4 ms·

You’re quibbling over the layers of indirection a representative democracy adds, but it doesn’t fundamentally change. If the majority of people wanted to strips

You’re quibbling over the layers of indirection a representative democracy adds, but it doesn’t fundamentally change. If the majority of people wanted to strips rights for those with disabilities, they would be well within the constitution to do it. > Democracy is ultimately the same thing as any other governing philosophy, except it’s more malleable by people without concentrated power than most other systems. Certainly more than a bank or whatever. Sure, but the point is that regardless of governing mechanism, the government is not acting in your interest (unless you’re an authoritarian dictator and even then there is internal resistance).

eyelidlessness 4y ago
I’m not quibbling anything.
- kortilla 4y ago
  Yes, pointing out the delay representative democracy induces as proof that democracy doesn’t represent the will of the people is quibbling.
  - eyelidlessness 4y ago
    You must have misunderstood my comment. Only one of my examples might conceivably be delayed. One is explicitly being reversed, and the other is protection of a vulnerable group regardless of majority status. My point isn’t that democracy fails to represent the will of the people. Democracy is more complicated than that, in some ways more flawed and in some ways better.
    - kortilla 4y ago
      > One is explicitly being reversed, and the other is protection of a vulnerable group regardless of majority status. The “reversed” case is because people don’t actually care enough to elect representatives that reflect those views. There is a Democratic majority house, senate, and president. Why isn’t abortion protected? > and the other is protection of a vulnerable group regardless of majority status It’s protected because the majority decided to protect it. The majority could easily remove that protection. They aren’t constitutionally protected.
      - eyelidlessness 4y ago
        > The “reversed” case is because people don’t actually care enough to elect representatives that reflect those views. There is a Democratic majority house, senate, and president. Why isn’t abortion protected? Because voters aren’t prone to magical thinking, and they don’t elect unicorns. Why don’t we vote for the candidates who don’t exist? The world may never know.

eyelidlessness 4y ago

I’m not quibbling anything.

kortilla 4y ago
Yes, pointing out the delay representative democracy induces as proof that democracy doesn’t represent the will of the people is quibbling.
- eyelidlessness 4y ago
  You must have misunderstood my comment. Only one of my examples might conceivably be delayed. One is explicitly being reversed, and the other is protection of a vulnerable group regardless of majority status. My point isn’t that democracy fails to represent the will of the people. Democracy is more complicated than that, in some ways more flawed and in some ways better.
  - kortilla 4y ago
    > One is explicitly being reversed, and the other is protection of a vulnerable group regardless of majority status. The “reversed” case is because people don’t actually care enough to elect representatives that reflect those views. There is a Democratic majority house, senate, and president. Why isn’t abortion protected? > and the other is protection of a vulnerable group regardless of majority status It’s protected because the majority decided to protect it. The majority could easily remove that protection. They aren’t constitutionally protected.
    - eyelidlessness 4y ago
      > The “reversed” case is because people don’t actually care enough to elect representatives that reflect those views. There is a Democratic majority house, senate, and president. Why isn’t abortion protected? Because voters aren’t prone to magical thinking, and they don’t elect unicorns. Why don’t we vote for the candidates who don’t exist? The world may never know.