Toth Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 Not really answering to anyone, just chiming in with something I had on my mind lately. This whole 'representative democracy not being democracy' thing is seriously not something I can wrap my head around. It IS a kind of democracy. The only ones I see screeching all the time about the US not being a democracy are right-wing trolls who relish in the idea to justify a dictatorship for whatever reasons. Their opinion pretty much invalidates itself. As someone who was sworn in upon upholding the ideals of democracy and takes pride in protecting it, I can look at (my) constitution and say, despite knowing all its flaws, that it is the best system that can possibly be had. The one advantage of a functioning democracy is not the freedom of a society to choose its leaders, but rather the freedom to choose another one when the one currently in charge is harming the society. The moment that freedom is given away (given, mind you, not necessarily taken!), then society is doomed to authoritarianism and dictatorship. A status that can be changed only with a lot of bloodshed and even then success is never certain. You might just swap one dictator with the next, after all. Democracy's only flaw, in my opinion, is that it is not easy. Democracy means, that every member of society has the responsibility to keep it alive. To participate. And to protect it. It demands eternal vigilance from every member of society. It is each and everyone's job to uphold its values and the freedom that comes with it. There will always be deplorable people who offer seemingly simple 'solutions', simple concepts of elusive enemies to blame their misery on. They will always try to sway public opinion to do away with democracy in their lust for power. But democracy, unlike every other form of state, allows society to protect itself, to have a choice not to listen. Even if things are bad, even if the parties of the status quo seem unfeasible, members of the society have the choice to something. To either pressure them with activism or to just found new parties that bring fresh blood into the system. Sure, often the system of the democracy itself is defective and allows for exploitation. All the more reason to vote for those in favor of fixing it. Or at least in minimizing the damage. Then again... as I said, democracy means responsibility. And you need education to know how to deal with responsibility. An uneducated people, in every age, meant the death freedom. And these enemies of democracy know that. This is why I think education, as much as giving people perspectives, are about the best weapons a society as a whole has to combat the downsides of democracy that will inevitably arise with power. Sorry for that incoherent rambling. I just... needed to write these thoughts down. Because I must admit, I am indeed in a constant state of being terrified about the world we currently live in. I know I want and I will fight for the freedoms I enjoy at the moment. I just hope that it isn't too late for the rest of this world... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serious Callers Only Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 Yeah, well, my opinion right now is that you should be worried less about 'democracy' and more about 'revolution'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 6 minutes ago, Rippounet said: You're saying you're writing a dissertation and DON'T want to kill yourself? Color me impressed. Not me. The lifeless husks I normally associate with those writing dissertations couldn’t rise to the effort of anything that dramatic. The most movement you get out them is that unconscious collective flinch they invariably make when within hearing distance of a working printer. edit: to wit, the insidious and completely counterfeit atavistic joy I got from using the incorrect pronoun in the above. That’s as close to suicidal as I can possibly hope to achieve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serious Callers Only Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 Speaking of corruption on the oligarchic states of america: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/10/10/justice-department-approves-cvss-billion-merger-with-insurance-giant-aetna/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 16 minutes ago, aceluby said: And registration ended yesterday (I believe), so if you got purged, NO VOTE FOR YOU! Quote October 9, 2018 Voter Registration Ends https://www.in.gov/sos/elections/2403.