Watch the full episode: • Destiny on Jordan Pete... To support my work and get early access to videos, ad-free, visit / alexoc Main channel: / @cosmicskeptic
Something that really pisses me off is when people say their vote doesn’t matter but when you look at the 2020 election, Georgia was a big state that made the difference whether Trump or Biden won the election. The population of Georgia is 10 million people. Biden only beat Trump by 11,000 votes. That to me is pretty significant. Imagine if 11,000 people decided not to vote that day. We would probably have a different president in power.
@@Moncalf5th Well if that’s the case then I have a couple of suggestions. The first one is go move somewhere where your vote does have more of a say. If you’re a liberal, you should probably move to Washington and if you’re a conservative, you should probably move to Florida. And before you bitch and moan about how you don’t have the money to move Amazon literally exist everywhere and if you need a job in the area, just hold down the place. Amazon is a good place to start. They literally hire anybody with a pulse. I should know I’m legally blind, and Amazon was the only company who would hire me. My second suggestion would be to get more involved in local politics, where your vote probably matters a bit more. That’s how it works when you don’t have to compete with as many people. Maybe go to local city council meetings. Maybe try to start up your own activist group. or you could just sit here on the Internet and bitch to strangers who don’t care about how unfair everything is. Let’s be honest we all know that’s what you’re actually going to do.
No, even if all 11k of those had decided not to vote, it still likely wouldn't matter. The scenario you're imagining is not one where people think their vote doesn't matter. You're imagining ONLY the people on left think their votes don't matter. Which is an entirely different scenario. You're assuming all 11k people that decide to not vote were gonna be the Biden voters. That's an entirely unrealistic assumption. If people are just voting less, they're voting less on both sides. We'd get the same outcome but with 11k less votes.
I love this conversation because it really feels like both people are genuinely concerned to figure things out based on the existing knowledge that they bring to the conversation instead of fighting for a set of identity based beliefs that have more to do with a certain narrative than resolving any issues.
Objectively, it doesnt matter if you as an individual hit like on this video or not. But it does matter if everyone does. In fact, the *idea* that we may or may not like this video is perhaps the most important thing. Go on. Like the video 😉
@@jonashartung6065 rambles on about how amazing he is and how he knows everything but ends with the shallowest perspective on whatever he yaps about. Like democracy for instance!
What I tell myself to convince me to vote is this: I know for a fact there is one other person out there, at least one, who will vote for the party I don't want. Why would I not want to put a guarenteed vote against it? Theres always a shinier turd on the ballot box. Vote. You dont want Jerry from down the road making decisions for you, right?
Regarding whether your vote matters or not, the problem is that while most voters' votes end up not mattering, there is no way to know this until after all the votes are cast and counted. So the situation where "I know my vote won't change the outcome, does it matter whether I go vote or not?" doesn't actually ever come up (unless the votes (actual votes, not a sample of voters' poll answers) are being counted in real time, and you know how many potential votes are left to be cast, which is something that, as far as I know, does not happen). This applies to both questions ("a single vote won't change the outcome, so I shouldn't bother voting" and "is voting for the bad guy who is certainly going to win a bad thing?"). Neither situation is actually possible, since both depend on knowing the result of a vote beforehand. If the result is known, there is no need to even submit the issue to an actual vote.
It's a nice thought but it's not like you have an option to not consent. You could use the same argument for monarchies or dictatorships. "You cast the vote for the monarch/dictator when you chose to be in his nation." That's not a vote. There's not any real alternative, beyond just not even participating by leaving the nation or the plane.
The main reason democracy works is it creates a compromise between elites and plebs that allows each to benefit from the best contributions of the other. It also gives the masses a stake in the government which greatly reduces their likelihood of revolting against it.
In theory. However, we don’t live in a true democracy. It’s a representative democracy. That means the elites have more power because they can bribe politicians. Singapore’s model proves that democracy isn’t the only system that works.
@@JohnDoe-xs5gv Find a non-democratic society that has produced more wealth and technological innovation than the democratic west. You won't, because it's not even close.
God, these shit libs are unbearable. We are a republic with democratic mechanisms. Democracy doesn’t work, which is why the Founders specifically designed the government to not be a democracy. The Democratic Party has repeated “OuR dEmOcRaCy” so much that you actually think that’s the government we have.
The plane comparison is disanalogous because plane passengers consent to the authority of the pilot when they opt to fly, while being a citizen of your country is not a choice.
And the vote for the pilot, airline, and destination already happened when the passengers bought the ticket. Nobody is buying tickets for Jim Bob's discount cardboard airline.
I've always thought that the act of voting doesn't just increase the vote count by one. If a friend, family member, or even stranger sees you vote, sees you wearing the "I voted" sticker, or hears about you voting, you might inspire others to vote as well. In the same way, not voting might cause others to not vote as well, especially if you are outspoken about it.
I think Alex misses something in the torture stadium crowd thought experiment. An individual crowd member could affect the stadium, even through silence, to stop the torture, while deciding it doesn't matter and cheering for the game presumably after forgetting the torture is both actively contributing to the torture as well as making it less likely and harder for anybody else to implement the solution (everyone quieting).
Democracy only works if good governance prevails but we all know most politicians get to line their pockets because of corporations and good governance goes out the window
Destiny is my favorite streamer. That being said, i love that his argument for why people cant think selfishly in the child-being-tortured thought exercise, and that people shouldnt take advantage of being the only person being allowed to do something, is the direct defeatign argument for his take he gave a couple days ago on how scalping is totally fine, and that the solution to the problem is to just raise the price of the good being scalped. When he, himself, just now, said that if everyone thinks this way, that the government and society would. When comparably, if everyone was a scalper, society, and the economy, would fail too. It's just a completely hypocritcal take, when BOTH of these things are morally adjacent, to the T, but the scalping is fine, because the sellers dont raise the price of things, and being the only person being allowed to take advantage of a system isnt fine.
The thing with democracy is that it‘s not necessarily the best but the most legitimate form of government (in terms of outcome). The principle that everyone was asked for their opinion is key here.
A thought experiment just came to mind. If came to me and said, «You can have the right to vote or you can have a guaranteed lobbying budget for the rest of your life from a top-10 (roughly) Public Law & Policy K Street Firm on any issue of my choosing but you have to permanently give up your right to vote» I personally would choose to take the lobbyist 100% of the time because it's far more effective at getting shit that I want done. I think most people know this which is a big reason why there's a crisis in faith in democracy.
The problem I have with the categorical imperative is that it doesn't take game theory into account. Game theory also helps us to resolve the "paradox" that if one person reasons their vote doesn't matter than everyone can reason that way and then nobody votes so then any single vote would be deciding. Voting power is inversely proportional to the number of people that vote. So for any individual, their decision to vote should be a function of confidence in expected outcome (based on polling data), cost to vote (e.g. time spent voting), expected voting power (how many other people do I expect to vote), and cost/utility of the various election outcomes. I'm sure game theorists could flesh that out some more and show what conditions voter participation is stable or unstable.
