3 ms·

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 _majo

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.
  - shrimp_emoji 3y ago
    Wouldn't the CIA be more easily able to manipulate a small pool of representatives than an entire population? Like, WAY easier? (You can't blackmail millions of people.) Also, how is a minoritarian rule of the rich (plutocracy) a more just system than democracy? Yeah, they have skin in the game, and the game is protecting their wealth instead of contributing to the commonwealth. There's a happy balance to be found in there, of course, but you don't want to arrive at it via pitchfork.

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.
- shrimp_emoji 3y ago
  Wouldn't the CIA be more easily able to manipulate a small pool of representatives than an entire population? Like, WAY easier? (You can't blackmail millions of people.) Also, how is a minoritarian rule of the rich (plutocracy) a more just system than democracy? Yeah, they have skin in the game, and the game is protecting their wealth instead of contributing to the commonwealth. There's a happy balance to be found in there, of course, but you don't want to arrive at it via pitchfork.