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 47 minutes ago, DMC said: Um, there's no amendment needed for either of those. The first is just an interstate compact, which would just take the consent of the states involved, and the latter would just take the consent of the state(s) and Congress (meaning majority vote). That name would confuse all the white people. And if my dissertation was about the apportionment of the Senate, I'd kill myself. Ahh but the big states will never willingly subdivide to get more senators if they don't have a system set up before the division to handle the big logistical governance issues the state deals with. California should be divided into multiple states, but we can't do it given the roads, water, and electricity coordination and logistical issues that are the biggest blockade to this sensible and needed division. Relying on them to first divide and then create an interstate compact is a recipe for disaster, if they could sign into a super-state compact and then divide with all the logistical issues already handled by the super state compact exactly as if the state hadn't divided then you could have a smooth transition. It's more about facilitating a workable pathway, rather than skydiving without a parachute as you propose. :-p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 The only minority the Founders were truly interested in protecting was themselves, the wealthy, ruling, powerful elite -- and protect itself from the 'mob,' i.e. the 'people.' In the meantime, ya, fascism, nazism, whatever it can be called, it sure as eff is here and doing really well. There's a reason that the favorite cheerleading slogan of the white supremacist, women hating, bigoted, treasonous supporters of these ilks is, "Lock her / him / them up!" https://www.thedailybeast.com/its-not-just-antifa-now-gop-wants-to-lock-up-liberal-women?ref=home Quote Now GOP Wants to Lock Up Liberal Women Rhetoric once reserved for the radical left is now leveled against more mainstream protesters who challenge conservatives like Trump and Kavanaugh. ....Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley, Mitch McConnell, and John Cornyn last week accused protesters of being a “mob.” President Donald Trump went further, calling the peaceful demonstrations against his Supreme Court nominee “dangerous,” likening them to arsonists and suggesting their protests should be illegal. Those aren’t empty threats: radical left activists have spent the past two years fighting court battles over protests the right also condemned as dangerous mobs. Now that language, and the legal threats that go with it, are coming for the broader left, like the liberal demonstrators on Capitol Hill last week.... ....After anti-Kavanaugh demonstrations last month, Trump suggested criminalizing protest altogether. “I don’t know why they don’t take care of a situation like that... I think it’s embarrassing for the country to allow protesters,” he said of anti-Kavanaugh protesters in September. “You don’t even know what side the protesters are on… In the old days, we used to throw them out. Today, I guess they just keep screaming.”... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippounet Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 34 minutes ago, Toth said: This whole 'representative democracy not being democracy' thing is seriously not something I can wrap my head around. It IS a kind of democracy. The only ones I see screeching all the time about the US not being a democracy are right-wing trolls who relish in the idea to justify a dictatorship for whatever reasons. Their opinion pretty much invalidates itself. I had no idea this was such a controversial statement tbh. I was taught we do not live in actual democracies in philosophy class at 16 (I was smart back then). I do believe it was part of the standard curriculum for most high school students here. As far as I know it's the dominant opinion on the subject around me. We even have a popular saying that goes "dictatorship means 'shut your mouth', 'democracy' means 'keep talking' ". @Errant Bard should be able to say if I'm full of shit on this one (i.e. if my philosophy teacher was weird) 34 minutes ago, Toth said: As someone who was sworn in upon upholding the ideals of democracy and takes pride in protecting it, I can look at (my) constitution and say, despite knowing all its flaws, that it is the best system that can possibly be had. Uh, ok. No offense, but believing that this is the "best system that can possibly be had" is part of the problem. That's the kind of thinking that can blind you to obvious flaws. And it kinda reeks of brainwashing to me. 34 minutes ago, Toth said: Democracy's only flaw, in my opinion, is that it is not easy. Democracy means, that every member of society has the responsibility to keep it alive. To participate. And to protect it. It demands eternal vigilance from every member of society. It is each and everyone's job to uphold its values and the freedom that comes with it. There will always be deplorable people who offer seemingly simple 'solutions', simple concepts of elusive enemies to blame their misery on. They will always try to sway public opinion to do away with democracy in their lust for power. But democracy, unlike every other form of state, allows society to protect itself, to have a choice not to listen. Even if things are bad, even if the parties of the status quo seem unfeasible, members of the society have the choice to something. To either pressure them with activism or to just found new parties that bring fresh blood into the system. Sure, often the system of the democracy itself is defective and allows for exploitation. All the more reason to vote for those in favor of fixing it. Or at least in minimizing the damage. Then again... as I said, democracy means responsibility. And you need education to know how to deal with responsibility. An uneducated people, in every age, meant the death freedom. And