Democracy requires people who participate in it to have critical thinking skills to make arguments, analyze which person is good for the role of leadership, remove as much biases as possible when making decisions. But we all that at least half of the society don't have or want to improve on such things. Therefore democracy is more about idiots making decisions based on what most people want based on logical fallacies and biases. It's a tool that people say they want but don't know to use and ending up hurting themselves or people around them
The problem as I see it is that in many (most?) democracies, the power of electing a candidate is not balanced up against voting directly on a proposal. Once you have voted someone in, it is extremely difficult to hold them to account. Telling someone that they might face consequences in four to five years isn't really convincing. Having the ability to vote on a proposal the candidate SAID they would champion is much more powerful.
Different levels and sizes of government have differing levels of effectiveness depending on the system. Local governments work best under direct democracy from an educated and involved electorate. Those directly involved and affected by local politics and industry should have a say in how they work, the regulations around them, and how tax revenue is accrued and spent. This isn't limited to just governments either, this also applies to workplace politics and organizations such as unions or worker cooperatives electing their executives or voting on policy. State/regional governments work better under representative democracy where the representatives are voted on by each local government within the regional power. This is because the sheer size, complexity and scope of the government at that stage would make direct democracy inefficient, slow, and possibly self-destructive as people who have little to no experience or education around the decisions being made cannot possibly put their biases aside to make a logical and educated decision that is best for everyone involved. Hence, representatives who are fully knowledgable on the interests of their constituents while having the freedom to specialize and be at least somewhat knowledgable of the interests of other local governments and the ability to negotiate with other representatives. This works regardless of the underlying economic system, whether the representatives are elected by uncoordinated direct democracy, by special interest groups, or by syndicates.
They are describing the heap paradox with respect to voting. How many grains of sand does it take to make a heap (or how many hairs does it take for a man to cease to be bald)? It's essentially an impossible question to really answer with complete precision, but it does not mean that grains of sand are irrelevant to heaps, or hair is irrelevant to baldness. Every person's vote still matters, it is just not possible to decide exactly how much, which is fine by me. It means that each participant has a tiny role to play in creating the whole democratic system of voting, but there is no way to indicate exactly how much each matters in the creation of the whole. Was that one person's vote the one that made a difference? Who knows? Still, I'd rather have voting from everyone, because satisfying the rights of all to participate in governing is also the best of all ways to determine the trajectory of governing. Though I understand Alex's line of reasoning, pragmatically, I don't see a distinction between the rights-based/ethical need for democratic voting, and a best-decision argument for the same. I believe that because I don't think there is an absolutely right way of governing, there is only a way that entails the best (a subjective assessment, btw) utilitarian compromise for all, in the face of a necessarily uncertain future. 'Best' is co-constructed by the people involved, and is likely to change from moment to moment, not an absolute truth. This is also why deciding only the 'most educated' can vote be difficult if not impossible to pin down. Educated in what way?
The essence of democracy is participation in decision-making by the public. Voting is a part of decision-making but not a significant part. Alex seems to believe voting is the essence of democracy. It's not.
@carlod5818 What do you mean by influence democracy? Democracy itself is the way we influence decision-making. Democracy is not a thing that exists outside people. It is something that people want to do. Voting in itself is an example of a democratic process, I.e. electing leaders who will rule your society. But there are other things( like what those elected officials are going to do while in office), that ought to be subject to democratic process. And if you think about it, deciding what leaders are going to do is far more important than deciding which leader to rule. But in a state capitalist society like the US, most people are denied the ability to make the former decisions. That right is reserved for corporate and business interests that virtually control the political leaders. Therefore, calling the US a democracy because people vote is very misleading.
@@lordmew5 to me it looks like Alex was saying more anti-lobbying/anti-corporate sentiments. Not sure how commenting (correctly) that corporations and businesses have interests which influence our leader's actions is anti-capitalist.
I think it was said but don’t know if it was realized. The points were addressed perfectly. Community welfare (looking out for one another) and degrees of separation regarding morality. This is THE problem. We have all together too many degrees of separation within our own systems, to the point that people are willing to do horrible things to essentially people in their own tribe. We can’t rely on others to fight for us, and as such we’ve become distanced ourselves and severed community ties. It’s sad that I feel Ben Shapiro is really right about this part (however I don’t care what is driving that community, and might prefer if it wasn’t religion). But isn’t that what we see happen, agglomeration followed by segmentation? I don’t know if humans are capable of this large abstract living. We eventually lose touch and start treating each other as if we were from a different tribe, warring and pillaging as if there wasn’t enough for everyone to survive. The more abstract our world gets (ie globalization, digital connection etc) the easier it gets to make these decisions that truely aren’t moral. I believe it really is a paradox, together we form a strong community, it the size of the community always tends towards a critical mass that allows for failure.
We’ve done pretty well despite our tendency towards fragmentation. Many fewer people die from homicide now than in the state of nature. Large groups and the government monopoly on force have been net positives.
i like the starship troopers system. people separated into citizens and civilians. civilians can live within the system and benefit from it and be protected by it but if you dont want to take any responsibility for the system you dont get any say in the system.
@@andymccallum8090 how is that libertarian? Sounds more like a meritocratic one party state like China and Singapore. Anyone can join the CCP or the PAP if they really want to but they don't have to.
That’s a fascistic government. Tying your vote to a service is not democratic and in the case of Starship Troopers it’s clear that society is synchronised to serve the military and ideology. Tell me in a system like that what happens to people with disabilities or other complications. They can’t take “responsibility” like other people, do they “deserve a say”?
@@kampfkeks6619 already covered by Robert A heinlein when he wrote the book. EVERYBODY has a right to attempt to serve in a capacity that is applicable to them.
i dont support it how it was literally depicted in the movie. i just like the general concept. citizen ship shouldnt just be tied to military service, there could be other means, volunteering for other government service or something. i havent read the book in a while but yeah, all civilians deserve a chance at service in some way sounds good. i know there are issues with having a second class or tiered system and how the politics could skew conservative and fascistic. the general idea of it sounds good to me though. there are people who arent interested in the government and how it works but they are still productive to society, so thats fine, live and be a part of society but having a voice or say in it requires a deeper responsibility.
I think the Australian system is great. So long as you have to go out to the ballot, how many will vote once they get there. More participation means more voices being heard. At the same time you are still allowed to vote for nobody - i.e.protest vote.
