3 ms·

The label is in itself mildly interesting, because if looked at from a different perspective, then populist simply means democratic ( popular, because that is w

The label is in itself mildly interesting, because if looked at from a different perspective, then populist simply means democratic ( popular, because that is what people want ). Amusingly, it is not that dissimilar to how liberal works ( in itself, the word is not 'bad', but it was made 'bad' ).

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> populist simply means democratic ( popular, because that is what people want ) Democracy is what the people want. Majoritarianism is blindly doing what most people want. Populism involves majoritarianism, and both imply the failure of democracy. (This happens fast in a system of elections with no checks and balances.)
- adolph 3y ago
  > Democracy is what the people want. Majoritarianism is blindly doing what most people want. Is democracy what most people want or just the people?
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > democracy what most people want or just the people People, broadly. (And unfortunately, ambiguously.) It is not what most people want, that’s majoritarianism, a known failure mode for democratic systems. The majority voting to execute the 10% whose views they don’t believe in is fine, electorally, but bankrupt, democratically.
  - Exoristos 3y ago
    I think what JumpCrisscross is saying here is democracy is what the people are _supposed_ to want.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > what JumpCrisscross is saying here is democracy is what the people are _supposed_ to want No, it’s not.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > Democracy is what the people want. Um, what? "The people" is not a single entity, and does not "want" things. Individual people want things. So if democracy is "what the people want", then democracy does not exist.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > "The people" is not a single entity, and does not "want" things. Individual people want things. So if democracy is "what the people want", then democracy does not exist Congratulations, you’ve found the fatal flaw in millennia of thinking on the topic. What “the people” want is unknowable. That is the point and paradox. Democracy is a system for balancing individual wants against individual needs, enabling each majority while protecting every minority. It’s a system of trade-offs which eludes poetic summation. It dies when we get caught up in word play over pragmatic concerns, or when someone claims to speak singularly for what “the people” want.
    - pdonis 3y ago
      > Democracy is a system for balancing individual wants against individual needs, enabling each majority while protecting every minority. In other words, as I said, democracy does not exist--since no actual system has ever actually done these things.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > democracy does not exist--since no actual system has ever actually done these things It exists as much as Newtonian gravity. It’s an ideal because we’re defining it in its idealised form. Political systems aspire to sets of ideals. Some emphasise stability; their leaders are Machiavellian. Some aspire to democratic ideals. Democracy per se is a simplification, as all political systems must be to fit into a textbook, but that doesn’t make it less real. Just difficult to summarise. It’s a deep debate beyond a quip or HN comment. I wasn’t trying to define democracy, just delineate it from majoritarianism, with which it’s unfortunately commonly confused.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> populist simply means democratic ( popular, because that is what people want ) Democracy is what the people want. Majoritarianism is blindly doing what most people want. Populism involves majoritarianism, and both imply the failure of democracy. (This happens fast in a system of elections with no checks and balances.)

adolph 3y ago
> Democracy is what the people want. Majoritarianism is blindly doing what most people want. Is democracy what most people want or just the people?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > democracy what most people want or just the people People, broadly. (And unfortunately, ambiguously.) It is not what most people want, that’s majoritarianism, a known failure mode for democratic systems. The majority voting to execute the 10% whose views they don’t believe in is fine, electorally, but bankrupt, democratically.
- Exoristos 3y ago
  I think what JumpCrisscross is saying here is democracy is what the people are _supposed_ to want.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > what JumpCrisscross is saying here is democracy is what the people are _supposed_ to want No, it’s not.
pdonis 3y ago
> Democracy is what the people want. Um, what? "The people" is not a single entity, and does not "want" things. Individual people want things. So if democracy is "what the people want", then democracy does not exist.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > "The people" is not a single entity, and does not "want" things. Individual people want things. So if democracy is "what the people want", then democracy does not exist Congratulations, you’ve found the fatal flaw in millennia of thinking on the topic. What “the people” want is unknowable. That is the point and paradox. Democracy is a system for balancing individual wants against individual needs, enabling each majority while protecting every minority. It’s a system of trade-offs which eludes poetic summation. It dies when we get caught up in word play over pragmatic concerns, or when someone claims to speak singularly for what “the people” want.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    > Democracy is a system for balancing individual wants against individual needs, enabling each majority while protecting every minority. In other words, as I said, democracy does not exist--since no actual system has ever actually done these things.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > democracy does not exist--since no actual system has ever actually done these things It exists as much as Newtonian gravity. It’s an ideal because we’re defining it in its idealised form. Political systems aspire to sets of ideals. Some emphasise stability; their leaders are Machiavellian. Some aspire to democratic ideals. Democracy per se is a simplification, as all political systems must be to fit into a textbook, but that doesn’t make it less real. Just difficult to summarise. It’s a deep debate beyond a quip or HN comment. I wasn’t trying to define democracy, just delineate it from majoritarianism, with which it’s unfortunately commonly confused.