4 ms·

> Democracies aren't really about giving individuals authority to exercise their will, they're about authorizing individuals to execute the will of the people w

> Democracies aren't really about giving individuals authority to exercise their will, they're about authorizing individuals to execute the will of the people who elected the individual. Yes, but the election is merely the hiring process. Democracy takes place when you visit your hired representative on the regular, to keep them informed of where you are at with the changing state of the world. That does not mean the employee has only one boss, but it also doesn't mean you can just disappear and never speak to your employee again. I mean, you can, but don't expect favourable results. They are certainly not mind readers. If you don't want to put in the hard work of staying on top of your employee, that's fine, but if you are not going to engage in democracy why keep up the facade? Certainly, if you are going to sit back and not participate, interests will go towards those who do (e.g. lobbyists).

ethanbond 3y ago
That's why the elected mandate is important: the election cycle is the closest we have to population-scale mind reading. The dynamic you're describing (people with more time or money being "heard more") is an antidemocratic bug, not a feature. And yes, I'm aware that this is the reality, "if you want X you have to go fight for it" etc. etc; that's not what we're talking about here.
- randomdata 3y ago
  It is not about fighting. The job of your representative is to literally listen to what you have to say and take in that information to bring to the central meeting place. This is what you are hiring for. Indeed, they have to collate it with the information given from everyone else – it is not just about you – but it does include you. If someone comes telling you that they aren't going to listen and only shove through what they want, you know you've got the wrong person for the job. You want to hire someone who you can trust, not someone who is determined. If there is a bug, it is people being too lazy to show up to speak to their employee. No doubt it is easier to show up when you have more resources. Most things in life are easier when you have more resources. But that brings us back to questioning: Why keep up the facade if you don't want to participate in democracy? There are other systems. Democracy is not the be all and end all. It can work well when the people are ready to put in the hard work, but if all you can muster is casting a ballot (if you can even manage that), why bother?
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    The answer is self-evident and I’m pretty confused by your confusion: because casting ballots are the best way we have to take account of the electorate’s opinions, and they specifically mitigate the exact dynamic you’re talking about. A person who can camp out every single day in the lobby of a leader shouldn’t have greater say in the direction of society than a person who is working 12 hours per day in a factory. To the extent that they do, it’s exactly a bug! At this point I’m not even sure what you’re arguing. Seemed to go from “democracies aren’t about mandates” to “people with more free time have more influence” to “in any world where people with free time have more influence (all of them), democracy isn’t the right system?” Sounds to me like just a convoluted argument for “I don’t like democracy.” Which, fine by me!
    - randomdata 3y ago
      > casting ballots are the best way we have to take account of the electorate’s opinions, and they specifically mitigate the exact dynamic you’re talking about. The electorate's opinion is not static. In fact, the matters the electorate will be interested in largely won't even be apparent during the election cycle. There is simply no way for a representative to know what the electorate is thinking without speaking to them. Which is why their job is exactly that. > To the extent that they do, it’s exactly a bug! They don't have greater say, but they do have a say by being willing to show up. The factory worker who doesn't find the time to speak to his representative certainly will not have a say. There really isn't much way around this. The hired employee is certainly not a mind reader. > At this point I’m not even sure what you’re arguing. What leads you to b believe that I am arguing? What is the value proposition in arguing? Sounds boring. > Sounds to me like just a convoluted argument for “I don’t like democracy.” Which, fine by me! Strange that you would attribute feelings to the words on the page. What in this suggests like or dislike towards democracy – or anything for that matter?
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        > [Lobbyists] don't have greater say... but they do have a say... The factory worker who doesn't find the time to speak to his representative certainly will not have a say. Party A has a say, Party B does not, yet Party A does not have more of a say than Party B? Will leave it at that logical incoherence. Have a good rest of your week!
- mistermann 3y ago
  > That's why the elected mandate is important: the election cycle is the closest we have to population-scale mind reading. Polling is much better, at least if it's done in a professional, non-corrupt manner. But now we have two problems.
mistermann 3y ago
>If you don't want to put in the hard work of staying on top of your employee, that's fine, but if you are not going to engage in democracy why keep up the facade? I don't participate in democracy because I believe the whole thing to be a facade itself, an illusion. Sure, it exercises the will of the people more than exactly zero, and has served us reasonably well historically (at least on a relative basis, according to the flawed methodologies by which we measure / hallucinate such things), but on an absolute scale how good is it really? I think it would be interesting if some way could be found to enable people to be curious about such things. Perhaps a good start on that would be to first investigate why people are currently not able to be curious about this, because it seems very counterintuitive and it is plausibly quite harmful. >Certainly, if you are going to sit back and not participate, interests will go towards those who do (e.g. lobbyists). For now, but it would be a shame if a movement of some sort materialized with the goal of putting an end to this little party.