these enemies of democracy know that. This is why I think education, as much as giving people perspectives, are about the best weapons a society as a whole has to combat the downsides of democracy that will inevitably arise with power. There's a lot of truth there. I especially agree with the second paragraph (on how indispensable education is for a functioning democracy). It's also true that representative democracy can become far more democratic if everyone (or at least most people) participates. But that doesn't mean it's the best system, unless you are afraid of actual democracy. Which I may be btw. I call myself a democrat, but quite honestly there is no certainty that humans will ever be evolved enough for democracy. I think we have no choice but to believe in humanity though, given the obvious fact that we are all humans. 31 minutes ago, James Arryn said: Not me. The lifeless husks I normally associate with those writing dissertations couldn’t rise to the effort of anything that dramatic. The most movement you get out them is that unconscious collective flinch they invariably make when within hearing distance of a working printer. edit: to wit, the insidious and completely counterfeit atavistic joy I got from using the incorrect pronoun in the above. That’s as close to suicidal as I can possibly hope to achieve. I actually laughed out loud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 7 minutes ago, Rippounet said: had no idea this was such a controversial statement tbh. I was taught we do not live in actual democracies in philosophy class at 16 (I was smart back then). I do believe it was part of the standard curriculum for most high school students here. As far as I know it's the dominant opinion on the subject around me. We even have a popular saying that goes "dictatorship means 'shut your mouth', 'democracy' means 'keep talking' ". See above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 1 hour ago, aceluby said: And registration ended yesterday (I believe), so if you got purged, NO VOTE FOR YOU! They may not resemble Nazis, but they definitely resemble soup Nazis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toth Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 17 minutes ago, Rippounet said: Uh, ok. No offense, but believing that this is the "best system that can possibly be had" is part of the problem. That's the kind of thinking that can blind you to obvious flaws. And it kinda reeks of brainwashing to me. Admittedly, I never had philosophy in school, so I'm not exactly sure what kind of mindbogglingly obvious alternatives there are around. I was just always thinking in historical terms that differentiate between the direct democracy in the vein of Greek poleis and representative democracy of modern republics that are more feasible to govern large nation states. Of course those could turn to oligarchies or theocracies or whatever when they fail, but the basic republican system is still a type of democracy to my knowledge. Therefore I have not the faintest idea what you mean with 'actual' democracies. Seriously, just pretend that I'm the dumbest idiot you ever met and please tell what you mean with that. I'm also admitting that all systems have flaws, the biggest of it being obviously the people moving (or rather not moving) within it. I'm fairly confident for example that the German constitution is fairly robust, systemically. The voting system as well as the checks and balances (all screaming "Please don't screw up again!") I am confident in being able to at least delay a hostile takeover by keeping the branches apart as long as possible. The way it forces constant compromises between parties on federal and county level makes it hard for extremist parties to bend things the way they want. However, I am also aware that this very system of forcing compromises muddies the waters and encourages major parties to tone down their differences until they seem only nominal anymore. And the very way it is put under stress currently leaves me with the impression that parties within a democracy have to walk a fine line of delineation of concepts. Are the representatives too uniform, as it happened in many (sometimes even destructive) policies in Germany, discontent arises. Ultra polarization however tears society even more apart, as the US is currently demonstrating. A system of a multitude of parties with clear (and honest...) profiles seems to do the job just fine though. Problems of lobbying where the so-called experts start to make policy, is another different matter then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 The only direct democracy of note on a national level is that of Switzerland. Notably, its double majority system was inspired by the "undemocratic" American system with its bicameral legislature representing the people on the one hand and the states on the other; in their case, big measures require a majority of people and a majority of the cantons to ratify. I really don't understand the idea that Rippounet's country is not democratic, since it's embodied right in its constitution, but I think there's a lot more willingness to play political semantics in some places than others. The American system has some flaws. The Constitution probably