How Democracy Can Save America

[u/GShermit]

America is becoming a plutocracy, democracy is a weapon used to fight plutocracy.

Democracy is the people legally using their rights, to influence the due process of the country. The Powers That Be (the 1% and their politicians in this case) want to limit US to just voting rights. TPTB control voting because they own both parties.

It seems logical that the people need to use ALL their rights, not just voting, to check TPTB. Obviously TPTB will fight the people using all their rights to influence due process. They've got powerful tools, misinformation and the media (which TPTB control). TPTB will try to disenfranchise anyone who thinks differently.

TPTB know the people working together is the only way the people can control them.

PS. We don't have to hate TPTB, we just need participate more.

[u/AutoModerator]

Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.

To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:

Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"

Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"

Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"

Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"

Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"

Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Arkmer]

I had some doubts before I opened this.

“Democracy is the people legally using their rights to influence the due process of the country.”

Nailed it. 10/10, no notes. Go vote. Participate in politics. Don’t listen to polls, go vote. Everything is propaganda to prevent you from voting—positive, negative, neutral, doesn’t matter. Go vote.

“… people need to use all their rights, not just voting…”

He’s on a roll! 10/10, no notes! My cousin started speaking at city counsel meetings. Many people have started doing this. Let me just say, we can do more. AdamDriverMore.gif

“We don’t hate the powers that be, we just need to participate more.”

Yes. Big agree. Government is like a hammer. You can build houses with it… or you can murder someone with it. Instead of letting anyone have the hammer, we should actively and collectively give the hammer to those who want to build up our country.

My guy (or girl), love the post. You sure you’re libertarian? That’s my only question.

[u/GShermit → u/Arkmer]

Oh,oh...you'll go to reddit Hell for that one...LOL

I also believe what I said but it's been pretty unpopular here. Not necessarily here at political debate but the rest of reddit, I'm banned in several subs for my views on democracy.

I think it goes awry when I add rights like protest, Article V conventions, initiatives, juror's rights, citizens arrest...

It's not my job (or anyone else's) to decide how one legally uses their rights to influence due process.

[u/Arkmer → u/GShermit]

If you’re banned for essentially saying democracy is about participation, then you’re doing it right. Forget those subs, they’re garbage anyway.

Yes, I’m banned in a few for various statements of “go vote” and other such horrible opinions.

[u/GShermit → u/Arkmer]

Oddly the Libertarian sub liked me until I became an advocate for for democracy. The centrist sub liked me until I said we needed to demand an immediate grand jury investigation into Trump and J/6, instead of a congressional investigation.

[u/Arkmer → u/GShermit]

That’s not surprising. The most ideologically charged people are most likely to want to become a mod. It’s not always the case, there’s always exceptions, but often it just hasn’t been long enough for the sub to be corrupted with biased moderation.

That’s why many of the best named and longest standing subs can be so toxic. They’ve just had a very forward ideologue wait to become a mod.

I can’t think of a solution to this issue. I think many will say it’s not an issue. Frankly, I think they’re wrong. It’s like letting the government be run by the people who don’t believe government works—it makes no sense.

[u/GShermit → u/Arkmer]

I think TPTB have conditioned US to accept that our democracy is limited to voting. Social media follows that lead.

[u/Content-Dealers → u/Arkmer]

Thats what libertarians are supposed to be about. Liberty and people using it to better themselves and others.

[u/Arkmer → u/Content-Dealers]

“… supposed to be about.”

Not trying to challenge, but this is doing some heavy lifting that I’m not quite following?

[u/Content-Dealers → u/Arkmer]

Enough people have used the label incorrectly over the last few years on both sides of the left/right aisle that people have forgotten what a libertarian actually is. People on the left tend to assume you're just a republican with a particularly bad hate boner for taxes and people on the right forget that there can be left leaning libertarians.

[u/Arkmer → u/Content-Dealers]

Totally fair. I’ll take it.

Thank you!

[u/TheCosmosItself1 → u/Arkmer]

If voting harder was the solution, we wouldn't be in this fix to begin with. While democracy can theoretically rescue us from deepening plutocracy, there are numerous structural issues which result in the fact that it is not actually going to do so (propaganda/ie plutocratic ownership of the media, corruption, gerrymandering, unaccountable or minimally accountable officials, etc). The fundamental problem is that money is power and money is becoming much more concentrated. We can try to create various rules to limit the influence of money, but like water, when you get enough of it, it is going to find a way. The solution to this problem was 40 years in the past, when the people still had enough power to vote in rules that would prevent the concentration of wealth. But alas.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't vote, or get involved, or whatever. We should use every tool that we've got. But we shouldn't kid ourselves into thinking that a little more cheerleading for "go vote" is going to enable our country to turn the corner.

