So, this Amazon union vote crap.

Kae

That which exists in the absence of space.
Legacy
Nov 27, 2009
5,792
712
118
Country
The Dreamlands
Gender
Lose 1d20 sanity points.
You're making the point that unions are run by leaders, thus for workers to own a company means that powers lies in the hands of a few people anyway, implying it makes no difference. But the mandate on which that owner has his power is very different, and is likely to result in very different levels of worker influence.

The obvious analogy is that between a representative democracy and an autocracy. Representative democracies and autocracies both have enormous power invested a small handful of people, but there is a very obvious difference in how the two systems tend to end out in governance and conditions for everyone involved.
Surely while one can argue that ultimately Representative Democracy and an Autocracy are both different scales of the exact same problem, and while some of the edges may be buffered under the representative system it is still ultimately tyrannical and has demonstrated to not truly serve the interests of the people, and surely we are all aware that regardless of if your a proponent of either of these systems they aren't the only options, and we know that the alternative of Direct Democracy has also proven to be a functional system that avoids the pitfalls of those too, even if it presents different ones, though I'd argue that with modern technologies most of the flaws of this system which tend to be logistical in nature can be addressed.

Basically I'm not saying it's necessarily an obliviousness in the difference between systems but an awareness of the similarities they share and due to this they're bound to repeat similar acts of corruption and tyranny, though I don't know I'm not Specter, but at the very list this is my personal reasoning for condemning the farce of Representative Democracy as much as I condemn the Autocracy of a King or Dictator.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Specter Von Baren

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
Surely while one can argue that ultimately Representative Democracy and an Autocracy are both different scales of the exact same problem, and while some of the edges may be buffered under the representative system it is still ultimately tyrannical and has demonstrated to not truly serve the interests of the people, and surely we are all aware that regardless of if your a proponent of either of these systems they aren't the only options, and we know that the alternative of Direct Democracy has also proven to be a functional system that avoids the pitfalls of those too, even if it presents different ones, though I'd argue that with modern technologies most of the flaws of this system which tend to be logistical in nature can be addressed.
The primary problem with Direct Democracy isn't logistical; its that people at large have zero ability to forward-plan, and almost zero understanding or appreciation of the complexity of any given political question.

And this isn't necessary a condemnation; people have their own lives, and can't all be expected to research every future implication of every policy. In a Representative Democracy they will tend to vote according to broad ideals, not minutiae.

But imagine if every tax policy was put to a direct-democratic vote. Overwhelmingly people would vote to lower everyone's tax to a tiny fraction, every time, because everyone sees their money leave their paycheque at the end of the month but we don't see how it's spent. Fast-forward a few years and the country has no firefighters, no hospitals, no street-lighting.

In the UK, the public routinely vastly overestimates the proportion of people in Britain that are immigrants. So we'd see direct-democratic votes to sharply limit immigration, based on notions that don't reflect statistical reality in the slightest.

We'd have minority rights being decided by a majority that is largely disinterested or personally unaffected by those things. So we could expect those to fall by the wayside.

Here in the UK we've had a major experiment in Direct Democracy quite recently, showing how people are easily misled by lies printed on buses and a surface-level appreciation of a complex issue. Its been a disaster. The public are a shower of morons.

Edit: of course, representative Democracy is also deeply flawed, and dictatorship is the worst of the lot. But I'll take representative Democracy with heavy safeguards and strong public education as the best option to strive towards.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: deleted20220709

stroopwafel

Elite Member
Jul 16, 2013
3,031
357
88
But imagine if every tax policy was put to a direct-democratic vote. Overwhelmingly people would vote to lower everyone's tax to a tiny fraction, every time, because everyone sees their money leave their paycheque at the end of the month but we don't see how it's spent. Fast-forward a few years and the country has no firefighters, no hospitals, no street-lighting.

In the UK, the public routinely vastly overestimates the proportion of people in Britain that are immigrants. So we'd see direct-democratic votes to sharply limit immigration, based on notions that don't reflect statistical reality in the slightest.
This is just not true though. The majority of people would be willing to pay taxes for basic public services and infrastructure and defense. Fact is that these taxes are only a small portion of the entire budget. In the U.S. the majority is probably military spending considering the low priority of public healthcare and social security but in the European welfare states the situation is reverse; the majority amount of the budget is public healthcare/social security and a tiny amount of military spending(mostly way below the 2% Nato norm).

