Funny events in anti-woke world

[Silvanus]

And this, this right here, is how I know you're a fake fucking leftist. You don't like representative democracy because it's more efficient or preferable, you like it because you're stuck up and hate your fellow man. It was implicit before that you don't consider yourselves one of the "uneducated", that you consider yourself above others, but I didn't honestly expect you to just come out and admit it. You think you should be able to express your opinion on specific issues and implementations, but expect others to not, and I seriously can't stand that in a person.

Takes a fair bit of hypocrisy to accuse somebody else of elitism & snobbery while simultaneously bringing out the purity check Scotsman stuff, "fake fucking leftist". Sanctimonious nonsense.

It is not required to be a socialist that one have the utmost respect and love for the general public. Socialists are not hippies. And they/we/I can want the best for people while also recognising the flaws and foibles of the general public.

I've already stated that I do not like representative democracy, a point you've ignored at least twice. And I do not believe myself worthy of deciding unilaterally on the specific content of laws and motions, either, because I don't have the requisite training or knowledge. This was all pure presumption, strawmanning, & general aggression.

It's why your whole argument has been wonky and self-contradicting

Says the guy pointing to a body of elected representatives, specifically saying they're doing their job well, and that from this we can conclude that representative democracy is the worst.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I mean, as this is without a doubt targeted at media personalities criticizing him (rather than you or me), I suspect most of them to genuinely have slurs in old emails.

Sure, if you assume that "To every single person" doesn't actually mean "To every single person", though I highly doubt that. It's not like we're talking about email from the 1960s here, most people probably figured out not to send slurs over company email servers by 2010.

 

[Hades]

Michigan now too.

Michigan GOP Rep. Wears QAnon Pin at Pro-Trump Protest

“A lot of the people that are here today follow the same channels and they understand,” Michigan GOP Rep. Daire Rendon told VICE News.

www.vice.com

Its funny to see the Maga crowd advocate for a divorce. How exactly do they think this separation would work out for them? In the divorce the Democrats would get all the populated and wealth generating areas while the Republicans would get barely populated strips of lands, and the deep south which is dependent on funding coming from those Democrat states they would be divorcing from. I guess Texas and maybe Florida would be good hauls for the Republicans, but on the whole they'd get the short end of the stick in this divorce.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

The profession that elected representatives are joining is politics. They are, de facto, professional politicians and if they aren't expert at it when they start, they should be with a few years experience.

But politicians don't actually make do things in the way you seem to make out. Yes, they are usually little more than dilettantes in terms of specific topics (defence, environment, finance, etc.) But they're not the ones who are drawing up complex schemes - there are agencies and departments and so on full of professionals to do that for them. Their job is to understand how stuff works in government, and weigh up a lot of information from various sources to make effective holistic decisions. In some respects, you don't want a technical subject expert: you want an political decision making expert.

I mean, that's been my point. Apparently we're not allowed to delegate anymore. If it's a direct democracy all legislation has to be a giant google doc that everyone edits.

And here, I think, politicians can surpass the general public, because they tend to understand how things work in government and are more likely to have this sort of holistic understanding. I accept that like in anything else, some are incompetent, lazy, corrupt, or generally ineffective. But on balance, they really do tend to know stuff the general public don't (and likely wouldn't, even with direct democracy) to facilitate good decision-making.

There is research on referenda, and they suggest that for good decision making, referenda need a lot of preparation and planning - public consultations, raising awareness, and production of complex plans, giving the public extremely clear and limited options. This is in some ways an example that it can be done. The flipside is that it is a heavily managed and slow process which requires a huge amount of guidance and control from political experts. Bills can contain a vast amount of essential nuance that the public are very unlikely to pick up on even if they get the overall gist. It's done for them and presented as an all-or-none package, where representatives are more able to negotiate the bill itself.

