5 ms·

Superficially 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

Superficially 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 ago
Still, even that system could be influenced and converted by someone.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  I 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 ago
    Wow, 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 ago
    https://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 ago
      Flukes 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.
      - 6510 4y ago
        I have told this story many times and I will tell it again: Since there are so many candidates in the US presidential elections and they nearly all have youtube channels, facebook pages, twitter etc, I was curious how much attention they are getting. The first 2 is easy, they are plastered all over the media and everyone around the world knows them on a first name basis.... but when I looked at random candidates on the long list it was amazing to see the 2 digit numbers. Some didn't get enough attention to account for friends and relatives. Truly shocking was that the green party had youtube videos with 100-250 views. This is such a mind blowingly small number that it doesn't account for any of the media. All those journalists around the world had to write about the top 2 candidates, they wrote tirelessly every day, again and again... Not one of them had the idea to have a looksie what just the number 3 was talking about. That voters collectively didn't give a rats ass about anyones program is one thing but that journalists collectively wrote 1 article on average about half the candidates. Most honestly told the reader they had no idea what their program was about. So there you have it, the digital age provided us with hard data that demonstrates how no one in the world did their homework. No one bothered to inform themselves before voting. They all looked to others for information but those others didn't have any. I therefore conclude we need a voting diploma. We bill everyone for 200 bucks and if they fail the exam government keeps the money. Long in advance the voter gets a randomly chosen list of 20 candidate with 500 chars for each of their top 3 agenda points. The test is multiple choice and you have to match the headlines of the agenda points with the candidates. I'm sure there are people who don't agree but I think it is fair to never listen to them. Don't read what they write. Glaze over when they talk to you and think of puppies.
golergka 4y ago
Being 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 ago
  I don't know what you mean. Is it possible you're mixing up direct democracy and liquid democracy?
t_mann 4y ago
Great 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 ago
  Differentiating 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"

EUROCARE 4y ago

Still, even that system could be influenced and converted by someone.

guerrilla 4y ago
I 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 ago
  Wow, 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 ago
  https://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 ago
    Flukes 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.
    - 6510 4y ago
      I have told this story many times and I will tell it again: Since there are so many candidates in the US presidential elections and they nearly all have youtube channels, facebook pages, twitter etc, I was curious how much attention they are getting. The first 2 is easy, they are plastered all over the media and everyone around the world knows them on a first name basis.... but when I looked at random candidates on the long list it was amazing to see the 2 digit numbers. Some didn't get enough attention to account for friends and relatives. Truly shocking was that the green party had youtube videos with 100-250 views. This is such a mind blowingly small number that it doesn't account for any of the media. All those journalists around the world had to write about the top 2 candidates, they wrote tirelessly every day, again and again... Not one of them had the idea to have a looksie what just the number 3 was talking about. That voters collectively didn't give a rats ass about anyones program is one thing but that journalists collectively wrote 1 article on average about half the candidates. Most honestly told the reader they had no idea what their program was about. So there you have it, the digital age provided us with hard data that demonstrates how no one in the world did their homework. No one bothered to inform themselves before voting. They all looked to others for information but those others didn't have any. I therefore conclude we need a voting diploma. We bill everyone for 200 bucks and if they fail the exam government keeps the money. Long in advance the voter gets a randomly chosen list of 20 candidate with 500 chars for each of their top 3 agenda points. The test is multiple choice and you have to match the headlines of the agenda points with the candidates. I'm sure there are people who don't agree but I think it is fair to never listen to them. Don't read what they write. Glaze over when they talk to you and think of puppies.

golergka 4y ago

Being 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 ago
I don't know what you mean. Is it possible you're mixing up direct democracy and liquid democracy?

t_mann 4y ago

Great 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 ago
Differentiating 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"