3 ms·

> Elections have consequences. Although it's decidedly unfair, it would seem, when some of those consequences fall on those who don't even get a vote. That sen

> Elections have consequences. Although it's decidedly unfair, it would seem, when some of those consequences fall on those who don't even get a vote. That sentiment sounds nice, but it's kinda messed up: it implies non-citizens should have more rights and privileges than citizens (i.e. be insulated from the consequences of elections). It's like, if someone loans you their car, insisting they shouldn't be able to ask for it back because you didn't have say in the decision. Ultimately, if you're actually for democracy, you have to be fine with policy changing in whatever way the electorate decides it should change.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
I think it’s fair to believe that democracy has failure modes where we say, “Nope, this outcome didn’t work.” For example, if fellow citizens start getting rounded up in camps or deported, regardless of due process, what the electorate wants and the votes communicate are no longer relevant. I think we’re almost at that point, but not quite yet (depends on whether checks and balances on illegal actions of the executive branch are successful). “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” —- attributed to Ben Franklin (The US is a federal republic, not a democracy)
- palmotea 2y ago
  > I think it’s fair to believe that democracy has failure modes where we say, “Nope, this outcome didn’t work.” For example, if fellow citizens start getting rounded up in camps or deported, regardless of due process, what the electorate wants and the votes communicate are no longer relevant. That's a tricky line, because it's on the path to: "You have the 'freedom' to vote for whoever you like, just as long as they're a Communist who will loyally implement Communist policies." Personally, I don't think many people in the US are actually committed democrats. They're mostly partisans committed to their party/ideology, and there's a lot of maneuvering to confuse people that their party's policy is set in stone ("constitutional/constitutionally required") and entrench it against democratic action.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    The US civil war was fought over slavery. Was that worth fighting for? I think so. Human rights are worth defending with force, imho. Last line of defense when politics breaks down, as history repeatedly teaches. Isn’t the communism boogeyman tired at this point? Perhaps we have a disconnect if I’m arguing human rights and you’re arguing economic systems as what the fight is over politically.
    - palmotea 2y ago
      > Human rights are worth defending with force, imho. Yeah, but what are they? The devil is in the details. > Isn’t the communism boogeyman tired at this point? It's not a boogeyman, it's a clear and obvious example of "democracy" without actual choice, the apotheosis of "what electorate wants and the votes communicate are no longer relevant."
  - dTal 2y ago
    >That's a tricky line, because it's on the path to: "You have the 'freedom' to vote for whoever you like, just as long as they're a Communist who will loyally implement Communist policies." Well, yes. Ideological stability is arguably a desirable property (even if you disagree with specific aspects of it) but regardless of that it is a stable attractor. Practically speaking, if your system permits people to run on a platform of dismantling the system, it will soon be replaced by one that doesn't permit that. You would do well to accept that, and choose carefully the immutable terms on which you would like to base your government.
horsawlarway 2y ago
Cooperation always requires this kind of coordination, though. It's equivalently messed up to do something like say "You can borrow my car on Thursday to drive to the doctor" and then wait for the person to show up on Thursday only to say "Nope - changed my mind". Basically - cooperation requires honor. It requires that parties value that the things they say they will do are the things they actually do. --- My biggest problem with the current administration is that - regardless of what you might like or dislike about their policies - I think it's impossible to argue that they are honorable. They explicitly do not value what they say. They are dishonorable - in the rawest, most traditional meaning of that statement. That behavior inevitably leads to strong social backlash from the other parties involved. Some psychology studies strongly hint that this is literally built into us: We value punishing bad behavior even if it means loss more than we value accepting it at a gain.
mcphage 2y ago
> it implies non-citizens should have more rights and privileges than citizens (i.e. be insulated from the consequences of elections) Why did you go from “fewer rights” to “more rights”, skipping right over “the same rights and privileges, at least around things like not being kicked out unexpectedly”.

toomuchtodo 2y ago

I think it’s fair to believe that democracy has failure modes where we say, “Nope, this outcome didn’t work.” For example, if fellow citizens start getting rounded up in camps or deported, regardless of due process, what the electorate wants and the votes communicate are no longer relevant. I think we’re almost at that point, but not quite yet (depends on whether checks and balances on illegal actions of the executive branch are successful). “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” —- attributed to Ben Franklin (The US is a federal republic, not a democracy)

palmotea 2y ago
> I think it’s fair to believe that democracy has failure modes where we say, “Nope, this outcome didn’t work.” For example, if fellow citizens start getting rounded up in camps or deported, regardless of due process, what the electorate wants and the votes communicate are no longer relevant. That's a tricky line, because it's on the path to: "You have the 'freedom' to vote for whoever you like, just as long as they're a Communist who will loyally implement Communist policies." Personally, I don't think many people in the US are actually committed democrats. They're mostly partisans committed to their party/ideology, and there's a lot of maneuvering to confuse people that their party's policy is set in stone ("constitutional/constitutionally required") and entrench it against democratic action.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  The US civil war was fought over slavery. Was that worth fighting for? I think so. Human rights are worth defending with force, imho. Last line of defense when politics breaks down, as history repeatedly teaches. Isn’t the communism boogeyman tired at this point? Perhaps we have a disconnect if I’m arguing human rights and you’re arguing economic systems as what the fight is over politically.
  - palmotea 2y ago
    > Human rights are worth defending with force, imho. Yeah, but what are they? The devil is in the details. > Isn’t the communism boogeyman tired at this point? It's not a boogeyman, it's a clear and obvious example of "democracy" without actual choice, the apotheosis of "what electorate wants and the votes communicate are no longer relevant."
- dTal 2y ago
  >That's a tricky line, because it's on the path to: "You have the 'freedom' to vote for whoever you like, just as long as they're a Communist who will loyally implement Communist policies." Well, yes. Ideological stability is arguably a desirable property (even if you disagree with specific aspects of it) but regardless of that it is a stable attractor. Practically speaking, if your system permits people to run on a platform of dismantling the system, it will soon be replaced by one that doesn't permit that. You would do well to accept that, and choose carefully the immutable terms on which you would like to base your government.

horsawlarway 2y ago

Cooperation always requires this kind of coordination, though. It's equivalently messed up to do something like say "You can borrow my car on Thursday to drive to the doctor" and then wait for the person to show up on Thursday only to say "Nope - changed my mind". Basically - cooperation requires honor. It requires that parties value that the things they say they will do are the things they actually do. --- My biggest problem with the current administration is that - regardless of what you might like or dislike about their policies - I think it's impossible to argue that they are honorable. They explicitly do not value what they say. They are dishonorable - in the rawest, most traditional meaning of that statement. That behavior inevitably leads to strong social backlash from the other parties involved. Some psychology studies strongly hint that this is literally built into us: We value punishing bad behavior even if it means loss more than we value accepting it at a gain.

mcphage 2y ago

> it implies non-citizens should have more rights and privileges than citizens (i.e. be insulated from the consequences of elections) Why did you go from “fewer rights” to “more rights”, skipping right over “the same rights and privileges, at least around things like not being kicked out unexpectedly”.