5 ms·

I enjoyed the article but it could be clearer and more concise. In TFA, the author wrote: Democracy, then, will be stable so long as the expectation of co

I enjoyed the article but it could be clearer and more concise. In TFA, the author wrote: Democracy, then, will be stable so long as the expectation of costs and the uncertainty of the future give the losers sufficient incentive to accept that they have lost. The essence is that all participants must be co-operative in their education, motives, and intentions. And this requires a system of reliable information and agreed laws. Democracy works within the tolerances of reliable information, demonstrable co-operation, and the rule of law. The US implosion is not yet irreparable, but it is a societal failure.

amos-burton 1y ago
we would not have this narrow vision of losers/winners IF the inequalities were reduced, it would not be as strong as it is today in our world view if this parameter was adjusted. In turns, "winners" would not feel like they are at the verge of loosing it all, constantly, because the wealth they generate would be stored into a living organism (a nation, or else). like having multiple bank accounts, with multiple currencies, that one being .... bio-economic i guess. democracy does not work. Or first, we should clarify the meaning of "it works". IMO, it did not prevented us from burning the world, this is sufficient to say that in a parallel universe i would bet differently.
- meristohm 1y ago
  Capitalism (control of land, labor, and money) has been on the rise since the 1600s[0]; to what degree has this economic model shaped Democracy? [0] according to Invisible Doctrine, a history of capitalism by Monbiot and Hutchison (2024)
  - amos-burton 1y ago
    I have not read the book, i only read a short at editionsdufaubourg[.]fr/livre/la-doctrine-invisible it definitely speaks out to me. though, it looks likes another of those illusions to entertain you, us. You may want to consider that possibility some day, at least out of curiosity.
fifilura 1y ago
Respect for minorities also needs to happen in democracies. Even if democracy in some strict sense means that majority decides, you still need to care about the minorities to keep the system credible. Otherwise any minority will soon realize that they will never win and break out of the system.
- vishnugupta 1y ago
  I guess that’s called tyranny of the majority? David Graeber wrote how in Sparta everyone carrying weapons meant that they couldn’t afford to displease even a small fraction of them. So they had to resort to 100% consent and not majoritarian voting. And then goes on to assert that the majoritarian voting process works only in a system where the state apparatus has an absolute control over violence with which the disgruntled minority opinions are suppressed. I think it sort of helped to resolve some of my internal contradictions around democracy as it exists today.
- PaulDavisThe1st 1y ago
  That's the point of a constitution: you take certain matters out of the hands of any (normal) majority. Of course, one can bicker about what the constitutional amendment process actually is, and obviously about the actual content of the constitution. But the central point remains: minority (and majority) rights are protected by a constitution that cannot be altered by a (simple) majority vote. .... the problem comes, however, when the minority decides it wants more than the constitution provides.
  - saghm 1y ago
    > the problem comes, however, when the minority decides it wants more than the constitution provides Or when the majority decides this? If the system is defined to put checks on the majority power as well as the minority, there's no reason that the majority might not decide to try to push the boundaries of the system with similar incentives. I think there's a reasonable argument that this sort of boundary pushing is more responsible for the erosion of constitutional norms historically compared to when the minority wants more rights; we have headlines literally from this morning talking about how the American president claimed that he doesn't know if he needs to follow the constitution due to the mandate of his election[0]: > WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — President Donald Trump, asked during an interview on NBC News’s “Meet the Press with Kristen Welker,” whether he believes that he needs to uphold the Constitution during his presidency, responded, “I don’t know.” > The comment came as Trump remained adamant that he wanted to ship undocumented immigrants out of the country and said it was inconceivable to hear millions of cases in court, insisting he needed the power to quickly remove people he said were murderers and drug dealers. > “I was elected to get them the hell out of here, and the courts are holding me from doing it,” he said. > Pressed on whether he still needs to abide by the Constitution, he said, “I don’t know.” [0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/05/04/trump-nbc-interview-constitution-economy/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/05/04/trump-nbc...
patrickmay 1y ago
It also explicitly requires the parties and candidates to think beyond the current election cycle. That behavior is not in evidence for at least one major party in the U.S. A candidate's personal expectation of costs must also be factored in. When a candidate faces criminal charges (to pick an example totally out of the blue) if they lose but can eliminate those if they win, the calculus changes for them.