The only reason people are in favor of lower taxes is the lack of mutual reciprocity. The European welfare states created a system of payers and receivers where a shrinking group of working people pays for a growing group of seniors and immigrants. You can't have a welfare state and immigration. The two are mutually exclusive. 'Free' healthcare enabled people to live longer and longer often under costly circumstances but most likely you will still find the majority of tax payers willing to support these expenditures even with medical costs increasing year on end. The system starts to collapse however when the same tax payers also need to support a constant influx of immigrants that prove to be a heavy burden on both social security and the already bloated healthcare system. Not to mention the high costs of the failed immigration of those with the religion that directly contradicts the core values of western society that enable these provisions in the first place. And that is on top of the security risks and social tensions.

A degree of immigration will be necessary to compensate for an aging population and shortages in the labor market(primarily healthcare, construction, transport and education) but this should always be under a temporary work permit. Why add to the mounting problem of failed immigration and exploding costs of social security and public healthcare? That is the reason why people vote for anti-immigration parties and wish for lower taxes. For the simple reason that much of it is wasted on ideological policies by the establishment that actively and consciously undermine the interests, safety and stability of their own populations.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
This is just not true though. The majority of people would be willing to pay taxes for basic public services and infrastructure and defense. Fact is that these taxes are only a small portion of the entire budget. In the U.S. the majority is probably military spending considering the low priority of public healthcare and social security but in the European welfare states the situation is reverse; the majority amount of the budget is public healthcare/social security and a tiny amount of military spending(mostly way below the 2% Nato norm).
Actually, the US federal government spends vastly more on healthcare than it does on the military; in fact, its public spending (%GDP/capita) on health is higher than the UK. It just doesn't get very much for it. And one might argue this is the sort of thing Silvanus means when he says the public have a very poor idea what's going on in the world and national governance to make good decisions.

However, we do have to consider that if the public did have to make these decisions, they would probably become much better at it. Perhaps one of the main reasons they are so clueless is the fact that they don't need to know - someone else does it for them, so they are idle, irresponsible and complacent. Were direct democracy instituted, after sufficient policy disasters the public would almost certainly learn to educate themselves a great deal better, or otherwise develop systems to improve decision making.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,580
3,538
118
Direct democracy worked for Athens as long as Pericles was alive to tell people what to vote for. After he died, stuff like the Sicilian Expedition and offing Socrates became popular.

You can't have a welfare state and immigration. The two are mutually exclusive.
There's a lot of examples of places that have both, so, no.
 

09philj

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 31, 2015
2,154
947
118
Every wage labourer and salaried employee should join a union to protect their rights and the rights of their peers. An individual will often lack the resources to take their employer to court or an employment tribunal, or have the power to negotiate better working conditions for themselves. A union, as a collective, can provide both of those things. It is important that not too much power is invested in union bureaucracy in directly elected leaders, in the same way that those things are important in any democratic organisation.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
Surely while one can argue that ultimately Representative Democracy and an Autocracy are both different scales of the exact same problem, and while some of the edges may be buffered under the representative system it is still ultimately tyrannical and has demonstrated to not truly serve the interests of the people...
It is true that in both there is the concept of an all-powerful state, and this holds the risk of state oppression. However, an autocracy automatically tends to reflect the will and aims of the autocrat. A representative democracy, however, has at bare minimum a much stronger component of the will of the populace and thus the benefit of the populace.

I fundamentally think that the effectiveness of systems comes down to institutions. A representative democracy, therefore, is only as good as its laws and institutions. If it has stood idle as corporations and the wealthy flood politics with money and subvert the state to their own desires, it sort of deserves everything it gets. Implicit in that is the requirement of the populace to actively engage with and consider their governance carefully, and exert their will to keep it attuned to their needs. If they do not do so, their representative democracy will degrade and... self-inflicted injury, really.

One can look at the USA, and see this mind-numbing, repeated cycle, where electors seem to think that if only they can elect the "right" leader with the correct moral character then all their problems will be sorted, without stopping to consider that what they really need a system that encourages and even enforces moral character on their leaders. Even when a dodgy businessman stands and says he's going to tear down the cosy privileges of the elites, he spends four years waving his dick instead, and as he steps out with nothing changed, his fans still think he's the saviour. And thus with such attitudes are the people doomed to their quadrenniel farce.