Lots of really interesting points. I am struck by a couple of things. 1) Their seems to be some judgement and anger just under the surface with Destiny. 2) Did you notice his fingers and sometimes mouth movements - could be just a condition he has, but it also looks a bit like someone high on something, no? 3) His confidence and lack of doubt are the red flags to the laws of probability. Not so much curious in another person's opinion as wanting to say his own thing. 4) Destiny's forgotten point and Alex started politely moving the conversation along with a new interesting idea, but Destiny wasn't listening! He just wanted to remember his forgotten point. Hmmmm
Has Alex expanded on why he thinks democracy is the worst form of government tried? And if so where can I find it. Honestly I’m extremely interested in how he would defend that
This idea that your vote doesn’t matter is completely wrong. Votes are our way to communicate which direction the country will go, what policies will pass, and how we choose to live together in this country. The more votes, the more valuable the feedback to determine which way the ship will go. His analogy may reflect how he feels, but it does not represent what a democracy is. He presents the choices as being silent or participating in torture. I believe if we were honest with ourselves, that analogy wouldn’t hold either. Imagine if the torture took place down on the field and the crowd was instructed to vote by shouting or staying silent-they would obviously just storm the field. But let’s say the crowd did not storm the field. Let’s say they did indeed shout for the torture of the child. Would you not rush the field with hope that enough people felt as strongly as you did? Your vote matters, even when you may feel like it doesn’t. Regardless of who you vote for, make sure you vote and participate in our democracy. Every voice counts, and without your participation, the system cannot function as it should.
10:27 There are more ways that voting functions than just changing the vote differential between two candidates by one (and having a minuscule chance of saving the election). The more important function is that, to whatever extent the vote represents your true political values, the vote incentivizes politicians to work for the people; the obverse of that is that to whatever extent the you compromise your political values (e.g. when your vote depends on popularity and you insist on voting for what you expect to be the eventual 1st- or 2nd-place candidate), the vote incentivizes politicians to work for the entities that convinced you to compromise (e.g. big donors with their advertising dollars, media scaremongers, big tech propagandists). When people wake up to that function, the world will become a better place. One sincere vote lacks the pie-in-the-sky hope of breaking or creating a tie, but it does make the candidates ever-so-slightly better. People who are willing to walk a few blocks to do that are the people we should want voting. People who sacrifice the quality of the candidates and encourage politicians to ignore the people just so that they can feel like part of a team pr pretend that they're fighting evil (when they're really emboldening it) should be reminded again and again and again that their one measly vote has zero chance of affecting the placing of the election. They should be told how obvious it is that they're only voting so that they can pretend that they're good people. Democracies should be left for those who are willing to preserve their integrity instead of handing them over to the powerful.
A key fallacy in these hypothetical situations is that you could know how everyone else will vote before you decide how to cast yours. Clearly, this violates how voting actually works, and is thus a silly question in the first place.
By having a non-deterministic element in your election process you give people more of a reason to vote. Simple example: If you live in a deep red state then a conventional deterministic election doesn't give much of a reason to vote for either the republican or the democrat. But if you instead have e.g. the random ballot (one ballot is drawn at random to determine the winner) then all voters have a much stronger incentive to show up, since it straightforwardly increases the odds of your preferred candidate winning. For more on this check out the (open access) paper: "Should we vote in non-deterministic elections?"
Imagine two talking heads, who’s universal out look is that essentially nothing matters, babbling for hours about whether you should act like something matters. 🤦🏾♂️
I heard something somewhere, not sure where exactly, that many minds is better than smarter and fewer minds, or something to that effect. I have no idea if its true or not. But I think the larger problem is that individuals are bad at choosing their leaders. We vote for people who are charismatic or exude confidence, or even for superficial physical reasons like height. These people aren't necessarily the most qualified. But I think on issues, as a group we tend to do better. So that would be an argument for more referendum voting, although the UK did vote for Brexit, so I'm honestly at a loss.
Democracy is an intangible and a very non transactional government of societies one by one coming together for the greater good, that we in the comforted every man as is an island west, has totally lost all perspective of. It’’s no wonder it crumbling, and there is defiantly no more then one or two decades of it left, and that’s in the absolute best of circumstance.
Seems like “what would happen if I did this” Is inferior to “what would happen if everyone did this”. I think the slight change in language makes someone a better person. If I litter at the beach not much really happens. If everyone litters at the beach, the beach is ruined.
A democracy that has a philanthropic minded elected officials is the key. In America we have the opposite mindset of politicians, elected office are thought of a way to become wealthy. The American opportunity should not be extended to elected officials. Also removing corporate money from politics, citizens dont elect in America, corporations decided who is elected. Our democracy took many wrong turns.
Education, education, and more education will result in an educated society. People believe that it's "too hard" because it takes a few generations to see results. Thinking about the long term began with the founders and it proved to be functional and the nation went all the way to the top. Until, it was no longer seen as a priority. Next to defense it should always be the first priority. Educated citizens would see the benefit of voting and their votes would be beneficial to society and government alike.
Democracy doesn't reduce to voting(ratifying) alone. It seems that is what Alex thinks. Voting for people without participating in creating programs and decisions that will be implemented by your elected officials is not Democracy at all. This makes the US practically not a democracy, and this isn't controversial at all. The voters in the US don't get to choose the programs to be implemented by their leaders, both parties serve and implement policies advocated by their primary constituency (corporate sector). It is more accurate to call US a corporate oligarchy.
The purpose of democracy is to make tge choices that best reflect the opinion of the people , it is NOT to make the best choices . First of all because who would be the arbiter of a choice’s quality other than the people who experience its consequences ? But more importantly because the goal of democracy is to give people what they deserve so that the consequences of its political outcomes find their cause in the very beliefs and actions of the people . Its goal is NOT to necessarily give the best outcomes or make the best choices . If a nation is made up of people who hold self-destructive beliefs , democracy ought to yield self-destructive beliefs . It is up to those people to face those consequences and then change their beliefs , thus changing the outcome , or persist in their ways . That is why democracy nurtures growth . And that’s also why it ought to be a perfect , spotless mirror which perfectly reflects a nation in its entirety , strengths and flaws included so that its constituents may benefit and suffer from them respectively .
I sympathize with the rule by the knowledgeable...as mentioned, it has its own host of potential problems. What if the people revolt against a perceived intellectual elite, even if the leaders are correct? And it's tough to say they would be more moral and ethical in particular.
Universal morals are based on the principle that if everyone were to do it, society would collapse. So you have a duty to protect that if you are benefiting from that society.
Well, not the US-led version of democracy; that's to all intent and proposes an oligarchy now. People think the US version of democracy is the only one, clearly not looking at Europe. You can't have a democracy based on the US version of capitalism as its foundation; it just does not work as we see play out now in real-time, big business, an Australian and South African guy controls in large part the narrative of your politics, and Putin controls both at the very least. It's a bit simplistic, but you get the jist: If Trump/GOP/Russia The loony right in the UK wins the next election, you only have yourselves/us to blame.
