5 ms·
How Will We Know When We Have Lost Our Democracy?
- TheAlchemist 1y agoWe don't know the How, but we can agree on the When - when it will be too late.
- biglyburrito 1y agohttps://archive.md/8xom2 https://archive.md/8xom2
- like_any_other 1y ago[flagged]
- tastyface 1y ago“I didn’t bother reading the article, but here’s what grinds my gears!”
- like_any_other 1y agoI read the article. I merely reject its premise, and it's blinkered perspective. The authors think the main threat to democracy is a strongman dictator, and do not distinguish appearance from substance. Just because a country isn't headed by a Generalisimo that's jailing his opponents, doesn't mean the people's will isn't getting trampled. It's just done by a large and boring bureaucracy and business interests, without any one obvious culprit. But because that bureaucracy was doing what the authors want, they confuse it (or conflate it) with democracy.
- ReptileMan 1y ago[flagged]
- xqcgrek2 1y agoWhen the next pandemic hits, for people who don't remember the last one.
- cosmicgadget 1y agoWhy would the next one end any different from the last one - a return to normalcy?
- gmuslera 1y agoI don't think the meaning that you give to that word is the same as the one used in the rest of the world. Democracy is about elections (presidents, referendums, whatever), where every citizen is able to participate and vote freely. And in that, US may well is (and has been for quite some time) functionally an oligarchy. That a legally elected government then oppress part of the population, put weird laws or sink the economy is within the rules of the game. Citizens are responsible for what they choose, at least if they all can choose for it freely. But if whole sections of the population can't freely participate, or can be punished somewhat if doing so, then you didn't had a democracy to start with, even if the government was a symbol of peace and prosperity.
- vitarnixofntrnt 1y ago[dead]
- b3ing 1y agoThe founders probably assumed people would elect ethical people so no ethics are in our system. Even businesses have rules about conflict of interest, hiring relatives, etc, but our government, nothing. Without that it’s been failing and perhaps those ethics should rest on a popular vote and not representatives so it doesn’t get ruined, but then mob rule could always ruin it, which is why we have a republic that is slow to change with all these checks and balances but no ethics.
- leereeves 1y agoQuite the opposite. The founders knew leaders would be unethical, so they designed a system to divide power amongst the branches of the federal government and the states. Unfortunately, the leaders have been slowly eroding those divisions over time, consolidating power in the federal government and the imperial Presidency.
- cmurf 1y agoThe founders understood power. Their solution to monarchy was polyarchy, defined by a written constitution. A contract. Law. A republic is an empire of laws, not of men. And the oath of office, 5 USC 3331, is to support and defend the Constitution. Not a person.
- jfengel 1y agoIf you have no ethics, an oath of office is meaningless. Ultimately, men enforce the laws. They are only as rigorous as the enforcers decide to make them.
- cosmicgadget 1y agoI'm not so sure, they seemed awful critical of the British crown. I think what they didn't consider was a legislature that wouldn't wield its removal authority only days after being attacked by a violent mob. Or a Supreme Court that would invent an idea of executive immunity that renders all ethics statutes moot.
- cmurf 1y ago