4 ms·

I don't think the solution is just leaving our complex decisions over to others. I think the solution is that we all need to be better informed. A doctor doesn'

by yesbut 4y ago

I don't think the solution is just leaving our complex decisions over to others. I think the solution is that we all need to be better informed. A doctor doesn't decide to do something for us unless we're incapacitated. The doctor informs us of our options and risks and we get to make the decisions ourselves. In the same vein (vain pun would have been better), we need more opportunities to decide for ourselves than we currently do, not fewer. Why should any other major decision a country makes be any different? We hand over the decision making over too often when we should be turning those situations into more opportunities to let democracy to rule. Inform the public and let them decide. Allowing others to decide for us has been a shit show.

hayst4ck 4y ago
What you are arguing is that we should be a low trust society: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_trust_and_low_trust_societies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_trust_and_low_trust_socie... No. The government should provide consequences for those who violate trust promoting the idea that I can trust someone else who is from the same society I am. Here is a game that shows what happens at a societal level when doctors lie or mechanics over charge: https://ncase.me/trust/ https://ncase.me/trust/ In the game of prisoners dilemma, society itself must ensure that defection is a losing strategy. This idea has a name: rule of law.
- yesbut 4y ago
  The government is us. Not some aliens. We should be democratically deciding what is correct and what is a violation and what the consequences for violating trust are. We should not hand that decision over to a few elected representatives. This should be a collective democratic process. * legalize abortion? yes or no * go to war? yes or no * arm teachers? yes or no * corporate news outlet allowed to sell ad time to corporations they report on? yes or no * nondemocratically run businesseses allowed to function as a news outlet? yes or no More democracy, not less.
  - hayst4ck 4y ago
    How do "we" decide something? It sounds like you are advocating for mob rule but calling it democracy. Help me understand how that is not what you are saying. What is the "collective democratic process" you are advocating for? How does a law get made and how does a law get enforced?
    - yesbut 4y ago
      Democracy is mob rule. Direct democracy. The fear of "too much democracy" is only a fear for people who are afraid that others might not want the same things they do. One person, one vote is mob rule. What that requires is a well informed, well educated population. Instead we have an ignorant, uninformed population that leaves all of the important decisions to a hand full of representatives that tend to run things the way their wealthy donors want.
      - KronisLV 4y ago
        > What that requires is a well informed, well educated population. Isn't this very uncommon, in addition to the need to be at least somewhat compassionate (e.g. in regards to issues that might not affect individuals personally, but that affect minorities, or simply those who are different)? A certain social cooling might be needed in many societies, less extremism, less identity politics, less hate. I don't think we live in such a world, yet.
        yesbut 4y ago
        It is the world we should create instead of waiting for others to improve things for us. The status quo is the problem.
        ggforpp 4y ago
        Yes, but where are we if we are considering arming teachers?
- midoridensha 4y ago
  >What you are arguing is that we should be a low trust society Who's "we"? Not everyone lives in your country. If you're talking about the US, that's definitely a low-trust society.

by yesbut 4y ago

hayst4ck 4y ago

What you are arguing is that we should be a low trust society: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_trust_and_low_trust_societies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_trust_and_low_trust_socie... No. The government should provide consequences for those who violate trust promoting the idea that I can trust someone else who is from the same society I am. Here is a game that shows what happens at a societal level when doctors lie or mechanics over charge: https://ncase.me/trust/ https://ncase.me/trust/ In the game of prisoners dilemma, society itself must ensure that defection is a losing strategy. This idea has a name: rule of law.

yesbut 4y ago
The government is us. Not some aliens. We should be democratically deciding what is correct and what is a violation and what the consequences for violating trust are. We should not hand that decision over to a few elected representatives. This should be a collective democratic process. * legalize abortion? yes or no * go to war? yes or no * arm teachers? yes or no * corporate news outlet allowed to sell ad time to corporations they report on? yes or no * nondemocratically run businesseses allowed to function as a news outlet? yes or no More democracy, not less.
- hayst4ck 4y ago
  How do "we" decide something? It sounds like you are advocating for mob rule but calling it democracy. Help me understand how that is not what you are saying. What is the "collective democratic process" you are advocating for? How does a law get made and how does a law get enforced?
  - yesbut 4y ago
    Democracy is mob rule. Direct democracy. The fear of "too much democracy" is only a fear for people who are afraid that others might not want the same things they do. One person, one vote is mob rule. What that requires is a well informed, well educated population. Instead we have an ignorant, uninformed population that leaves all of the important decisions to a hand full of representatives that tend to run things the way their wealthy donors want.
    - KronisLV 4y ago
      > What that requires is a well informed, well educated population. Isn't this very uncommon, in addition to the need to be at least somewhat compassionate (e.g. in regards to issues that might not affect individuals personally, but that affect minorities, or simply those who are different)? A certain social cooling might be needed in many societies, less extremism, less identity politics, less hate. I don't think we live in such a world, yet.
      - yesbut 4y ago
        It is the world we should create instead of waiting for others to improve things for us. The status quo is the problem.
        ggforpp 4y ago
        Yes, but where are we if we are considering arming teachers?
midoridensha 4y ago
>What you are arguing is that we should be a low trust society Who's "we"? Not everyone lives in your country. If you're talking about the US, that's definitely a low-trust society.