5 ms·

It probably isn’t in the way you mean “truth”. A good democracy is one where the interests of most people are exercised. And in that world there might be a diff

It probably isn’t in the way you mean “truth”. A good democracy is one where the interests of most people are exercised. And in that world there might be a different “truth” than what we see today in the New York Times and in the Washington Post. Of course you don’t want regular people to rule on behalf of the ruling class: the ruling class does that best. They know their own truth best.

guerrilla 4y ago
> A good democracy is one where the interests of most people are exercised. By that criterion, a good democracy can vote to enslave or exterminate a minority.
- avgcorrection 4y ago
  You want to play the mince-words game? That’s fine. “Most people” would include the minority as well. I say “most” rather than “all” since not everone’s interests will be perfectly represented: compromises will always have to be made. And some things will be decided by way of a majority vote while other things will require a unanimous vote like... exterminating people. I don’t think voting to exterminate a group of people would be more straightforward in a perfect democracy compared to our status quo system. Still though you will always be able to, no matter how I (pithily) define the term, find some absurd, abstract scenario where you can make democracy out to be some devil incarnate political philosophy, in the same way that one can “debunk” utilitarianism by invoking the Utility Monster.
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    > You want to play the mince-words game? Calm down now... The way to solve the problem you want to solve is with rights, constitutions, charters and such things, not definitions. Voting alone isn't sufficient for a good democracy. That's all I was pointing out. > in the same way that one can “debunk” utilitarianism by invoking the Utility Monster. I mean we literally have multiple living utility monsters, so that's not a very wise comment to make.
    - avgcorrection 4y ago
      > Voting alone isn't sufficient for a good democracy. You’re the one that said “voting”. I originally said democracy. Voting is just one of the brass taxes of democracy. A democracy is not less capable of making rights, constitutions, etc. than for example a bunch of so-called founding fathers. Or whatever/whoever else. > , not definitions. Right. I am not trying to make a foolproof political system from a bunch of axioms, here. Remind me. Who was the one who objected to my off-the-cuff definition of “democracy”? Is that same person now objecting to focusing on definitions?
      - guerrilla 4y ago
        > Voting is just one of the brass taxes of democracy. A democracy is not less capable of making rights, constitutions, etc. than for example a bunch of so-called founding fathers. Or whatever/whoever else. You did though, with "the interests of most people are exercised." This is just voting. Their interests would not be exercised with limiting measures. That's the point.
        avgcorrection 4y ago
        You’re clearly just projecting your own definition of “democracy”, which is apparently synonymous with “voting”. Notice that I originally just said “democracy” and then you immediately took that to mean voting and all the apparent downsides that go along with it. Apparently I could have said anything else alongside “democracy” and then you would have drawn the same conclusion, namely your pre-existing hangups with the system. For example “democracy is when the people have power”. And then you retort with “... the power to kill minorities”. Again. A demoracy is not any less capable of establishing rights, a constitution, etc. compared to for example a bunch of so-called founding fathers. A group of founding fathers is after all not a group of automatons that are bound to whatever choices the ballot box says exists. For that matter: who decides what is put on the ballot? The people. Who decides whether to vote or something or not? The people. See? There are no bare facts, some given-by-God things that you start off with. Unless you think that the Founding Fathers of the US were handed the Constitution by God, like Moses. Yes. Some people do indeed have this bizarre fixation on voting when it comes to democracy. And they have this irrational fear that minority rights would vanish under a true democracy, probably because they falsely think that (1) voting is all that a democracy is about, and (2) they are so ignorant that they think that majoritarianism (say 51% of the vote) is the only kind of voting that exists! However, I personally don’t have the patience to go through this dance every time someone tries to gotcha me by bringing up hypothetical extermination of minorities when I bring up such a non-offensive, off-the-cuff, provisional definition of “democracy”: > > A good democracy is one where the interests of most people are exercised.
- Henk0815 4y ago
  is this your excuse to justify the enslavement of the will of the majority by oligarchs, technocrats and tyrants?
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    No, see elsewhere in the thread where I advocate for liquid democracy :) It was just my way of saying there's more to it than voting (a.k.a. "excising interests")
    - avgcorrection 4y ago
      All you accomplished was to fixate on the word “vote” which I never used and thus proving that you are the one who has some kind of weird fetish for voting with regards to democracy... congrats.
peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> A good democracy is one where the interests of most people are exercised the many times cited Arrow's theorem says that no such system exist: they are all biased and if you use one that favours representativeness, you miss on the fairness side. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theo...
- avgcorrection 4y ago
  What’s fairness? And what does a priori theorems have to do with political theory?
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    the link mentions that in great detail. "exercise interest" in a democracy means voting, Arrow's theorem is about the impossibility of creating a voting system that satisfies both representativeness and fairness (in the title of this post is weirdly called "truth"). we are commenting a post on liquid democracy, which is simply a different way to vote.
    - avgcorrection 4y ago
      I realize that the submission is about this weird math stuff and how it apparently relates to politics. But neither the original commenter that I replied to nor myself interpreted the word “truth” correctly and so I went off on a different tangent. What does this have to do with my provisional definition of “democracy”? What am I supposed to concede?
      - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
        that exercising interest in democracy means voting. we are talking about voting systems. Arrow's theorem is the definitive answer to "no voting system is perfect so no voting system will solve political problems" Liquid democracy, being simply another way to vote, won't solve any political issue by itself. Because politics is a social problem.