One of the most pressing reasons for representative democracy is that a lot of the public simply don't want to take on this work: the same sorts of reasons they hire cleaners to do their housework, butchers to chop up their meat for them, and bus drivers to move them around. Start asking people whether they want to spend 5h a week considering national policy. In practice, most of them would rather play Call of Duty, watch Squid Game or go to the gym instead.

See now, if this was the argument, at the very least I can say "We can agree to disagree". I think people would become more engaged and a lot of those problems would disappear. And certainly the first test would be getting the legislation to a ballot and that's going to be pushed by the people who know at least something and have a reason to push some decision.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Oh, of all the meaningless quibbles. They don't put pen to paper. But they decide on the content.

Then stop bringing up this meaningless quibble. You've been sitting here shooting your mouth off about how people don't know shit about how to write a legal document, well ta-da, people decide the general content, which is perfectly reasonable, and it's put to paper by some professional. It's a collaborative process.

???

They were elected. They're elected representatives. Sorry, do you believe that if someone is elected as a representative, but they're not a career politician, then that somehow makes them not an elected representative?

They weren't "rando people pulled from the street", stop feigning ignorance of the process behind your own example.

I'm not, I'm just saying these are the people you despised literally seconds before they were elected, and then became magically good decision makers in your eyes.

The fact that many current representative democracies are failing to live up to the name is not a condemnation of the process in principle,

It is when you've laid out your specific reason for why it's better and not one example of your reasons working.

And here again is the sheer refusal to engage with the argument I've actually made, and instead to hallucinate an altogether different position and then argue against that instead.

Do you think that if an elected representative is an ordinary person they somehow become not an elected representative? Do you believe that arguments for representative democracy somehow magically don't apply if the elected body in question is comprised of ordinary people?

I really have to wonder, when we're getting into the territory of you pointing to a body of elected representatives, and you argue they function well, and then argue that this is a mark against representative democracy in principle. The mind boggles at the mental gymnastics.

If anyone here is having fits of mental gymnastics here, it's you. But nice try at the reversal. Your whole argument has been that common people are too stupid to govern themselves, unless they become elected to a small cadre of decision makers, then they're magically not too stupid to govern anymore. Apparently they gain 30 IQ by winning an election.

Every single safeguard could theoretically be implemented. What proportion of people do you believe are aware of the need for them, or the form they must take?

Considering the body of evidence for public support of such measures, big enough to implement if given the chance. Certainly better than the current set up where elected representatives are incentivized to not have those safeguards and are the ones who spread propaganda against it, completely counter to your claims. As usual.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Takes a fair bit of hypocrisy to accuse somebody else of elitism & snobbery while simultaneously bringing out the purity check Scotsman stuff, "fake fucking leftist". Sanctimonious nonsense.

It is not required to be a socialist that one have the utmost respect and love for the general public. Socialists are not hippies. And they/we/I can want the best for people while also recognising the flaws and foibles of the general public.

I've already stated that I do not like representative democracy, a point you've ignored at least twice. And I do not believe myself worthy of deciding unilaterally on the specific content of laws and motions, either, because I don't have the requisite training or knowledge. This was all pure presumption, strawmanning, & general aggression.

"Presumption and strawmanning"

"It's not required to have respect and love for the general public."

Sounds like I pegged you perfectly.

Says the guy pointing to a body of elected representatives, specifically saying they're doing their job well, and that from this we can conclude that representative democracy is the worst.

 

[Silvanus]

Then stop bringing up this meaningless quibble. You've been sitting here shooting your mouth off about how people don't know shit about how to write a legal document, well ta-da, people decide the general content, which is perfectly reasonable, and it's put to paper by some professional. It's a collaborative process.

*facepalm*

The literal act of writing it was not the important part. I kind of thought that was obvious, honestly.

I'm not, I'm just saying these are the people you despised literally seconds before they were elected, and then became magically good decision makers in your eyes.

None of this is true, nor is it anything I've expressed, so we'll just move on.

