3 ms·

There's plenty of truth to your criticisms, but it seems to me that potentially they lead to nihilism (in the US that would produce arguments like "I don't vote

There's plenty of truth to your criticisms, but it seems to me that potentially they lead to nihilism (in the US that would produce arguments like "I don't vote, there's no difference between the two parties"). I prefer to think we can still influence the direction that policymaking takes, even if it's an uphill battle. Unless by "true democracies" you meant "direct democracies" since that's absolutely true, almost no one does.

Nevermark 5y ago
I don't think whether something leads to "nihilism" or what any of us "prefer" to think has any bearing. Even as a representative democracy, the distribution of power is by Supreme Court decision not one-citizen, one-vote, one unit of power over the government. The US Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission essentially that money was free speech and so its effects on elections could not be limited. So the wealthy, or any wealthy interests internationally that have national entities that can spend money, have a hugely disproportionate hold on elections due to their ability to frame the information and motives behind elections, often with large amounts of coordinated misinformation. So both financially, and informationally, the US democracy is not only legally corrupt, but any corporation that needs to negotiate with the government at any level, is virtually forced into participating in that legal corruption or be at a severe disadvantage. The non-wealthy also suffer from that severe disadvantage, but have no wealth to balance it. So in the zero sum game of power politics, they have lost considerable power relative to any formal democracy, representative or not. The legal corruption is both self-perpetuating and a malignant motivator for new scales and means of further corruption. The people in government, and people with money, are both being selected and incentivized, with stick and carrot, to be, and to further enable via their levers on government, even worse systemic corruption. The US is not a healthy representative democracy and it isn't unreasonable to wonder if it is on a runaway path to worse outcomes without a clear mechanism for a turnaround in sight.
- rmbyrro 5y ago
  Precisely. Adding to all you said: All assignments to the Supreme Court and its Circuits follow a Technocracy system, not a Democracy. Citizens in their daily affairs are subject much more to a Bureaucracy system than to the results of a Democratic system of government. The "intelligence community", for example, part of this Bureaucratic system of government, has extremely strong power. This is true for the US and most - if not all - other self-claimed "democracies" nowadays. I think Democracy accounts for <50% of what governments can influence in our lives. I'd personally say it's less than 10%, but being conservative. Anyway, it's certainly not the majority of it, so I wouldn't say we live in a Democracy. It's a mix of Technocracy/Bureaucracy, with a thin veil of Democracy.
- blacksmith_tb 5y ago
  Yes, the Citizens United decision was a clear move towards plutocracy. And while congress could pass a law to correct it, it's unclear if they have any inclination to do so, and if the court would let it stand if they did. I agree the health of the US system is poor, but hope that we can still revive it.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    Congress won't do it unless people push them to. If these people quit, they won't. Again, who gains from that? Who are the quitters serving, knowingly or not?
rmbyrro 5y ago
I understand your concern and respect your will to stand for Democracy. I was in that place until recently. But I've changed. I see current self-claimed "democracies" as a mix of Oligarchy, Technocracy and Bureaucracy, with Democracy influencing a tiny fraction of actual results of government action in citizens' lives. And I don't see a path to a truly democratic system without a major cultural change and, most importantly, change in the individual level.

Nevermark 5y ago

I don't think whether something leads to "nihilism" or what any of us "prefer" to think has any bearing. Even as a representative democracy, the distribution of power is by Supreme Court decision not one-citizen, one-vote, one unit of power over the government. The US Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission essentially that money was free speech and so its effects on elections could not be limited. So the wealthy, or any wealthy interests internationally that have national entities that can spend money, have a hugely disproportionate hold on elections due to their ability to frame the information and motives behind elections, often with large amounts of coordinated misinformation. So both financially, and informationally, the US democracy is not only legally corrupt, but any corporation that needs to negotiate with the government at any level, is virtually forced into participating in that legal corruption or be at a severe disadvantage. The non-wealthy also suffer from that severe disadvantage, but have no wealth to balance it. So in the zero sum game of power politics, they have lost considerable power relative to any formal democracy, representative or not. The legal corruption is both self-perpetuating and a malignant motivator for new scales and means of further corruption. The people in government, and people with money, are both being selected and incentivized, with stick and carrot, to be, and to further enable via their levers on government, even worse systemic corruption. The US is not a healthy representative democracy and it isn't unreasonable to wonder if it is on a runaway path to worse outcomes without a clear mechanism for a turnaround in sight.

rmbyrro 5y ago
Precisely. Adding to all you said: All assignments to the Supreme Court and its Circuits follow a Technocracy system, not a Democracy. Citizens in their daily affairs are subject much more to a Bureaucracy system than to the results of a Democratic system of government. The "intelligence community", for example, part of this Bureaucratic system of government, has extremely strong power. This is true for the US and most - if not all - other self-claimed "democracies" nowadays. I think Democracy accounts for <50% of what governments can influence in our lives. I'd personally say it's less than 10%, but being conservative. Anyway, it's certainly not the majority of it, so I wouldn't say we live in a Democracy. It's a mix of Technocracy/Bureaucracy, with a thin veil of Democracy.
blacksmith_tb 5y ago
Yes, the Citizens United decision was a clear move towards plutocracy. And while congress could pass a law to correct it, it's unclear if they have any inclination to do so, and if the court would let it stand if they did. I agree the health of the US system is poor, but hope that we can still revive it.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Congress won't do it unless people push them to. If these people quit, they won't. Again, who gains from that? Who are the quitters serving, knowingly or not?

rmbyrro 5y ago

I understand your concern and respect your will to stand for Democracy. I was in that place until recently. But I've changed. I see current self-claimed "democracies" as a mix of Oligarchy, Technocracy and Bureaucracy, with Democracy influencing a tiny fraction of actual results of government action in citizens' lives. And I don't see a path to a truly democratic system without a major cultural change and, most importantly, change in the individual level.