Oh, that's a common misunderstanding, but they can't sue me in court – by accepting me as a customer, they accepted my binding arbitration agreement! It clearly said so on my luggage tag their authorized agent (i.e. the bellboy) handled as part of check-in.
>Oh, that's a common misunderstanding, but they can't sue me in court – by accepting me as a customer, they accepted my binding arbitration agreement! It clearly said so on my luggage tag their authorized agent (i.e. the bellboy) handled as part of check-in.
Why can't there be a human membership union that sets these automatic binding arbitration agreements on service providers on behalf of members? Is there any law preventing a class of people from creating such a customer's union?
That's because another group of people made a pact with the devil, and a third group just shrugged their shoulders when everyone had a chance to nullify that pact....
It’s not a direct democracy. It’s a rep democracy or a republic. Idk why you fools still think this is some gotcha. It just makes you look silly. The quote works just as well with republic it.
Traditionally I agree with you (and have raised the point many times), but lately I’m not so sure if it’s a representative democracy at all. I suppose the very corrupt and wealthy are a class being represented, but a representative democracy is in theory supposed to provide representative coverage for all. That seems to be a vanishing case.
The issue is the representation went from 1:999 to 1:99999999999 representative ratio, so no voice is heard. It's like being in a class of 30 people vs 300,000 people.
The answer is common sense abstraction, for example, I am writing this on a JVM on a docker on VM on a docker on a VM on a cloud on a VM. The use of so many layers of abstractions makes it exponentially more powerful. What we need is basically a docker for government, docker being a nobel prize tier invention because of the tremendous degrees of abstraction it permits. We return to a 1:999 ratio for a represenative, who attend a congress to vote for a virtual representative acting in a 1:999 ratio at a higher tier of congress, who themselves virtually represent a single individual at a higher tier 1:999 ratio
In what way is this country ruled by the people? You're periodically given a non-choice between two options that have equal disdain for your actual concerns, who then go on to play games to see who can get the most bajiliionare backing for reelection, and if you don't like what they're doing you're perfectly free to vote for the OTHER jerk who also doesn't give a shit about you.
This is oligarchy. The 'democratic' process is a smokescreen, and an increasingly thin one.
Look up 'liquid democracy'. It's the best example of what an actual democracy might look like if we did it. We won't, but I also enjoy Blade Runner and Star Trek, so there's no harm in fiction.
Oh, god, this tired nonsense. Yes, obviously, it's ruled by the people. We have parties, we vote, anyone can run for office. Anyone can vote third party, and they occasionally even win. That your neighbors don't share your views does not make it undemocratic. It's not perfect, but it's democratic.
It's like people can no longer imagine living under a totalitarian state... where you don't even get a vote, and if you don't like what's happening and you say something about it, you're shot. That's literally the way things were done before democracies and republics existed... it's still the way things are done in places like North Korea.
So we ought to be thankful we're not in NK. Got it. Glad your bar is so high. It's apparent that you're decided but other folks will read this so let's break it down barney style.
The 'third parties' argument is a painful joke, statistically speaking [0 1 2]. You can make all sorts of arguments as to why but the fact is that without support from D or R you can go get fucked.
This raises the question - are there only two opinions? With the obvious answer - of course not. We could say 'well, maybe people fall generally into two camps', but that doesn't really pass muster either, does it? I have friends on both sides of the aisle and I agree with all of them on some things. This is evidenced by the amount of voters registered third party despite the abysmal election numbers [3].
So what's going on here? Well, people are being strategic. We're on first-past-the-post in most places. This means you're typically voting not for what you want but for what you don't want. That is not a system of representation, it's a sports game where the prize is some cosmetic social program changes and not much else.
Mamdani is an excellent example of what this system does to third party candidates. As soon as there's a legitimate threat to the entrenched parties, fundraising spikes massively for the opposition [4].
Not getting a vote under this system wouldn't be more totalitarian, it would be more honest.
Fundraising doesn't win elections except in extremely low information elections... which is just a shortcoming of the electorate. It's statistically probable that more popular candidates raise more money. If money won elections, Hillary Clinton would have won twice.