It is when you've laid out your specific reason for why it's better and not one example of your reasons working.

Thankfully, you yourself have provided examples of representative democratic bodies doing good work.

If anyone here is having fits of mental gymnastics here, it's you. But nice try at the reversal. Your whole argument has been that common people are too stupid to govern themselves, unless they become elected to a small cadre of decision makers, then they're magically not too stupid to govern anymore. Apparently they gain 30 IQ by winning an election.

This hasn't been my argument at all, this is another lazy strawman. So we can move on.

You've been pointing at a representative democratic body, saying it has done good work, and then drawing from that the conclusion that representative democracy cannot work. If someone points to a square, states that it's good, and then concludes that this proves squares are bad, then some spectacular mental gymnastics are involved.

Considering the body of evidence for public support of such measures, big enough to implement if given the chance. Certainly better than the current set up where elected representatives are incentivized to not have those safeguards and are the ones who spread propaganda against it, completely counter to your claims. As usual.

Oh, the body of evidence that the public support... what, exactly? Let's see it. And I don't mean polls showing public support for broad-strokes questions of safeguards existing in principle. I mean detailed proposals, specifics, with majority public support.

Sounds like I pegged you perfectly.

Sorry if I'm too much of a meanie about people. Working in a customer-facing environment will do that to ya.

I mean, that's been my point. Apparently we're not allowed to delegate anymore.

If "delegation" involves electing someone to do something, then no, you cannot "delegate" in a system which explicitly involves no elected positions. That's right.

 

[Cheetodust]

Seems to be different understandings of direct and representative democracy. From my understanding, referenda are one form obviously. And it annoys me that I cannot remember the name of the system but it is essentially a jury style system (sortition I think, googling it briefly seems to be t
the answer but I'm writing this in the gym) where many people would be selected at random to vote on issues, with the specifics being written up by professionals and experts.

But I acknowledge that that is murky because technically it would be a small number representing the whole, so technically "representative" but the random and temporary nature avoids the issue of career politicians and lobbying. I would class it as putting the power in the hands of all of the people because most if not all people will get a shot/multiple shots. If you want to say that's still representative democracy fine and good. But I'm not going to get into an argument with you about direct democracy where we don't even agree on what counts. Neither of us need the stress.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

*facepalm*

The literal act of writing it was not the important part. I kind of thought that was obvious, honestly.

It wasn't when your point was that people don't know laws or politics or whatever. There's a certain expertise needed to properly write a document, that conforms to existing laws and all, sure. That's when you ask someone to check.

None of this is true, nor is it anything I've expressed, so we'll just move on.

Code for "Stop ridiculing my ridiculous argument".

Thankfully, you yourself have provided examples of representative democratic bodies doing good work.

I know it's not what you think you mean, but I have actually admitted times when representatives have done well, it's so pervasive it's kind of hard to say they have a 100% failure rate. I'm also just saying that direct democracy initiatives have generally done better.

This hasn't been my argument at all, this is another lazy strawman. So we can move on.

You've been pointing at a representative democratic body, saying it has done good work, and then drawing from that the conclusion that representative democracy cannot work. If someone points to a square, states that it's good, and then concludes that this proves squares are bad, then some spectacular mental gymnastics are involved.

I haven't been though, and that has been your argument. No strawman required.

Oh, the body of evidence that the public support... what, exactly? Let's see it. And I don't mean polls showing public support for broad-strokes questions of safeguards existing in principle. I mean detailed proposals, specifics, with majority public support.

Study: Most Americans want to kill ‘Citizens United’ with constitutional amendment - The World from PRX

But the odds of such a change happening? Next to nothing.

www.pri.org

Sorry if I'm too much of a meanie about people. Working in a customer-facing environment will do that to ya.

Oh woe is me, turned bitter and resentful by the society that made me.

All I know is I'm glad you're not in a position of authority over anyone, your highness.

