3 ms·

The US Constitution removed the monarch from the Magna Carta and replaced it with an elected noble class that makes/enforces the law. It’s this very noble clas

The US Constitution removed the monarch from the Magna Carta and replaced it with an elected noble class that makes/enforces the law. It’s this very noble class (that’s actually the sum total of the left and right) that is responsible for all the injustices noted in the article. The people never wanted a ruling class in the image of the Roman Republic, they wanted a direct democracy. It is a solution staring everyone right in the face. If it’s good enough for the people to receive a jury of peers when their liberty is at stake against Government charges, just like the original democracy the law makes/enforcers should also be from a jury of the citizens at random with limited office…but the truth is overwhelmingly people want rulers, and so we can’t even get limited terms on lawmakers.

akamoonknight 5y ago
My main difficulty with a direct democracy is that it's a _job_ to be properly informed about topics. How can every person be informed enough on every vote-able decision that might affect them, while also trying to work a normal job required to provide for their families to pay rent and live life? California propositions feel like something close to direct democracy, and as an example there was one about Kidney Dialysis Centers [0]. I'm not too affected by it, other than potential future worries, but I wasn't sure what the 'right' choice was after a few days of investigating. I know which way I _feel_ is the right choice, but the impacts are hard to judge, especially when there's campaign finance involved and there's obviously one side that has more monetary impact than the other. Should I have taken _no_ stance and not voted on that particular issue? Should I have spent time searching out and talking to people who are actually affected on both sides of the issue ? Overall, it feels reasonable to me to say 'I trust this person's general judgement and I'll delegate my vote on wider issues to them and as a society we can make it so that their job is to be properly informed* on the issues required'. Admittedly the same issues pop up in terms of monetary influence and proper representation being a tricky thing. I guess political science just seems like a difficult problem to solve, if there even is such a thing as a solution. [0] https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_23,_Dialysis_Clinic_Requirements_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_23,_Dialysis_...) *properly informed being admittedly an entirely subjective quality
nradov 5y ago
Do you really want 12 random people to have power over extraordinarily complex matters like FDA drug approval or military systems acquisition?
- throwawaycities 5y ago
  To the best of my knowledge no one in the FDA nor military is an elected representative. Generally an elected representative, per the Constitution, is understood (or so I thought) to be elected members of the legislature (House of Representatives and Senators) and the President. It’s not about 12 random people having power, in fact it is the very opposite, democratic officials serve the public and do their will, it’s the very problem with our representative form of government where the representatives substitute their own interest for the interests of the voters.

akamoonknight 5y ago

My main difficulty with a direct democracy is that it's a _job_ to be properly informed about topics. How can every person be informed enough on every vote-able decision that might affect them, while also trying to work a normal job required to provide for their families to pay rent and live life? California propositions feel like something close to direct democracy, and as an example there was one about Kidney Dialysis Centers [0]. I'm not too affected by it, other than potential future worries, but I wasn't sure what the 'right' choice was after a few days of investigating. I know which way I _feel_ is the right choice, but the impacts are hard to judge, especially when there's campaign finance involved and there's obviously one side that has more monetary impact than the other. Should I have taken _no_ stance and not voted on that particular issue? Should I have spent time searching out and talking to people who are actually affected on both sides of the issue ? Overall, it feels reasonable to me to say 'I trust this person's general judgement and I'll delegate my vote on wider issues to them and as a society we can make it so that their job is to be properly informed* on the issues required'. Admittedly the same issues pop up in terms of monetary influence and proper representation being a tricky thing. I guess political science just seems like a difficult problem to solve, if there even is such a thing as a solution. [0] https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_23,_Dialysis_Clinic_Requirements_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_23,_Dialysis_...) *properly informed being admittedly an entirely subjective quality

nradov 5y ago

Do you really want 12 random people to have power over extraordinarily complex matters like FDA drug approval or military systems acquisition?

throwawaycities 5y ago
To the best of my knowledge no one in the FDA nor military is an elected representative. Generally an elected representative, per the Constitution, is understood (or so I thought) to be elected members of the legislature (House of Representatives and Senators) and the President. It’s not about 12 random people having power, in fact it is the very opposite, democratic officials serve the public and do their will, it’s the very problem with our representative form of government where the representatives substitute their own interest for the interests of the voters.