2 ms·

> 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 ro

> 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.

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.