If "delegation" involves electing someone to do something, then no, you cannot "delegate" in a system which explicitly involves no elected positions. That's right.

Good thing that's not what I said. You can commission people, you can just ask, there are so many ways to delegate without giving someone authority over others. I don't know why you're so stuck on everybody needing to know and do everything from the top down.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

Ffs

Trump’s Pick for Arizona Governor Just Had Dinner With QAnon’s Ron Watkins

The thin line that separated the GOP from full-on QAnon conspiracies has been eroding for months.

www.vice.com

Ron Watkins is a very busy man. Since resigning as the administrator of the message board 8chan, where he facilitated the rise of QAnon, he’s become an election integrity expert, started his own website about aliens, and launched a career as an NFT artist.

But on Tuesday night, the man many believe to be Q took time out of his busy schedule to have dinner with Kari Lake, the Trump-endorsed candidate and front-runner to become Arizona’s next governor.

Watkins is in Arizona trying—and failing—to get a meeting with Attorney General Mark Brnovich to discuss bogus election fraud conspiracies.

Taking a break from his tireless efforts to undermine democracy, Watkins posted a picture of himself and Lake on his hugely popular Telegram channel.

“Just had dinner with Kari Lake, the next Governor of Arizona,” Watkins wrote. “She inspires me with her tenacity and willingness to lead the fight to take back Arizona from do-nothing RINOs.”

Watkins also posted a link to Lake’s campaign fundraising site, in a post that has been viewed over 54,000 times as of Wednesday morning.

Lake spent 27 years as a TV news anchor, before quitting her job with Fox 10 News in June. In a video announcing her departure, she said: “In the past few years, I haven’t felt proud to be a member of the media. I found myself reading news copy that I didn’t believe was fully truthful or only told part of the story.”

But if her pronouncements over the last few months are anything to go by, Lake’s current relationship to the “truth” is tenuous at best.

Since announcing her candidacy for governor, Lake has dived headfirst into pretty much every single far-right conspiracy, while simultaneously building her campaign around themes of trust and integrity.

From playing down the Jan. 6 insurrection by claiming that the Jan. 6 rioters were “invited in” by Capitol Police, to claiming that Black Lives Matter is “a way to incite violence and stir things up,” Lake has been appealing directly to the Trumpian wing of the GOP from the start.

In late September, former President Donald Trump issued a statement endorsing Lake’s candidacy saying she “will fight to restore Election Integrity (both past and future!).”

Of course, part of the reason Lake got Trump’s backing is that she’s already heavily involved in promoting the lie that the 2020 election was stolen from him, repeatedly calling for the election to be “decertified” even though that is not something that can happen.

Last month, on the day the bogus Arizona “audit” report was released by the Cyber Ninjas, Lake arrived at a protest in front of the Senate building surrounded by armed bodyguards dressed in military-style fatigues.

She has also appeared as a regular guest on Steve Bannon’s podcast as well as a radio show hosted by former White House adviser Seb Gorka.

This has earned her the praise and backing from not only Trump but also far-right figures like disgraced former national security adviser Michael Flynn and Arizona congressman Paul Gosar.

The 2022 midterms are still 13 months away, but Lake is already generating a huge amount of interest in Arizona, regularly attracting hundreds of people to campaign events in the state.

While no reliable polling is available this far out from Election Day, experts told the Arizona Mirror that Lake is easily the front-runner for the GOP nomination, meaning she will go head-to-head with Katie Hobbs, the current secretary of state and the likely Democratic nominee.

But Lake is already laying the groundwork for her fight with Hobbs, repeatedly saying Hobbs will be convicted and jailed for her role in conducting the 2020 election. “I think Katie Hobbs is going to have a really tough time campaigning from behind bars, to be honest,” Lake told Bannon on a recent podcast.

Bannon responded to the suggestion by laughing and telling Lake, “You’ve become very Trumpian, very quickly.”