I know, in a way, it's bad. And I'd love someone to fix it. But I also have a sort of fatalistic streak that in the end systems become corrupt, sclerotic, and doomed to collapse. No empire lasts forever. Nations' capacity for reinvention and to be refreshed eventually grinds to a halt, and there is little they can do but endure an age of fallow.
 

stroopwafel

Elite Member
Jul 16, 2013
3,031
357
88
Actually, the US federal government spends vastly more on healthcare than it does on the military; in fact, its public spending (%GDP/capita) on health is higher than the UK. It just doesn't get very much for it. And one might argue this is the sort of thing Silvanus means when he says the public have a very poor idea what's going on in the world and national governance to make good decisions.

However, we do have to consider that if the public did have to make these decisions, they would probably become much better at it. Perhaps one of the main reasons they are so clueless is the fact that they don't need to know - someone else does it for them, so they are idle, irresponsible and complacent. Were direct democracy instituted, after sufficient policy disasters the public would almost certainly learn to educate themselves a great deal better, or otherwise develop systems to improve decision making.
That is just not true though. Half of discretionary spending is reserved for defense with the biggest money sinks(2,4 trillion in total so far) being the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq funded through emergency supplemental appropriation bills. The U.S. spends more on the military than any other country by a landslide. More than three times as much than China or the rest of the world. Most of the healthcare and social security budget is based on payroll tax for social insurance like medicare. It isn't collectively redistributed through a universal premium like in European welfare states. Infact I recall such an insurance being rejected by congress not so long ago. Then take into account the astronomical state deficit and offset the sober healthcare and social security programs with the most advanced military in the world. The complete opposite of European welfare states which, ironically, completely depend on the U.S. for their own security(!)

Except Sweden built its welfare on massive immigration to make up for the shortage of labor in Sweden during the 50's-70's. In fact, a lot of analysts suggests that the European/Japanese problem of aging populations with lower percentage of working people compared to retired seniors is most easily solvable by tapping into the massive migration to Europe (and to some extent Japan) and integrating those people more quickly and efficiently into the workforce. The problem is not immigration, it is a lack of integration in the host country that turns a potentially valuable worker into a welfare recipient.
Why are it mostly muslims then that don't contribute to the society and not chinese or indian people? Why are you so oblivious to the fact that their religious beliefs prevent their integration because those very beliefs contradict the mere fundament of western values?(separation of church and state, equality of men and women, minority rights). You put the blame on the country that provides them free entitlements like healthcare and social security without asking anything in return. It is the responsibility of the immigrant to integrate into the host country not the other way around. Muslims can even build mosques here and have their own schools. Compare that with how 'tolerant' muslims are with christians in their own countries.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
That is just not true though. Half of discretionary spending is reserved for defense with the biggest money sinks(2,4 trillion in total so far) being the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq funded through emergency supplemental appropriation bills.
The US federal defence budget is just over $700 billion; about 3.5% GDP. Federal healthcare spending via various mechanisms is over $1.5 trillion (and I think there are some state systems as well). Even if you include nearly 20 years of additional warfare costs in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US federal government has spent vastly more on healthcare since 2000 than it has on defence.

Why are it mostly muslims then that don't contribute to the society and not chinese or indian people?
It's not about religion, it's about educational levels and social class.
 

stroopwafel

Elite Member
Jul 16, 2013
3,031
357
88
The US federal defence budget is just over $700 billion; about 3.5% GDP. Federal healthcare spending via various mechanisms is over $1.5 trillion (and I think there are some state systems as well). Even if you include nearly 20 years of additional warfare costs in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US federal government has spent vastly more on healthcare since 2000 than it has on defence.
It's about 5% with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan not funded through regular appropriation bills. How other do you explain the 2,4 trillion dollar cost and the fact that the U.S. is the biggest military spender on earth? Meanwhile basic healthcare being inaccessible for many Americans?


