5 ms·

What can be done about the unchecked power of governance?

AdieuToLogic 2y ago
> What can be done about the unchecked power of governance? If you are fortunate enough to live in a country which has free and fair elections, then vote.
- wejrwiejre 2y ago
  Those countries exist? Last I checked there are few true democracies. Where there are free and fair elections the politicians seem bought out by unchecked corporate interests. If all your options are just corporate shills and power hungry spooks and goons is it even "free and fair" at that point?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Last I checked there are few true democracies. Where there are free and fair elections the politicians seem bought out by unchecked corporate interests If you're anywhere in the West, this doesn't describe your democracy but a cartoon of it. Like yes, if you only show up for--in the U.S.--the Presidential general election, your vote isn't that powerful because it's not supposed to be in a country of a quarter of a billion.
    - farts_mckensy 2y ago
      "Bought out by corporate interests" is a completely accurate assessment of the American electoral system. It's honestly quite alienating reading all of these completely delusional comments. Your vote is at the very least supposed to be proportionally significant to the general population. We don't even have that. We are bombarded with corporate propaganda every fucking day. A senator from Wyoming has just as much of a vote as California. This notion that we live in a democracy or anything close to that is asinine. The system is not tethered to the will of the people in any sense of the word. It's an oligarchy.
      - bushbaba 2y ago
        > Your vote is at the very least supposed to be proportionally significant to the general population that's not true in the US, a republic not a direct democracy. Never has been.
        farts_mckensy 2y ago
        Ah, blind deference to the status quo. You got me on that one.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > blind deference to the status quo Because unchecked corporate interests / you don't vote for the President but for electors are hot takes? (Also, "your vote is at the very least supposed to be proportionally significant to the general population" doesn't technically make sense. I think I know what you're getting at. But even ignoring the political structure and just focussing on voting, you're assuming by statement values for parameters which lie on a spectrum.)
        farts_mckensy 2y ago
        You're trying to trip me up on technicalities that are completely immaterial to my point. Blind deference to the status quo illustrates poor critical thinking skills.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > notion that we live in a democracy or anything close to that is asinine. The system is not tethered to the will of the people in any sense of the word. It's an oligarchy Pure democracy doesn't work. (More accurately: election fetishisation doesn't work. It tears itself apart in manufactured partisanship.) We live in a republic. The Congress is democratically elected. The President is meant to embody the strengths of monarchy. The Supreme Court represents the oligarchy. This is civics 101, succinctly summarised in the Federalist Papers. > senator from Wyoming has just as much of a vote as California I vote in Wyoming. We're not the oligarchy. We're not even a swing state. You're complaining about, broadly, the Electoral College (and our system of apportionment). That's orthogonal to that of corporate interests. If anything, the fact that each of my resresentatives has fewer people they're accountable to makes them harder to buy off.
  - farts_mckensy 2y ago
    You will be lambasted for it, but you're fundamentally correct. Recall that the question was "What can be done about the unchecked power of governance?" If your response to that question is "just vote," you have missed the plot entirely. It is truly pathetic how naive that statement is. It's akin to still believing in Santa Claus.
    - jvanderbot 2y ago
      I would say the statement was "Well, at least vote". And in local elections, that does make a difference. In general, I think far too much attention is paid to single election cycles at the federal level. And I'm not sure why. The state you live in has significantly more effect on your experience with government, outlay of benefits, taxes, education and environmental policies than who holds the presidential office, for essentially all issues that matter. In the rare case that a federal change affects you (likely a court decision, thanks to lame duck congress), states routinely step in, as we've seen recently. The one exception to everything is that if you want _other_ states to live like _your_ state, then yeah - you better try to get the federal government aligned with your virtues. But why any sane person would want that is beyond me.
