Political infantilism: the curse and demise of democracy

[myata]

In the beginning, the outset the deal was simple: citizens alertness, involvement and responsibility is the necessary condition, and a cornerstone of a working, functional democracy. Wise words were spoken, quotes cited and books written. It was never the free for all, no matter what you do or wouldn't, deal.

Yet, one small thing came in the way: the entropy; the principle of laziness. Why spend energy and time, that can be spent in a more rewarding way; why read, think and analyze, make non-obvious and sometimes, difficult decisions it it runs and works already just by itself? The proverbial eternal motion, just like.

From there, there's only three short (in the history scale) steps.

First is the detachment of the political shell. Formally, it's still a democracy but it thinks, decides and runs itself. It doesn't need those little folk down below except as a source of fuel, the dough; and for the exaltation ritual, once so often.

Then, the little folk notice that, the detachment. From its relative perspective it looks as the political elites departing away (from their lowly reality), but remember the original deal: no, nobody made you! And so it's growing disenfranchised; worried; angry and discontent. And that is already the soil, the basis.

In the final step, comes in someone who can orchestrate the discontent to their advantage. The deal becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy: from lofty claims through laziness and irresponsibility to its opposite, the mobs cheering against and cursing it. And every step of the way, the majority was on board! Astounding, no?

The only visible way out of this conundrum appears to be to make the democracy a constant, ongoing responsibility of the citizens. But that would be a tough sell on both sides. The elites that wouldn't want to part with the power and the privileges; and the population that wouldn't be seeking to take on the new duties. So,

is the democracy doomed, from the outset?

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, myata said:

 

The only visible way out of this conundrum appears to be to make the democracy a constant, ongoing responsibility of the citizens. But that would be a tough sell on both sides. The elites that wouldn't want to part with the power and the privileges; and the population that wouldn't be seeking to take on the new duties. So,

is the democracy doomed, from the outset?

You've laid out the problem, but democracy is already the responsibility of the public.

Every individual should be responsible for calling out laziness, partisan thinking, obfuscation....

[myata]

16 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

but democracy is already the responsibility of the public.

Except it wants to, and actively strives to forget it at the first opportunity.

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, myata said:

Except it wants to, and actively strives to forget it at the first opportunity.

It does want to forget it, once democracy has provided a government that can make our lives such that we don't have to think about it.

At that point, I would contend that democracy is not as important as having a strong intellectual class

 

[Yakuda]

23 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You've laid out the problem, but democracy is already the responsibility of the public.

Every individual should be responsible for calling out laziness, partisan thinking, obfuscation....

Democracy requires people be responsible for themselves so as not to be an unnecessary burden on others who should also be focused on being responsible for themselves. That's not the case any longer. Now many people think they are entitled to what other people have. They think we should pay reparations. There should be loan forgiveness. We all must acquiesce to what people "identify" as. Democracy requires people be focused on more then just themselves. That shit died a long time ago. 

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Yakuda said:

1. Democracy requires people be responsible for themselves so as not to be an unnecessary burden on others who should also be focused on being responsible for themselves.

2. That's not the case any longer. Now many people think they are entitled to what other people have. They think we should pay reparations. There should be loan forgiveness. We all must acquiesce to what people "identify" as. Democracy requires people be focused on more then just themselves. That shit died a long time ago. 

1. Where did you get that definition? Is it yours? Democracy works fine with a social safety net, as every western democracy has today. Not that taking care of yourself as a bad thing, but lots of people can't.

2. People needing help, improving the commons, social safety net are about helping others as much as helping yourself. I spent pretty much my entire career in the top tax bracket, so would it be anti-democratic for me to vote for a candidate who was against tax cuts?

[Yakuda]

32 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Where did you get that definition? Is it yours? Democracy works fine with a social safety net, as every western democracy has today. Not that taking care of yourself as a bad thing, but lots of people can't.

2. People needing help, improving the commons, social safety net are about helping others as much as helping yourself. I spent pretty much my entire career in the top tax bracket, so would it be anti-democratic for me to vote for a candidate who was against tax cuts?

I didn't say it was a definition. It seems that more and more people are incapable of taking care of themselves. They seek relief from the govt which increases the burden on everyone else. I'm sure someone is collecting disability because someone misgendered them. 

You realize taxes are disincentives right? 

[myata]

There's a truth to it: a vibrant democracy requires independent citizens capable of critical thinking and making independent decisions. Otherwise the promise of a bigger handout wins by default.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Yakuda said:

I didn't say it was a definition. It seems that more and more people are incapable of taking care of themselves. They seek relief from the govt which increases the burden on everyone else. I'm sure someone is collecting disability because someone misgendered them. 

You realize taxes are disincentives right? 

Ok.  Fair enough.  