ethanbond 3y ago

That's why the elected mandate is important: the election cycle is the closest we have to population-scale mind reading. The dynamic you're describing (people with more time or money being "heard more") is an antidemocratic bug, not a feature. And yes, I'm aware that this is the reality, "if you want X you have to go fight for it" etc. etc; that's not what we're talking about here.

randomdata 3y ago
It is not about fighting. The job of your representative is to literally listen to what you have to say and take in that information to bring to the central meeting place. This is what you are hiring for. Indeed, they have to collate it with the information given from everyone else – it is not just about you – but it does include you. If someone comes telling you that they aren't going to listen and only shove through what they want, you know you've got the wrong person for the job. You want to hire someone who you can trust, not someone who is determined. If there is a bug, it is people being too lazy to show up to speak to their employee. No doubt it is easier to show up when you have more resources. Most things in life are easier when you have more resources. But that brings us back to questioning: Why keep up the facade if you don't want to participate in democracy? There are other systems. Democracy is not the be all and end all. It can work well when the people are ready to put in the hard work, but if all you can muster is casting a ballot (if you can even manage that), why bother?
- ethanbond 3y ago
  The answer is self-evident and I’m pretty confused by your confusion: because casting ballots are the best way we have to take account of the electorate’s opinions, and they specifically mitigate the exact dynamic you’re talking about. A person who can camp out every single day in the lobby of a leader shouldn’t have greater say in the direction of society than a person who is working 12 hours per day in a factory. To the extent that they do, it’s exactly a bug! At this point I’m not even sure what you’re arguing. Seemed to go from “democracies aren’t about mandates” to “people with more free time have more influence” to “in any world where people with free time have more influence (all of them), democracy isn’t the right system?” Sounds to me like just a convoluted argument for “I don’t like democracy.” Which, fine by me!
  - randomdata 3y ago
    > casting ballots are the best way we have to take account of the electorate’s opinions, and they specifically mitigate the exact dynamic you’re talking about. The electorate's opinion is not static. In fact, the matters the electorate will be interested in largely won't even be apparent during the election cycle. There is simply no way for a representative to know what the electorate is thinking without speaking to them. Which is why their job is exactly that. > To the extent that they do, it’s exactly a bug! They don't have greater say, but they do have a say by being willing to show up. The factory worker who doesn't find the time to speak to his representative certainly will not have a say. There really isn't much way around this. The hired employee is certainly not a mind reader. > At this point I’m not even sure what you’re arguing. What leads you to b believe that I am arguing? What is the value proposition in arguing? Sounds boring. > Sounds to me like just a convoluted argument for “I don’t like democracy.” Which, fine by me! Strange that you would attribute feelings to the words on the page. What in this suggests like or dislike towards democracy – or anything for that matter?
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      > [Lobbyists] don't have greater say... but they do have a say... The factory worker who doesn't find the time to speak to his representative certainly will not have a say. Party A has a say, Party B does not, yet Party A does not have more of a say than Party B? Will leave it at that logical incoherence. Have a good rest of your week!
mistermann 3y ago
> That's why the elected mandate is important: the election cycle is the closest we have to population-scale mind reading. Polling is much better, at least if it's done in a professional, non-corrupt manner. But now we have two problems.

mistermann 3y ago

>If you don't want to put in the hard work of staying on top of your employee, that's fine, but if you are not going to engage in democracy why keep up the facade? I don't participate in democracy because I believe the whole thing to be a facade itself, an illusion. Sure, it exercises the will of the people more than exactly zero, and has served us reasonably well historically (at least on a relative basis, according to the flawed methodologies by which we measure / hallucinate such things), but on an absolute scale how good is it really? I think it would be interesting if some way could be found to enable people to be curious about such things. Perhaps a good start on that would be to first investigate why people are currently not able to be curious about this, because it seems very counterintuitive and it is plausibly quite harmful. >Certainly, if you are going to sit back and not participate, interests will go towards those who do (e.g. lobbyists). For now, but it would be a shame if a movement of some sort materialized with the goal of putting an end to this little party.