It's not about religion, it's about educational levels and social class.
Yeah, that islam is the most aggressive, intolerant, misogynistic and violent religion that exists ofcourse have nothing to with it. Nor does the misplaced superiority complex of it's believers or the fact that it's the fastest growing religion in the world and not the ''oh poor suppressed social class'' you like it to make out to be.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
This is just not true though. The majority of people would be willing to pay taxes for basic public services and infrastructure and defense. Fact is that these taxes are only a small portion of the entire budget. In the U.S. the majority is probably military spending considering the low priority of public healthcare and social security but in the European welfare states the situation is reverse; the majority amount of the budget is public healthcare/social security and a tiny amount of military spending(mostly way below the 2% Nato norm).
In principle, most people would happily pay some tax, sure. But what proportion? How to be spent? How much does each area of a gov budget cost? Most people haven't the foggiest idea, and would just vote to lower their own taxes to a small fraction.

The only reason people are in favor of lower taxes is the lack of mutual reciprocity. The European welfare states created a system of payers and receivers where a shrinking group of working people pays for a growing group of seniors and immigrants. You can't have a welfare state and immigration. The two are mutually exclusive. 'Free' healthcare enabled people to live longer and longer often under costly circumstances but most likely you will still find the majority of tax payers willing to support these expenditures even with medical costs increasing year on end. The system starts to collapse however when the same tax payers also need to support a constant influx of immigrants that prove to be a heavy burden on both social security and the already bloated healthcare system. Not to mention the high costs of the failed immigration of those with the religion that directly contradicts the core values of western society that enable these provisions in the first place. And that is on top of the security risks and social tensions.

A degree of immigration will be necessary to compensate for an aging population and shortages in the labor market(primarily healthcare, construction, transport and education) but this should always be under a temporary work permit. Why add to the mounting problem of failed immigration and exploding costs of social security and public healthcare? That is the reason why people vote for anti-immigration parties and wish for lower taxes. For the simple reason that much of it is wasted on ideological policies by the establishment that actively and consciously undermine the interests, safety and stability of their own populations.
I don't think this is remotely true. Numerous countries have welfare states and allow net immigration, so that's patently false. Studies consistently show that immigrants contribute significantly more to their country than they cost in tax as a group, yet these false impressions persist-- along with ridiculously exaggerated notions of how many immigrants there are.

People have very poor political awareness, and are easily whipped up into blaming society's ills on their fellow man.
 

stroopwafel

Elite Member
Jul 16, 2013
3,031
357
88
I don't think this is remotely true. Numerous countries have welfare states and allow net immigration, so that's patently false. Studies consistently show that immigrants contribute significantly more to their country than they cost in tax as a group, yet these false impressions persist-- along with ridiculously exaggerated notions of how many immigrants there are.

People have very poor political awareness, and are easily whipped up into blaming society's ills on their fellow man.
This is just a lie. Recently in my own country a report was swept under the rug where they estimated that the total cost of immigration was about 40 billion euros more then what it actually got in return(an increase in ethnically related crime, increase in burden on healthcare and social security and an increased burden on the housing market). I don't expect many other countries with pro-immigration policies to have very different numbers.
 

stroopwafel

Elite Member
Jul 16, 2013
3,031
357
88
And only 35% of the budget is discretionary. Medicare alone is larger than the entire defense budget.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are funded almost entirely through supplemental appropriations so these figures aren't entirely reflective of the situation. Meanwhile many Americans can't even receive basic dental care. But it's nice that so much money ends up in the pockets of insurance companies.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,468
923
118
Country
USA
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are funded almost entirely through supplemental appropriations so these figures aren't entirely reflective of the situation. Meanwhile many Americans can't even receive basic dental care. But it's nice that so much money ends up in the pockets of insurance companies.
The $2.4 trillion number you cite is an estimate of 10 years of war, so $240 billion per year. That estimate was seemingly an overestimate, but let's run with that. Even if every cent of the war spending was funded outside of the defense budget, that doesn't do much to cover the gap between the $700 billion and $1.5 trillion Agema provided. US social spending dwarfs military spending, no matter what way you cut it.
 

Kae

That which exists in the absence of space.
Legacy
Nov 27, 2009
5,792
712
118
Country
The Dreamlands
Gender
Lose 1d20 sanity points.
The primary problem with Direct Democracy isn't logistical; its that people at large have zero ability to forward-plan, and almost zero understanding or appreciation of the complexity of any given political question.

And this isn't necessary a condemnation; people have their own lives, and can't all be expected to research every future implication of every policy. In a Representative Democracy they will tend to vote according to broad ideals, not minutiae.

