3 ms·

> So, why are we so powerless to stop things like this, the Aaron Swartz tragedy, PATRIOT Act, etc? Personally, I think it's because we buy into the idea that

> So, why are we so powerless to stop things like this, the Aaron Swartz tragedy, PATRIOT Act, etc? Personally, I think it's because we buy into the idea that an individual should be given the authority to "rule" people by fiat in the first place.

unclebucknasty 14y ago
Do we?
- dreamdu5t 14y ago
  In the US, yes. Most people believe that the authority to rule over others based on a vote is legitimate, ethical, and desirable. Personally, I don't think it's legitimate or ethical that some guy I've never met asserts the right to rule over my property because another group of people I've never met got together and voted on it.
  - unclebucknasty 14y ago
    Not sure we're talking about the same thing. In the case you mention, isn't the problem you have with the people who voted? And isn't the issue you take, in general, not with an individual "ruling over you", but with the very notion of majority rule (i.e. that "a group of people you've never met" can vote in ways that affect you/your property/etc.)? Edit: Because I would say that the problem is the opposite: that our government is no longer an expression of the will of "the people". And my question is why isn't it?
    - dreamdu5t 14y ago
      My point was that the electoral process is what is meant by "will of the people." In that regard, the government IS acting in accordance with the will of people. But you asked why we are powerless to stop things like the Aaron Swartz tragedy, PATRIOT Act, etc. My answer to that is because we've all decided to cede that power to a vote.
      - unclebucknasty 14y ago
        Ok, now I think what you're talking about boils down to representative democracy vs direct democracy. I do think that's where the breakdown occurs, especially given the money in our representative democracy and our two-party system. Because voting in a direct democracy would not be ceding power, it would be directly expressing it. Now whether we would "do the right thing" remains to be seen, particularly given the massive degree to which many are misinformed or misled. Of course, once our will is expressed, thereafter comes the execution. That may involve similar apparatus to what we have now (DOJ, FBI, etc.). Not sure that wouldn't lead us right back to where we are now, with abuses, etc. Maybe it's just a function of human nature.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
graycat 14y ago
One reason: Another terrorist attack like 9/11 is 'immediate', that is, right in front of people, something to be afraid of right now. Shooting holes in our Constitution is a danger more abstract, more distant, less immediate, although in total more serious. So, with the usual short sightedness of people and politics, we throw away some of our liberty in hopes of some short term security. And, we are gullible, get manipulated, get sold nonsense by the MSM, etc. In simple terms, the solution is for the voters not to fall for such nonsense.

unclebucknasty 14y ago

Do we?

dreamdu5t 14y ago
In the US, yes. Most people believe that the authority to rule over others based on a vote is legitimate, ethical, and desirable. Personally, I don't think it's legitimate or ethical that some guy I've never met asserts the right to rule over my property because another group of people I've never met got together and voted on it.
- unclebucknasty 14y ago
  Not sure we're talking about the same thing. In the case you mention, isn't the problem you have with the people who voted? And isn't the issue you take, in general, not with an individual "ruling over you", but with the very notion of majority rule (i.e. that "a group of people you've never met" can vote in ways that affect you/your property/etc.)? Edit: Because I would say that the problem is the opposite: that our government is no longer an expression of the will of "the people". And my question is why isn't it?
  - dreamdu5t 14y ago
    My point was that the electoral process is what is meant by "will of the people." In that regard, the government IS acting in accordance with the will of people. But you asked why we are powerless to stop things like the Aaron Swartz tragedy, PATRIOT Act, etc. My answer to that is because we've all decided to cede that power to a vote.
    - unclebucknasty 14y ago
      Ok, now I think what you're talking about boils down to representative democracy vs direct democracy. I do think that's where the breakdown occurs, especially given the money in our representative democracy and our two-party system. Because voting in a direct democracy would not be ceding power, it would be directly expressing it. Now whether we would "do the right thing" remains to be seen, particularly given the massive degree to which many are misinformed or misled. Of course, once our will is expressed, thereafter comes the execution. That may involve similar apparatus to what we have now (DOJ, FBI, etc.). Not sure that wouldn't lead us right back to where we are now, with abuses, etc. Maybe it's just a function of human nature.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]

graycat 14y ago

One reason: Another terrorist attack like 9/11 is 'immediate', that is, right in front of people, something to be afraid of right now. Shooting holes in our Constitution is a danger more abstract, more distant, less immediate, although in total more serious. So, with the usual short sightedness of people and politics, we throw away some of our liberty in hopes of some short term security. And, we are gullible, get manipulated, get sold nonsense by the MSM, etc. In simple terms, the solution is for the voters not to fall for such nonsense.