3 ms·

But you can separate into smaller groups, who send representatives. That's really why all this stuff ended up organized at the level of the individual shop, the

But you can separate into smaller groups, who send representatives. That's really why all this stuff ended up organized at the level of the individual shop, the individual factory. The problem is when representatives that you send can't be recalled easily. You can think of this as a technical problem, since elections have been expensive historically to run. There are ideas in the vein of "liquid democracy" that consider how we could arrange things with instant recall: e.g. if democracy were an app on my phone, and I could remove my support from my representative between the time they cast a vote and the time the vote is finalized, and replace them with somebody who will vote properly. This could be done completely without anger; I could restore the my support to the previous person after the vote. What it does is make my representative someone who I trust with my will for the moment not someone who owns my will. It's a different perspective.

kstenerud 2y ago
Yes, a different perspective on a subject that's somehow failed to materialize in any way (beyond 100 people for any reasonable length of time) after over a century of philosophical thought, theory, and attempts...
pixl97 2y ago
Heh, instant recall would be great... just make some fake news and spread it around quickly and just get everyone recalled before they've had time to engage their brain. Really at the end of this day all your voting system turns into is a popularity contest of stars and rabid attention seekers that can hold the average public attention for longer than everyone else. I'm not saying our current system is good, I'm saying yours is hilariously bad.
- photonthug 2y ago
  > your voting system turns into a popularity contest with rabid attention seekers that can hold the average public attention for longer than anyone else What? This is of course what we already have in many western democracies. Adding the hypothetical ability to "recall representatives easily" as the parent describes doesn't cause this problem. The root of the issue here is just representative vs direct democracy, and GP is obviously correct that technology could be allowing us to create/withdraw support closer to real-time than whatever the election cycle is. Not to mention just having more of a voice on more issues, like why do we need the representatives anyway? Since in the limit direct democracy basically is anarchic, these types of discussions are IMO one of the best ways to ground otherwise theoretical discussions about anarchism and avoids the trigger word. The truth is that most people on all sides of the political spectrum only want elections until their preferred king is in charge, then they become staunch royalists, supporters of dynasties/dictators/fascists, whatever you want to call it. My paradoxical observation is that people who really believe in democracy are almost always anarchists, deep down. To test yourself, just ask whether you want the government to do things "in the interest of the public", regardless of whether the public agrees that it is desirable. If you "want to protect the public" from actually having their own preferences because "they don't know better", this paternalism is right next door to fascism. It doesn't matter much whether you're forcing them to pay for good things like education programs, or for bad things like an unjust war. When you go down the road that "representatives are necessary because the people can't make decisions" or that "term limits are necessary because the public is fickle", you're really saying you just want democracy until your preferred king is installed.
  - Aloisius 2y ago
    > like why do we need the representatives anyway? Because it is a full time job that most of us want to do for free. I don't even have the time or resources to properly evaluate ballot propositions that come around every couple years let alone all the decisions made by people I elect and those they delegate to.

kstenerud 2y ago

Yes, a different perspective on a subject that's somehow failed to materialize in any way (beyond 100 people for any reasonable length of time) after over a century of philosophical thought, theory, and attempts...

pixl97 2y ago

Heh, instant recall would be great... just make some fake news and spread it around quickly and just get everyone recalled before they've had time to engage their brain. Really at the end of this day all your voting system turns into is a popularity contest of stars and rabid attention seekers that can hold the average public attention for longer than everyone else. I'm not saying our current system is good, I'm saying yours is hilariously bad.

photonthug 2y ago
> your voting system turns into a popularity contest with rabid attention seekers that can hold the average public attention for longer than anyone else What? This is of course what we already have in many western democracies. Adding the hypothetical ability to "recall representatives easily" as the parent describes doesn't cause this problem. The root of the issue here is just representative vs direct democracy, and GP is obviously correct that technology could be allowing us to create/withdraw support closer to real-time than whatever the election cycle is. Not to mention just having more of a voice on more issues, like why do we need the representatives anyway? Since in the limit direct democracy basically is anarchic, these types of discussions are IMO one of the best ways to ground otherwise theoretical discussions about anarchism and avoids the trigger word. The truth is that most people on all sides of the political spectrum only want elections until their preferred king is in charge, then they become staunch royalists, supporters of dynasties/dictators/fascists, whatever you want to call it. My paradoxical observation is that people who really believe in democracy are almost always anarchists, deep down. To test yourself, just ask whether you want the government to do things "in the interest of the public", regardless of whether the public agrees that it is desirable. If you "want to protect the public" from actually having their own preferences because "they don't know better", this paternalism is right next door to fascism. It doesn't matter much whether you're forcing them to pay for good things like education programs, or for bad things like an unjust war. When you go down the road that "representatives are necessary because the people can't make decisions" or that "term limits are necessary because the public is fickle", you're really saying you just want democracy until your preferred king is installed.
- Aloisius 2y ago
  > like why do we need the representatives anyway? Because it is a full time job that most of us want to do for free. I don't even have the time or resources to properly evaluate ballot propositions that come around every couple years let alone all the decisions made by people I elect and those they delegate to.