).

mucholove 5y ago
I think you are confounding a few things. In Switzerland you have 4 referendums a year where the demos, the people, make decisions in concert. In most republics, all you get to do is elect a representative. Some US states do hold referendums like California. This means that some republics do have representatives and the people share decision making power. This however does not happen at the level of the American Federal government. So far as I know, you can only vote on having someone speak for you and you are not part of the decision. These representatives are much more susceptible to capture than the entire demos. It would be nice if the etymology of Rep in Republic came from Representation because that is all you get for sure. Sadly, that is not the case. As to the stability of governments—I would also agree that a Republic is more robust and long lived than a tyranny. However, I still hold that a Republic is likely to end in tyranny because the incentive and the likelihood to capture becomes enticing and likely. We do not disagree here. Would like to know if the distinction between the decision making power of a Swiss citizen and the decision making power of an American citizen seem meaningfully different to you as they do to me. The difference becomes even more stark if you compare the Dominican Republic and Switzerland as the Dominican Republic has even less democratic aspects than the US Federal Government (which incidentally has fewer Democratic characteristics than US states)