4 ms·
Weird that you automatically assumed it would be private property rather than democratically managed or self-managed.
by guerrilla 4y ago
Weird that you automatically assumed it would be private property rather than democratically managed or self-managed.
- EUROCARE 4y agoWeird that you don't consider how democracy doesn't always work out as intended. See: Corruption, Donald Trump. Not that it's bad or isn't the best we have, but there are a lot of superficially democratic states that became de facto property of one or a few. See: Russia.
- guerrilla 4y agoSuperficially democratic states (I like your term) aren't democracies to me. I meant literally democratic, not a theatrical aristocracy. I don't consider the US to be democratic for that reason. Something like liquid democracy or a representative democracy with arbitrary right of recall would work.
- EUROCARE 4y agoStill, even that system could be influenced and converted by someone.
- guerrilla 4y agoI don't know how to respond to your claim because it's too vague. In any case, perfection is the enemy of good. Actual democracy would be better than this. It seemed like the society they were talking about was utopian anyway, so everyone was being kind and cooperative, not operating adversarially like we do today. From the synopsis of the book: > they do nothing on an industrial scale, reject governance, have no non-laboring caste, do not expand their population or territory, consider disbelief in what we consider “supernatural” absurd, and deplore human domination of the natural environment.
- DiggyJohnson 4y agoWow, I want to live in this utopia, even compared to other attractive utopias. Added to the reading list.
- ramesh31 4y ago>Theatrical aristocracy. I don't consider the US to be democratic for that reason. This is often repeated, and I don't believe it's true. The US has, without a doubt, the most accessible and open democracy in the world. Take just for example the state legislatures. A state like Indiana has an economy and budget larger than most countries. Yet literally anyone can get elected to the state house of Indiana. Happens all the time. Congress is pretty similar, too (although in full fairness, the senate is indeed a bastion of oligarchy). Anyone who thinks our system isn't democratic isn't really trying.
- guerrilla 4y ago> The US has, without a doubt, the most accessible and open democracy in the world. Take just for example the state legislatures. This is a shockingly sheltered view. You must have no exposure to European democracy at all. > Yet literally anyone can get elected to the state house of Indiana Nope, this is false. You must have enough money, free time and access to media and advertising in order to that. It's just a positive feedback loop and it doesn't actually matter if legally anyone can run if practically nobody can. > Anyone who thinks our system isn't democratic isn't really trying. You haven't thought this through.
- Georgelemental 4y agohttps://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/05/politics/ed-durr-steve-sweeney-new-jersey-senate-district-3/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/05/politics/ed-durr-steve-sw...
- guerrilla 4y agoFlukes happen and they don't change the fact that your chances are still close to zero in general. If FOX news (or whatever) didn't like him, he would have certainly lost. Don't forget the selection bias: people will be filtered by whether they are what the people in control want. Similar to the propaganda model: You don't need to tell people what to write at your newspaper if you never hire people that wouldn't just write what you want anyway.
- golergka 4y agoBeing literally democratic is not a stable state, and you cannot plan such a system without making sure it fails in safe ways. System that has united, monopolistic control of such a vital resource does not fail in a safe way.
- guerrilla 4y agoI don't know what you mean. Is it possible you're mixing up direct democracy and liquid democracy?
- t_mann 4y agoGreat example of a 'no true Scotsman' argument. Such idealizations are of little to no practical relevance, we need solutions that work in the real world, with all its flaws.
- yellowapple 4y agoDifferentiating between "societies which actually adhere to democratic principles and processes" v. "societies which merely pretend to do so" is hardly a "no true Scotsman" argument. "This person claims to be a Scotsman, but has never set foot in Scotland, nor have any of his ancestors or even acquaintenances (let alone friends or family), nor does he have any other ties whatsoever to Scotland." "nO tRuE sCoTsMaN fAlLaCy lOl"
- skybrian 4y agoWeird that you think saying "democratically managed" somehow fixes the principle-agent problem. Voters don't write code. There is a process that goes from votes to personnel decisions to design decisions to writing patches. This process involves people who have their own ideas about how to interpret what the voters might theoretically want. There is lots of scope for them to make decisions you wouldn't like.
- guerrilla 4y ago> Weird that you think saying "democratically managed" somehow fixes the principle-agent problem. Your moving the goal post, but I'll bite anyway. Liquid democracy does as best as one can in that respect (and perfection is the enemy of good), since anyone that's capable can intervene at any point without hindrance. That's not possible in "representative" "democracies." > This process involves people who have their own ideas about how to interpret what the voters might theoretically want. There is lots of scope for them to make decisions you wouldn't like. Sure, and anyone who betrays the people could be removed as soon as they do, unlike today. In liquid democracy, you can just override them and with RIC, you can just recall them at will.
- whatshisface 4y agoIf anyone can intervene to restore the system in a way they truly believe fixes it, could Thomas Hobbes intervene to install a monarch?