guerrilla 4y ago

> A good democracy is one where the interests of most people are exercised. By that criterion, a good democracy can vote to enslave or exterminate a minority.

avgcorrection 4y ago
You want to play the mince-words game? That’s fine. “Most people” would include the minority as well. I say “most” rather than “all” since not everone’s interests will be perfectly represented: compromises will always have to be made. And some things will be decided by way of a majority vote while other things will require a unanimous vote like... exterminating people. I don’t think voting to exterminate a group of people would be more straightforward in a perfect democracy compared to our status quo system. Still though you will always be able to, no matter how I (pithily) define the term, find some absurd, abstract scenario where you can make democracy out to be some devil incarnate political philosophy, in the same way that one can “debunk” utilitarianism by invoking the Utility Monster.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  > You want to play the mince-words game? Calm down now... The way to solve the problem you want to solve is with rights, constitutions, charters and such things, not definitions. Voting alone isn't sufficient for a good democracy. That's all I was pointing out. > in the same way that one can “debunk” utilitarianism by invoking the Utility Monster. I mean we literally have multiple living utility monsters, so that's not a very wise comment to make.
  - avgcorrection 4y ago
    > Voting alone isn't sufficient for a good democracy. You’re the one that said “voting”. I originally said democracy. Voting is just one of the brass taxes of democracy. A democracy is not less capable of making rights, constitutions, etc. than for example a bunch of so-called founding fathers. Or whatever/whoever else. > , not definitions. Right. I am not trying to make a foolproof political system from a bunch of axioms, here. Remind me. Who was the one who objected to my off-the-cuff definition of “democracy”? Is that same person now objecting to focusing on definitions?
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      > Voting is just one of the brass taxes of democracy. A democracy is not less capable of making rights, constitutions, etc. than for example a bunch of so-called founding fathers. Or whatever/whoever else. You did though, with "the interests of most people are exercised." This is just voting. Their interests would not be exercised with limiting measures. That's the point.
      - avgcorrection 4y ago
        You’re clearly just projecting your own definition of “democracy”, which is apparently synonymous with “voting”. Notice that I originally just said “democracy” and then you immediately took that to mean voting and all the apparent downsides that go along with it. Apparently I could have said anything else alongside “democracy” and then you would have drawn the same conclusion, namely your pre-existing hangups with the system. For example “democracy is when the people have power”. And then you retort with “... the power to kill minorities”. Again. A demoracy is not any less capable of establishing rights, a constitution, etc. compared to for example a bunch of so-called founding fathers. A group of founding fathers is after all not a group of automatons that are bound to whatever choices the ballot box says exists. For that matter: who decides what is put on the ballot? The people. Who decides whether to vote or something or not? The people. See? There are no bare facts, some given-by-God things that you start off with. Unless you think that the Founding Fathers of the US were handed the Constitution by God, like Moses. Yes. Some people do indeed have this bizarre fixation on voting when it comes to democracy. And they have this irrational fear that minority rights would vanish under a true democracy, probably because they falsely think that (1) voting is all that a democracy is about, and (2) they are so ignorant that they think that majoritarianism (say 51% of the vote) is the only kind of voting that exists! However, I personally don’t have the patience to go through this dance every time someone tries to gotcha me by bringing up hypothetical extermination of minorities when I bring up such a non-offensive, off-the-cuff, provisional definition of “democracy”: > > A good democracy is one where the interests of most people are exercised.
Henk0815 4y ago
is this your excuse to justify the enslavement of the will of the majority by oligarchs, technocrats and tyrants?
- guerrilla 4y ago
  No, see elsewhere in the thread where I advocate for liquid democracy :) It was just my way of saying there's more to it than voting (a.k.a. "excising interests")
  - avgcorrection 4y ago
    All you accomplished was to fixate on the word “vote” which I never used and thus proving that you are the one who has some kind of weird fetish for voting with regards to democracy... congrats.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago

> A good democracy is one where the interests of most people are exercised the many times cited Arrow's theorem says that no such system exist: they are all biased and if you use one that favours representativeness, you miss on the fairness side. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theo...

avgcorrection 4y ago
What’s fairness? And what does a priori theorems have to do with political theory?
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  the link mentions that in great detail. "exercise interest" in a democracy means voting, Arrow's theorem is about the impossibility of creating a voting system that satisfies both representativeness and fairness (in the title of this post is weirdly called "truth"). we are commenting a post on liquid democracy, which is simply a different way to vote.
  - avgcorrection 4y ago
    I realize that the submission is about this weird math stuff and how it apparently relates to politics. But neither the original commenter that I replied to nor myself interpreted the word “truth” correctly and so I went off on a different tangent. What does this have to do with my provisional definition of “democracy”? What am I supposed to concede?
    - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
      that exercising interest in democracy means voting. we are talking about voting systems. Arrow's theorem is the definitive answer to "no voting system is perfect so no voting system will solve political problems" Liquid democracy, being simply another way to vote, won't solve any political issue by itself. Because politics is a social problem.