I'm Australian and I like the fact that I have to vote to avoid a fine. Once I'm actually there I know who I want to vote for and I care and think that it's good, but without this pressure from the fine I probably wouldn't go half the time because I'm kind of a mess. I imagine a lot of pretty normal young people like me would feel the same.
The problem with this is that once you get there to vote, if you don’t know anything about the candidates, your vote will be cast based on ‘vibes’ and how you feel about certain candidates, completely disregarding their politics. At least I have the option to nullify my vote where I live, but I defend the idea that voting should be optional.
@@rafhiks Just last night I watched Dr Huey Liu on Bridges make the argument that one of the advantages of democracy is that people's misjudgements cancel eachother out. So I suspect voting on vibes isn't actually as bad as we might think.
@@HippopotamusPenciljust because opposing poor choices "may" cancel themselves out doesn't make them any less poor. I think there's plenty of data out there on exactly how effective "punishment" is. Right off the bat, it would likely more effective to instead of "fining", to simply give a tax break or similar.
@@frmrfr So the comment I responded to said "The *problem* with this is that once you get there to vote ... your vote will be cast based on ‘vibes’ and how you feel about certain candidates" (emphasis mine) To dispute this, I point to the idea that human error is essentially normally distributed around a mean that is either more moral, by representing the will of the people despite their ignorance of voting, or more correct, assuming that the average position is the correct one. So your comments on punishment are irrelevant to the point I was making. Feel free to give tax breaks instead (although these amount to essentially the same thing as a fine). However, I think you are dismissing the idea a little too flippantly, so I will point to the same example as from the podcast episode. Namely, if you get a person to guess how many balls are in a jar, they will on average be very wrong. But if you average the results of thousands of people making the guess, you end up with a fairly accurate representation. Hence, it seems like uninformed people can effectively make the same choices as informed people would, simply on average. That said, this is all very speculative, I will admit, and worse still, I have been speculating wildly about systems that function without anyone actually understanding why for a few years now, and while I feel like I understand why science and markets can achieve this effect, before yesterday I did not have an explanation for why democracy works at all. I'll probably cling to this one, unless I can find another one.
I live in a country with mandatory voting and I don't like that an extra large portion of the voter base is made up of people who are completely politically uninformed
i recall reading about how early greek democracy worked (but as i cannot recall the name of the process i cannot find the reference) but basically all of the registered voters (which in this case was all of the male heads of households) names would be put into a bag and names drawn and assigned to random civic roles. this lead to a very well informed populous because you never knew if you were about to become in charge of the sewers (for example). these roles were intensely monitored and anyone found to be exploiting this position would be thrown from the city for a fixed time. this sounds great to me, just expand the notion of a citizen to include more than male heads of households and of course hugely increase the levels of education about civics. additionally, please do notice that more countries exist in the world than the usa please.
Thank god someone is talking about this. This should be talked about, alot. In the last century alone you had so much ideas about so many systems of gov. and now it seems like there is only "democracy" without competition. We are not even upgrading it. Where are all the "Marx" of our time?
I would argue its borderline immoral and unethical to expect voters to be informed and responsible for societal scale problem solving. It is physically impossible for a majority of voters to properly understand the nuance policy debates around every issue. A properly functioning government would be solving problems before the majority of the population ever becomes aware they exist, the fact that your average person understands the greenhouse effect is a condemnation of democracy as a system of government, where problems MUST become popular and widespread impact in order for a majority to effect change within the system
Thank God we don't have an epistocracy, like imagine alex as a leader of a country, he has the compassion and personality of a wet paper bag, he'd probably have us in little dorm rooms to optimise the amount of people that can fit in a space
Just because your vote doesn’t matter on its own doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter. I don’t know why this keeps getting repeated without push back. Your vote matters and counts. There is no paradox here.
@@Mi_Clown Because a lot of people are simple minded. They think that if they can’t change the world right now without any work or effort that they shouldn’t even bother trying. All they care about is instant gratification as if you couldn’t look at history and realize that change only happens when people fight for a very long time. Imaginative Martin Luther King gave up on the Montgomery bus boycott after a couple of days because things just weren’t going fast enough. Imagine if the people who started the gay rights movements just gave up because they were tired of going to jail or being messed with by the cops at Stonewall. They wanna be heroes without going through the training montage
18.00 What if the pilot is suicidal? I would prefer to have a vote in that situation. In real life we have no guarantee that the leaders will do what's best for the people, so voting while not perfect does act as a fail-safe.
Really happened here in Europe not many years ago. A mentally disturbed copilot unalived himself crashing down a whole airplane full of innocent passengers.
Alex has to believe that individual action does not matter or not being Vegan becomes a problem. While the individual action does not always have a measurable impact at the moment, how you live your life impacts how others live theirs. The impact is broader than the action itself.
Decentralizing power is more important in the long run. Intelligent people tend to think that because their map is highly elaborate, it must be highly accurate. Death by hubris becomes a strong contender.
The problem with all forms government is the humans will to power. That is why I have strong opinion in very short, term limits and restrictions on profiting off government positions. House members spend more time writing books, taking cash for influence, and pod casting. Becoming a senator is the fastest track to Becoming a millionaire. America is land of opportunity but that should not apply to elected offices.
Power can be decentralized in a democracy only when people vote in accordance with their sincere attitudes. When they compromise them is when the entities that convince them to compromise (e.g. media, propagandists, donors) gain power, since they're who politicians are being told to work for with every compromised vote.
Whether you think democracy "works" or is the "worst form of government" depends on your political principles. From an equalitarian perspective, democracy; political equality, is the means and the end, and the essential question is rather how democratic the societal structures are, not if it works. And, of course, it should be pointed out that western democracies, especially US, isn't particularly democratic (since they're, for the most part, structured around the pursuit of economic inequality, which of course stands in opposition to the concept of democracy), and so using them as a basis for democracy leads to a superficial perspective.
@@wisshard4448 There will always be economic inequality. I would even argue that economic inequality isn’t a bad thing as long as there is mobility. If we actually lived in a meritocratic society where somebody who grew up in the projects could be become president, then economic inequality wouldn’t be such a bad thing. The problem is, we don’t live in such a society. There are a lot of systemic issues that keep people poor and I think before we try to fight for the equality of outcome, we should make sure that there’s at the very least inequality of opportunity first.
To determine whether something works or not, you must first have a goal. If the goal of democracy is to abolish property, then democracy seems to work well, you just have to cook the frog slowly. Before the West became liberal you were the serf of the king, now that the West is democratic you are the serf of the majority.
