3 ms·

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'

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]

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]