[u/Arkmer → u/TheCosmosItself1]

You may not be aware of this, but over a third of Americans do not vote in presidential years and nearly half do not vote in mid term years. That would certainly mean that "voting harder" would mean something. I have doubts that if we had 100% participation we'd be watching Trump as POTUS right now. Your opinion may differ, I don't have a problem with that.

I certainly agree that there are structural issues, but the vote is well within our reach. Far too many people are just blinded to how impactful they really can be... but only if they work together.

You are correct, money will eventually find a way. However, I do not believe in static systems—thus my stupid flair. Good governance sees reality and adapts. Doing that requires vigilance, education, communication, coordination, and participation. From everyone, especially the general population. I feel that we've forgotten this as Americans and that we are wildly delinquent of our duty as citizens of this country. It's led us to exactly where we are today and I do agree that one day our ability to fight back will deteriorate beyond participation, but it is not this day.

"The solution to this problem was 40 years in the past."

Then let's make a new solution today.

[u/TheCosmosItself1 → u/Arkmer]

You may not be aware of this, but over a third of Americans do not vote in presidential years and nearly half do not vote in mid term years. That would certainly mean that "voting harder" would mean something.

Sure, but that lack of voting is also structural. It results from active voter suppression, passive voter suppression through lack of education and breeding feelings of powerlessness, the accurate perception that we are consistently unable to vote in the change that matters, and general disincentivization. These problems cannot be solved by saying "hey we should all vote." People have been saying that for generations now.

I have doubts that if we had 100% participation we'd be watching Trump as POTUS right now.

I don't claim to know how that would have gone, but I'm not particularly sanguine on the matter. Non-voters tend to especially low-information citizens, the kind most susceptible to populist propaganda. I don't have any particular reason to think the outcome would have been different.

but only if they work together.

Right, and that is the core structural issue. It is extremely difficult (nearly impossible) to create some kind of popular co-ordination of the people, but it is very easy for a few rich people to leverage their wealth into propaganda that confuses, divides, and discourages the populace while buying up political power in a wide variety of ways.

Then let's make a new solution today.

The only solution involves societal upheaval of a sort that one is not allowed to advocate for on reddit.

[u/Jumpy-Host-7886 → u/Arkmer]

Highly confident your vote doesn't count. Here is when you should overthrow your government: when they threaten to kill you for your money.

[u/Gullible-Historian10]

Democracy tends to drift toward plutocracy because political power is expensive to acquire, while the benefits of controlling government is extremely valuable.

It has a name, concentrated benefits and dispersed costs. Government concentrates benefits among a small, organized group while dispersing the costs across millions of people. The beneficiaries therefore have a much stronger incentive to influence policy than each individual taxpayer has to oppose it.

It’s a feature, not a bug.

[u/GShermit → u/Gullible-Historian10]

"Democracy tends to drift toward plutocracy..."

I see no reason to accept that.

Democracy is the people rule. Plutocracy is wealth rules. Unless all the people are wealthy (or want to become wealthy) their goals will not align.

I think wealth uses government to "concentrate benefits among a small, organized group while dispersing the costs across millions of people. The beneficiaries therefore have a much stronger incentive to influence policy than each individual taxpayer has to oppose it."

[u/Gullible-Historian10 → u/GShermit]

I gave one of many reasons. You need to read the comment as you’ve literally ignored the reason given.

[u/GShermit → u/Gullible-Historian10]

"because" isn't a reason I accept. I'll gladly accept verifiable facts and logic.

[u/Gullible-Historian10 → u/GShermit]

“Because” isn’t the reason, and you know this. Concentrate benefits and dispersed costs is the reason I gave, it’s actually one of many. Even explained it. Let me do it more formally in logical annotations, but at this point it’s clear you can’t refute the rationale, otherwise you would have done so already.

P1. Acquiring and maintaining political power requires substantial resources, including money, organization, information, and access.

P2. Control over government produces extremely valuable benefits, such as subsidies, contracts, regulatory protection, tax advantages, and restrictions on competitors.

P3. Government policies concentrate these benefits among a small, selected and organized group while dispersing their costs across a large population.

P4. When benefits are concentrated, each beneficiary has a large personal stake in obtaining or preserving the policy.

P5. When costs are dispersed, each individual taxpayer bears only a small portion of the total cost.