Though her dinner date with Watkins is Lake’s most explicit endorsement of the QAnon conspiracies that infiltrated the GOP in recent years, it should come as no real surprise— especially when you consider that Lake is simply following in the footsteps of so many GOP lawmakers in Arizona, who are already deeply embedded in the QAnon swamp.

For example, state Sens. Wendy Rogers and Sonny Borelli, along with state Reps. Mark Finchem and Leo Biasiucci, will speak at the “Patriots Double Down” conference in Las Vegas next week.

They will be joined on stage by a who’s who of QAnon influencers, anti-vaxxers, grifters, and conspiracy theorists—including Ron Watkins.

 

[Agema]

Ffs

I wonder to what extent these are chuckleheads are members of the loopy, extremist element or whether they are just spineless, overambitious graspers happy to facilitate a grand and dangerous delusion just so long as it helps them get elected.

 

[Silvanus]

It wasn't when your point was that people don't know laws or politics or whatever. There's a certain expertise needed to properly write a document, that conforms to existing laws and all, sure. That's when you ask someone to check.

There's also a breadth of knowledge required to know what the content needs to be. What resources are required, where, how to get them there, cost, distribution, regulation.

Code for "Stop ridiculing my ridiculous argument".

No, it's code for "stop making shit up".

I know it's not what you think you mean, but I have actually admitted times when representatives have done well, it's so pervasive it's kind of hard to say they have a 100% failure rate. I'm also just saying that direct democracy initiatives have generally done better.

Direct democracy initiatives within representative democracies. Full direct democracy has never been done on a national scale.

I haven't been though, and that has been your argument. No strawman required.

You haven't been pointing to the Chilean constitutional convention as a beneficial example? That's odd, I... I could have sworn...

Oh woe is me, turned bitter and resentful by the society that made me.

The irony being that edgelords such as the Joker would be much more likely to support abolishing the government. Your idea is so, so much more in line with the kind of libertarian nightmare the Joker would have us in.

Good thing that's not what I said. You can commission people, you can just ask, there are so many ways to delegate without giving someone authority over others. I don't know why you're so stuck on everybody needing to know and do everything from the top down.

"You can just ask". Yep, seems like a model for drafting sustainable policy. I can tell you've thought through how this would work.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

There's also a breadth of knowledge required to know what the content needs to be. What resources are required, where, how to get them there, cost, distribution, regulation.

That's what fact finding committees and similar approaches are for. Those don't stop existing.

No, it's code for "stop making shit up".

I'm not.

Direct democracy initiatives within representative democracies. Full direct democracy has never been done on a national scale.

Well actually a few Native American nations as well as Rojava either approach or exist in full direct democracy.

You haven't been pointing to the Chilean constitutional convention as a beneficial example? That's odd, I... I could have sworn...

I have been pointing to it, to tell you that your argument is bullshit because it shoves your actual problem with direct democracy right in your smug face. What about being elected has actually changed these people from stupid proles to responsible representatives? What has being elected taught them that they didn't know before? You don't get to call everyone too stupid to govern and then hold up the people you hate as examples of effective governance. Pick a lane.

The irony being that edgelords such as the Joker would be much more likely to support abolishing the government. Your idea is so, so much more in line with the kind of libertarian nightmare the Joker would have us in.

Direct democracy is not abolishing government. I can tell you've given this a lot of thought.

"You can just ask". Yep, seems like a model for drafting sustainable policy. I can tell you've thought through how this would work.

You do realize that's the core of democracy right? Ask before doing? What do representatives do before drafting policy? Ask someone who knows something.

Fucking rocket science it is.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

I wonder to what extent these are chuckleheads are members of the loopy, extremist element or whether they are just spineless, overambitious graspers happy to facilitate a grand and dangerous delusion just so long as it helps them get elected.

