|
White Rock posted:Also i couldn't find the mention of the term limits. Jury democracy has the same issue that having strict term limits does: the representatives are so inexperienced that they are inadequate to their role and heavily reliant on outside expertise. Either they are rubber-stamping an inefficient technocracy or they become mouthpieces for corporate and political interests. It's extremely grifty. Kaal fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Jun 30, 2020 |
#
¿
Jun 30, 2020 16:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 03:13 |
|
|
Desdinova posted:How about having the experts post their views and recommendations to a public forum where those interested debate and vote on it, rather than the potentially much more easily corruptable politicians? You can't bribe everybody, right? While it may be appealing to simply blame "bad politicians" for America's ills, reality is a lot more complicated. At the end of the day, the issues with American politics don't really come down to personal bribes. They're systemic problems that typically have very little to do with individual graft or virtue. As a result, a jury democracy doesn't really serve a purpose. It would, however, so fundamentally weaken the political system that corporate influence would finally be able to "drown it in the bathtub". Consider a courtroom without a judge or a legislative body to enact laws. Both the prosecution and defense provide experts to testify. The lay jury may review precedent, but makes their decision independently and without any particular insight. Perhaps they render a just verdict, or perhaps the outcome is seen as incompetent or even malevolent - the jury is unaccountable regardless. Either way, the case can usually be appealed before a new jury. Where is the legitimacy here? What are the merits of this system? Certainly there is little about it that seems fair or democratic.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2020 05:17
|
|
|
The pressing issues of our time don't provide us with 500 years to try and invent "autocracy but good this time". Democracy provides a system that is both legitimate and stable - key foundational qualities for addressing global needs. There are plenty of countries where democracy continues to serve them perfectly well; America's political failures are altogether American in nature.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2020 14:14
|
|
|
There's no legitimacy in a system without universal enfranchisement, and the idea that a nominal progressive wants to bring back Jim Crow literacy tests is loving awful.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2020 19:46
|
|
|
If the choice is between Twitterbot democracy and "just hand America back to the Windsors", the latter is clearly both better and probably more just.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2020 05:28
|
|