@@jordanwhite8718 Economic inequality isn’t a bad thing for whom and for what? My point was that from an equalitarian perspective (which is generally the foundation of the political left), the principle of democracy; that no one's freedom and rights should be subordinate to anyone else's; that everyone should be included equally in decision-making that governs society, is the point in and of itself. In addition, history suggest that facilitating and encouraging the autonomy and solidarity of all is also more likely to result in political decisions that benefits all, both materially and psychologically, than a society where political/economic power is more concentrated and exclusive (regardless if the ruling class is driven by self-interests or benevolent good intentions). Who decides what's considered merits in a meritocracy? Even if you are able to design your perfect meritocracy to start with, it'll be corrupted as the people who succeeds can use their elevated position in society to shift the social structures to the advantage of their family and friends, effectively changing the merits that is rewarded in society. And personally, as a leftist, I don't think the criticism of hierarchies of power and privilege, regardless if they're aristocratic or meritocratic or oligarchic or bureaucratic, should be that it's the wrong people lording over the people, it's that such political/economic inequality is wrong to start with.
6:08 Are you the only one who knows? I'd find that the right thing to do here is to remain utterly silent, and watch on in horror as you stew in your powerlessness. Maybe sit down and pull out some Camus lol. If there was a way to somehow convince somebody, maybe you could make an effort to whisper to the person next to you. But the burden to prove your case would be so insurmountable that you'd be deemed schizophrenic and removed from the stadium (which can happen to people if they make too big of waves against the societal norm...). That can be how it feels sometimes, as you do your silent part, and watch on as the world continues acting the way it does. What if, say 5% knew? That could make somewhat of a difference, add some and maybe you could influence some change. Alex says there is no change, but I'd argue there is no objective change (decibels) but that the subjective change is night and day in that sense. That's a fun but scary analogy, man this convo was so good hope to see y'all talk in the future
I think it's just dumb to say your one vote doesn't matter at all. It matters just a tiny bit and that's an important distinction. Tiny bit is fair in a country with millions of people. Why should your vote carry more weight? I think this idea that democracy is broken is rooted in frustration and narcissism. People who say that we should switch to a different system for sure envision this other system aligning more with their goals.
Next question: who are the knowledgeable? And knowledgeable on what? This is kinda dangerous cause then you can just cut of education to certain people and now they no longer have a voice
Destiny, you say that people are motivated to represent people like them and therefore a technocracy would be bad because they wouldn't represent the whole population.. and I agree that it's bad. However, how many non-millionaires are representing the population right now? I'm not saying that it's an inherent property of democracy but it is anyway a consequence of the current system.. and therefore would warrant criticism.
Isn't this similar with the concept of the state? There is factually nothing that members of a state share in common, it is an imagined community, but their belief in it makes it real. If they stopped believing in it because of their realisation that they factually share nothing in common, it would cease to exist. This is "weird".
@@jonnyvelocity Political systems exist to create the conditions for human behavior. American history shows democracy allows for a pretty unparalleled degree of innovation and technological progress.
@@bracero7628 That makes sense I think, maybe. But I think you need at least a little mini kingdom, because as a guy who's middle-aged and trying to build a workshop to putz around in... I need a bit of room and sovereignty to stack up enough tools and supplies to experiment before anything good becomes really possible. But if I lived in a better world without pollution and stress, I wouldn't be too tired to go to a hackerspace instead. I suppose living in a democracy allows for both options; collectives (corporations, organizations) and private homes... as long as you can get enough money to make it happen, otherwise you're stuck in an apartment working a dead-end job barely making rent. Imagine if I had access to choice of lifestyle instead of poverty as a younger person... all that potential for innovation totally squandered.
@@mistercohaagen Democracy =/= collectivism. The point is you give up enough of your natural freedom that the state can prevent other people from taking your shit, but you're also allowed to own a pretty large share of the rewards of your labor. Kings imposed taxes too, the only difference is you weren't able to vote them out of office. I don't think there's some alternate form of government where things like pollution and stress didn't exist. I mean, yeah, you could be a medieval peasant (pretty stressful existence imo), but most of what alleviates stress is technological innovation, which, again, democracies are proven to excel at. As far as pollution, well, just look at how China's doing on that front.
its not tha complicated bro every vote matters, the more people vote the less individual votes change the outcome but they still matter individually. the less people vote the bigger the impact like fr you two make it sound way to complicated and abstract its not that deep.
We need to build a system and structure of collective ideation, reasoning, and truth determination that creates a map of what everyone believes is important, true, and what to do about it. An immutable public record of what everyone thinks is most important and what happens through time in a concise manner. This system will live and grow through time. Representing the ideas of all individuals and groups and map out where there is consensus or not and what worked and what didn't, fostering collective wisdom. The problem right now is everybody is just screaming at each other, which is quite interesting but not very useful, and nobody is really keeping track of the big picture through time in a concise manner.
This is interesting. I am not a huge fan of Destiny, and I actually subscribe to a more Aristotelian Meritocracy. I am not saying Meritocracy is not without its faults, but the uneducated lunatic who spends all day on twitter should not have the same power as a climatologist. Yet again, Democracy can be solved if people were simply to be more educated and rational.
As a 25yo Australian. I don't think that my vote significantly helps or hinders the outcomes for policy changes. I think that the amount of control you get for the outcomes you have along with the inconvenience of it makes voting meaningless to me. I think that voting should be both easier and more specific. I would rather a digital voting scheme with regular referendums on policy and not everyone needs to participate. I don't particularly care which party is in power because it's up to their whim as to whether they follow through on their policy suggestions.
This is all so dumb. It's easy to say your vote or any given persons vote didn't matter in hindsight. But on polling day, when the result is unknown, of course it matters. Elections are won by the votes of people who you say individually don't matter. As to the child being tortured in response to a sports crowds noise? Does it really matter if you make noise if the crowd will be noisy anyway? Yes it does Alex. Jesus f'ing Christ. Don't make noise. Don't be that guy. Whatever the outcome.
How? The idea of voting matters in the sense that it will ensure enough people participate in the act of voting for the government to continue to function. It’s a way to intellectualize the importance of something.
there is an entire theory around this already you aren't pointing out anything new. Basically, yes-it tends that way because most of the time, those unwilling to educate themselves zero each other out leaving the symmetry breaking to the educated.
Democracy is great if you want to find out who is the most popular kid. If you’re looking for the most qualified person it’s likely the worst system imaginable.
One could argue that this is only the case when voting for people. But you can also vote for policy. So a system that puts less focus on candidates(or does not deal with candidates) and more focus on parties and policy ming circumvent this slightly
@@erikholgersson9235 voting for policies? whoa buddy. now you are getting in dangerous territory. such a system would actually be a democracy, not the shitshow that north korea or the united states call a democracy. do you really think the elites would allow that?
@@OdorGod What a retarded way to disregard anyone's political opinion. Anyways, Kamala is the first candidate that wasn't voted into to place. She was put there by the powers that be. So yeah, voting for her would be extremely undemocratic.
