Yeeeeeeaaaaaaaah direct democracy is pretty awful too. The problem there is that most of the people have no understanding of what they’re voting on. You don’t want every single person voting on every single issue, unless you want a society that’s bogged down in details and backwards. What you want is to find experts that actually understand a subject, and appoint those experts to deal with the issue. Which, in theory, was what we had with various gov’t agencies, before the systematic defunding of them. E.g., you can’t rationally expect the average person to understand all the ins and outs of climate science/collapse, or what policies/steps are required to prevent it (minimize it at this point).
But the problem with that is that you can easily end up with a bureaucracy that doesn’t answer to anyone at all. Which, if they’re actually all experts in their given area, and genuinely working for the best public outcomes, isn’t bad, but can seem bad. And if they’re not experts, then it’s actually bad.
No single person can rationally have a thorough understanding of every single issue facing a country of 1M+ people. An engineer with expertise in electrical systems shouldn’t be expected to have a reasonable understanding of public health policy, and expecting people with no understanding of a <<thing>> to make good decisions about it is folly.
The US just had the choice between two genociders.
Representative democracy is idiotic and empowers a class of people that says what what needs to be said and then do something else after they got elected
Generally okay, but they shouldn’t necessarily do the will of the people, when the will of the people is wrong. (Which is, BTW, an objectively slippery slope as well.) We can look at history and see that Bernie Sanders in the US has consistently been working for the LGBTQ+ people to have the same rights as cis- and het- people, even when it was wildly, deeply unpopular. (Which I’m old enough to remember; there used to be strong public sentiment against allowing people that were LGBTQ+ to be teachers.)
A good leader, IMO, is someone that is intellectually curious and honest, willing to change their beliefs when given new information, is able to incorporate new information appropriately into their worldview, and knows people that has the expertise they lack in order to get good direction. E.g., I don’t expect all leaders to be experts in every bit of policy, but I do expect them to find people that understand the things being legislated, and can evaluate options as objectively as is reasonably possible.
But.
No system is infallible. Every system can be broken and abused, or function outside the intended parameters. The goal, IMO, should be to create systems that are highly resistant to being broken or abused, while still trying to serve the people as a whole effectively.
Take a moment and realize that “tyrrany of the majority” is literal propaganda to make stupid people throw away their freedoms and embrace a tyrannical minority.
You shouldn’t repeat Capitalist propaganda, it has no substance
Human beings are perfectly capable of being their own masters.
That’s an incredibly stupid take, esp. since RIGHT FUCKING NOW the majority of people in the US and UK are opposed to transgender people having equal rights, and it wasn’t until less than 10 years ago that the majority thought that gay people should have the right to marry the person they chose. If you polled in Sweden, Denmark, et al., you’d probably find that the majority of people are opposed to Muslims immigrating to their country as well.
The tyranny of the majority is absolutely alive and well; what you’re talking about is a utopia, which is literally ‘no place’.
The “majority” you think exists is the result of bias polling.
Your “representatives” decided for you that trans people arent real. So great representative democracy you got there.
You’re now sitting there taking it instead of participating in reality. You now have to fight for the influence that would be guaranteed to you under a direct democracy.
Yeah, no, it’s not. Multiple polls, from multiple different polling firms, shows that people broadly oppose things like allowing minors to have gender-affirming care, or allowing equal participation in gendered sports (e.g., having transwomen compete in women’s divisions). It doesn’t matter what the political leanings of the polling firm are. This is why Republican attacks on Dems regarding trans rights were so effective in the election. It’s irrelevant that Dems are on the morally right side, because the majority supports the immoral position. Here’s one source for you; raw data is here.
Under a direct democracy, transgender people would absolutely lose rights in the states that now protect them. 40 years ago gay people would have had it even worse under a direct democracy.