needs to be tossed out and reworked heavily to better scale and to take into account some of the massive changes that have taken place. That said, it has been pretty resilient, but the exact type of tribalism and factionalism that the Founders feared has begun to become so overwhelming that the system is buckling. The Reapportionment Act is a goodly part of it -- if there were far more districts, there would be a moderating effect on parties wishing to pull together majority coalitions that would be needed to exercise power in two of the branches of government, rather than the present case where a narrow minority is able to exploit breaks in the system to maintain power over a narrow majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonnot OG Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 1 hour ago, Zorral said: The only minority the Founders were truly interested in protecting was themselves, the wealthy, ruling, powerful elite -- and protect itself from the 'mob,' i.e. the 'people.' In the meantime, ya, fascism, nazism, whatever it can be called, it sure as eff is here and doing really well. There's a reason that the favorite cheerleading slogan of the white supremacist, women hating, bigoted, treasonous supporters of these ilks is, "Lock her / him / them up!" https://www.thedailybeast.com/its-not-just-antifa-now-gop-wants-to-lock-up-liberal-women?ref=home Lol I said this a few months ago on here I believe. That the revoluionary war wasn't that revolutionary, that it was a reactionary war started by entintled elites that didn't want to pay taxes, didn't want to stop ethnic cleansing of the indeginous population, and were worried about slavery being made illegal, which Britain made illegal pretty soon aftter it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 Howard Zinn got a big boost after Damon name-dropped him in Good Will Hunting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartIheartTesla Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 Didnt hurt that he used to babysit Matt Damon and his brother, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 3 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said: Didnt hurt that he used to babysit Matt Damon and his brother, I guess. Holy shit, I did not know that. That's amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 31 minutes ago, Bonnot OG said: Lol I said this a few months ago on here I believe. That the revoluionary war wasn't that revolutionary, that it was a reactionary war started by entintled elites that didn't want to pay taxes, didn't want to stop ethnic cleansing of the indeginous population, and were worried about slavery being made illegal, which Britain made illegal pretty soon aftter it. It wasn't revolutionary -- it was a war of rebellion, entirely different. Which most scholars have agreed on -- for the last half century anyway. However the war of the rebellion became a revolution because the basic systems changed with abolition. The basic systems did not change with the Constitution -- other than getting rid of primogeniture and instituting separation of church and state via official tolerance (where did that go, hmmmmm?) Most notably the Constitution embodied protection on every level for the slave owning southern elite -- including the clause of the well regulated militia to protect them against slave rebellion and Native American attack, (which was already part of the colonies' charters / constitutions, rules and regulations, even before the war of independence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 So on the heels of both the U.S. government and the IPCC releasing reports saying that climate change is way worse than we thought, and while a hurricane is smashing the panhandle, Trump is saying that the climate is actually fabulous and he’s whining that he might not be able to hold a rally tonight. Moron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippounet Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 14 minutes ago, Toth said: Admittedly, I never had philosophy in school, so I'm not exactly sure what kind of mindbogglingly obvious alternatives there are around. I was just always thinking in historical terms that differentiate between the direct democracy in the vein of Greek poleis and representative democracy of modern republics that are more feasible to govern large nation states. Of course those could turn to oligarchies or theocracies or whatever when they fail, but the basic republican system is still a type of democracy to my knowledge. Therefore I have not the faintest idea what you mean with 'actual' democracies. Seriously, just pretend that I'm the dumbest idiot you ever met and please tell what you mean with that. Right. First, I don't want to sound like a pretentious asshole. Taking a philosophy 101 class when you're a kid doesn't make you a philosopher. It didn't make me a philosopher. As Ran says it mostly allows one to toy with semantics. But semantics are fun, and they can matter. Democracy means "power to the people." The way I've always understood it is that the people should have some form of influence on the decisions. Electing somehow to take the decisions for you isn't democracy, it's simply a way of choosing your rulers and