      - farts_mckensy 2y ago
        This is just the galaxy brain version of the position I am criticizing. You are not any less naive than the person who said "just vote." You're fundamentally missing the point. Corporations manipulate state and local elections as well, and the scope of what is possible is shaped by this. If your impulse during this political moment is to rally people to vote, all you are demonstrating is that you do not fully understand the system you live in.
  - AdieuToLogic 2y ago
    >> If you are fortunate enough to live in a country which has free and fair elections, then vote. > Those countries exist? Yes. The US is one, others exist today as well. > Where there are free and fair elections the politicians seem bought out by unchecked corporate interests. Start by voting for the least objectionable politicians in the general election (local, state, and federal). If you do not like those choices, remember this and vote in the primary (or primaries where allowed) for the least objectionable politicians. If you do not like the choices in primaries, remember this and get involved in the selection process for the least objectionable political party. Note the recurring theme of involvement in the representation process. Those who do not want you to have this type of agency spend a lot of money to disparage it.
    - farts_mckensy 2y ago
      >Those who do not want you to have this type of agency spend a lot of money to disparage it. You just contradicted yourself. Do we have free and fair elections, or do we have a system whereby the wealthy have disproportionate influence? It's one or the other.
      - AdieuToLogic 2y ago
        >> Those who do not want you to have this type of agency spend a lot of money to disparage it. > You just contradicted yourself. I did not. Please re-read what I wrote dispassionately. > Do we have free and fair elections, or do we have a system whereby the wealthy have disproportionate influence? It's one or the other. This is a false dichotomy[0]. The US has had free and fair elections for at least 40 years. I wish I could confidently state a longer period. Some might include the 70's but few would include much of the 60's. What the wealthy do in attempt to convince people they do not have agency, or that their involvement in representative government does not matter, is orthogonal to having it. I humbly recommend contemplating the difference. HTH 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
        farts_mckensy 2y ago
- wyager 2y ago
  We're implicitly talking about the US, though, given that the subject of the article is SV tech companies
- mistermann 2y ago
  It is entirely possible that it is not possible for us to vote our way out of this. Remember how the US came to be in the first place.
- dnissley 2y ago
  instructions unclear, choice is between more government power and more government power
azemetre 2y ago
If you live in a democracy, you show up. That can mean voting, attending local council meetings, and running for office. Society is shaped by those who just simply show up, so show up if you want a say.
- farts_mckensy 2y ago
  Historically that is simply untrue.
  - azemetre 2y ago
    Then alternatively I suggest you read The Power Broker by Robert Caro and sire a child to lead the change you seek.
  - kelseyfrog 2y ago
    Do we live in history or the present?
    - farts_mckensy 2y ago
      Gee, wouldn't want people to think too hard. Better come up with a false dilemma.
      - kelseyfrog 2y ago
        What is it that people should be thinking about?
        farts_mckensy 2y ago
        We study history in order to understand the present moment. So your question presents a false dilemma in an attempt to cut off historical analysis and blindly continue what you're doing without question. How is society actually shaped? If you believe it's by people simply "showing up," you are delusional.
sien 2y ago
First you can have democracy. Then separation of powers between the judiciary, the executive and the legislature along with property rights and the rule of law. It seems to work reasonably well.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

