6 ms·

A lot of countries had and have more restrictions than the US. Is Switzerland really worse than the US to live in, for example?

mvncleaninst 3y ago
Switzerland is relatively niche, I think the UK would be a better comparison
fidotron 3y ago
Switzerland also has a model of direct democracy that meets curious amounts of resistance when suggested virtually anywhere else.
- hellojesus 3y ago
  The US was designes as a republic specifically to prevent tyranny of the majority. Already the direct-democracy bills of county elections destroy me. The _majority_ has voted to steal from me to pay for their daycare, housing, and other non public good subsidies every single voting cycle. A direct democracy allows majority theft with no recourse or limit. It's proposterous! There was a reason for voting qualifiers at the founding of the country. I say we bring them back if we want to switch to direct democracy so that only those with skin in the game get to vote: restrict voting to only those persons that pay income taxes on agi.
  - comte7092 3y ago
    > The US was designes as a republic specifically to prevent tyranny of the majority. The phrase “tyranny of the majority” was rarely used by writers and thinkers in the founding period. It was alluded to in one of the 85 essays that made up the federalist papers and the coining of the phrase is generally attributed to a French writer several decades later. Your characterization is largely historical revisionism.
    - hellojesus 3y ago
      Thanks. I was unaware.
  - fidotron 3y ago
    While I agree with you on certain points it is worth considering that US foreign policy proclaims to advocate for the spread of democracy and not the spread of constitutional republicanism. I think Peter Thiel made some remark (maybe in his poorly moderated student youth period) along the lines of "Freedom is incompatible with democracy" which has an uncomfortable amount of truth to it assuming the state you are in remains actually committed to protecting those freedoms.
    - hellojesus 3y ago
      It is rather obvious to me at this point that the federal government is not in favor of its design. It advocates for democracy because the goal is to install true democracies and then unleash the cia to run persuasion operations to influence voting outcomes. It is very similar to the rhetoric I hear when the left talks about attacks on democracy. They don't seem to actually mean democracy. They seem to mean their version of it, as in those voters that are aligned with them.
      - fidotron 3y ago
        > It is rather obvious to me at this point that the federal government is not in favor of its design. Absolutely. The big questions are if the transition to this state is inevitable, and once the transition has occurred are you better or worse off than under the Swiss system. Going by the state of both societies the Swiss one seems to have a lot going for it.
        hellojesus 3y ago
        I don't think it's inevitable. The Constitution still remains intact, and it is a difficult thing to defy. I can say with certainty that I would be in jail for speech related offenses in any other country than the US.
        fidotron 3y ago
        While I do disagree about the inevitability I will admit to hoping to be wrong, and I do admire the spirit that treats freedom as so valuable.
chmod600 3y ago
Lack of free speech is a vulnerability, and is not really important until it is.
thereddaikon 3y ago
Its difficult to meaningfully compare small mostly homogenous nations with larger, more diverse ones. It not hard to imagine that when you have an overwhelmingly homogenous society, the need for free speech is greatly lessened because there are far fewer dissenting voices. Free speech is there to protect those minority dissenting voices, not the majority ones who will are going to hold popular and socially acceptable opinions.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  How diverse was the nation that could enjoy the 1st amendment when it was passed compared to now? It is perhaps more a retrospective justification that would need data to support it.
  - thereddaikon 3y ago
    America was if anything less diverse then than now. We've had many large periods of emigration since then. And that combined with the challenges with new technology tells me the first amendment is more important than ever.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      Do you have any supporting data for that view or, rather, what might convince of the opposite of your view?
      - thereddaikon 3y ago
        Give me some authoritative statistics that show otherwise.
- comte7092 3y ago
  The fact that you describe Switzerland as “mostly homogeneous” really undermines the credibility of your argument.
  - 3y ago

mvncleaninst 3y ago

Switzerland is relatively niche, I think the UK would be a better comparison

fidotron 3y ago

Switzerland also has a model of direct democracy that meets curious amounts of resistance when suggested virtually anywhere else.

hellojesus 3y ago
The US was designes as a republic specifically to prevent tyranny of the majority. Already the direct-democracy bills of county elections destroy me. The _majority_ has voted to steal from me to pay for their daycare, housing, and other non public good subsidies every single voting cycle. A direct democracy allows majority theft with no recourse or limit. It's proposterous! There was a reason for voting qualifiers at the founding of the country. I say we bring them back if we want to switch to direct democracy so that only those with skin in the game get to vote: restrict voting to only those persons that pay income taxes on agi.
- comte7092 3y ago
  > The US was designes as a republic specifically to prevent tyranny of the majority. The phrase “tyranny of the majority” was rarely used by writers and thinkers in the founding period. It was alluded to in one of the 85 essays that made up the federalist papers and the coining of the phrase is generally attributed to a French writer several decades later. Your characterization is largely historical revisionism.
  - hellojesus 3y ago
    Thanks. I was unaware.
- fidotron 3y ago
  While I agree with you on certain points it is worth considering that US foreign policy proclaims to advocate for the spread of democracy and not the spread of constitutional republicanism. I think Peter Thiel made some remark (maybe in his poorly moderated student youth period) along the lines of "Freedom is incompatible with democracy" which has an uncomfortable amount of truth to it assuming the state you are in remains actually committed to protecting those freedoms.
  - hellojesus 3y ago
    It is rather obvious to me at this point that the federal government is not in favor of its design. It advocates for democracy because the goal is to install true democracies and then unleash the cia to run persuasion operations to influence voting outcomes. It is very similar to the rhetoric I hear when the left talks about attacks on democracy. They don't seem to actually mean democracy. They seem to mean their version of it, as in those voters that are aligned with them.
    - fidotron 3y ago
      > It is rather obvious to me at this point that the federal government is not in favor of its design. Absolutely. The big questions are if the transition to this state is inevitable, and once the transition has occurred are you better or worse off than under the Swiss system. Going by the state of both societies the Swiss one seems to have a lot going for it.
      - hellojesus 3y ago
        I don't think it's inevitable. The Constitution still remains intact, and it is a difficult thing to defy. I can say with certainty that I would be in jail for speech related offenses in any other country than the US.
        fidotron 3y ago
        While I do disagree about the inevitability I will admit to hoping to be wrong, and I do admire the spirit that treats freedom as so valuable.

chmod600 3y ago

Lack of free speech is a vulnerability, and is not really important until it is.

thereddaikon 3y ago

Its difficult to meaningfully compare small mostly homogenous nations with larger, more diverse ones. It not hard to imagine that when you have an overwhelmingly homogenous society, the need for free speech is greatly lessened because there are far fewer dissenting voices. Free speech is there to protect those minority dissenting voices, not the majority ones who will are going to hold popular and socially acceptable opinions.

RandomLensman 3y ago
How diverse was the nation that could enjoy the 1st amendment when it was passed compared to now? It is perhaps more a retrospective justification that would need data to support it.
- thereddaikon 3y ago
  America was if anything less diverse then than now. We've had many large periods of emigration since then. And that combined with the challenges with new technology tells me the first amendment is more important than ever.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    Do you have any supporting data for that view or, rather, what might convince of the opposite of your view?
    - thereddaikon 3y ago
      Give me some authoritative statistics that show otherwise.
comte7092 3y ago
The fact that you describe Switzerland as “mostly homogeneous” really undermines the credibility of your argument.
- 3y ago