Being a Homeless Veteran for 10yrs if any of you think it's easy it's not. Nobody cares about our situation Now i make 22k weekly. have a home, a wife, a lovely daughter... A child of God. HALLELUJAH
After I raised up to 325k trading with her I bought a new House and a car here in the states 🇺🇸🇺🇸 also paid for my daughter's surgery (Joey). Glory to God.shalom.
It always seems to me like Destiny could really contribute to public dialogue, but always falls short because he's unwilling to consider the positives of any position he disagrees with. In other words: he's not looking to understand, he's looking to improve his position and disprove other's. More concisely and as has been put by others, he's just looking to be right. It's so very noticeable in all of his argumentation.
I watch a good amount of Destiny’s content, and this feels very off base. If anything, he typically feels more open than many others in his medium. I feel like there’s a very notable distinction between someone not willing to be open minded, and someone so knowledge and confident in their position that it would take a lot more than most to change their mind.
I don’t know whether democracy works, I think we should vote on it.
I vote that we shouldn't be allowed a vote on it.
Good one buddy
Nay
Democracy sux. The tyranny of the majority is terrible.
Your joke is literally happening in November by the way.
Something that really pisses me off is when people say their vote doesn’t matter but when you look at the 2020 election, Georgia was a big state that made the difference whether Trump or Biden won the election. The population of Georgia is 10 million people. Biden only beat Trump by 11,000 votes. That to me is pretty significant. Imagine if 11,000 people decided not to vote that day. We would probably have a different president in power.
That's my state baby! Yeah funny enough the swing state thing really has kept me off my ass ever since, no excuses!!
For the other 45 non-swing states. Your vote does not matter, sorry. The electoral college ruined all that
the truth isn't that it doesn't matter but that depending on where you live your vote matters much much much less
@@Moncalf5th Well if that’s the case then I have a couple of suggestions. The first one is go move somewhere where your vote does have more of a say. If you’re a liberal, you should probably move to Washington and if you’re a conservative, you should probably move to Florida. And before you bitch and moan about how you don’t have the money to move Amazon literally exist everywhere and if you need a job in the area, just hold down the place. Amazon is a good place to start. They literally hire anybody with a pulse. I should know I’m legally blind, and Amazon was the only company who would hire me. My second suggestion would be to get more involved in local politics, where your vote probably matters a bit more. That’s how it works when you don’t have to compete with as many people. Maybe go to local city council meetings. Maybe try to start up your own activist group. or you could just sit here on the Internet and bitch to strangers who don’t care about how unfair everything is. Let’s be honest we all know that’s what you’re actually going to do.
No, even if all 11k of those had decided not to vote, it still likely wouldn't matter. The scenario you're imagining is not one where people think their vote doesn't matter. You're imagining ONLY the people on left think their votes don't matter. Which is an entirely different scenario. You're assuming all 11k people that decide to not vote were gonna be the Biden voters. That's an entirely unrealistic assumption. If people are just voting less, they're voting less on both sides. We'd get the same outcome but with 11k less votes.
I love this conversation because it really feels like both people are genuinely concerned to figure things out based on the existing knowledge that they bring to the conversation instead of fighting for a set of identity based beliefs that have more to do with a certain narrative than resolving any issues.
this was JP before the leftists broke his brain
@@aSSGoblin1488JP is such a partisan hack, I don't think someone with actual integrity could become what he has
Objectively, it doesnt matter if you as an individual hit like on this video or not. But it does matter if everyone does. In fact, the *idea* that we may or may not like this video is perhaps the most important thing. Go on. Like the video 😉
Please get Destiny on again, his talks are always so good
???? They suck lol
In which way? How does he make the talk suck?
@@jonashartung6065 rambles on about how amazing he is and how he knows everything but ends with the shallowest perspective on whatever he yaps about. Like democracy for instance!
@@timmyt1293 k
What I tell myself to convince me to vote is this: I know for a fact there is one other person out there, at least one, who will vote for the party I don't want. Why would I not want to put a guarenteed vote against it? Theres always a shinier turd on the ballot box. Vote. You dont want Jerry from down the road making decisions for you, right?
Regarding whether your vote matters or not, the problem is that while most voters' votes end up not mattering, there is no way to know this until after all the votes are cast and counted. So the situation where "I know my vote won't change the outcome, does it matter whether I go vote or not?" doesn't actually ever come up (unless the votes (actual votes, not a sample of voters' poll answers) are being counted in real time, and you know how many potential votes are left to be cast, which is something that, as far as I know, does not happen). This applies to both questions ("a single vote won't change the outcome, so I shouldn't bother voting" and "is voting for the bad guy who is certainly going to win a bad thing?"). Neither situation is actually possible, since both depend on knowing the result of a vote beforehand. If the result is known, there is no need to even submit the issue to an actual vote.
The plane analogy;
Vote is cast when you enter the plane. Next "election" will be when deciding the next flight.
It's a nice thought but it's not like you have an option to not consent. You could use the same argument for monarchies or dictatorships. "You cast the vote for the monarch/dictator when you chose to be in his nation." That's not a vote. There's not any real alternative, beyond just not even participating by leaving the nation or the plane.
@@lohto3
If you remove consent, you no longer have a democracy and your argument fails.
The main reason democracy works is it creates a compromise between elites and plebs that allows each to benefit from the best contributions of the other. It also gives the masses a stake in the government which greatly reduces their likelihood of revolting against it.
In theory. However, we don’t live in a true democracy. It’s a representative democracy. That means the elites have more power because they can bribe politicians. Singapore’s model proves that democracy isn’t the only system that works.
lmao no
@@JohnDoe-xs5gv Find a non-democratic society that has produced more wealth and technological innovation than the democratic west.
You won't, because it's not even close.
God, these shit libs are unbearable. We are a republic with democratic mechanisms. Democracy doesn’t work, which is why the Founders specifically designed the government to not be a democracy. The Democratic Party has repeated “OuR dEmOcRaCy” so much that you actually think that’s the government we have.
True I feel like I really have a stake in my government
It seems to me that having a narcissist as a leader, educated or not is one of the worst things that could happen to a country.
Yeah, having dementia and being paid personally by foreign interests are actually worse.
@@stevenknight6756 Both of them were though.
12:05 thats a comically smal can wth
What do you mean? He's 11 feet tall.
The plane comparison is disanalogous because plane passengers consent to the authority of the pilot when they opt to fly, while being a citizen of your country is not a choice.
And the vote for the pilot, airline, and destination already happened when the passengers bought the ticket. Nobody is buying tickets for Jim Bob's discount cardboard airline.
There's A LOT more going on in a democracy than just voting every four years guys.
We don’t live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional democracy. Regular democracy = demagoguery
I've always thought that the act of voting doesn't just increase the vote count by one. If a friend, family member, or even stranger sees you vote, sees you wearing the "I voted" sticker, or hears about you voting, you might inspire others to vote as well. In the same way, not voting might cause others to not vote as well, especially if you are outspoken about it.
