Comments by "Technolus" (@technolus5742) on "How to revive your belief in democracy | Eric Liu" video.

Bunkers and bonkers also sound alike but are completely unrelated.
2
You'd also be freer is you could just murder, steal from, or enslave anyone you wish. But somehow we're all better off when you don't have such freedoms.
2
@nidgemorphie4316 As explained what you are saying is false. Ignorance does not work in your favor. I suggest you get informed.
1
The EU organs are constituted directly and indirectly via popular vote. It is entirely democratic.... Apparently you just don't even know what your voting for.
1
@nidgemorphie4316 Yet it's true.
1
 @nidgemorphie4316 Constitutions do not make a democracy, the vote of the people does.
1
@nidgemorphie4316 The commission members are proposed and approved by our elected representatives.....
1
@nidgemorphie4316 Not knowing something better does neither make it perfect nor does it mean that something better can't exist. And no dude the european union is not unconstitutional.
1
@flamefusion8963 Democracy is not antagonistic to individual rights (which is why people living in democracy still have plenty of individual rights). It has arguably been the system that ensures the most individual rights. It gives a fair answer to the problem of who decides where the line is that separates your rights from other people's rights. Saying that you will decide on the limits to your rights would inevitably end in multiple people claiming incompatible rights. Saying that some kind of impartial mechanism (AI or somehow blockchain), would result in someone/something else deciding what your rights are and are not, be it a centralized or a decentralized authority, the result would still be that you would be giving up power to that centralized or decentralized authority.
1
@nidgemorphie4316 Junker was nominated by the euro council (which is in turn proposed and approved by our elected representatives which are in turn elected by you) and elected by the Euro parliament (which is in turn elected by you). the question here is why I have to do your homework for you, why can't we have voters who get informed to make proper decisions...
1
@flamefusion8963 Democracy does not decide on moral, it decides on laws and government systems. I also didn't say liberalism was compatible with democracy. I said individual rights are. You'll find it more difficult to pass laws that rule that slavery is legal under democracy than under systems where the people's input is not taken into account. But good luck in getting rights and liberties in some other system where you have either no say or all the say - or understand that democracy is a system where you have the same say as everyone else.
1
@flamefusion8963 But sure, you can go live in anarchy, you'll have no rights though, and may be taken as an actual slave by anyone that at any time is able to overpower you.
1
Most information is already accessible on the internet. Nothing against universities (they should be free though).
1
@flamefusion8963 it is actually not a guarantee, since I don't live under any obligation and am in fact contributing ti a system that is broadly aproved. What is a given is that I am not living in savagery, but do let me know your specific ideas for society and I'll let you know what I think of it.
1
@nidgemorphie4316 As already explained you're factually incorrect. It doesn't do you any good to pretend otherwise. Now you've taken a decision that was rooted in ignorance, and you'll have to live with its consequences.
1
@flamefusion8963 That sounds like a terrific plan for a completely stratified society where you're left to your luck at the mercy of whichever groups manage to accrue power. With the natural tendency for wealth disparity you'd be reduced to poverty in no time - and good luck getting a murder to justice when he simply does not freely associate with you. You'd soon find yourself not only poor, but at the mercy of whichever group most quickly reaches economic and military superiority. You know, distopia.
1
@nidgemorphie4316 Representatives directly elected through my vote approved that article. That is the usual say that you have in a democracy. You had as much say in, for instance, the Postal Services Act.
1
@nidgemorphie4316 Well when you're saying things that are factually false, and providing examples that do not support your claims, the only person who can be determined to be in denial is you. I can't agree with false statements.
1
JD jitsu the left didn't go "way left", it was just the right that drifted away.
1
@walperstyle Except I don't advocate for taking life, I used it as a blatant example that freedom should be limited. I've also at no point did called upon or based any of this on any feelings of mine.
1
@walperstyle That it should be limited is already demonstrated to be true, so it really is just a matter of how to do it. Your apparent peeve against central banks doesn't play much of a part in it. It's a matter of developing rules that benefit as many people as possible. Communism doesn't seem to be it, practical examples have shown that the entire society ends up being worse of. China has been having some success, but it has also departed from communist ideals. The models that have shown best results are for instance the ones on certain european countries. People seem to be pretty satisfied with the balances achieved there between their freedoms and other people's freedoms. You obviously need people's contribution to keep public services running, but you don't need central banks (you might want them, but you don't need them). People will almost always wisely decide to outsource their safety, as they might not be karate black belts or expert marksmen or have CIA level intelligence gathering skills, but they can probably hire people who do have those skills - and you probably aren't the most independent mediator for a conflict you're involved in. Again, you don't need monetary engineering for any of this, but it may be to your advantage to do some engineering that gets some more money in your pocket - and you might end up with something similar to the common monetary systems you see today.
1
@walperstyle You might have your executive orders mixed there. Indeed the government protects it's own monopolies, which includes the monetary system (the engineering of which serves to promote a more productive and more stable monetary environment for the people). You may note that it's actions aren't very different from more "traditionally" structured central banks.
1
"Revive belief" you don't need an alternative to be disillusioned. And there are plenty of alternatives to democracy, you simply can't by yourself impose a different system (unless you're perhaps a dictator who already doesn't live in a democracy). But you can always move to some nobody's land and live in whichever system you prefer, you're perhaps just not going to be as well off as in your present situation.
1
I find it troubling when important decisions are made based on a near 50% split of a population. Such cases are an obvious example that there was a lack of consensus about what to do.
1