3 ms·

Beyond that, a growing number of us have realized that democracy is incompatible with freedom. Once you accept that, the absurdity of politicians claiming to s

by kodyo 4y ago

Beyond that, a growing number of us have realized that democracy is incompatible with freedom. Once you accept that, the absurdity of politicians claiming to speak for large swaths of your country is just comical. Downvoters are free to explain why unimpressive people have any say over how you think or how you should behave.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
> Beyond that, a growing number of us have realized that democracy is incompatible with freedom. That's an interesting mindset, in theory, but not very grounded in reality. Being a democracy is no guarantee of freedom, but it has let more people live in more freedom than any other system. (The great danger is that tyrants convert democracies into pseudo-democracies, keeping the trappings while removing the freedom, and that makes democracies look bad to those who are unaware.) Seriously, if you've got a system that leads to more freedom, put in into practice somewhere, and show us how it works in the real world. If you can consistently deliver for several decades, we might start to listen. > Once you accept that, the absurdity of politicians claiming to speak for large swaths of your country is just comical. Politicians speak, not for the population, not even for everyone who voted for them, but for everyone who agrees with the politician on that particular point. > Downvoters are free to explain why unimpressive people have any say over how you think or how you should behave. I'm having a hard time understanding what you're trying to say here. But it sounds like you're saying that, in a democracy, "unimpressive people" have a say because they get to vote. Well, I don't know anybody who lets voters decide how they think. How they behave? Well, votes lead to laws, so, yeah. But in a non-democracy, someone was still going to be making the laws, and almost certainly that would be someone who is not you. So it seems to me that you're always going to have other people having a say over how you should behave. (And, in a non-democracy, they can be a lot more serious having say over how you think, too.) The phrase "unimpressive people" I find a bit disturbing. It sounds like you're looking down on them, that there's some contempt there. Frankly, that does not make your position more persuasive.
- kodyo 4y ago
  You make good points, but I think we would diverge in that I think the western democracies have already crossed into the pseudo-democracy trap and are already tyrannies. However, I want no part of oppressing anybody because I don't find myself to be exceptionally impressive, so don't look at me to come up with a better system of oppression. People go along with this idea of democracy because they believe (read: they've been told) that the possibility of freedom and prosperity exists if they are simply able to convince enough of their unimpressive friends to vote hard enough for the correct team. It's absurd. My belief is simply that nobody else speaks for me. I'm not responsible for the depravity that arises from democracy, just as I'm not responsible for the depravity that arises from authoritarianism. It's all the same thing. Having said that, I could probably be convinced to follow a truly heroic and impressive person if one were to ever appear. Jesus seemed like a good fit, but the mediocre leaders running his local government killed him because he was a pain in their asses.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    > I think we would diverge in that I think the western democracies have already crossed into the pseudo-democracy trap and are already tyrannies. I disagree, but less strongly than I wish I did. You could be right. Even if you're wrong now, you could be right soon. > People go along with this idea of democracy because they believe (read: they've been told) that the possibility of freedom and prosperity exists if they are simply able to convince enough of their unimpressive friends to vote hard enough for the correct team. It's absurd. Agreed. There was a reason that the original American idea was for a strictly limited government. The current belief seems to be that freedom is getting the government to do what you want to "the others". > My belief is simply that nobody else speaks for me. I'm not responsible for the depravity that arises from democracy, just as I'm not responsible for the depravity that arises from authoritarianism. It's all the same thing. I agree or disagree, depending on the specifics of how you mean this. In both cases the depravity comes out of the selfishness in people; so far I agree. If you mean that democracy and authoritarianism are equally depraved, then no, I don't agree. (If you mean authoritarianism and "fake democracy" authoritarianism are equally depraved, then maybe I do agree.) Re your last paragraph: You know, following Jesus is still an option today. (I mean, his goal then wasn't political power, but you sound like that fits you...)

by kodyo 4y ago

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

> Beyond that, a growing number of us have realized that democracy is incompatible with freedom. That's an interesting mindset, in theory, but not very grounded in reality. Being a democracy is no guarantee of freedom, but it has let more people live in more freedom than any other system. (The great danger is that tyrants convert democracies into pseudo-democracies, keeping the trappings while removing the freedom, and that makes democracies look bad to those who are unaware.) Seriously, if you've got a system that leads to more freedom, put in into practice somewhere, and show us how it works in the real world. If you can consistently deliver for several decades, we might start to listen. > Once you accept that, the absurdity of politicians claiming to speak for large swaths of your country is just comical. Politicians speak, not for the population, not even for everyone who voted for them, but for everyone who agrees with the politician on that particular point. > Downvoters are free to explain why unimpressive people have any say over how you think or how you should behave. I'm having a hard time understanding what you're trying to say here. But it sounds like you're saying that, in a democracy, "unimpressive people" have a say because they get to vote. Well, I don't know anybody who lets voters decide how they think. How they behave? Well, votes lead to laws, so, yeah. But in a non-democracy, someone was still going to be making the laws, and almost certainly that would be someone who is not you. So it seems to me that you're always going to have other people having a say over how you should behave. (And, in a non-democracy, they can be a lot more serious having say over how you think, too.) The phrase "unimpressive people" I find a bit disturbing. It sounds like you're looking down on them, that there's some contempt there. Frankly, that does not make your position more persuasive.

kodyo 4y ago
You make good points, but I think we would diverge in that I think the western democracies have already crossed into the pseudo-democracy trap and are already tyrannies. However, I want no part of oppressing anybody because I don't find myself to be exceptionally impressive, so don't look at me to come up with a better system of oppression. People go along with this idea of democracy because they believe (read: they've been told) that the possibility of freedom and prosperity exists if they are simply able to convince enough of their unimpressive friends to vote hard enough for the correct team. It's absurd. My belief is simply that nobody else speaks for me. I'm not responsible for the depravity that arises from democracy, just as I'm not responsible for the depravity that arises from authoritarianism. It's all the same thing. Having said that, I could probably be convinced to follow a truly heroic and impressive person if one were to ever appear. Jesus seemed like a good fit, but the mediocre leaders running his local government killed him because he was a pain in their asses.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  > I think we would diverge in that I think the western democracies have already crossed into the pseudo-democracy trap and are already tyrannies. I disagree, but less strongly than I wish I did. You could be right. Even if you're wrong now, you could be right soon. > People go along with this idea of democracy because they believe (read: they've been told) that the possibility of freedom and prosperity exists if they are simply able to convince enough of their unimpressive friends to vote hard enough for the correct team. It's absurd. Agreed. There was a reason that the original American idea was for a strictly limited government. The current belief seems to be that freedom is getting the government to do what you want to "the others". > My belief is simply that nobody else speaks for me. I'm not responsible for the depravity that arises from democracy, just as I'm not responsible for the depravity that arises from authoritarianism. It's all the same thing. I agree or disagree, depending on the specifics of how you mean this. In both cases the depravity comes out of the selfishness in people; so far I agree. If you mean that democracy and authoritarianism are equally depraved, then no, I don't agree. (If you mean authoritarianism and "fake democracy" authoritarianism are equally depraved, then maybe I do agree.) Re your last paragraph: You know, following Jesus is still an option today. (I mean, his goal then wasn't political power, but you sound like that fits you...)