Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think the reason why centralization is a danger to democracy, is because of lobbying. Also to add, centralized political systems cannot be truly "democratic". The middle ages were far more democratic than our modern enlightened times. Canadian historian Francis Dupuis-Déri writing in the book "Démocratie: Histoire politique d’un mot aux États-Unis et en France": "During the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, thousa…
I would absolutely not call democratic a power system where the common has absolutely no legitimate say in deciding whether or not his polity is going to be at war with another ( with the consequences of having their crops, family,etc... wiped off the surface of the earth )
Local rules instead of global censorship
161–170 of 221 posts
Re: Local rules instead of global censorship
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
The socialst dream is the class-less, egalitarian, solidary society. The whole point of reformist socialism is that you should not try to get there in a single giant leap, but step by step, with the fully socialist society more of a Platonic ideal: There'll likely always be a next thing to fix. Austria having free education does not make it socialist - but it makes it more socialist .
I think we have to be careful here because none of these countries which we have thus far mentioned have any ambitions of attaining the socialist crown you speak of. They like it the way it is: capitalist with strong protections for and investments (education, healthcare) in their capital producing peoples.
Re: Local rules instead of global censorship
#163I believe the premise of the title. But the main question should be: why? And the article does not really answer that, well beyond censorship. I think the reason why centralization is a danger to democracy, is because of lobbying. Lobbying is much easier in a centralized power structure. See how much lobbying goes on in and around the power centers of this world: DC, Brussels, London. Lobby is power for money, democr…
Lobbying is a consequence of a professional political class. Those who make and implement laws need to be knowledgeable about laws, which is why such large numbers are lawyers. In a government that values competence and experience, those in high positions get there by spending years if not decades doing similar, lower level jobs. But if you spend your life in government, when would you have the opportunity to learn the intricacies of non-government life? What fraction of congress has actually worked on a farm? How many cabinet members have ever worked in a factory? How would a president know what it's like to be a refugee? Politicians need information from non-politicians to form and implement coherent policies that work for the people. Enter the lobbyist.
At its core, that's all lobbying is: relaying the views of interest groups to the people in power. We talk about it as a dirty thing because it is so easy for it to become a dirty thing, but it isn't inherently one. Unfortunately it's a slippery slope from legitimate lobbying to graft: even an honest politician will be more easily swayed by better presentation, more money allows a lobbyist to make a better presentation, lobbyists seek to align themselves with those who have money so they can make their better presentations, and soon enough the original cause is an afterthought.
That said, there is nothing about a centralized governance which makes lobbying easier, nor anything about decentralized governance that makes lobbying less necessary. Your local city councilman is just as clueless about the infinite number of things they didn't do instead of pursuing their path, and they are generally just as open to being wined and dined. Indeed local governments tend to be much more prone to graft than the central ones (though this may simply be due to the fact that there are so many more people to potentially corrupt).
Getting professionals in government the information they need to govern without giving undo influence to those handing them that information is a serious open problem in modern democracy, but decentralization doesn't seem like a solution.
Re: Local rules instead of global censorship
#164I believe the premise of the title. But the main question should be: why? And the article does not really answer that, well beyond censorship. I think the reason why centralization is a danger to democracy, is because of lobbying. Lobbying is much easier in a centralized power structure. See how much lobbying goes on in and around the power centers of this world: DC, Brussels, London. Lobby is power for money, democr…
I don't think you really need that much of a justification to claim that centralized power is a danger to democracy. Democracy is to place power into the hands of each individual, every form of centralized power necessarily pulls this power away from people and into the hands of a limited number of individuals. Democracy isn't so much threatened but actually harmed by the mere existence of centralized power.
Re: Local rules instead of global censorship
#165I believe the premise of the title. But the main question should be: why? And the article does not really answer that, well beyond censorship. I think the reason why centralization is a danger to democracy, is because of lobbying. Lobbying is much easier in a centralized power structure. See how much lobbying goes on in and around the power centers of this world: DC, Brussels, London. Lobby is power for money, democr…
One of the most widely respected lobbies in America is the Fraternal Order of Police. And I don't think anyone would consider them super-rich, or even "rich".
Re: Local rules instead of global censorship
#166I believe the premise of the title. But the main question should be: why? And the article does not really answer that, well beyond censorship. I think the reason why centralization is a danger to democracy, is because of lobbying. Lobbying is much easier in a centralized power structure. See how much lobbying goes on in and around the power centers of this world: DC, Brussels, London. Lobby is power for money, democr…
> Lobbies basically work in favour of the super rich. One of the most widely respected lobbies in America is the Fraternal Order of Police. And I don't think anyone would consider them super-rich, or even "rich".
Re: Local rules instead of global censorship
#167I believe the premise of the title. But the main question should be: why? And the article does not really answer that, well beyond censorship. I think the reason why centralization is a danger to democracy, is because of lobbying. Lobbying is much easier in a centralized power structure. See how much lobbying goes on in and around the power centers of this world: DC, Brussels, London. Lobby is power for money, democr…
I don't think lobbying is a symptom of centralization. You see large concentrations around power centers because lobbyists will go wherever the people in power are. In a decentralized system, you'd still have lobbyists, they'ed just be spread out more. Lobbying is a consequence of a professional political class. Those who make and implement laws need to be knowledgeable about laws, which is why such large numbers are…
Re: Local rules instead of global censorship
#168> After all, nothing really changed in President Trump’s rhetoric, or in the wild substance of QAnon conspiracy theories What "rhetoric"? A sitting politician complained for fraud. Such complaints are a dime a dozen in elections all around the world. Heck, that's what the other side complained about too, in 2016, and has a long history in US politics. And if he "orchestrated" a walk-in into the Capitol (where nothing…
Comparing a deadly coup attempt and a direct attack against the representatives and the VP himself in the US capitol the day that the election results were certified by the Houses with random protests?
Re: Local rules instead of global censorship
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Lobbies basically work in favour of the super rich. One of the most widely respected lobbies in America is the Fraternal Order of Police. And I don't think anyone would consider them super-rich, or even "rich".
That doesn't contradict what he said.
My point is that there are plenty of lobbies in America which are powerful and work on behalf of the non-rich. Fraternal Order of Police is the most obvious, but various unions are quite powerful as well depending on what State you're in.
NRA may be bankrupt, but their political strength is what caused so many to donate for their cause as well. I don't think NRA is traditionally seen as a rich-person thing either.
Think of the "heavy hitters" of American Politics: ACLU, NAACP, NRA, FOP. Decidedly working for non-rich causes. EFF is arguably for rich people (since it represents tech freedoms, and tech is generally rich).
Re: Local rules instead of global censorship
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
Parent didn't call Finland socialist, just said "more socialist". If one considers "Capitalism" and "Socialism" as the two extremes of an economic organization continuum (which is reasonable), Finland is indeed "more socialist" (or better yet, less capitalist) than the US.
Europeans often follow the classical definition of socialism: non private ownership of means if production. Things like so socialist market economies without state regulation thereof, for example, are theoretically conceivable. However, no European country is socialist in that sense. They have a lot of state involvement, or other public institutions, but they do have private property especially for means of productio…