Or not. Those who do not vote dont put those stickers saying 'I didnt vote' and a lot of people who vote dont advertise it either.
I think Alex misses something in the torture stadium crowd thought experiment. An individual crowd member could affect the stadium, even through silence, to stop the torture, while deciding it doesn't matter and cheering for the game presumably after forgetting the torture is both actively contributing to the torture as well as making it less likely and harder for anybody else to implement the solution (everyone quieting).
Democracy only works if good governance prevails but we all know most politicians get to line their pockets because of corporations and good governance goes out the window
Destiny is my favorite streamer. That being said, i love that his argument for why people cant think selfishly in the child-being-tortured thought exercise, and that people shouldnt take advantage of being the only person being allowed to do something, is the direct defeatign argument for his take he gave a couple days ago on how scalping is totally fine, and that the solution to the problem is to just raise the price of the good being scalped. When he, himself, just now, said that if everyone thinks this way, that the government and society would. When comparably, if everyone was a scalper, society, and the economy, would fail too. It's just a completely hypocritcal take, when BOTH of these things are morally adjacent, to the T, but the scalping is fine, because the sellers dont raise the price of things, and being the only person being allowed to take advantage of a system isnt fine.
The thing with democracy is that it‘s not necessarily the best but the most legitimate form of government (in terms of outcome). The principle that everyone was asked for their opinion is key here.
I am just relieved to hear productive conversation rather than the constant debates that seems to be going on around these two guys...
A thought experiment just came to mind. If came to me and said, «You can have the right to vote or you can have a guaranteed lobbying budget for the rest of your life from a top-10 (roughly) Public Law & Policy K Street Firm on any issue of my choosing but you have to permanently give up your right to vote» I personally would choose to take the lobbyist 100% of the time because it's far more effective at getting shit that I want done. I think most people know this which is a big reason why there's a crisis in faith in democracy.
The problem I have with the categorical imperative is that it doesn't take game theory into account. Game theory also helps us to resolve the "paradox" that if one person reasons their vote doesn't matter than everyone can reason that way and then nobody votes so then any single vote would be deciding. Voting power is inversely proportional to the number of people that vote. So for any individual, their decision to vote should be a function of confidence in expected outcome (based on polling data), cost to vote (e.g. time spent voting), expected voting power (how many other people do I expect to vote), and cost/utility of the various election outcomes. I'm sure game theorists could flesh that out some more and show what conditions voter participation is stable or unstable.
Democracy requires people who participate in it to have critical thinking skills to make arguments, analyze which person is good for the role of leadership, remove as much biases as possible when making decisions. But we all that at least half of the society don't have or want to improve on such things. Therefore democracy is more about idiots making decisions based on what most people want based on logical fallacies and biases. It's a tool that people say they want but don't know to use and ending up hurting themselves or people around them
The problem as I see it is that in many (most?) democracies, the power of electing a candidate is not balanced up against voting directly on a proposal. Once you have voted someone in, it is extremely difficult to hold them to account. Telling someone that they might face consequences in four to five years isn't really convincing. Having the ability to vote on a proposal the candidate SAID they would champion is much more powerful.
Manufacturing consent works on most people most of the time. Not on feral people like Pirates of the Caribbean.
Different levels and sizes of government have differing levels of effectiveness depending on the system.
Local governments work best under direct democracy from an educated and involved electorate. Those directly involved and affected by local politics and industry should have a say in how they work, the regulations around them, and how tax revenue is accrued and spent. This isn't limited to just governments either, this also applies to workplace politics and organizations such as unions or worker cooperatives electing their executives or voting on policy.
State/regional governments work better under representative democracy where the representatives are voted on by each local government within the regional power. This is because the sheer size, complexity and scope of the government at that stage would make direct democracy inefficient, slow, and possibly self-destructive as people who have little to no experience or education around the decisions being made cannot possibly put their biases aside to make a logical and educated decision that is best for everyone involved. Hence, representatives who are fully knowledgable on the interests of their constituents while having the freedom to specialize and be at least somewhat knowledgable of the interests of other local governments and the ability to negotiate with other representatives. This works regardless of the underlying economic system, whether the representatives are elected by uncoordinated direct democracy, by special interest groups, or by syndicates.
They are describing the heap paradox with respect to voting. How many grains of sand does it take to make a heap (or how many hairs does it take for a man to cease to be bald)? It's essentially an impossible question to really answer with complete precision, but it does not mean that grains of sand are irrelevant to heaps, or hair is irrelevant to baldness. Every person's vote still matters, it is just not possible to decide exactly how much, which is fine by me. It means that each participant has a tiny role to play in creating the whole democratic system of voting, but there is no way to indicate exactly how much each matters in the creation of the whole. Was that one person's vote the one that made a difference? Who knows? Still, I'd rather have voting from everyone, because satisfying the rights of all to participate in governing is also the best of all ways to determine the trajectory of governing. Though I understand Alex's line of reasoning, pragmatically, I don't see a distinction between the rights-based/ethical need for democratic voting, and a best-decision argument for the same. I believe that because I don't think there is an absolutely right way of governing, there is only a way that entails the best (a subjective assessment, btw) utilitarian compromise for all, in the face of a necessarily uncertain future. 'Best' is co-constructed by the people involved, and is likely to change from moment to moment, not an absolute truth. This is also why deciding only the 'most educated' can vote be difficult if not impossible to pin down. Educated in what way?
The essence of democracy is participation in decision-making by the public. Voting is a part of decision-making but not a significant part. Alex seems to believe voting is the essence of democracy. It's not.
how is it not ?
how else does the average person influence democracy ?
Edit: i should have used "government" or "state" instead of "democracy"
@carlod5818 What do you mean by influence democracy? Democracy itself is the way we influence decision-making. Democracy is not a thing that exists outside people. It is something that people want to do.
Voting in itself is an example of a democratic process, I.e. electing leaders who will rule your society. But there are other things( like what those elected officials are going to do while in office), that ought to be subject to democratic process. And if you think about it, deciding what leaders are going to do is far more important than deciding which leader to rule. But in a state capitalist society like the US, most people are denied the ability to make the former decisions. That right is reserved for corporate and business interests that virtually control the political leaders.
Therefore, calling the US a democracy because people vote is very misleading.
@@alexmacharia4549, you had a point until you started spouting weird anticapitalist propaganda
@@lordmew5 to me it looks like Alex was saying more anti-lobbying/anti-corporate sentiments. Not sure how commenting (correctly) that corporations and businesses have interests which influence our leader's actions is anti-capitalist.
@@alexmacharia4549 exactly, voting for policies can be more effective than voting leaders.