> What can be done about the unchecked power of governance? If you are fortunate enough to live in a country which has free and fair elections, then vote.

wejrwiejre 2y ago
Those countries exist? Last I checked there are few true democracies. Where there are free and fair elections the politicians seem bought out by unchecked corporate interests. If all your options are just corporate shills and power hungry spooks and goons is it even "free and fair" at that point?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Last I checked there are few true democracies. Where there are free and fair elections the politicians seem bought out by unchecked corporate interests If you're anywhere in the West, this doesn't describe your democracy but a cartoon of it. Like yes, if you only show up for--in the U.S.--the Presidential general election, your vote isn't that powerful because it's not supposed to be in a country of a quarter of a billion.
  - farts_mckensy 2y ago
    "Bought out by corporate interests" is a completely accurate assessment of the American electoral system. It's honestly quite alienating reading all of these completely delusional comments. Your vote is at the very least supposed to be proportionally significant to the general population. We don't even have that. We are bombarded with corporate propaganda every fucking day. A senator from Wyoming has just as much of a vote as California. This notion that we live in a democracy or anything close to that is asinine. The system is not tethered to the will of the people in any sense of the word. It's an oligarchy.
    - bushbaba 2y ago
      > Your vote is at the very least supposed to be proportionally significant to the general population that's not true in the US, a republic not a direct democracy. Never has been.
      - farts_mckensy 2y ago
        Ah, blind deference to the status quo. You got me on that one.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > blind deference to the status quo Because unchecked corporate interests / you don't vote for the President but for electors are hot takes? (Also, "your vote is at the very least supposed to be proportionally significant to the general population" doesn't technically make sense. I think I know what you're getting at. But even ignoring the political structure and just focussing on voting, you're assuming by statement values for parameters which lie on a spectrum.)
        farts_mckensy 2y ago
        You're trying to trip me up on technicalities that are completely immaterial to my point. Blind deference to the status quo illustrates poor critical thinking skills.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > notion that we live in a democracy or anything close to that is asinine. The system is not tethered to the will of the people in any sense of the word. It's an oligarchy Pure democracy doesn't work. (More accurately: election fetishisation doesn't work. It tears itself apart in manufactured partisanship.) We live in a republic. The Congress is democratically elected. The President is meant to embody the strengths of monarchy. The Supreme Court represents the oligarchy. This is civics 101, succinctly summarised in the Federalist Papers. > senator from Wyoming has just as much of a vote as California I vote in Wyoming. We're not the oligarchy. We're not even a swing state. You're complaining about, broadly, the Electoral College (and our system of apportionment). That's orthogonal to that of corporate interests. If anything, the fact that each of my resresentatives has fewer people they're accountable to makes them harder to buy off.
- farts_mckensy 2y ago
  You will be lambasted for it, but you're fundamentally correct. Recall that the question was "What can be done about the unchecked power of governance?" If your response to that question is "just vote," you have missed the plot entirely. It is truly pathetic how naive that statement is. It's akin to still believing in Santa Claus.
  - jvanderbot 2y ago
    I would say the statement was "Well, at least vote". And in local elections, that does make a difference. In general, I think far too much attention is paid to single election cycles at the federal level. And I'm not sure why. The state you live in has significantly more effect on your experience with government, outlay of benefits, taxes, education and environmental policies than who holds the presidential office, for essentially all issues that matter. In the rare case that a federal change affects you (likely a court decision, thanks to lame duck congress), states routinely step in, as we've seen recently. The one exception to everything is that if you want _other_ states to live like _your_ state, then yeah - you better try to get the federal government aligned with your virtues. But why any sane person would want that is beyond me.
    - farts_mckensy 2y ago
      This is just the galaxy brain version of the position I am criticizing. You are not any less naive than the person who said "just vote." You're fundamentally missing the point. Corporations manipulate state and local elections as well, and the scope of what is possible is shaped by this. If your impulse during this political moment is to rally people to vote, all you are demonstrating is that you do not fully understand the system you live in.
- AdieuToLogic 2y ago
  >> If you are fortunate enough to live in a country which has free and fair elections, then vote. > Those countries exist? Yes. The US is one, others exist today as well. > Where there are free and fair elections the politicians seem bought out by unchecked corporate interests. Start by voting for the least objectionable politicians in the general election (local, state, and federal). If you do not like those choices, remember this and vote in the primary (or primaries where allowed) for the least objectionable politicians. If you do not like the choices in primaries, remember this and get involved in the selection process for the least objectionable political party. Note the recurring theme of involvement in the representation process. Those who do not want you to have this type of agency spend a lot of money to disparage it.
  - farts_mckensy 2y ago
    >Those who do not want you to have this type of agency spend a lot of money to disparage it. You just contradicted yourself. Do we have free and fair elections, or do we have a system whereby the wealthy have disproportionate influence? It's one or the other.
    - AdieuToLogic 2y ago
      >> Those who do not want you to have this type of agency spend a lot of money to disparage it. > You just contradicted yourself. I did not. Please re-read what I wrote dispassionately. > Do we have free and fair elections, or do we have a system whereby the wealthy have disproportionate influence? It's one or the other. This is a false dichotomy[0]. The US has had free and fair elections for at least 40 years. I wish I could confidently state a longer period. Some might include the 70's but few would include much of the 60's. What the wealthy do in attempt to convince people they do not have agency, or that their involvement in representative government does not matter, is orthogonal to having it. I humbly recommend contemplating the difference. HTH 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
      - farts_mckensy 2y ago
wyager 2y ago
We're implicitly talking about the US, though, given that the subject of the article is SV tech companies
mistermann 2y ago
It is entirely possible that it is not possible for us to vote our way out of this. Remember how the US came to be in the first place.
dnissley 2y ago
instructions unclear, choice is between more government power and more government power

azemetre 2y ago

If you live in a democracy, you show up. That can mean voting, attending local council meetings, and running for office. Society is shaped by those who just simply show up, so show up if you want a say.

farts_mckensy 2y ago
Historically that is simply untrue.
- azemetre 2y ago
  Then alternatively I suggest you read The Power Broker by Robert Caro and sire a child to lead the change you seek.
- kelseyfrog 2y ago
  Do we live in history or the present?
  - farts_mckensy 2y ago
    Gee, wouldn't want people to think too hard. Better come up with a false dilemma.
    - kelseyfrog 2y ago
      What is it that people should be thinking about?
      - farts_mckensy 2y ago
        We study history in order to understand the present moment. So your question presents a false dilemma in an attempt to cut off historical analysis and blindly continue what you're doing without question. How is society actually shaped? If you believe it's by people simply "showing up," you are delusional.

sien 2y ago

First you can have democracy. Then separation of powers between the judiciary, the executive and the legislature along with property rights and the rule of law. It seems to work reasonably well.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]