Democracy in Danger
(media.communities.win)
Comments (63)
sorted by:
I guess Archie was right about him
Archie’s little goirl was too good for the Meathead.
Yup
When they say democracy they mean marxism
Worker's democracy, comrade - shaped and guided by the vanguard of the proletariat!
Counterrevolutionary running dog!
It is the Democracy of the Marginalized and the current vanguard are the heroic queers and trannies, with their loyal soldiers, women, blacks, and latinx bringing up the rear!.
The Dems want Soviet style democracy. You can vote for whomever you like as long as they’re on this carefully curated list put out by the party. And don’t be surprised if the powers that be put their thumb on the scale in favor of whoever their preferred candidate happens to be.
"You may choose between Democrat A and Democrat B. Democracy!"
The only problem is that since I’ve really followed politics Dems have been saying this. They said it under Bush all the time. I was a kid when Reagan was president but my dad says he was attacked in similar ways.
Well I actually got to see Reagan as a kid so I have a soft spot for him. He said the right things but like you pointed out he didn’t follow through
Yea I can understand. I still like Reagan too but it is disappointing to learn stuff like that. Same thing happened with me and MLK Jr I was proud to do a report on him and thought he really cared about people. Now I personally follow the “judge by content of character” philosophy but outside of that I can’t say I’m a fan anymore.
Democracy is an inherently immoral and dysfunctional form of government anyway. Good riddance.
It's so dysfunctional even electing representatives of aggregates of citizens in our republican form of democracy has been corrupted by the bribes of "lobbyists," and it is normal for elected reps to advance their own interests above those of their constituents.
Good riddance to what? Where does government actually reflect the will of the people? You think people want uncontrolled immigration and child grooming?
Good riddance to one pulse, one vote. Good riddance to pretending that numbers equate to a moral right to govern.
You're right, it's great that the elites can just push through whatever they want even if the "pulses" are against it - like uncontrolled immigration, endless wars an child grooming.
They know better, after all.
Being deliberately obtuse, pretty much your only real tactic.
I'm just puzzled that you think you live in a 'democracy' when nothing that happens reflects the public will.
So effectively, you already have what you want.
You aren't puzzled about a damn thing, you're feigning ignorance and you're doing it because you're acting in bad faith.
Then explain to me how you think you live in a 'democracy'.
Why is there so much child grooming even though no one wants that?
The "will of the people" is garbage. There are only the makers and the takers.
Any system of voting that listens to those who contribute nothing to the society they vote for deserves to be in the trash bin of history.
10 years ago I was all on board with democracy / democratically elected republic until I finally realized the harm in letting people with no skin in the game vote. What we see today is a direct result. Vote for the war hawk, but don't worry, I won't be drafted. Vote for the spendthrift, but don't worry, I don't pay taxes. Vote for the pervert, but don't worry, no one will judge my degeneracy.
Mitt Romney called, he wants his economic policy back.
By this standard, Mark Zuckerberg "contributes" a lot to society, while coal miners do not.
Could anything go wrong if only wealthy, cosmopolitan elites had the ability to vote? Who is it that's pushing all the garbage we object to? Is it the people who, according to you, contribute nothing - or is it the people with $450,000 a year VP of Diversity positions?
I placed the bar at not being a taker (net positive) but you place it somewhere around being a wealthy cosmopolitan elite.
According to a 30 second web search that I don't care enough to put more time into investigating, coal miners' median income is around 53k, which would place this in the 12% tax bracket for head of household, after standard deduction.
Why such a dishonest distortion? Were you that desperate for a "Mitt Romney" dunk?
I'm just pointing out that people who are net 'takers' are not necessarily bad, and that so called 'makers' are often neither productive nor good people. I don't want to live in a world where the waiter at a restaurant is considered less worthy than the VP of diversity and inclusion, or where the former is not allowed to vote and the latter is. I'd rather have the latter banned from voting.
But are they net positive 'givers'? If so, who are the people who belong to that dreaded 47%? And what makes them less good than Zuckerberg or the VP of diversity?
You caught me. Actually, it's just a reductio ad absurdum. The worth of humans is not measured by the amount of money that they have, nor should their ability to participate fully in society.
Ah, I see the problem here. Words like good and bad.
It's not a value judgment, it's strictly professional. One can be a good person who definitely needs a hand up, through no fault of their own. But, yeah, maybe they should sit out an election or two until they get their shit together, nothing personal. Not because they are bad people, but no one can really verify your story that you had your life savings under your mattress which went up in flames and that you didn't actually spend it all on hookers and blackjack
The point of this scheme is that the people that vote themselves gibs find themselves unable to continue giving themselves gibs. Those who can't participate in society, like criminals, don't get a voice on how society administration justice. And of the people whose voices matter, there is still a majority so that the VP of DIE who wants Cultural Marxism is drowned out by many more voices who are sensible.
As far that bar? I'd propose it starts at zero. Don't cost people money, welcome to the table. And if you want a seat, all you gotta do is not cash that check
Now, that distillation needs to account for everything. Zuckerberg: how much taxpayer funded security is he getting? Is he paying his taxes on his property or is he weaseling out of it? How much liability is he dodging from that fictional "corporate personhood" thing?
