4 ms·

Can you quote where they suggested a flat democracy? Looks like you are putting words in their mouth, also known as creating a strawman.

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
implication and conclusions don't need to be explicitly stated. In this case if power isn't in the government it's in the hands of the people. That's a flat democracy.
- tchaffee 4y ago
  > implication and conclusions don't need to be explicitly stated. But you would do well to ask, because you got it totally wrong. The commenter said that they are against this type of libertarian idealism. Because the result is that it isn't a flat democracy. Instead folks like Musk end up with huge amounts of power. Specifically you need to understand what they said here: "If power is concentrated in government, it's as bad if it's concentrated with an individual with his own private police force." The implication is that the commentator wants power evenly distributed. The opposite of your wrong accusation of the commenter wanting power concentrated in a majority. Nowhere was flat democracy mentioned. You invented that line of thinking.
  - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
    flat democracy in this case means no power concentration and everyone votes on everything. as opposed to what the US currently has, which is a representational democracy where power is concentrated at the government level with people electing others to represent them (and to wield more power than they, themselves, do). ---- If someone tells you power concentrated in the government is bad and power should be evenly distributed, they're talking about a flat democracy (aka direct democracy). Which goes back to what I said initially. What if the people want slaves? What if they want segregated schools? Because at one point the majority actually did want these things. People who argue for things like this imagine that only good will come from it. Not only is that not true, we have precedent that it's not true.
    - mola 4y ago
      Never talked about evenly distributed power. Just not too concentrated. A power differential is not inherently bad, I can't see a system working without it. But the size of that differential should be kept to a minimum that allow the system to work.
    - tchaffee 4y ago
      > If someone tells you power concentrated in the government is bad and power should be evenly distributed, they're talking about a flat democracy (aka direct democracy). You're wrongly inferring that. No need to assume stuff when you can just ask the other person. > they're talking about a flat democracy (aka direct democracy). That does not describe a system where power is evenly distributed. Because of the already widely known problems you mentioned. Lots of folks learn this stuff in high school.
      - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
        How does one evenly distribute power without giving the same level of power to everyone? When you answer that you cannot do so, you're admitting to asking for a direct democracy. "Oh, but what about this adaptation that ..." puts more power into certain hands than another. Maybe it's flatter, but it's not even. It's sort of like saying people can fly. The second you add the requirement that it be actionable (aka, grounded in reality) is the same second you conclude people need something external to assist rather than flapping their arms really fast. you can't get around that no matter how much you'd like to.
        tchaffee 4y ago
        > How does one evenly distribute power without giving the same level of power to everyone? One attempt at this would be representational democracy. > When you answer that you cannot do so, you're admitting to asking for a direct democracy. No one gave that as an answer.
        P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago

implication and conclusions don't need to be explicitly stated. In this case if power isn't in the government it's in the hands of the people. That's a flat democracy.

tchaffee 4y ago
> implication and conclusions don't need to be explicitly stated. But you would do well to ask, because you got it totally wrong. The commenter said that they are against this type of libertarian idealism. Because the result is that it isn't a flat democracy. Instead folks like Musk end up with huge amounts of power. Specifically you need to understand what they said here: "If power is concentrated in government, it's as bad if it's concentrated with an individual with his own private police force." The implication is that the commentator wants power evenly distributed. The opposite of your wrong accusation of the commenter wanting power concentrated in a majority. Nowhere was flat democracy mentioned. You invented that line of thinking.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
  flat democracy in this case means no power concentration and everyone votes on everything. as opposed to what the US currently has, which is a representational democracy where power is concentrated at the government level with people electing others to represent them (and to wield more power than they, themselves, do). ---- If someone tells you power concentrated in the government is bad and power should be evenly distributed, they're talking about a flat democracy (aka direct democracy). Which goes back to what I said initially. What if the people want slaves? What if they want segregated schools? Because at one point the majority actually did want these things. People who argue for things like this imagine that only good will come from it. Not only is that not true, we have precedent that it's not true.
  - mola 4y ago
    Never talked about evenly distributed power. Just not too concentrated. A power differential is not inherently bad, I can't see a system working without it. But the size of that differential should be kept to a minimum that allow the system to work.
  - tchaffee 4y ago
    > If someone tells you power concentrated in the government is bad and power should be evenly distributed, they're talking about a flat democracy (aka direct democracy). You're wrongly inferring that. No need to assume stuff when you can just ask the other person. > they're talking about a flat democracy (aka direct democracy). That does not describe a system where power is evenly distributed. Because of the already widely known problems you mentioned. Lots of folks learn this stuff in high school.
    - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
      How does one evenly distribute power without giving the same level of power to everyone? When you answer that you cannot do so, you're admitting to asking for a direct democracy. "Oh, but what about this adaptation that ..." puts more power into certain hands than another. Maybe it's flatter, but it's not even. It's sort of like saying people can fly. The second you add the requirement that it be actionable (aka, grounded in reality) is the same second you conclude people need something external to assist rather than flapping their arms really fast. you can't get around that no matter how much you'd like to.
      - tchaffee 4y ago
        > How does one evenly distribute power without giving the same level of power to everyone? One attempt at this would be representational democracy. > When you answer that you cannot do so, you're admitting to asking for a direct democracy. No one gave that as an answer.
        P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago