3 ms·

The disconnect is that you can limit the range of what democracy permits without being anti democracy. If we're voting on dinner, and I say I'm not going to ea

The disconnect is that you can limit the range of what democracy permits without being anti democracy. If we're voting on dinner, and I say I'm not going to eat at any restaurant with an F health inspector rating, we can still vote. Democracy always has to accept that we must set limits on choice. I can't vote for a foreign national to be our president. But honestly, I'm not that broken up about that limit. Just like I wouldn't be that broken up about limiting the ability to elect fascists.

Veen 4y ago
Yes, limiting the available options is part of the political elite’s job. But there are practical constraints on what’s possible. Skewing the political options too far from what the voting public wants leads to the rise of populist demagogues in the short term and revolution in the long term. Elites cannot just impose their narrow ideological commitments on a populace that largely rejects them.
midoridensha 4y ago
>Democracy always has to accept that we must set limits on choice. Ok, and who sets those limits? If an unelected group sets the limits, then what you have is not a democratic system at all; it's more like a 1-party state where you can vote who whomever you want, as long as The Party has approved them.
LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
> If we're voting on dinner [...] That doesn't replicate the conditions of national elections which are monopolistic and repeated. You can't opt to participate in a different group and you have to play all your games with the same rules - if you refuse to eat at F-grade restaurants you may end up starving. In "real" elections you end up without the ability to set those convenient limits consistently or usefully.
PKop 4y ago
And "politics" is the conflict over groups fighting for power to set these limits. There's no escape from the friend/enemy distinction. At some point there will be irreconcilable disagreements and opposing factions. Who has power to set the terms of political discourse is what all politics is.

Veen 4y ago

Yes, limiting the available options is part of the political elite’s job. But there are practical constraints on what’s possible. Skewing the political options too far from what the voting public wants leads to the rise of populist demagogues in the short term and revolution in the long term. Elites cannot just impose their narrow ideological commitments on a populace that largely rejects them.

midoridensha 4y ago

>Democracy always has to accept that we must set limits on choice. Ok, and who sets those limits? If an unelected group sets the limits, then what you have is not a democratic system at all; it's more like a 1-party state where you can vote who whomever you want, as long as The Party has approved them.

LawTalkingGuy 4y ago

> If we're voting on dinner [...] That doesn't replicate the conditions of national elections which are monopolistic and repeated. You can't opt to participate in a different group and you have to play all your games with the same rules - if you refuse to eat at F-grade restaurants you may end up starving. In "real" elections you end up without the ability to set those convenient limits consistently or usefully.

PKop 4y ago

And "politics" is the conflict over groups fighting for power to set these limits. There's no escape from the friend/enemy distinction. At some point there will be irreconcilable disagreements and opposing factions. Who has power to set the terms of political discourse is what all politics is.