5 ms·

So CA is too democratic in your opinion? It should slide more towards tyranny?

by sfe22 5y ago

jvanderbot 5y ago
Absolutely not. Democracy can be fair and open elections, not crowdsourced legislation.
setr 5y ago
Sounds more like too much direct democracy, and needs to slide further towards representative.
- sfe22 5y ago
  The emperor can also be your representative, and so is Putin to russians, and the slightly more complex US system. The slider is democracy to tyranny, just because we dont yet have democracy in most or all countries doesn't change anything here. We just have twisted its meaning to describe some decision power when choosing tyrants. Either all decide equally-democracy , or fewer to very few or one-tyranny.
- rsync 5y ago
  Is that your opinion on marijuana policy in California? Which issues, pray tell, are best governed by local control and which are best governed by top-down, remote decision makers?
- imtringued 5y ago
  You mean too little direct democracy. Only a handful of people are actually engaging in local politics and therey are no longer representing the community as a whole. Special interest groups are the opposite of democracy.
Jarwain 5y ago
Feels like a flamebaity false-dichotomy. Is it really tyrannical to, say, elect officials to act on our behalf and consider long-term impacts and x-order effects? Because to me that just sounds a little more "republic" and a little less "direct democracy".
iso1210 5y ago
That's the paradox isn't it. Mob rule ends up being tyranny.
renewiltord 5y ago
That's exactly it. One of the reasons that the US (and other representative democracies) have limits on direct voter rule explicitly to prevent a "too democratic" situation yielding "mob rule" outcomes.
- sfe22 5y ago
  Sounds like a reason to justify tyranny to me. What do you mean mob rule. In a (true) democratic society just a small group can change something the majority disagrees with because they got together? The majority is also together in the same matter isnt it?
  - renewiltord 5y ago
    Well, the idea recognizes two concepts: - We don't want the minority enforcing on the majority - We don't want a plurality or even a majority enforcing on a minority under certain circumstances So, for instance, even if 300 million Americans think "sfe22 should be stripped of their assets and have it given to us 300 million" that's not going to happen. Yes, that is 'tyrannical' of you to have such power but it is so nonetheless.
    - sfe22 5y ago
      Unfortunately I don’t agree. If 95% Americans want to steal my assets, something is wrong with the them (or me), and I should have probably seen it coming and leave. Why would I want to live in such extreme society anymore. If I was used to set an example that still would tell many a lot about this hypothetical america. Would a tyrant really be of any help then, maybe if it was somehow “good” to me, for a limited time but definitely does not justify its existence and cost on freedom and wealth.
      - renewiltord 5y ago
        Right, and that's your thesis for the world, but America lives under a different thesis, and some individual rights are protected, _even_ if 95% of people disagree.
boredumb 5y ago
Total democracy is mob rule of the majority.
CPLX 5y ago
Democracy isn't a Boolean value, it's a cluster of loosely related concepts and practices.

So CA is too democratic in your opinion? It should slide more towards tyranny?

by sfe22 5y ago

So CA is too democratic in your opinion? It should slide more towards tyranny?

jvanderbot 5y ago

Absolutely not. Democracy can be fair and open elections, not crowdsourced legislation.

setr 5y ago

Sounds more like too much direct democracy, and needs to slide further towards representative.

sfe22 5y ago
The emperor can also be your representative, and so is Putin to russians, and the slightly more complex US system. The slider is democracy to tyranny, just because we dont yet have democracy in most or all countries doesn't change anything here. We just have twisted its meaning to describe some decision power when choosing tyrants. Either all decide equally-democracy , or fewer to very few or one-tyranny.
rsync 5y ago
Is that your opinion on marijuana policy in California? Which issues, pray tell, are best governed by local control and which are best governed by top-down, remote decision makers?
imtringued 5y ago
You mean too little direct democracy. Only a handful of people are actually engaging in local politics and therey are no longer representing the community as a whole. Special interest groups are the opposite of democracy.

Jarwain 5y ago

Feels like a flamebaity false-dichotomy. Is it really tyrannical to, say, elect officials to act on our behalf and consider long-term impacts and x-order effects? Because to me that just sounds a little more "republic" and a little less "direct democracy".

iso1210 5y ago

That's the paradox isn't it. Mob rule ends up being tyranny.

renewiltord 5y ago

That's exactly it. One of the reasons that the US (and other representative democracies) have limits on direct voter rule explicitly to prevent a "too democratic" situation yielding "mob rule" outcomes.

sfe22 5y ago
Sounds like a reason to justify tyranny to me. What do you mean mob rule. In a (true) democratic society just a small group can change something the majority disagrees with because they got together? The majority is also together in the same matter isnt it?
- renewiltord 5y ago
  Well, the idea recognizes two concepts: - We don't want the minority enforcing on the majority - We don't want a plurality or even a majority enforcing on a minority under certain circumstances So, for instance, even if 300 million Americans think "sfe22 should be stripped of their assets and have it given to us 300 million" that's not going to happen. Yes, that is 'tyrannical' of you to have such power but it is so nonetheless.
  - sfe22 5y ago
    Unfortunately I don’t agree. If 95% Americans want to steal my assets, something is wrong with the them (or me), and I should have probably seen it coming and leave. Why would I want to live in such extreme society anymore. If I was used to set an example that still would tell many a lot about this hypothetical america. Would a tyrant really be of any help then, maybe if it was somehow “good” to me, for a limited time but definitely does not justify its existence and cost on freedom and wealth.
    - renewiltord 5y ago
      Right, and that's your thesis for the world, but America lives under a different thesis, and some individual rights are protected, _even_ if 95% of people disagree.

boredumb 5y ago

Total democracy is mob rule of the majority.

CPLX 5y ago

Democracy isn't a Boolean value, it's a cluster of loosely related concepts and practices.