113
South Korea has given up on talking to the North
(www.economist.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2023
113 points (89.5% liked)
World News
32316 readers
565 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
First of all, protection from bad groups is very important. But I don't believe it should be provided to us by people that would do anything to harm you as long as it's profitable and they can get away with it (that's also inherently a bad group)
If you were under a democracy basic human rights like the freedom of movement, housing, healthcare and autonomy of one's body would never be QUESTIONED. Even assuming you democratically elected the republican party so they could do that (the americans elected the democrats in 2020, in case you've forgotten) it's inherently undemocratic to take away your human rights, even if it was voted on.
If you were under a democracy the policies that the government approves wouldn't be the ones lobbied by the rich. That's what we call "corruption"
Also, it's funny you mention abortion, considering it was the supreme court that overturned Roe v Wade. I'm not sure about you but the supreme court doesn't look like the most democratic institution to me.
Then who will protect us? Who, but the government, can hope to have more manpower and firepower than organized crime?
That's a bit of a paradox of democracy, isn't it? Does democracy give the people the power to vote away their power to vote? You would say no, but then does that not imply there is some greater power than the will of the people? For there to be a greater power than the will of the people doesn't sound very democratic.
You forget, they do so with the tacit approval of the voters who keep voting for them after they do so. Members of Congress who sell America out to the highest bidder often do so for decades, not just one term.
It is also the Supreme Court that instituted the right to abortion in the first place. Roe v. Wade is the name of a Supreme Court case.
Congress should have codified the right to an abortion, and would have if not for people electing enough Republicans and DINOs to block such a bill.
In the USA (and most places, honestly) all your options are lobbied by rich, there is no alternative in your great democracy. It's rich people that hate gays, women, immigrants and workers or rich people that hate workers. I wouldn't call that democracy, personally. And I also don't think that those people lobbied by the rich, people that couldn't give less of a crap about us, should be the ones in charge of protecting us. There are more people in the world than monsters, there is more love in the world than hate. Humanity loves the earth and everyone on it, we have the power to create a society based on love and respect we have for eachother. A better world is possible, don't let these inhumane beings let you believe otherwise.
As you said, you could call my definiton of democracy a paradox, that is a valid argument. But I'd like to say that's slightly more democratic than having rich people run around and do whatever they want with the fruits of OUR labour, destroying the planet for fun and the endless accumulation of fake tokens to the point where a human can not even comprehend that big of a number, and then blaming US for the state the planet is in.
Society has existed before the state and will exist after the state.
Spare me this nonsense. Only one party is in favor of outlawing abortion, not both.
Doubtful. Very doubtful, given how many Americans don't vote Democratic.
This from the one trying to help the Republicans turn America into a brutal theocracy by discouraging people from voting Democratic.
History does not support this claim. Every society has had leadership of some kind. I'm aware of exactly zero libertarian utopias.