This is the eternal question. Teetering on the fence between true believer and grifter, true believers still provide hope that their mind can be changed once the facade has taken its toll and disillusionment cannot be kicked under the rug anymore, as long as bridges remain unburnt and understanding.

Unfortunately it seems most of these people with actual influence and positions of power are merely opportunists coasting on the lowest, dirtiest fruit they can. Even Marjorie Taylor Greene, being probably the most convincing of uncritical maniac believers among them, begun tactically distancing herself from qanon rhetoric as soon as she dubiously won her present confirmed position.

 

[BrawlMan]

Michigan now too.

Michigan GOP Rep. Wears QAnon Pin at Pro-Trump Protest

“A lot of the people that are here today follow the same channels and they understand,” Michigan GOP Rep. Daire Rendon told VICE News.

www.vice.com

Thank you for posting that article. I will spread the word.

 

[Silvanus]

That's what fact finding committees and similar approaches are for. Those don't stop existing.

OK, we're getting some detail, then.

How're these appointed? Are they the only ones who can put something to a national ballot?

Well actually a few Native American nations as well as Rojava either approach or exist in full direct democracy.

Rojava aspires to direct democracy, but currently functions around representative democratic councils.

With the Native Americans, would you be referring to the Crow Nation? They number 12,000. I doubt the same issues arise.

I have been pointing to it, to tell you that your argument is bullshit because it shoves your actual problem with direct democracy right in your smug face. What about being elected has actually changed these people from stupid proles to responsible representatives? What has being elected taught them that they didn't know before? You don't get to call everyone too stupid to govern and then hold up the people you hate as examples of effective governance. Pick a lane.

But it doesn't address my issues at all.

You have an example of an elected council-- many of whom were independent, but many of whom were also career politicians-- being given a specific role (and training to fulfil it). And then you have that one draft put to a single confirmatory referendum.

None of this hits the issues I've been outlining. None of it.

The fact that the above in fact could not happen in a full direct democracy should tell you all you need to know. The example does not address my issues with full direct democracy, because it could not even occur under full direct democracy, so it doesn't reflect on it at all.

Direct democracy is not abolishing government. I can tell you've given this a lot of thought.

Abolishing all political hierarchies without abolishing central government? How would that be accomplished?

You do realize that's the core of democracy right? Ask before doing? What do representatives do before drafting policy? Ask someone who knows something.

Fucking rocket science it is.

Yes. In representative democracy, someone elected to do a specific job asks someone in a position of expertise, such as a scientist.

So if the former position doesn't exist, and almost nobody knows who the latter is... I guess in direct democracy, Frank asks Steve?

 

[crimson5pheonix]

OK, we're getting some detail, then.

How're these appointed? Are they the only ones who can put something to a national ballot?

Asking for one specific way when there are myriads is pointless, and that's not what an informational survey is for. Quit salivating.

Rojava aspires to direct democracy, but currently functions around representative democratic councils.

Actually it functions around fully open citizen's councils at the local level.

With the Native Americans, would you be referring to the Crow Nation? They number 12,000. I doubt the same issues arise.

Ah yes, the goalpost has been moved.

But it doesn't address my issues at all.

You have an example of an elected council-- many of whom were independent, but many of whom were also career politicians-- being given a specific role (and training to fulfil it). And then you have that one draft put to a single confirmatory referendum.

None of this hits the issues I've been outlining. None of it.

The fact that the above in fact could not happen in a full direct democracy should tell you all you need to know. The example does not address my issues with full direct democracy, because it could not even occur under full direct democracy, so it doesn't reflect on it at all.

That's a very very big assumption you're making, and a wrong one. I have never heard of anybody who has won an election get training on anything related to their job except maybe a review of the rules of order.

So my question is, if people picked off the street are at least equally as effective at governing as career politicians, then there's no reason to believe that the sample size of people governing would meaningfully effect the quality of the decisions being made. After all, 100 senators are just as good as 435 representatives, is as good as 650 seats in commons, is as good as 12000 members of a nation. By the logic of statistics, expanding this out further should yield nothing interesting in emergent results, correct?