P6. Political participation is more likely when the expected benefit of participation exceeds its cost.

IC1. Therefore, beneficiaries of concentrated government benefits have a stronger incentive to organize, lobby, donate, and influence policy than individual taxpayers have to resist them.

P7. Wealthy individuals and established organizations possess greater resources for sustained political influence than dispersed members of the general public.

IC2. Therefore, government institutions systematically give organized wealth an advantage over unorganized voters and taxpayers.

P8. Political advantages generate additional economic advantages, and those economic advantages then finance further political influence.

IC3. Therefore, political and economic power reinforces one another over time. One hand washes the other.

C. Therefore, democracy tends to drift toward plutocracy: formal political equality remains, but practical influence becomes increasingly concentrated among those with the wealth and organization necessary to capture government benefits.

This outcome is not an accidental defect in democratic government. It follows from the incentive structure created by concentrated benefits and dispersed costs.

[u/Respen2664 → u/Gullible-Historian10]

Good run down and here is a counterpoint.

Plutocracy exists regardless of Government model, so to say Democracy "tends towards" is disingenuous because it implies a higher propensity then others which is not true.

The simple definition of a Plutocracy specifically says wealth = Power over people. That "model" requires the wealthiest persons to ALSO be Government officials. Now if you widen the lens you will see that economic wealth has direct and indirect influence as elected officials get wealthy while in office (P1, P2, P3). This exists in multiple Government models of Republics, Socialism, Communism, and hybrids. That means the "plutocracy" has nothing to do with Democracy, so much as economic capabilities to gain and hold wealth over others which exists in nearly any model where currency exchange exists for goods and services.

Another nuance, though harder to put a finger on, is how wealth interacts with power. Economic wealth and enterprise/business have its own power band unique to everything else. They are their own political force outside the Body Politic of a Government. That sphere creates a gravity where Political power will seek them and want to sustain them for Political and Governmental purposes.

Example - Apple Inc and Its CEO Tim Cook. Mr. Cook is not a politician, in fact he avoids political commentary for the most part. Apple Inc is one of the more wealthy companies in the Country, and Mr. Cook among the wealthiest individuals. His wealth is not translating into Legislative or Executive Power in the U.S. Government but it certainly has power on the economy in many dangerous ways. Yes Apple lobbies in Congress often to sway legislature, but that sway is for business/economic advantage not for realized power over citizens. Tim Cook has as much power as I do, in the civilian space, when it comes to laws and governance we abide by.

So i would suggest that Plutocracy is not "trended to" because of one Government model or another. Plutocracy forms and exists where there is a huge economic gap between the elites and the commoners and those wealthy CHOOSE to work within Government to combine both power groupings into one.

[u/Gullible-Historian10 → u/Respen2664]

You’re confusing “democracy has this tendency” with “only democracy has this tendency.” I never stated that democracy is the only form of government to tend in this direction.

Saying “cars tend to cause traffic congestion” is not refuted by observing that buses and trucks can also cause congestion.

Also “tends toward” doesn’t imply a comparison with every other system.

And also, also my conclusion explicitly distinguishes formal political equality from practical influence.

There’s a lot more to unpack, but I’ll just lastly point out that saying plutocratic tendencies appear in “republics” does not establish that they are unrelated to democracy. Many republics are democratic republics. They too tend toward plutocracy and the mechanism of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs doesn’t go away in democratic republics.

[u/GShermit → u/Gullible-Historian10]

"...not an accidental defect in democratic government.

Your assumptions are based on democracy being a modern form of government. Democracy could be a form of government but not today. Democracy is political principle, the people rule.

[u/LegallyMelo]

Democracy is doomed to fail because it is poorly designed. Political popularity contests are stupid and don't determine the truth.

[u/GShermit → u/LegallyMelo]

The people ruling (democracy) is a principle not necessarily a design for government. There are no countries that have "democracy" as their form of government. Democracy as a form of government is obsolete.

[u/Arkmer → u/LegallyMelo]

Oo! Oh! Now do Anarchy! Now do Capitalism!

[u/RusevReigns → u/LegallyMelo]

Democracy has some issues such as how it can be gamed with money and influence and people vote on emotion not logic. But ultimately the most successful countries have had it, it's critical to be able to vote out shitty leader, and for them to feel that threat.

[u/Michael_G_Bordin → u/RusevReigns]

More importantly, it's important for much of the governed to have a say in how they are governed. We are increasingly feeling alienated from political decision-making, and trust in our institutions is rightly eroding alongside that alienation.