But imagine if every tax policy was put to a direct-democratic vote. Overwhelmingly people would vote to lower everyone's tax to a tiny fraction, every time, because everyone sees their money leave their paycheque at the end of the month but we don't see how it's spent. Fast-forward a few years and the country has no firefighters, no hospitals, no street-lighting.

In the UK, the public routinely vastly overestimates the proportion of people in Britain that are immigrants. So we'd see direct-democratic votes to sharply limit immigration, based on notions that don't reflect statistical reality in the slightest.

We'd have minority rights being decided by a majority that is largely disinterested or personally unaffected by those things. So we could expect those to fall by the wayside.

Here in the UK we've had a major experiment in Direct Democracy quite recently, showing how people are easily misled by lies printed on buses and a surface-level appreciation of a complex issue. Its been a disaster. The public are a shower of morons.

Edit: of course, representative Democracy is also deeply flawed, and dictatorship is the worst of the lot. But I'll take representative Democracy with heavy safeguards and strong public education as the best option to strive towards.
Hmmm, I don't think that is a particularly convincing argument, if we're going to claim that it's flaw is the ignorance of the masses should we not take into account the ignorance of the "expert", while sure the "expert" may be more well versed in issues of economical planning and taxation have they not demonstrated time and time again their lack of capacity to understand the issues they're regulating?

Need I remind you of that time the android by the name of Mark Zuckerberg was taken to court and the people enforcing the judgement had no idea what even was being discussed?

I mean if I'm going to have an ignorant fool decide what is to be done, I'd much rather that fool being us rather than some detached rich old man that has no idea what the fuck he's even regulating, not to mention that just how in the current system people can decide not to vote that would also be a factor under direct Democracy and given that the volume of things people get to vote on would be much larger it stands to reason that people would mainly be voting on issues they particularly care about, given that there's a higher chance of having people that actually know what's happening vote on it that if we elect just a few rich "academic" assholes that collectively have no chance of understanding every single thing they will be regulating and since they are few in addition to ignorant they're also more easy to bribe than the entire population.

As for the issue of a majority tyrannically perjuring minorities, it's already a factor and even worse I'd argue, let's take for example the USA, did they not just elect the supposedly left wing candidate that was supposed to address they issues at the border?
A candidate that promised to get rid of concentration camps yet still has them, a candidate that claimed to stop the construction of that waste of a wall yet now is saying he will continue to build it, because ultimately the representative you choose can choose to not deliver on what they claimed they would do, because the system is in an of itself tyrannical.

In any case I can understand fear of change but I don't think we're at a point where we can deny all the criticisms of the current supposedly Democratic system are perfectly justified and if the people are dissatisfied with it, it is for good reason, I mean there's a very obvious reason that the majority of the population don't vote and that's simply because they don't believe their vote can make a difference, which I would say is mostly true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Specter Von Baren

Kae

That which exists in the absence of space.
Legacy
Nov 27, 2009
5,792
712
118
Country
The Dreamlands
Gender
Lose 1d20 sanity points.
It is true that in both there is the concept of an all-powerful state, and this holds the risk of state oppression. However, an autocracy automatically tends to reflect the will and aims of the autocrat. A representative democracy, however, has at bare minimum a much stronger component of the will of the populace and thus the benefit of the populace.

I fundamentally think that the effectiveness of systems comes down to institutions. A representative democracy, therefore, is only as good as its laws and institutions. If it has stood idle as corporations and the wealthy flood politics with money and subvert the state to their own desires, it sort of deserves everything it gets. Implicit in that is the requirement of the populace to actively engage with and consider their governance carefully, and exert their will to keep it attuned to their needs. If they do not do so, their representative democracy will degrade and... self-inflicted injury, really.

One can look at the USA, and see this mind-numbing, repeated cycle, where electors seem to think that if only they can elect the "right" leader with the correct moral character then all their problems will be sorted, without stopping to consider that what they really need a system that encourages and even enforces moral character on their leaders. Even when a dodgy businessman stands and says he's going to tear down the cosy privileges of the elites, he spends four years waving his dick instead, and as he steps out with nothing changed, his fans still think he's the saviour. And thus with such attitudes are the people doomed to their quadrenniel farce.