Abolishing all political hierarchies without abolishing central government? How would that be accomplished?

Direct democracy.

Yes. In representative democracy, someone elected to do a specific job asks someone in a position of expertise, such as a scientist.

So if the former position doesn't exist, and almost nobody knows who the latter is... I guess in direct democracy, Frank asks Steve?

And we're back to thinking people are stupid. Apparently too stupid to ask someone in the know. We're ignoring fact finding missions, we're ignoring that news still exists, we're ignoring a lot so you can be perpetually salty. Who hurt you as a child? Why are you like this?

 

[Silvanus]

Asking for one specific way when there are myriads is pointless, and that's not what an informational survey is for. Quit salivating.

You have to forgive me for a little bit of excitement; this is the first (and only) hint of detail we've had so far on how the complete restructuring of global society would actually work, other than "government bad, power to the people".

Well, it looked like it was going to be that hint of detail, anyway.

Actually it functions around fully open citizen's councils at the local level.

The Charter of the Social Contract for Rojava explicitly states that authority is "exercised by governing councils elected by popular vote". There is also a specific hierarchy of political institutions, with the Legislative Assembly at the top, which is comprised of elected representatives.

Ah yes, the goalpost has been moved.

That's odd, because I could have sworn I'd already stated before that it wouldn't be functional beyond the scale of a small town. And before that, quite frequently talking about entire countries.

That's a very very big assumption you're making, and a wrong one. I have never heard of anybody who has won an election get training on anything related to their job except maybe a review of the rules of order.

You've never heard of it? It was already pointed out earlier in this thread that newly elected members of the Cuban National Assembly, which Seanchaidh pointed to, are provided with training.

So my question is, if people picked off the street are at least equally as effective at governing as career politicians, then there's no reason to believe that the sample size of people governing would meaningfully effect the quality of the decisions being made. After all, 100 senators are just as good as 435 representatives, is as good as 650 seats in commons, is as good as 12000 members of a nation. By the logic of statistics, expanding this out further should yield nothing interesting in emergent results, correct?

Not axiomatically correct, no, but we can accept it for now, for the sake of argument.

Firstly, the independent candidates for the Chilean and Cuban constitutional bodies were not "people picked off the street". In order to run in the first place, they would necessarily be people with a strong interest in governance. You could not drag some disinterested bloke from the mall, hand him the authority, and expect equivalent results.

Secondly, elected representatives are people who are expected to become well versed in how government and policy implementation work, the costs and resources etc. Electing them does not "magically" do this. But it is part of the job that they develop that knowledge. To do so, they will be given access to the networks of the civil service, research bodies, etc.

Obviously, we all know that an enormous number of elected representatives either 1) fail to develop their knowledge, or 2) Place self-interest over the interests of those who elected them. This is an enormous, gaping flaw in the system that requires safeguards, transparency, and accountability to fix. Direct democracy would not be a salve for this problem, but would exacerbate it: it would remove any onus at all to develop knowledge or act in the interest in others; and it would render transparency and accountability impossible.

Direct democracy.

So, you would have a central government... comprised of people with no greater authority than anybody else?

In what sense is that a central government, then?

And we're back to thinking people are stupid. Apparently too stupid to ask someone in the know. We're ignoring fact finding missions, we're ignoring that news still exists, we're ignoring a lot so you can be perpetually salty. Who hurt you as a child? Why are you like this?

Oh, the news will save us from ignorance! Jesus wept.

Nobody hurt me. I simply don't live in the perpetual happy fun-time land necessary to believe that everyone is inherently sweet and good-natured and wise. We've had thousands of years of human history to put paid to that idea.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

You have to forgive me for a little bit of excitement; this is the first (and only) hint of detail we've had so far on how the complete restructuring of global society would actually work, other than "government bad, power to the people".

