4 ms·

Democratic governments start good, then, operate through the only hammer they have: legislation. After a few decades, there are more things one cannot do than c

by sph 2y ago

Democratic governments start good, then, operate through the only hammer they have: legislation. After a few decades, there are more things one cannot do than can do without lawyers, committees and councils breathing down your neck. So the people get restless, and want to tear it all down, in the hope that we can start again fresh. But I agree with the gist of it. Right now there are no democratic governments that are good for people. We live in barely disguised oligarchy run by thieves, imbeciles and sociopaths. As an immigrant to Britain, I am appalled to see how fast inept legislators keep making things worse every time they try to fix them, and how the average voter keeps voting for the parties with the silliest and most destructive of ideas. I am so glad to be out of this place in the next few months. Looking forward to Reform to completely destroy the little that's left; hopefully a better place will rise out of the ashes. See you in 30 years, Britain.

thrance 2y ago
That's a very wrong reading of history. Our democracies didn't "start good", slavery was legal, workers had very few rights and strikes were brutally broken by a police whose only job was to protect the interests of the aristocracy turned bourgeoisie. The weight of a country's law book is no indication of the freedom of its citizen. Our period of instability has been brought upon by a discontent stemming from ever increasing economic inequalities. This isn't the first time it happens: look at the 30s. Europe turned to fascism and was demolished by pointless wars, America turned to social democracy with FDR and the new deal, and became the first hyperpower.
- sph 2y ago
  Fair enough, I agree with your argument. I am firmly in the camp that democracies are tolerable because they're the least worst of other alternatives. But they're very far away from any notion of good. They're pretty terrible and exploitable. They don't provide any practical countermeasure against greed, lies and general stupidity, which are very real human behaviours.
  - thrance 2y ago
    Indeed, but I believe that flaw was deliberately inserted in our constitutions, way back when it was first written. The lack of democracy in our economic processes allows for rampant wealth and power accumulation which invariably leads to discontent. I do not believe that we humans are inherently greedy, no more than I believe we are inherently evil. I won't claim to know what the solution is, but our system needs to somehow stop rewarding greed and other anti-social behaviors.
- mrkstu 2y ago
  Correlation is not causation. Until the war, FDRs 'reforms' weren't making the country powerful or rich, maybe staunching the bleeding. The buildup of industry for a war footing, the vacuum of the great powers/industries in rubble, large amounts of their intellectual human capital in America and the participants owing America a lot of money is what made America a hyper power after the war- and maybe the GI Bill a bit part. Social security and the WPA had little to nothing to do with America's post war ascent...
  - thrance 2y ago
    The situation is definitely more complex than "FDR solved it", but I don't think this kind of economic uptake could have happened in the clogged up economy of the Gilded Age. Breaking monopolies and redistributing tax money through government work programs definitely had an impact.
Melab 2y ago
> Democratic governments start good, then, operate through the only hammer they have: legislation. As opposed to other forms of government that somehow have other tools??? > After a few decades, there are more things one cannot do than can do without lawyers, committees and councils breathing down your neck. 1. We have more freedom now than 200 years ago. 2. "Having lawyers breathing down your neck" is invariant with respect to the amount of freedom we have.

by sph 2y ago

thrance 2y ago

That's a very wrong reading of history. Our democracies didn't "start good", slavery was legal, workers had very few rights and strikes were brutally broken by a police whose only job was to protect the interests of the aristocracy turned bourgeoisie. The weight of a country's law book is no indication of the freedom of its citizen. Our period of instability has been brought upon by a discontent stemming from ever increasing economic inequalities. This isn't the first time it happens: look at the 30s. Europe turned to fascism and was demolished by pointless wars, America turned to social democracy with FDR and the new deal, and became the first hyperpower.

sph 2y ago
Fair enough, I agree with your argument. I am firmly in the camp that democracies are tolerable because they're the least worst of other alternatives. But they're very far away from any notion of good. They're pretty terrible and exploitable. They don't provide any practical countermeasure against greed, lies and general stupidity, which are very real human behaviours.
- thrance 2y ago
  Indeed, but I believe that flaw was deliberately inserted in our constitutions, way back when it was first written. The lack of democracy in our economic processes allows for rampant wealth and power accumulation which invariably leads to discontent. I do not believe that we humans are inherently greedy, no more than I believe we are inherently evil. I won't claim to know what the solution is, but our system needs to somehow stop rewarding greed and other anti-social behaviors.
mrkstu 2y ago
Correlation is not causation. Until the war, FDRs 'reforms' weren't making the country powerful or rich, maybe staunching the bleeding. The buildup of industry for a war footing, the vacuum of the great powers/industries in rubble, large amounts of their intellectual human capital in America and the participants owing America a lot of money is what made America a hyper power after the war- and maybe the GI Bill a bit part. Social security and the WPA had little to nothing to do with America's post war ascent...
- thrance 2y ago
  The situation is definitely more complex than "FDR solved it", but I don't think this kind of economic uptake could have happened in the clogged up economy of the Gilded Age. Breaking monopolies and redistributing tax money through government work programs definitely had an impact.

Melab 2y ago

> Democratic governments start good, then, operate through the only hammer they have: legislation. As opposed to other forms of government that somehow have other tools??? > After a few decades, there are more things one cannot do than can do without lawyers, committees and councils breathing down your neck. 1. We have more freedom now than 200 years ago. 2. "Having lawyers breathing down your neck" is invariant with respect to the amount of freedom we have.