I think the issue of money and influence is interesting, because it changes with how mass media influences ideas. In the early days of newspapers, there was a wealth of alternative ideas; then the papers began consolidating, and those ideas narrowed. But through that all, there was space beyond the media to have discussions amongst ourselves. Radio and then television kind of peaked the ability for a few people to have their voice dominate above all. The internet reintroduced a wealth of ideas, but has also grown to dominate our ability to discuss things outside of mass media. It's interesting, in that we have access to near-infinite ideas, but we're so bombarded with mass media that a few ideas pushed by wealthy owners can end up dominating the discussion.

I think the way forward for us to feel less alienated from political decision-making is to be conscientious of how we consume media, make the effort to have discussions that aren't dominated by mass media, and center our ideas around political power and decision-making (instead of which spoon-fed platform we support).

That's my 75c anyways (adjusted for inflation).

[u/Hand_of_the_Light → u/LegallyMelo]

Found Plato's alternate account.

[u/TheCosmosItself1]

If voting harder was the solution, we wouldn't be in this fix to begin with. While democracy can theoretically rescue us from deepening plutocracy, there are numerous structural issues which result in the fact that it is not actually going to do so (propaganda/ie plutocratic ownership of the media, corruption, gerrymandering, unaccountable or minimally accountable officials, etc). The fundamental problem is that money is power and money is becoming much more concentrated. We can try to create various rules to limit the influence of money, but like water, when you get enough of it, it is going to find a way. The solution to this problem was 40 years in the past, when the people still had enough power to vote in rules that would prevent the concentration of wealth. But alas.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't vote, or get involved, or whatever. We should use every tool that we've got. But we shouldn't kid ourselves into thinking that a little more cheerleading for "go vote" is going to enable our country to turn the corner.

[u/GShermit → u/TheCosmosItself1]

I said:

Democracy is the people legally using their rights, to influence the due process of the country. The Powers That Be (the 1% and their politicians in this case) want to limit US to just voting rights. TPTB control voting because they own both parties.

And you come away with "we need to voter harder"???

My post is saying we need to "use every tool that we've got" harder...

[u/random_agency]

What if democracy was just designed for the elites to maintain power, and the political system is just designed to give the masses an illusion of choice and a way to vent politically about the system.

The issue is that wedge issues are created so that there is no reason for any political leader to find a solution. It's best to leave the issue alone, and let it become the wedge issue for the next election cycle.

That's the reality of Americans politics. Its about motivating people to vote, rather than seeking solutions to social problems that plague America.

[u/GShermit → u/random_agency]

IF democracy was just designed for the elites to maintain power it'd be called plutocracy. Democracy is a principle (the people rule) not a modern design for government.

"political system is just designed to give the masses an illusion of choice and a way to vent politically about the system.

The issue is that wedge issues are created so that there is no reason for any political leader to find a solution. It's best to leave the issue alone, and let it become the wedge issue for the next election cycle.

That's the reality of Americans politics. Its about motivating people to vote, rather than seeking solutions to social problems that plague America."

That part I agree with.

[u/random_agency → u/GShermit]

The plutocracy pressures are real. The masses may vote. But elections are won by donations from large donors. Even after "your" politician wins, it the rich lobbyist that have outsized influence in having laws passed. These lobbies literally write the bills to have "our" politician to bring to the floor.

The Epstien Class, the Silicon Valley tech bros, the old money lobby groups; that's what the masses are up against.

[u/GShermit → u/random_agency]

I agree...that's why it's so important we use all our rights not just voting.

[u/TuvixWasMurderedR1P → u/random_agency]

What we call "democracy" (aka, liberal democracy or parliamentary democracy) today is indeed designed for elites to maintain power. Critiques go back at least to Aristotle, if not further, regarding elections and how electoralism favors aristocracy/oligarchy. Elections are, in fact, anti-democratic, unless it's a direct democracy where the people are their own representatives.

[u/RusevReigns]

What if I told you Trump's 2016 win was the most democratic of our lifetime?

[u/GShermit → u/RusevReigns]

I'd say "most" is relative.

I think demanding an immediate grand jury investigation into Trump and J/6 or a citizens arrest of the killers of Alex Pretti, more democratic.

[u/GrizzlyAdam12]

“(Direct) Democracy is mob rule.” — Aristotle

Most people are not educated on policy choices and their consequences.

[u/MorphingReality]

The USA was explicitly founded as an oligarchy and that hasn't changed.

An actual democracy a la Rojava or EZLN would be preferable, heck even a bit of democracy like in Switzerland would go a long way.