amos-burton 1y ago

we would not have this narrow vision of losers/winners IF the inequalities were reduced, it would not be as strong as it is today in our world view if this parameter was adjusted. In turns, "winners" would not feel like they are at the verge of loosing it all, constantly, because the wealth they generate would be stored into a living organism (a nation, or else). like having multiple bank accounts, with multiple currencies, that one being .... bio-economic i guess. democracy does not work. Or first, we should clarify the meaning of "it works". IMO, it did not prevented us from burning the world, this is sufficient to say that in a parallel universe i would bet differently.

meristohm 1y ago
Capitalism (control of land, labor, and money) has been on the rise since the 1600s[0]; to what degree has this economic model shaped Democracy? [0] according to Invisible Doctrine, a history of capitalism by Monbiot and Hutchison (2024)
- amos-burton 1y ago
  I have not read the book, i only read a short at editionsdufaubourg[.]fr/livre/la-doctrine-invisible it definitely speaks out to me. though, it looks likes another of those illusions to entertain you, us. You may want to consider that possibility some day, at least out of curiosity.

fifilura 1y ago

Respect for minorities also needs to happen in democracies. Even if democracy in some strict sense means that majority decides, you still need to care about the minorities to keep the system credible. Otherwise any minority will soon realize that they will never win and break out of the system.

vishnugupta 1y ago
I guess that’s called tyranny of the majority? David Graeber wrote how in Sparta everyone carrying weapons meant that they couldn’t afford to displease even a small fraction of them. So they had to resort to 100% consent and not majoritarian voting. And then goes on to assert that the majoritarian voting process works only in a system where the state apparatus has an absolute control over violence with which the disgruntled minority opinions are suppressed. I think it sort of helped to resolve some of my internal contradictions around democracy as it exists today.
PaulDavisThe1st 1y ago
That's the point of a constitution: you take certain matters out of the hands of any (normal) majority. Of course, one can bicker about what the constitutional amendment process actually is, and obviously about the actual content of the constitution. But the central point remains: minority (and majority) rights are protected by a constitution that cannot be altered by a (simple) majority vote. .... the problem comes, however, when the minority decides it wants more than the constitution provides.
- saghm 1y ago
  > the problem comes, however, when the minority decides it wants more than the constitution provides Or when the majority decides this? If the system is defined to put checks on the majority power as well as the minority, there's no reason that the majority might not decide to try to push the boundaries of the system with similar incentives. I think there's a reasonable argument that this sort of boundary pushing is more responsible for the erosion of constitutional norms historically compared to when the minority wants more rights; we have headlines literally from this morning talking about how the American president claimed that he doesn't know if he needs to follow the constitution due to the mandate of his election[0]: > WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — President Donald Trump, asked during an interview on NBC News’s “Meet the Press with Kristen Welker,” whether he believes that he needs to uphold the Constitution during his presidency, responded, “I don’t know.” > The comment came as Trump remained adamant that he wanted to ship undocumented immigrants out of the country and said it was inconceivable to hear millions of cases in court, insisting he needed the power to quickly remove people he said were murderers and drug dealers. > “I was elected to get them the hell out of here, and the courts are holding me from doing it,” he said. > Pressed on whether he still needs to abide by the Constitution, he said, “I don’t know.” [0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/05/04/trump-nbc-interview-constitution-economy/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/05/04/trump-nbc...

patrickmay 1y ago

It also explicitly requires the parties and candidates to think beyond the current election cycle. That behavior is not in evidence for at least one major party in the U.S. A candidate's personal expectation of costs must also be factored in. When a candidate faces criminal charges (to pick an example totally out of the blue) if they lose but can eliminate those if they win, the calculus changes for them.