Well, it looked like it was going to be that hint of detail, anyway.

Certified "bruh" moment here. This is you ascribing far more pomp than is necessary for how many people vote. There's no need to change the tools for how representatives write laws, they all become available to the public. So unless you're saying that laws are written by cabals of engineers and polisci grads, and not just being asked by representatives about some topic that the representative will take to later write a law themself, it's a pointless line of argument for you.

The Charter of the Social Contract for Rojava explicitly states that authority is "exercised by governing councils elected by popular vote". There is also a specific hierarchy of political institutions, with the Legislative Assembly at the top, which is comprised of elected representatives.

This is like what Cheetodust posted earlier where it's "Yes, but actually no, but kinda yes still". Delegated representatives, rather than elected (for what it's worth) for certain matters, while most day to day activities are handled through a more pure direct democracy.

That's odd, because I could have sworn I'd already stated before that it wouldn't be functional beyond the scale of a small town. And before that, quite frequently talking about entire countries.

And the nations... are nations. Surprisingly enough. Get educated bruh.

You've never heard of it? It was already pointed out earlier in this thread that newly elected members of the Cuban National Assembly, which Seanchaidh pointed to, are provided with training.

From what I can gather...

IPU PARLINE database: CUBA (Asamblea nacional del Poder popular), Full text

IPU PARLINE database on national parliaments: CUBA (Asamblea nacional del Poder popular), Full text

archive.ipu.org

There is a training/initiation process on parliamentary practices and procedures for MPs.

Which is rules of order, not any of the things you say are needed for effective governance.

Not axiomatically correct, no, but we can accept it for now, for the sake of argument.

Firstly, the independent candidates for the Chilean and Cuban constitutional bodies were not "people picked off the street". In order to run in the first place, they would necessarily be people with a strong interest in governance. You could not drag some disinterested bloke from the mall, hand him the authority, and expect equivalent results.

Secondly, elected representatives are people who are expected to become well versed in how government and policy implementation work, the costs and resources etc. Electing them does not "magically" do this. But it is part of the job that they develop that knowledge. To do so, they will be given access to the networks of the civil service, research bodies, etc.

Obviously, we all know that an enormous number of elected representatives either 1) fail to develop their knowledge, or 2) Place self-interest over the interests of those who elected them. This is an enormous, gaping flaw in the system that requires safeguards, transparency, and accountability to fix. Direct democracy would not be a salve for this problem, but would exacerbate it: it would remove any onus at all to develop knowledge or act in the interest in others; and it would render transparency and accountability impossible.

It would remove any onus at all, except that you have to live in the society you create. So precisely the same onus in why people should care about elections and the laws representatives pass, but stronger since you can't pass the buck. And as soon as you've determined that the populace are the governing body, all the resources currently in the hands of representatives becomes available to the public, where issues can be explored and discussed. Just like in current assemblies, but bigger.

So, you would have a central government... comprised of people with no greater authority than anybody else?

In what sense is that a central government, then?

In the sense that the government is made up of and legislates for a large group of people who can be subdivided into smaller governances. Y'know, exactly how it is now.

Oh, the news will save us from ignorance! Jesus wept.

Nobody hurt me. I simply don't live in the perpetual happy fun-time land necessary to believe that everyone is inherently sweet and good-natured and wise. We've had thousands of years of human history to put paid to that idea.

My question is, where do you think current representatives get their information? Like Cheetodust pointed out, right now the news is an awful source of information in the for-profit market, but it hurts representative democracy to literally the same degree as it would direct democracy, so holding it as a flaw unique to direct democracy is a joke. And the fixes to news media that would better facilitate representative democracy would bolster direct democracy equally.

That's the whole point here, representatives don't have any special power, positions, or authority that makes them better governors than any given person. They just have a bigger voice in expressing their opinions.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

"The anti-CRT bill says you gotta both-sides the Holocaust"

Actions, meet consequences