3 ms·

No matter what Trump tried to do, I think that winning the popular vote and election is the highest form of democratic legitimacy. Xi was not elected by the peo

No matter what Trump tried to do, I think that winning the popular vote and election is the highest form of democratic legitimacy. Xi was not elected by the people, and the party's election of their head of party was not fair (there is coercion); that's why some people say that he is an autocrat. A government cannot be autocratic when its head-of-state is decided by an election that is quite representative. If the US were an autocratic government, the election would be meaningless, and Biden would be naming his successor. Which is not presently the case. The best argument I can give for your statement is that the present US population democratically chooses as their head-of-state a person who would like the government to be more autocratic, or have authoritarian personalities, or are strongmen; between Chávez, Marcos, Duterte, Modi, and Bolsonaro, among others, you will be able to find instances where strongmen with great popular support are elected in sufficiently fair and free elections. I still consider they reflect the will of the people, even as some regard that the people suffer for that choice. In which case, my original point still stands; I still think you want companies to want to cooperate with governmental leadership in a well-functioning democracy, and you have misidentified where dysfunction lies (if there is dysfunction) by thinking that for things to be arranged otherwise would be democratic.

insane_dreamer 2y ago
you're really missing the point. Having an autocratic president weakens the foundations of democracy. If Trump is okay reversing a free and fair election, then he is okay with acting in ways that are completely undemocratic, whether those who voted for him (less than 50% of voters, by the way), agree or not. So yes, a government that is elected can absolutely become autocratic if its leader is able to undermine the pinnings of democracy and does not encounter sufficient opposition. (Hitler came to power as the result of elections too.) You don't seem to have a problem with autocracy, but I do. I've lived in countries with those leaders - and Trump is cut from the same cloth. Enjoy it while it lasts.
- jhanschoo 2y ago
  No, you're missing the point. This discussion isn't about my comfort level with autocracy, it's about how, in a democracy, you want corporations to be aligned with the policies of the currently fashionable governmental leadership. > You don't seem to have a problem with autocracy, but I do. I hadn't expressed my own views in autocracy myself. I had argued how the democratic will of the people as expressed for elections can actually be for the (future) society they live in to be autocratic; I gave examples, and you just gave Hitler as an example. So I don't think you have argued against this point. You should revise your last paragraph to read: (The voting US majority) doesn't seem to have a problem with autocracy, but I do. I've lived in countries with those leaders - and Trump is cut from the same cloth. Enjoy it while it lasts. I had hoped that you would be able to express that you understand that the current system is somewhat democratic, and that the current will is for the democratic system to extinguish itself. With this distinction being understood, I would have liked to discuss what institutions it would take for a society to not only be democratic, but also sustain that democracy into the future. I would have liked to explore more nuanced notions; for example, - you talked about companies "doing the autocratic government's bidding in controlling the population (by controlling information)", but I wanted to discuss what it means - to shape the information environment of a voting citizen, so that they have certain beliefs so strongly autocratic that even in a democratic process their democratic will is to have an autocratic government. - to examine the reality of the information and mass communication environment already present that is quite necessary for nationhood, that convinces someone to vote for a person that they have never spoken to personally and pretty much never heard of directly with their eyes and ears, to protect and advocate for their personal interests and rights, over someone they know from experience they can trust with for that like a family member or close friend. It is clear to a 4 y.o. that their parents are the only person they can trust for that, but as we grow up and learn about society through our information diet, we learn that we should be trusting people we never meet for it.
rootlocus 2y ago
> quite representative Under first-past-the-post, and electoral college, there isn't that much representation even with the popular vote. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo > I still think you want companies to want to cooperate with governmental leadership in a well-functioning democracy Without education, people will succumb to bias, propaganda and misinformation, often voting against their own interests. There's already a fundamental issue with capitalism favouring profit above anything else, leading to a lot of the current issues with (for example) privatization of health care. I don't think you can have a functional democracy without education. As a species we keep falling into a pattern of a wealth gap, followed by extremism, followed by wars, followed by poverty, while at every individual step we find reasons why it's perfectly fine.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

you're really missing the point. Having an autocratic president weakens the foundations of democracy. If Trump is okay reversing a free and fair election, then he is okay with acting in ways that are completely undemocratic, whether those who voted for him (less than 50% of voters, by the way), agree or not. So yes, a government that is elected can absolutely become autocratic if its leader is able to undermine the pinnings of democracy and does not encounter sufficient opposition. (Hitler came to power as the result of elections too.) You don't seem to have a problem with autocracy, but I do. I've lived in countries with those leaders - and Trump is cut from the same cloth. Enjoy it while it lasts.

jhanschoo 2y ago
No, you're missing the point. This discussion isn't about my comfort level with autocracy, it's about how, in a democracy, you want corporations to be aligned with the policies of the currently fashionable governmental leadership. > You don't seem to have a problem with autocracy, but I do. I hadn't expressed my own views in autocracy myself. I had argued how the democratic will of the people as expressed for elections can actually be for the (future) society they live in to be autocratic; I gave examples, and you just gave Hitler as an example. So I don't think you have argued against this point. You should revise your last paragraph to read: (The voting US majority) doesn't seem to have a problem with autocracy, but I do. I've lived in countries with those leaders - and Trump is cut from the same cloth. Enjoy it while it lasts. I had hoped that you would be able to express that you understand that the current system is somewhat democratic, and that the current will is for the democratic system to extinguish itself. With this distinction being understood, I would have liked to discuss what institutions it would take for a society to not only be democratic, but also sustain that democracy into the future. I would have liked to explore more nuanced notions; for example, - you talked about companies "doing the autocratic government's bidding in controlling the population (by controlling information)", but I wanted to discuss what it means - to shape the information environment of a voting citizen, so that they have certain beliefs so strongly autocratic that even in a democratic process their democratic will is to have an autocratic government. - to examine the reality of the information and mass communication environment already present that is quite necessary for nationhood, that convinces someone to vote for a person that they have never spoken to personally and pretty much never heard of directly with their eyes and ears, to protect and advocate for their personal interests and rights, over someone they know from experience they can trust with for that like a family member or close friend. It is clear to a 4 y.o. that their parents are the only person they can trust for that, but as we grow up and learn about society through our information diet, we learn that we should be trusting people we never meet for it.

rootlocus 2y ago

> quite representative Under first-past-the-post, and electoral college, there isn't that much representation even with the popular vote. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo > I still think you want companies to want to cooperate with governmental leadership in a well-functioning democracy Without education, people will succumb to bias, propaganda and misinformation, often voting against their own interests. There's already a fundamental issue with capitalism favouring profit above anything else, leading to a lot of the current issues with (for example) privatization of health care. I don't think you can have a functional democracy without education. As a species we keep falling into a pattern of a wealth gap, followed by extremism, followed by wars, followed by poverty, while at every individual step we find reasons why it's perfectly fine.