I was sort of with you until Mamdani. He ran as a Democrat, in the Democratic primary. Cuomo outraised him by huge margins. NYC has ranked choice voting. Seems like things worked?
I've read Popular Dictatorships. I'm not naive that they care about public opinion and have "elections." Having unfree and unfair elections is not the same things as having elections in a real sense. Party based FPTP elections are generally free and fair. There are real concerns about gerrymandering, but for the most part, even a gerrymandered area is effective as a political pressure release valve.
At play here is the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions for democracy to be genuine.
There are a vast number of ways in which people can be denied a legitimate opportunity to obtain the policies most want (making a democracy less legitimate), but to list a few:
* People are allowed to vote, but votes aren't counted fairly.
* The voting system can be vulnerable to vote splitting (e.g. First Past the Post) or have other vulnerabilities that can lead to an outcome where the majority would have supported candidate A over candidate B, but B wins. This can lead to dynamics where tactical voting means only the candidates endorsed by the two best known parties have a chance, even if both of those parties are captured by minority interests. Generally the duopoly perpetuate the poor voting system to protect their interests.
* The leaders of any movements challenging the incumbents can be targeted before they have a chance to run - e.g. with trumped up legal charges, defamatory claims, violence either blatantly from the government, or by supporters which goes unpunished / is pardoned.
* Voters fear that if they vote against the incumbent, they'll face consequences.
* Voter demographics considered less likely to support the incumbent face barriers to vote, such as demands to provide documentation they might not have.
* Special case: Voting is restricted to citizens, but there are populations of people who live long term in the country but don't get a vote. Citizenship is not granted to or even stripped from people who are considered less likely to support the incumbent.
* Media is state owned, and is biased towards the incumbent, preventing the public from learning about alternative policy platforms in a meaningful way.
* Media is privately owned, and biased towards the interests of the owners of the media, preventing the public from learning about policy platforms opposed to the owner in a meaningful way.
* There are significant barriers to becoming a candidate (financial, or requiring a lot of work which costs a lot of money), preventing non-wealthy groups from being able to run.
* Corporations or ultra-wealthy are allowed to selectively fund large amounts of money (beyond the means of normal citizens), allowing policy platforms they support to drown out policy platforms in the interest of the public.
* As you mentioned, electorate boundaries are set in an unfair way (gerrymandering).
There are a lot more - but the summary is that there are many ways to undermine a democracy, and there are many countries that are nominally democratic, but aren't really.
I see. Elon Musk with the wave of his hand can conjure a new political party. Billionaire lobbyists hold politicians in tow. Or shape public opinion with the mass media companies they own. Supposedly my voice really is the same as theirs. (If so I wonder what they are spending so much money on.)
It seems this small wealthy faction can send people to concentration camps, collaborate on genocide, and undo the constitution. (Maybe you and I have different definitions of democracy.)
Or maybe because our government is not as bad North Korea’s I’m supposed to be fine with this state of affairs. (Thanks for the reassurance.)
When someone cheats and swindles you, you don't win by cheating and swindling them more. Even if you succeed, now the world is just that more swindle-y than it was the day before, and swindling has become a way of life.
The correct and only solution is for Congress to define what constitutes someone agreeing to a contract, and penalizing anyone who even raises the notion in a court of law that you have agreed to something without having performed that statutory gesture.
First, agreements can't be made unless both parties are present. If they don't bother to send a representative to you with a piece of paper, not an agreement. If they don't get your signature on the paper (or some legislatively defined equivalent), not an agreement. If they've attempted to hide or cheat or confuse, such that it's not apparent, nothing has been agreed.
This would get rid of much of the bullshit we have today with EULAs, binding arbitration horseshit, and all the other chicanery. Have Congress make it a law.
It's a fun fantasy, but the fact we're happy to see it highlights our impotency - even a line worker sympathetic to the power imbalance would be left at "Anyways, we'll charge the fee to your card on file"
I wonder if there's a business model for a "robo-lawyer" paired with a travel agency here: "Stay at one of these hotels using this credit card issued by us, sign this contract promising that you won't smoke there, and if the hotel tries anything funny, we'll reward you with the room rate back and a bonus" :)
