3 ms·

> I don't think there's any meaningful sense in which anybody chose this society. I just showed you how: the vote. Just because its simple does not make it ri

> I don't think there's any meaningful sense in which anybody chose this society. I just showed you how: the vote. Just because its simple does not make it ridiculous.

jamesrcole 11y ago
Voting is the collective result of individual's votes. There's no sense in which it reflects an individual's choice. Nor is it like there's a singular "we" that has made a choice.
- unclebucknasty 11y ago
  We collectively like to say that what's really important is not work or "the game", but relationships, friends, family, etc. It's repeated so often that it's cliche, and if a person were to say that work was more important than family, we'd nearly unanimously frown upon it. And, we collectively vote and make other choices about our society. Broken as our democracy is, there is a significant portion of the electorate that expresses a will that seems incompatible with our supposed human priorities. BTW, we also decide, individually, what we will allow. The cost of our choices may be "high" (e.g. Snowden), but we choose nonetheless.
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
"The vote" isn't of much help in a single-party election. Nor does "the vote" imply the underlying voting system meets a threshold of efficiency, that externalities do not undermine the efficacy of "the vote", or that many policies are even subject to "the vote" to begin with. This idiotic grade school idea of "democracy" as a warm and fuzzy godlike essence helps no one and only poisons discussions.
- unclebucknasty 11y ago
  Democracy should be much warmer and fuzzier. The greatest impediment to this is the "externalities" that undermine it. So, rather than attack the "grade school idea" of democracy, perhaps we should be considering why our execution has failed to live up to the ideal. Because, to the extent that we allowed it to happen, we've also done so by choice. You might even say democratic choice.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    "By choice", a Hobson's choice, perhaps. You're clearly so invested in this ideal that you even retroactively shoehorn acts against or apathetic to it in the same framework. This isn't worth discussing because the conception of democracy you're operating under is simplistic and incorrect.
    - unclebucknasty 11y ago
      >a Hobson's choice, perhaps. I agree that it's the current state. But, I don't believe that it must be this way by some natural law. Maybe that's where we depart. >so invested in this ideal I'm invested in the notion that somewhere between where we are now and the ideal state is possible, and that we'd be far better off reaching for it. What alternative are you proposing? >retroactively shoehorn acts against or apathetic to it in the same framework I don't know what you're trying to say here. If you're merely pointing out that there are people and even systems that work against the democratic ideal and that apathy among the populace does the same, then there's no revelation there. You're simply stating an endemic problem of which most semi-conscious people are aware. But, what's your conclusion? >* the conception of democracy you're operating under is simplistic and incorrect* It's more likely that your conception of my conception is simplistic and incorrect.
      - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
        I'm invested in the notion that somewhere between where we are now and the ideal state is possible, and that we'd be far better off reaching for it. This I can agree with. Even if the ideal state cannot be attained, we're really far from even an approximation of it. You're simply stating an endemic problem of which most semi-conscious people are aware. But, what's your conclusion? I'm trying to say that democracy should not be revered as much as it is, but that more importantly people tend to be ignorant of its machinations. They completely set aside hugely important details like voting systems (such that FPTP guarantees party dichotomy as per Duverger's law), externalities, fraud, gerrymandered districts, and the idea that we should vote on people instead of policies. The latter is ass-backwards by all measures. Vote policies and have the people fill in the demand for their execution. Instead you have a system that incentivizes deceptive and bombastic political campaigns with an extremely narrow ideological set. When you refuse to participate, you're told you can't complain. When you do participate and your candidate turns out to be a total actor, then again it's your fault for electing them, but remember, folks - democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others. Which is why the way we do democracy is absolutely infallibly correct. It's more likely that your conception of my conception is simplistic and incorrect. Perhaps, but your original comments were quite rude in the way you shoehorned life into a primitive idea of "voting". There's something about democracy that it has become a secular icon which shuts off people's ability to reason, and makes them refuse to improve their axioms.

> I don't think there's any meaningful sense in which anybody chose this society. I just showed you how: the vote. Just because its simple does not make it ridiculous.

jamesrcole 11y ago

Voting is the collective result of individual's votes. There's no sense in which it reflects an individual's choice. Nor is it like there's a singular "we" that has made a choice.

unclebucknasty 11y ago
We collectively like to say that what's really important is not work or "the game", but relationships, friends, family, etc. It's repeated so often that it's cliche, and if a person were to say that work was more important than family, we'd nearly unanimously frown upon it. And, we collectively vote and make other choices about our society. Broken as our democracy is, there is a significant portion of the electorate that expresses a will that seems incompatible with our supposed human priorities. BTW, we also decide, individually, what we will allow. The cost of our choices may be "high" (e.g. Snowden), but we choose nonetheless.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

"The vote" isn't of much help in a single-party election. Nor does "the vote" imply the underlying voting system meets a threshold of efficiency, that externalities do not undermine the efficacy of "the vote", or that many policies are even subject to "the vote" to begin with. This idiotic grade school idea of "democracy" as a warm and fuzzy godlike essence helps no one and only poisons discussions.

unclebucknasty 11y ago
Democracy should be much warmer and fuzzier. The greatest impediment to this is the "externalities" that undermine it. So, rather than attack the "grade school idea" of democracy, perhaps we should be considering why our execution has failed to live up to the ideal. Because, to the extent that we allowed it to happen, we've also done so by choice. You might even say democratic choice.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  "By choice", a Hobson's choice, perhaps. You're clearly so invested in this ideal that you even retroactively shoehorn acts against or apathetic to it in the same framework. This isn't worth discussing because the conception of democracy you're operating under is simplistic and incorrect.
  - unclebucknasty 11y ago
    >a Hobson's choice, perhaps. I agree that it's the current state. But, I don't believe that it must be this way by some natural law. Maybe that's where we depart. >so invested in this ideal I'm invested in the notion that somewhere between where we are now and the ideal state is possible, and that we'd be far better off reaching for it. What alternative are you proposing? >retroactively shoehorn acts against or apathetic to it in the same framework I don't know what you're trying to say here. If you're merely pointing out that there are people and even systems that work against the democratic ideal and that apathy among the populace does the same, then there's no revelation there. You're simply stating an endemic problem of which most semi-conscious people are aware. But, what's your conclusion? >* the conception of democracy you're operating under is simplistic and incorrect* It's more likely that your conception of my conception is simplistic and incorrect.
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      I'm invested in the notion that somewhere between where we are now and the ideal state is possible, and that we'd be far better off reaching for it. This I can agree with. Even if the ideal state cannot be attained, we're really far from even an approximation of it. You're simply stating an endemic problem of which most semi-conscious people are aware. But, what's your conclusion? I'm trying to say that democracy should not be revered as much as it is, but that more importantly people tend to be ignorant of its machinations. They completely set aside hugely important details like voting systems (such that FPTP guarantees party dichotomy as per Duverger's law), externalities, fraud, gerrymandered districts, and the idea that we should vote on people instead of policies. The latter is ass-backwards by all measures. Vote policies and have the people fill in the demand for their execution. Instead you have a system that incentivizes deceptive and bombastic political campaigns with an extremely narrow ideological set. When you refuse to participate, you're told you can't complain. When you do participate and your candidate turns out to be a total actor, then again it's your fault for electing them, but remember, folks - democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others. Which is why the way we do democracy is absolutely infallibly correct. It's more likely that your conception of my conception is simplistic and incorrect. Perhaps, but your original comments were quite rude in the way you shoehorned life into a primitive idea of "voting". There's something about democracy that it has become a secular icon which shuts off people's ability to reason, and makes them refuse to improve their axioms.