3 ms·

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

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.

hellojesus 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.) Certainly, but if the government doesn't have regular election cycles it's an all-or-nothing approach. Consider MBS. If he doesn't want to play ball with the cia, he won't, and there isn't much the cia can do about it. He's not going anywhere anytime soon, or potentially ever during his lifetime. Contrast that against a gov that holds regular elections. The cia gets the opportunity to influence the election outcome (chance 1) and then gets a chance to influence the winner if they're not already captured (chance 2), all the while knowing if they fail chances 1 and 2 they will get to try again in a handful of years. > Also, how is a minoritarian rule of the rich (plutocracy) a more just system than democracy? I don't consider it minoritarian rule. The minority can only say no change. They can't craft change of their own. This helps prevent the tyranny of the majority problem. However, the majority is what is needed to actually make changes, or more aptly a super majority. This helps to make change slow and harder, which is not a bad thing in my opinion, especially considering how the ruling parties tend to oscillate every decade or so. The change that happens trends to be good for both parties, not just one.* *Obviously a lot of things pass that are terrible (e.g, inflation protection act), but at least it required more than just 51% agreement.

hellojesus 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.) Certainly, but if the government doesn't have regular election cycles it's an all-or-nothing approach. Consider MBS. If he doesn't want to play ball with the cia, he won't, and there isn't much the cia can do about it. He's not going anywhere anytime soon, or potentially ever during his lifetime. Contrast that against a gov that holds regular elections. The cia gets the opportunity to influence the election outcome (chance 1) and then gets a chance to influence the winner if they're not already captured (chance 2), all the while knowing if they fail chances 1 and 2 they will get to try again in a handful of years. > Also, how is a minoritarian rule of the rich (plutocracy) a more just system than democracy? I don't consider it minoritarian rule. The minority can only say no change. They can't craft change of their own. This helps prevent the tyranny of the majority problem. However, the majority is what is needed to actually make changes, or more aptly a super majority. This helps to make change slow and harder, which is not a bad thing in my opinion, especially considering how the ruling parties tend to oscillate every decade or so. The change that happens trends to be good for both parties, not just one.* *Obviously a lot of things pass that are terrible (e.g, inflation protection act), but at least it required more than just 51% agreement.