Oh dear, the kids are fascist . . .

[Aeson]

Amendments can allow for that if it was what the people in general wanted. Individuals are free to leave the US to go find a preferred system (whether or not they can find one that will accept them) as well.

The only limitations are ones Lori's system would also face. Namely, what granularity of jurisdictions are allowed and who gets to via what process choose what system is in which jurisdiction. The answers to those questions will define who has what choice in actuality, because there will always be competing interests in any jurisdiction that isn't a single individual on a wholly owned and universally recognized land.

[Lorizael]

I'm using the term democracy here to describe the Western-ish governments that operate via elections, referendums, and political representatives. That is what we mean by democracy today. A system where everyone voluntarily submitted to the will of Skynet, say, would not be analogous to our present democracies, even if it shared the foundational idea of "consent of the governed."

[Ben Kenobi]

I've said this before, but I'm not necessarily a fan of democracy. Consent of the governed is key, but that doesn't mean the collective decision of the governed is always the best one for the governed. To be a little less vague, everyone should absolutely get to choose the society they want to live in, but there's nothing wrong with people choosing to live in a society where only scientists (or lawyers, or AIs, or reality TV show hosts) make the decisions. As long as everyone retains the right to rescind their consent, there's nothing in principle tyrannical about such a society. (There may be in practice, but in practice democracy can be tyrannical as well.)

This is no different than what happened at Weimar. Democracy sucks, but the alternatives are worse. There's no other way to govern a people, and it may be impossible to govern a people without a common culture and a language.

[Aeson]

I'm using the term democracy here to describe the Western-ish governments that operate via elections, referendums, and political representatives. That is what we mean by democracy today. A system where everyone voluntarily submitted to the will of Skynet, say, would not be analogous to our present democracies, even if it shared the foundational idea of "consent of the governed."

To get and maintain consent of the governed you're going to have to have a method for consent to be given. Who is going to decide that a given jurisdiction will have a given form of government while maintaining the consent of the people of the jurisdiction if not the people or their chosen representatives?

Whether you call it voting or not, it's still the same thing.

Also, some forms of government cannot maintain or allow for consent of the people and still be that form of government.

[Dauphin]

Silence is consent. If you don't consent, Smith and Wesson are there to help.

[C0ckney]

Silence is consent.

as i explained to the judge...

[Dauphin]

In the bedroom, or in the courtroom?

[Lorizael]

To get and maintain consent of the governed you're going to have to have a method for consent to be given. Who is going to decide that a given jurisdiction will have a given form of government while maintaining the consent of the people of the jurisdiction if not the people or their chosen representatives?

Whether you call it voting or not, it's still the same thing.

Also, some forms of government cannot maintain or allow for consent of the people and still be that form of government.

I'm not suggesting a protocol for secession or anything like that. It's a system where, at any time, any individual can say, "Nope, I'm out." That's not what we would recognize as voting. (Yes, I'm aware that such a system presents a loophole for things like criminal justice.)

[Aeson]

How can you not have a problem with such a system? It wouldn't be what you said at all, because it would very quickly descend into Anarchy.

[Lorizael]

Well, this idea of "retaining the right to rescind consent" is kind of preposterous. You don't have it in the US (or anywhere else, really), which as far as I'm concerned means the US (and everywhere else, really) is always going to be at least a little bit tyrannical. That said, the US (and other places, really) can still be nice places to live. So the point here is... we might have non-democratic systems that people mostly voluntarily buy into (silence is consent) that could theoretically turn out to be better than the democratic ones.

From the vantage point of my own crazy utopian ideas, polities should always be voluntary, intentional communities, but I understand that there's no reason to assume such a place could actually work. The only way it might is the intentional bit there... I'm in favor of people coming together to build specific communities that they've all bought into rather than communities developing haphazardly as accidents of history. This isn't a solution to the problems of political science; it's my desire to transcend those problems.

[Aeson]

At the point it could work (eg. everyone in existence is a well meaning person who doesn't make mistakes and has compatible values to everyone else) then you don't need any system or even an opt out. People would just help each other out and work together efficiently of their own volition.

[kentonio]

I'd probably trust a robot overlord with the people voting on specific policy directions a hell of a lot more than I do voting in people.

[Bereta_Eder]

I don't think there's democracy.

Globalization has turned the capital in an international mobster organization and while it functions on a global scale, the political power is still entrenched in regional power.

The good thing is that everyone understands it.

About "democracy" one good thing is that if one gov doesn't fit the job you can throw it out and get another (doesn't help when it's like the previous one of course, which kind of puts things in perspective)

[Bereta_Eder]

Democracy is this: a bunch of people that were neither slaves, women or non athenians, gathered in pnyca in their underwear.
In turn, anyone who had something to say started talking and the others carressed their beards.

When it was all said and done they voted on what anyone had said, and then it became da law

[The Mad Monk]

Greek Democracy was a gaggle of doddering old men chewing over the days' gossip before tossing their pebbles in a box, collecting their bribes and going home to supper.