Message from @ETBrooD
Discord ID: 620549913981353985
gotta ask, since again, mixed pol is hard to tell who's from where, referring to UK or US justice system?
Well I was talking more about in general in western countries
I understand legislation is voted for, not just decided by an authority, but the voting process is not exactly a good representation of a truly democratic system. And who knows maybe that's a good thing, I don't know.
Efficiency and "common sense" often trumps democracy, even in a democratic setting
And then there's also the issue that the democratic systems that are in place are not actually truly democratic. Which again, may be a good thing.
I believe democracy should be resorted to only when absolutely neccessary. I believe it's being overused, and thus abused.
Because after all, democracy is, in its very essence, mob rule. It must be tempered, and we do that by often simply doing.... nothing at all. No authority whatsoever. Just let things go.
well such is why the US isn't a direct democracy
Yes, and I think that's good
Federalism has been slowly eroded over time, in the U.S., the most prominent a Wilsonian-progressive, 17th Amendment. I've previously written in great length as to why popularly elected Senators was a negative, but to name just a few:
1) The House was meant to remain the only unstable chamber within the Congress, subject to the public tenacity district by district and localizing politics, leaving the Senate stable and apolitical, thereby preserving the sovereignty of various constitutional mechanics the Senate provides for. Take the Judiciary, the politicization of the Kavanaugh appointment, while examining all previous appointments over the past century, since the Amendment was ratified. They're mostly progressive, populist, and willing to stand for the Federal government's violation of property rights and expansion, among other key issues, such as allowing for unions to conduct racketeering, blackmail, and economic terrorism, for example;
2) The 17th Amendment made it easy for wealthy coastal areas, of greatest economic scale, to influence and dictate Senate elections to the rest of the rest of the country. Without a 17th Amendment, any influence must be made at the local, district-level House as that's the constituency they're held to account, while they were the ones to appoint Senators. It's also more difficult for, what has become a Corporate State, to dictate the elections of 435, 2-year term House seats, than it is to dictate the 100, 6-year term Senate seats. Local interests in New York or Florida shouldn't dictate the elections of 25 fly-over States. This is why minimum wage and other labor laws, for example, have been accepted by a Senate, at the cost of economic development for the inner-country majority, while all economic interests are saturated around economies of scale (economic fascism), burdening the rest of the country with market-entry barriers and various other forms of regulation that have regulated out various free-market processes within many
industries, leaving behind the façade, a veneer of Capitalism, as with any planned economy, leading to increased consumer and operational costs at a loss of efficiency. Certainly, alphabet-soup (the innumerable amount of federal agencies planning the economy) never would've came around, and FDR's (what do you know, another Democrat) fascist shenanigans, praised by Mussolini himself as "boldly interventionist in the field of economics," would've never come unfolded;
3) We'll talk about this some more in the future, but for now I've got to get myself a shower and lead a productive day.
At the end of the day, Federalism embraces the core of Democratic values, than does the direct-Democratic system, a zero-sum game of national politick. Self-governance, the core of the American way, tells us the 17th Amendment must go.
That's for you two, @ETBrooD & @Jokerfaic, along with any passerby. Scroll up for my comments on your conversation about "Democracy."
Good
And, this is what people should begin to recognize as the petri dish of America's corporate globalism, the firms with monopolies state-side, due to indirect planning of the economy through regulation, within our very government, who've grown to reach outside our borders and sacrifice our interests, feeding the monstrous regimes (PRC, for example) that inevitably rival us, with impunity, @ETBrooD. There are arguments to be made both for and against this system, as focusing on the interests of economies of scale has a compounding and perpetual effect of growth, but the long-term consequences just may outweigh it.
See this is the issue we need to address
The US should've never been a federation, it was a mistake
So, you'd consider yourself an anti-federalist, despite knowing what the consequences would've been long ago? I'm not a nationalist in the sense that self-governance is out the window.
We'd be a full-blown fascist State under an entirely anti-federalist system.
I consider all first aggression to be immoral, and federations can only impose themselves with aggression
A lesser evil is not a good, it doesn't work that way
Just like democracy is only the lesser of a number of evils
We need to progress further towards true freedom, America stands for it but doesn't act it
If not even America is willing to push for more freedom, what hope does humankind have as a whole?
The closest you will come to true freedom is a federalist, decentralized government, of which the liberty lovers are enabled to self-govern, while eliminating the mechanisms by which feed the power of the artful few to impose upon the many. You will find a taste of true freedom in Washington's Farewell Address of 1796.
I don't think any federation can defend freedom
American federalism is also by design, just as any other, but it retains the greatest freedom for one to govern oneself. We've strayed from federalism, and that is the problem, the interests of few districts infringing upon those of hundreds.
You can't be "allowed" to self-govern, you either do or you don't. If you need to be allowed, then you're not self-governed.
It's not a matter of being allowed, it's a matter of retaining a system that cannot violate your ability to self-govern, one we do not have as we continue to stray away from federalism.
I'm not sure why you're talking about this as a "few vs many" situation
The many, the few, it doesn't matter
Did you not read what I wrote, regarding the 17th Amendment?
Look
Whether few infringe on many, or many infringe on few, it's the same thing
Morally speaking
The many cannot infringe upon the few under American federalism, nor can the few upon the many; that's the point.