it's only marginally better than having an enlightened despot. Theoretically, elections are supposed to be checks on demagoguery or abuses of power, but it doesn't work that way when -for many possible reasons- the entire political class is self-serving and/or corrupt, or if a significant proportion of that class enjoys the support of private-owned media companies that control the public debate as well as the political agenda. Getting the people to have some form of influence on decisions isn't easy. But I don't think it's impossible either, especially not in 2018. It doesn't exactly require to get rid of representative democracy per se, it simply requires improving it. There are a number of ideas I've heard or read about over the years that could move us toward a more democratic system. I'll just throw as many as I can remember out there... - A neutral information source. If we can have an independent non-partisan judiciary (well, in some of our countries we still can ^^), why not an independent non-partisan press agency dedicated to the public affairs. Have the journalists swear an oath on the constitution or something, and make sure they can't be bought by interest groups. Have in-depth analyses on the issues of the day as well as on long-term ones, and make the information easy to get (in 2018, a smartphone app' would be ideal). Have experts discuss the issues (actual experts, not phonies). Constantly fact-check everything and everyone. Create an ethics committee to oversee the whole thing. ... etc. - Increase accountability. Elections are obviously not enough. The job of the press should be to increase accountability both before and after elections. Before: analyse possible conflicts of interest for people running for political office. Forbid anyone with a criminal record from running. Put their program forward, not their godamn character or their face (I'm so goddamn tired of seeing some of these faces) ; get them to explain how they will vote on about any issue you can think of. After: keep track of their voting records. If they betray their word, make sure it is known, and if they do it too often or too frequently, have them removed asap - possibly fined. Impose a minimum of constituency clinic of some sort. ... etc. And again, make sure this information is easy to get. All of this is public knowledge today, and the press tends to do its job in the US, but it still doesn't go far enough. If a politician lies or doesn't keep their word their name should be flagged in red for everyone to see. They should either be able to explain themselves or get kicked out of office. - Destroy the political class. Place serious term limits on professional politicians. Have citizens randomly called to serve (like jury duty, and with some kind of voir-dire). Maybe even make public service of some kind mandatory. Or maybe ensure that every social class is represented politically in the same proportion as in the population - even if that means holding separate elections for ordinary workers and for executives. Maybe a mix of several of these solutions. - Make petitioning and referendums easier. We're in 2018, there has to be ways to make it easy. The people should be consulted on a regular basis for important decisions. It's done in many places already, just make it a habit. In fact, it's perfectly possible to imagine a yearly vote on the most important issues of the day. Yes, vote for issues rather than candidates - is that really so goddamn crazy? Maybe even have a national holiday or two dedicated to politics. Bring back the agoras (this was more or less done throughout Europe in 2016 btw). Improve political and civic education in schools, with specialized teachers if possible. etc... - Protecting minorities from the dread "tyranny of the mahority" ? Actually the way the US works isn't that bad. Get a - modernized- version of a Bill of Rights and have a Supreme Court check the constitutionality of the laws and government action (maybe without the need to have standing though). Make the Bill of Rights difficult, but not impossible, to update. There are tons and tons of ideas out there, I don't intend to list them all. I can't possibly list them all. I'm well aware that many of them are difficult or costly to implement. The point isn't that there is some type of magic solution that will instantly work. The point is that we should be trying or, to be more accurate, that we should never have stopped trying. That's what democracy is. POWER TO THE PEOPLE. It doesn't matter if it takes time, or money, or both, to achieve it. It doesn't matter if tons of experiments are needed to get it right. Or if there needs to a huge administration/bureaucracy of people sworn to protect democracy and human rights. Because ensuring every single individual has as much agency as possible over their life should be the ultimate goal of our society. And btw Toth, for the record, although I wasn't sworn in, I also have a duty toward my republic and can lose my job if I don't act as a civil servant of the State, both at work and outside, "in a responsible and ethical manner." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 Jeez I used to think I was the paranoid one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.