It's got to be better than today where that homeless junkie that hasn't had an OD he didn't live through has the same voice in government as someone who can at. It's got to be better than that single mom who couldn't handle taking a practically free pill every day and couldn't say no to creampie action having a say. It's got to be better than literal children who have never known a day's work to dictate how much money should be stolen from a paycheck.
But why, and this is ignoring that elections obviously make zero difference.
Suppose that I'm broke. Does that mean that my opinions on the propriety of child grooming are less valid than those of people who have a lot of money?
The people who supposedly vote to give themselves gibs, are the least influential people in society. If they are given gibs, that is because it serves the purposes of those who actually hold power.
In fact, less democratic systems often rely on more gibs rather than more, as a way of keeping the population pacified.
Why should she have a voice at all? In fact, those "whose voices matter" are more likely to propose crazy, insane stuff!
Honestly, conservatism is retarded.
No disrespect to you personally, you seem a decent fellow.
They purport to stand for tradition, but every time, tradition is screwed over and the only people who benefit from it are the people who have money.
And that's cool! I like that! You're not a dogmatic libertarian-type "greed is good". At the same, of course, all this is quite arbitrary. What you earn may be the economic value of what you contribute, but not the social value. A housewife taking care of her kids may not contribute anything net postiive in taxes, but she does an unquestioned good for society.
Quite unlikely, even apart from your assumption that votes matter. Those who have lower incomes are less likely to vote, less likely to petition, less likely to contribute - less likely to do any of the things that actually influence government. That is in all so called democracies, which of course are completely phony.
And that is by design! It is a regime of the powerful, by the powerful, for the powerful.
A "good" person (in the sense of someone whose opinions would be useful in governance) in such a situation would realize that few in their situation would be definable as "good", and thus actively endorse their non-participation as they would be an outlier that would risk the system itself if they needed to be accommodated in it. With that action, they have done the job of a "good" person in such a situation, and participated in the voting and administrative process without needing to cast a vote.
Rule of the people is faggotry
Yeah, good thing "we" are not a democracy, so the elites just do whatever they like - open borders, endless wars, child grooming - even though the people don't want that.
Wtf kind of "democracy" do you want? Do you think if the plebs had direct democracy, where we could all decide on every law at any given moment we felt like doing so, that would actually be a good thing?
If we got rid of all the non-whites, the "whites", and women had no say... maybe. But that's a lot of work to probably break even with a system as bad as we currently have, though life would be improved in other ways
I quite like the Swiss model. Not perfect, but it encourages a communal interest in politics that we are missing. In the last few years they've already voted against electronic IDs, mass surveillance and climate change laws.
The issue is that Switzerland is still almost entirely white and very small.
So unless America balkanizes and we flee to states along ethnic lines I'm not entirely sure it would work
No, I think it's great that the plebs can't stop open borders, endless wards and child grooming.
Right-wingers are so used being the 'elites' and arguing against 'democracy' because they think it entrenches their power, that they argue against literally the only way they can win.
BTW, you and I. What are we? Plebs.
Lmao quit being a pussy and answer the goddamn question that like 3 other people have asked you.
Ask.
You didn't answer the question.
Personally I think if anyone gets to vote it should only be property owners, and I don't own property. 🤷♂️
What kind of democracy I want? One where the people have the power, and not the corrupt elites.
Platitudes and rhetoric. The elites are people. We all want the correct people to have power, and not the corrupt people. The question is what system best leads us there. Just saying "we need more Democracy, this isn't true Democracy because we don't have the power" is like a warped No True Scotsman fallacy. If you don't think we have real Democracy then I want to know your measurable qualifiers so I can agree or disagree. I assumed you meant Immediate Direct Democracy.
They are?
Whether or not a system is democratic is empirically testable. To what extent do government policies reflect the will of the population? Based on that, I assert that Western countries are rather undemocratic.
That's not very practical, is it, except on a very local level.
I have no solution. My argument is only that our problems, and I think we can agree on what they are, stem not of too much democracy, but of too little - as 'the people' are on our side when it comes to these matters.
The current elite rule is bad because the current elites are evil
I agree! But that is a close to unfixable issue.
Democracy first requires a demos, a definable set of a coherent people with a homogenous culture to engage in politics. It also requires the demos to be able to engage in government, and the root of goverment stems from the monopoly on violence. Voting is the most pathetic form of political engagement. It is almost entirely passive. The highest form of political engagement is for the demos to collectively participate in the excercise of governmental violence, which inherently requires the demos to be well-armed. That does not mean chaotic rampaging mobs that burn down cities, but precise violence directed towards those who disrupt a well-ordered society. The greatest single act of democracy is a community lynching, where violence is most precisely wielded by the general will of the people to maintain good order.
The people claiming that democracy is at risk are the same people who hate everything associated with democracy.
Everything the liberals in America loved about Scandinavia was the result of a homogenous society.
That’s not a warning he’s making… it’s a threat.
One of the things I've realised in the past few years is that the outcome reached is more important than the mechanism by which it was reached
"Our Democracy"
https://nitter.net/shadowman311
But, of course...
That's I am going to say it.
Fuck democracy, all it does is give fucking retards power to vote for other retards, Rob Reiner as exhibit A