Yeeeeeeaaaaaaaah direct democracy is pretty awful too. The problem there is that most of the people have no understanding of what they’re voting on. You don’t want every single person voting on every single issue, unless you want a society that’s bogged down in details and backwards. What you want is to find experts that actually understand a subject, and appoint those experts to deal with the issue. Which, in theory, was what we had with various gov’t agencies, before the systematic defunding of them. E.g., you can’t rationally expect the average person to understand all the ins and outs of climate science/collapse, or what policies/steps are required to prevent it (minimize it at this point).
But the problem with that is that you can easily end up with a bureaucracy that doesn’t answer to anyone at all. Which, if they’re actually all experts in their given area, and genuinely working for the best public outcomes, isn’t bad, but can seem bad. And if they’re not experts, then it’s actually bad.
What exactly is the basis for your argument? Sounds like US defaultism
My basis is: read what i fucking said.
No single person can rationally have a thorough understanding of every single issue facing a country of 1M+ people. An engineer with expertise in electrical systems shouldn’t be expected to have a reasonable understanding of public health policy, and expecting people with no understanding of a <<thing>> to make good decisions about it is folly.
How do you feel about democratically elected parliaments and ministers?
The US just had the choice between two genociders.
Representative democracy is idiotic and empowers a class of people that says what what needs to be said and then do something else after they got elected
Generally okay, but they shouldn’t necessarily do the will of the people, when the will of the people is wrong. (Which is, BTW, an objectively slippery slope as well.) We can look at history and see that Bernie Sanders in the US has consistently been working for the LGBTQ+ people to have the same rights as cis- and het- people, even when it was wildly, deeply unpopular. (Which I’m old enough to remember; there used to be strong public sentiment against allowing people that were LGBTQ+ to be teachers.)
A good leader, IMO, is someone that is intellectually curious and honest, willing to change their beliefs when given new information, is able to incorporate new information appropriately into their worldview, and knows people that has the expertise they lack in order to get good direction. E.g., I don’t expect all leaders to be experts in every bit of policy, but I do expect them to find people that understand the things being legislated, and can evaluate options as objectively as is reasonably possible.
But.
No system is infallible. Every system can be broken and abused, or function outside the intended parameters. The goal, IMO, should be to create systems that are highly resistant to being broken or abused, while still trying to serve the people as a whole effectively.
Bernie is also very consistent with his views
Take a moment and realize that “tyrrany of the majority” is literal propaganda to make stupid people throw away their freedoms and embrace a tyrannical minority.
You shouldn’t repeat Capitalist propaganda, it has no substance
Human beings are perfectly capable of being their own masters.
That’s an incredibly stupid take, esp. since RIGHT FUCKING NOW the majority of people in the US and UK are opposed to transgender people having equal rights, and it wasn’t until less than 10 years ago that the majority thought that gay people should have the right to marry the person they chose. If you polled in Sweden, Denmark, et al., you’d probably find that the majority of people are opposed to Muslims immigrating to their country as well.
The tyranny of the majority is absolutely alive and well; what you’re talking about is a utopia, which is literally ‘no place’.
Lol where do I start?
The “majority” you think exists is the result of bias polling.
Your “representatives” decided for you that trans people arent real. So great representative democracy you got there.
You’re now sitting there taking it instead of participating in reality. You now have to fight for the influence that would be guaranteed to you under a direct democracy.
Yeah, no, it’s not. Multiple polls, from multiple different polling firms, shows that people broadly oppose things like allowing minors to have gender-affirming care, or allowing equal participation in gendered sports (e.g., having transwomen compete in women’s divisions). It doesn’t matter what the political leanings of the polling firm are. This is why Republican attacks on Dems regarding trans rights were so effective in the election. It’s irrelevant that Dems are on the morally right side, because the majority supports the immoral position. Here’s one source for you; raw data is here.
Under a direct democracy, transgender people would absolutely lose rights in the states that now protect them. 40 years ago gay people would have had it even worse under a direct democracy.
You realize most people approve of adults receiving the care right?
The majority did not support the JK Rowling law.
The law was changed by representatives that refused to represent their voters.
Sorry you have a hard time engaging with reality.