But democracy can and does work with the social safety net. 

Taxes are disincentives ... need to drill down on that as it depends.

[Yakuda]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

Ok.  Fair enough.  

But democracy can and does work with the social safety net. 

Taxes are disincentives ... need to drill down on that as it depends.

Sure but when everyone is in the safety net it's not very safe. 

Yes. Cite a country that has taxed it's way into prosperity.

[Michael Hardner]

16 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Sure but when everyone is in the safety net it's not very safe. 

Yes. Cite a country that has taxed it's way into prosperity.

Canada?  The US? Dunno... Kind of odd topic.  Are you saying taxes are evil?   A necessary evil?  

 

 

[Yakuda]

On 2/28/2024 at 2:49 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Canada?  The US? Dunno... Kind of odd topic.  Are you saying taxes are evil?   A necessary evil?  

 

 

Taxes aren't inherently evil but they can be used for reasons that are destructive if not evil. Too often, at least here in the States, they are used as punishment. 

[eyeball]

On 2/28/2024 at 11:31 AM, Yakuda said:

Cite a country that has taxed it's way into prosperity

The US, see the New Deal. It even taxed itself to make countries it destroyed prosperous, see the Marshall Plan 

[Yakuda]

On 3/21/2024 at 5:56 PM, eyeball said:

The US, see the New Deal. It even taxed itself to make countries it destroyed prosperous, see the Marshall Plan 

The new deal didnt do that.

[eyeball]

10 hours ago, Yakuda said:

The new deal didnt do that.

See the Revenue Act of 1935...the so-called soak the rich tax.

[Yakuda]

9 hours ago, eyeball said:

See the Revenue Act of 1935...the so-called soak the rich tax.

The new deal did nothing to create prosperity. Starting the war did though. 

Edited April 25 by Yakuda

[eyeball]

On 4/25/2024 at 8:48 AM, Yakuda said:

The new deal did nothing to create prosperity. Starting the war did though. 

The New Deal was a series of programs and projects instituted during the Great Depression by President Franklin D. Roosevelt that aimed to restore prosperity to Americans. When Roosevelt took office in 1933, he acted swiftly to stabilize the economy and provide jobs and relief to those who were suffering.

https://www.history.com/topics/great-depression/new-deal

[Yakuda]

On 4/28/2024 at 12:17 PM, eyeball said:

The New Deal was a series of programs and projects instituted during the Great Depression by President Franklin D. Roosevelt that aimed to restore prosperity to Americans. When Roosevelt took office in 1933, he acted swiftly to stabilize the economy and provide jobs and relief to those who were suffering.

https://www.history.com/topics/great-depression/new-deal

"Aimed" is the optimal word there. 

Such programs certainly helped end the Great Depression, “but were insufficient [because] the amount of government funds for stimulus wasn’t large enough,” she notes. “Only World War II, with its demands for massive war production, which created lots of jobs, ended the Depression.”

World war II ended the depression? Where have we heard that before? 

https://www.history.com/news/new-deal-effects-great-depression

Edited April 29 by Yakuda

[eyeball]

19 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

World war II ended the depression? Where have we heard that before? 

I don't know but if it worked in the past lets get it on.

[Yakuda]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

I don't know but if it worked in the past lets get it on.

So you accept that it's ridiculous to claim the new deal ended the depression. Good for you. 

[eyeball]

6 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

So you accept that it's ridiculous to claim the new deal ended the depression. Good for you. 

No I don't. It's ridiculous to think it had nothing to do with it.

[Yakuda]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No I don't. It's ridiculous to think it had nothing to do with it.

You don't like to read do you? I quoted you what economists have said not me. 

Edited April 29 by Yakuda

[eyeball]

52 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

I quoted you what economists have said not me. 

There's plenty of economists who say the New Deal had plenty to do with it as well

The war likely had more to do with making rich people richer again.

[Yakuda]

53 minutes ago, eyeball said:

There's plenty of economists who say the New Deal had plenty to do with it as well

The war likely had more to do with making rich people richer again.

I don't see way citation just your claim. No offense but that's meaningless.

[eyeball]

7 hours ago, Yakuda said:

I don't see way citation just your claim. No offense but that's meaningless.

Sure, it's more a statement of mine, but I think it certainly set the stage for prosperity.  It gave people hope without which it might have been far more difficult to get Americans interested in going to fight the war that's cited as actually having been responsible for the prosperity that followed.

Can you cite a country that became prosperous by mostly forgoing taxation and eschewing public spending?  How about one where everyone thrived in lieu of  regulations for even better measure?  I've heard it said many times this is the true path to prosperity. Any examples where its actually happened?  And by prosperous I mean where just about everyone is living a better quality of life than people in advanced democracies.