I know, in a way, it's bad. And I'd love someone to fix it. But I also have a sort of fatalistic streak that in the end systems become corrupt, sclerotic, and doomed to collapse. No empire lasts forever. Nations' capacity for reinvention and to be refreshed eventually grinds to a halt, and there is little they can do but endure an age of fallow.
This implies it is possible to have a good non-corrupt institution, to which I ask, when in history have the people in power not abused it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Specter Von Baren

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
This is just a lie. Recently in my own country a report was swept under the rug where they estimated that the total cost of immigration was about 40 billion euros more then what it actually got in return(an increase in ethnically related crime, increase in burden on healthcare and social security and an increased burden on the housing market). I don't expect many other countries with pro-immigration policies to have very different numbers.
It's certainly not a lie regarding the UK;

Oxford Economics said:
Our lifecycle analysis suggests that the 2016 migrant cohort will make a positive net fiscal contribution over their time in the UK. It therefore follows that the average additional migrant considering moving to the UK can be seen as a fiscal asset to the Exchequer. We estimate that the average EEA migrant arriving in 2016 will contribute a discounted total of around £78,000 to the UK public finances over his or her lifetime. For the average non-EEA migrant, we estimate a total discounted lifetime contribution of £28,000 per head.
Oxford Economics said:
In total, this means the 515,000 migrants who arrived in 2016 are expected to make a discounted net contribution of £26.9 billion to the Exchequer, over their time in the UK. This is approximately equivalent to one year’s additional revenue from adding five pence to all income tax rates.30 Broken down further, we estimate that over the course of their time in the UK, EEA migrants arriving in 2016 will make a discounted net contribution of £19.3 billion to the public finances, whilst non-EEA migrants will make a net contribution of £7.5 billion
I suppose your country must be having a significantly different experience, or judging impact using very different metrics. Do you know where I can see the report you referred to?

(On a sidenote, I enjoy that you went straight for "a lie", rather than saying I was mistaken or something. Best of faith there, I'm sure).
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
Hmmm, I don't think that is a particularly convincing argument, if we're going to claim that it's flaw is the ignorance of the masses should we not take into account the ignorance of the "expert", while sure the "expert" may be more well versed in issues of economical planning and taxation have they not demonstrated time and time again their lack of capacity to understand the issues they're regulating?
Sure. But much less so than Joe Bloggs down the pub.

Need I remind you of that time the android by the name of Mark Zuckerberg was taken to court and the people enforcing the judgement had no idea what even was being discussed?
No need to remind me; though I would remind you that the voting American public chose who to represent them.

Had the system of direct democracy been in place, of course, there never would have been a court appearance in the first place, because most people are totally unaware that Facebook was involved in the data harvesting and sale of private information.

I mean if I'm going to have an ignorant fool decide what is to be done, I'd much rather that fool being us rather than some detached rich old man that has no idea what the fuck he's even regulating, not to mention that just how in the current system people can decide not to vote that would also be a factor under direct Democracy and given that the volume of things people get to vote on would be much larger it stands to reason that people would mainly be voting on issues they particularly care about, given that there's a higher chance of having people that actually know what's happening vote on it that if we elect just a few rich "academic" assholes that collectively have no chance of understanding every single thing they will be regulating and since they are few in addition to ignorant they're also more easy to bribe than the entire population.
Care =/= knowledge of a topic. There's almost no connection between them, or even an inverse in some regards; note that most people who feel most strongly against immigration in the UK tend to come from places with the lowest experiences of immigration.

As for the issue of a majority tyrannically perjuring minorities, it's already a factor and even worse I'd argue, let's take for example the USA, did they not just elect the supposedly left wing candidate that was supposed to address they issues at the border?
A candidate that promised to get rid of concentration camps yet still has them, a candidate that claimed to stop the construction of that waste of a wall yet now is saying he will continue to build it, because ultimately the representative you choose can choose to not deliver on what they claimed they would do, because the system is in an of itself tyrannical.
Hence safeguards and public education. The US is not a paragon of a functional representative democracy.

In any case I can understand fear of change but I don't think we're at a point where we can deny all the criticisms of the current supposedly Democratic system are perfectly justified and if the people are dissatisfied with it, it is for good reason, I mean there's a very obvious reason that the majority of the population don't vote and that's simply because they don't believe their vote can make a difference, which I would say is mostly true.
I'm not at all afraid of change, and I despise the American status quo; that doesn't mean I have to endorse change in (what I consider) a regressive direction.