3 ms·

> A democratic government is the means by which the population prevents the monopoly on legal violence from falling permanently into the hands of any individual

> A democratic government is the means by which the population prevents the monopoly on legal violence from falling permanently into the hands of any individual That would be nice if we had a “democracy”. Because of both gerrymandering and the design of the constitution - 2 senators per state, and the electoral college - we don’t have one. The “majority” doesn’t care as long as law enforcement is used unfairly against “them”. There is a reason that during the protests in the US, protestors started using “White shields”. They knew how fast the population would turn against law enforcement when the local news showed them beating up on white people. https://www.blackenterprise.com/white-protesters-form-human-barrier-to-shield-black-protesters-from-louisville-metro-police/ https://www.blackenterprise.com/white-protesters-form-human-...

landemva 4y ago
The Constitution had the House grow with increase in population. Congress stopped that growth so now lobbyists have the access. Two Senators per State worked ok when appointed by State because Senators would get recalled and replaced if they voted against State's interests. Now the people vote on Senators and the lobbyists have the access and control.
- scarface74 4y ago
  So you’re saying it was better when the state legislators had control? That’s even less democratic. You realize that the “states interest” back in the 60s was the continuing of Jim Crow laws in the South. How many Trump supporting states would have recalled Senators in the 2020 for not agreeing to give him the Presidency?
  - landemva 4y ago
    Do you think it would be good to follow the Constitution and have the House grow with population?
    - scarface74 4y ago
      It would have been untenable as the country grew. Originally, a representative shouldn’t have represented more than 30K people. If that had continued, we would now have 10,000 representatives. You could always reduce the size of the government like conservatives want - at least until they realize that for the most part, conservative states are smaller more rural states that are a net beneficiary of federal income taxes.
      - landemva 4y ago
        As it is now, the lobbyists and special interests have control. 30,000 sounds like real representation, would make gerrymandering pointless, and the lobbyists would find it difficult to control even 1/5 of the 30,000. I support this bigger government! They can do zoom calls, meet regionally, or meet in a baseball stadium. If instead we optimize this democratic republic for cost, then a king will do.
        scarface74 4y ago
        So how would that have worked in 1939 when they capped the number of representatives?
        landemva 4y ago
        You earlier brought up gerrymandering, electoral college, protests and your "white shields". Now you avoid the solution to the present day lack of representation, a solution which would make gerrymandering and lobbyists irrelevant in the House, by undoing the cap on the House. You instead want to go into 1930s whataboutism with an unexplained reference to Trump. We can fix this together and everyone could have better representation in the federal House. Neither of the big parties, nor you, will discuss it. America is addicted to arguing for their team, while the lobbyists and special interests feed at our tax trough. > how would that have worked in 1939 About the same as 1839 and 1937 and 1938.
        4y ago

landemva 4y ago

The Constitution had the House grow with increase in population. Congress stopped that growth so now lobbyists have the access. Two Senators per State worked ok when appointed by State because Senators would get recalled and replaced if they voted against State's interests. Now the people vote on Senators and the lobbyists have the access and control.

scarface74 4y ago
So you’re saying it was better when the state legislators had control? That’s even less democratic. You realize that the “states interest” back in the 60s was the continuing of Jim Crow laws in the South. How many Trump supporting states would have recalled Senators in the 2020 for not agreeing to give him the Presidency?
- landemva 4y ago
  Do you think it would be good to follow the Constitution and have the House grow with population?
  - scarface74 4y ago
    It would have been untenable as the country grew. Originally, a representative shouldn’t have represented more than 30K people. If that had continued, we would now have 10,000 representatives. You could always reduce the size of the government like conservatives want - at least until they realize that for the most part, conservative states are smaller more rural states that are a net beneficiary of federal income taxes.
    - landemva 4y ago
      As it is now, the lobbyists and special interests have control. 30,000 sounds like real representation, would make gerrymandering pointless, and the lobbyists would find it difficult to control even 1/5 of the 30,000. I support this bigger government! They can do zoom calls, meet regionally, or meet in a baseball stadium. If instead we optimize this democratic republic for cost, then a king will do.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        So how would that have worked in 1939 when they capped the number of representatives?
        landemva 4y ago
        You earlier brought up gerrymandering, electoral college, protests and your "white shields". Now you avoid the solution to the present day lack of representation, a solution which would make gerrymandering and lobbyists irrelevant in the House, by undoing the cap on the House. You instead want to go into 1930s whataboutism with an unexplained reference to Trump. We can fix this together and everyone could have better representation in the federal House. Neither of the big parties, nor you, will discuss it. America is addicted to arguing for their team, while the lobbyists and special interests feed at our tax trough. > how would that have worked in 1939 About the same as 1839 and 1937 and 1938.
        4y ago