3 ms·

Elected representatives voting for a bill? Yes you are right that is democracy. I feel like you wanted a different word for this.

loup-vaillant 4y ago
It's only democracy if the people would actually have voted those laws. We have many, many examples demonstrating without the shadow of a doubt that elected representatives are often a pretty bad proxy for the actual will of the people. There's a bill in the works right now in France to increase the legal retirement age, that we have excellent reasons to believe over 2/3rd of the population is against. Yet the politicians are very likely to vote it (or something similar) anyway. Elections don't make a democracy.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- zugi 4y ago
  I think the problem is fetishisizing democracy when it's the least relevant philosophy here. Speaking of France in particular: Liberté, égalité, fraternité. Democracy is nice after all of these things, but it doesn't even make the top 3. The problem with the proposed laws is that they violate fundamental principles of liberty and equality, not that they're undemocratic.
  - loup-vaillant 4y ago
    Here's my wager: the informed will of the people would never pass laws that violate fundamental properties of liberty and equality. Thus, any law that violates them is necessarily undemocratic, because it would go contrary to the informed will of the people. Emphasis on informed. I wouldn't trust a surprise referendum. I would trust a process where we first gather a congress of 300 randos, let them reflect on the issue for a few weeks or months, then let them explain their conclusions and decisions on national television for a couple weeks, and then do the referendum. I mean, if this process actually results in laws that violate the fundamental principles we might as well just give up and let the world burn.
    - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
      Well... if it was 300 anonymous, sequestered randos, with access to objective information about the subject, that might work. 300 randos being bombarded with intense lobbying and biased information? That still might work out better than the legislature, but I would trust it considerably less than the sequestered randos.

loup-vaillant 4y ago

It's only democracy if the people would actually have voted those laws. We have many, many examples demonstrating without the shadow of a doubt that elected representatives are often a pretty bad proxy for the actual will of the people. There's a bill in the works right now in France to increase the legal retirement age, that we have excellent reasons to believe over 2/3rd of the population is against. Yet the politicians are very likely to vote it (or something similar) anyway. Elections don't make a democracy.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
zugi 4y ago
I think the problem is fetishisizing democracy when it's the least relevant philosophy here. Speaking of France in particular: Liberté, égalité, fraternité. Democracy is nice after all of these things, but it doesn't even make the top 3. The problem with the proposed laws is that they violate fundamental principles of liberty and equality, not that they're undemocratic.
- loup-vaillant 4y ago
  Here's my wager: the informed will of the people would never pass laws that violate fundamental properties of liberty and equality. Thus, any law that violates them is necessarily undemocratic, because it would go contrary to the informed will of the people. Emphasis on informed. I wouldn't trust a surprise referendum. I would trust a process where we first gather a congress of 300 randos, let them reflect on the issue for a few weeks or months, then let them explain their conclusions and decisions on national television for a couple weeks, and then do the referendum. I mean, if this process actually results in laws that violate the fundamental principles we might as well just give up and let the world burn.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    Well... if it was 300 anonymous, sequestered randos, with access to objective information about the subject, that might work. 300 randos being bombarded with intense lobbying and biased information? That still might work out better than the legislature, but I would trust it considerably less than the sequestered randos.