6 ms·

A country like America has too many needs and responsibilities for direct democracy. Having full-time representatives handle these responsibilities gives me c

A country like America has too many needs and responsibilities for direct democracy. Having full-time representatives handle these responsibilities gives me comfort; I don't want and can't afford the responsibility of learning the ins and outs of every aspect of American government. I don't have the time or energy for that, so if I were told to vote on all of those issues I'd either be voting at random or in the manner the media told me to. And where is the value of that? No, I want representatives to do most of it for me. Public referendums on some social policy issues are generally good, and I've voted in a few of those, but please do not make me responsible for all of it. Besides, handing nukes over to a plebiscite is a bone-chillingly awful idea. In the days following 9/11 I think we probably would have voted to start a nuclear war. The public, save the Dixie Chicks, were even more blood thirsty than the US Government.

lapcat 4y ago
> In the days following 9/11 I think we probably would have voted to start a nuclear war. The public, save the Dixie Chicks, were even more blood thirsty than the US Government. The US government used 9/11 as an excuse to invade two countries. Iraq was not involved in 9/11 at all, despite allegations, and it didn't have WMD either, despite allegations. And we invaded Afghanistan, but bin Laden was eventually found in Pakistan, our "ally". The US public might have voted to invade Saudi Arabia, which actually would have made more sense than Afghanistan or Iraq.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  I'm well aware. I also recall a shockingly large portion of the population thinking that the US government was being too restrained and that every Muslim country should have been nuked. If nothing else, I think the other nuclear powers would be a lot more nervous if the American public were in direct control of those nukes. It simply isn't safe. If we had been under a direct democracy at that time, the inter-personal pressure to conform would have been even greater. As it stands, the opinions of your fellow citizen are relatively low stakes because they aren't the ones actually calling the shots, and they know you aren't either. This indirect nature of representative democracy is conducive to political tolerance at the inter-personal level.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > I also recall a shockingly large portion of the population thinking that the US government was being too restrained and that every Muslim country should have been nuked. I don't recall this. Citation? > I think the other nuclear powers would be a lot more nervous if the American public were in direct control of those nukes. It simply isn't safe. Do you think the Trump is safer? An elected US President (Truman) was the only one to ever use a nuclear weapon. Without consulting the public first.
Gud 4y ago
I don’t believe it. A core concept of the Swiss democracy is how every decision (in theory) is made locally. It works primarily on three levels - Gemeinde, Canton and Federal. I don’t see why it couldn’t work the same in the US. FWIW, I pay most of my taxes to the Gemeinde and Canton. About 3% goes to the Federal state, which I assume is mostly to the (compulsory) military. It seems to me as a foreigner that a large part of the U.S. problems(and indeed the world) is the concentration of power to the U.S. federal state.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  Split America up into Swiss-sized chunks with Swiss-sized responsibilities (no nukes! no NATO) and it could work. But that won't happen.
  - Gud 4y ago
    What makes you think the U.S. won’t break up? Happened so far to all great empires

lapcat 4y ago

> In the days following 9/11 I think we probably would have voted to start a nuclear war. The public, save the Dixie Chicks, were even more blood thirsty than the US Government. The US government used 9/11 as an excuse to invade two countries. Iraq was not involved in 9/11 at all, despite allegations, and it didn't have WMD either, despite allegations. And we invaded Afghanistan, but bin Laden was eventually found in Pakistan, our "ally". The US public might have voted to invade Saudi Arabia, which actually would have made more sense than Afghanistan or Iraq.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
I'm well aware. I also recall a shockingly large portion of the population thinking that the US government was being too restrained and that every Muslim country should have been nuked. If nothing else, I think the other nuclear powers would be a lot more nervous if the American public were in direct control of those nukes. It simply isn't safe. If we had been under a direct democracy at that time, the inter-personal pressure to conform would have been even greater. As it stands, the opinions of your fellow citizen are relatively low stakes because they aren't the ones actually calling the shots, and they know you aren't either. This indirect nature of representative democracy is conducive to political tolerance at the inter-personal level.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > I also recall a shockingly large portion of the population thinking that the US government was being too restrained and that every Muslim country should have been nuked. I don't recall this. Citation? > I think the other nuclear powers would be a lot more nervous if the American public were in direct control of those nukes. It simply isn't safe. Do you think the Trump is safer? An elected US President (Truman) was the only one to ever use a nuclear weapon. Without consulting the public first.

Gud 4y ago

I don’t believe it. A core concept of the Swiss democracy is how every decision (in theory) is made locally. It works primarily on three levels - Gemeinde, Canton and Federal. I don’t see why it couldn’t work the same in the US. FWIW, I pay most of my taxes to the Gemeinde and Canton. About 3% goes to the Federal state, which I assume is mostly to the (compulsory) military. It seems to me as a foreigner that a large part of the U.S. problems(and indeed the world) is the concentration of power to the U.S. federal state.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
Split America up into Swiss-sized chunks with Swiss-sized responsibilities (no nukes! no NATO) and it could work. But that won't happen.
- Gud 4y ago
  What makes you think the U.S. won’t break up? Happened so far to all great empires