I think it was said but don’t know if it was realized. The points were addressed perfectly. Community welfare (looking out for one another) and degrees of separation regarding morality. This is THE problem. We have all together too many degrees of separation within our own systems, to the point that people are willing to do horrible things to essentially people in their own tribe. We can’t rely on others to fight for us, and as such we’ve become distanced ourselves and severed community ties. It’s sad that I feel Ben Shapiro is really right about this part (however I don’t care what is driving that community, and might prefer if it wasn’t religion). But isn’t that what we see happen, agglomeration followed by segmentation? I don’t know if humans are capable of this large abstract living. We eventually lose touch and start treating each other as if we were from a different tribe, warring and pillaging as if there wasn’t enough for everyone to survive. The more abstract our world gets (ie globalization, digital connection etc) the easier it gets to make these decisions that truely aren’t moral. I believe it really is a paradox, together we form a strong community, it the size of the community always tends towards a critical mass that allows for failure.
We’ve done pretty well despite our tendency towards fragmentation. Many fewer people die from homicide now than in the state of nature. Large groups and the government monopoly on force have been net positives.
Thanks for the awesome content, I always love your convos with destiny!
i like the starship troopers system. people separated into citizens and civilians. civilians can live within the system and benefit from it and be protected by it but if you dont want to take any responsibility for the system you dont get any say in the system.
that sounds fairly libertarian which sounds appealing to me
@@andymccallum8090 how is that libertarian?
Sounds more like a meritocratic one party state like China and Singapore.
Anyone can join the CCP or the PAP if they really want to but they don't have to.
That’s a fascistic government. Tying your vote to a service is not democratic and in the case of Starship Troopers it’s clear that society is synchronised to serve the military and ideology. Tell me in a system like that what happens to people with disabilities or other complications. They can’t take “responsibility” like other people, do they “deserve a say”?
@@kampfkeks6619 already covered by Robert A heinlein when he wrote the book. EVERYBODY has a right to attempt to serve in a capacity that is applicable to them.
i dont support it how it was literally depicted in the movie. i just like the general concept. citizen ship shouldnt just be tied to military service, there could be other means, volunteering for other government service or something. i havent read the book in a while but yeah, all civilians deserve a chance at service in some way sounds good.
i know there are issues with having a second class or tiered system and how the politics could skew conservative and fascistic. the general idea of it sounds good to me though. there are people who arent interested in the government and how it works but they are still productive to society, so thats fine, live and be a part of society but having a voice or say in it requires a deeper responsibility.
I think the Australian system is great. So long as you have to go out to the ballot, how many will vote once they get there. More participation means more voices being heard. At the same time you are still allowed to vote for nobody - i.e.protest vote.
Lots of really interesting points. I am struck by a couple of things. 1) Their seems to be some judgement and anger just under the surface with Destiny. 2) Did you notice his fingers and sometimes mouth movements - could be just a condition he has, but it also looks a bit like someone high on something, no? 3) His confidence and lack of doubt are the red flags to the laws of probability. Not so much curious in another person's opinion as wanting to say his own thing. 4) Destiny's forgotten point and Alex started politely moving the conversation along with a new interesting idea, but Destiny wasn't listening! He just wanted to remember his forgotten point. Hmmmm
I didn't consent to the system of the plane. I was born on it.
And that’s the universe buddy. Nothing consents to their creation
Has Alex expanded on why he thinks democracy is the worst form of government tried? And if so where can I find it. Honestly I’m extremely interested in how he would defend that
This idea that your vote doesn’t matter is completely wrong. Votes are our way to communicate which direction the country will go, what policies will pass, and how we choose to live together in this country. The more votes, the more valuable the feedback to determine which way the ship will go.
His analogy may reflect how he feels, but it does not represent what a democracy is. He presents the choices as being silent or participating in torture. I believe if we were honest with ourselves, that analogy wouldn’t hold either. Imagine if the torture took place down on the field and the crowd was instructed to vote by shouting or staying silent-they would obviously just storm the field.
But let’s say the crowd did not storm the field. Let’s say they did indeed shout for the torture of the child. Would you not rush the field with hope that enough people felt as strongly as you did? Your vote matters, even when you may feel like it doesn’t.
Regardless of who you vote for, make sure you vote and participate in our democracy. Every voice counts, and without your participation, the system cannot function as it should.
This was a really cool discussion. Great video.
10:27 There are more ways that voting functions than just changing the vote differential between two candidates by one (and having a minuscule chance of saving the election). The more important function is that, to whatever extent the vote represents your true political values, the vote incentivizes politicians to work for the people; the obverse of that is that to whatever extent the you compromise your political values (e.g. when your vote depends on popularity and you insist on voting for what you expect to be the eventual 1st- or 2nd-place candidate), the vote incentivizes politicians to work for the entities that convinced you to compromise (e.g. big donors with their advertising dollars, media scaremongers, big tech propagandists).
When people wake up to that function, the world will become a better place. One sincere vote lacks the pie-in-the-sky hope of breaking or creating a tie, but it does make the candidates ever-so-slightly better. People who are willing to walk a few blocks to do that are the people we should want voting. People who sacrifice the quality of the candidates and encourage politicians to ignore the people just so that they can feel like part of a team pr pretend that they're fighting evil (when they're really emboldening it) should be reminded again and again and again that their one measly vote has zero chance of affecting the placing of the election. They should be told how obvious it is that they're only voting so that they can pretend that they're good people. Democracies should be left for those who are willing to preserve their integrity instead of handing them over to the powerful.
A key fallacy in these hypothetical situations is that you could know how everyone else will vote before you decide how to cast yours. Clearly, this violates how voting actually works, and is thus a silly question in the first place.
By having a non-deterministic element in your election process you give people more of a reason to vote. Simple example: If you live in a deep red state then a conventional deterministic election doesn't give much of a reason to vote for either the republican or the democrat. But if you instead have e.g. the random ballot (one ballot is drawn at random to determine the winner) then all voters have a much stronger incentive to show up, since it straightforwardly increases the odds of your preferred candidate winning. For more on this check out the (open access) paper: "Should we vote in non-deterministic elections?"
Imagine two talking heads, who’s universal out look is that essentially nothing matters, babbling for hours about whether you should act like something matters. 🤦🏾♂️
I heard something somewhere, not sure where exactly, that many minds is better than smarter and fewer minds, or something to that effect. I have no idea if its true or not. But I think the larger problem is that individuals are bad at choosing their leaders. We vote for people who are charismatic or exude confidence, or even for superficial physical reasons like height. These people aren't necessarily the most qualified. But I think on issues, as a group we tend to do better. So that would be an argument for more referendum voting, although the UK did vote for Brexit, so I'm honestly at a loss.
Democracy is an intangible and a very non transactional government of societies one by one coming together for the greater good, that we in the comforted every man as is an island west, has totally lost all perspective of. It’’s no wonder it crumbling, and there is defiantly no more then one or two decades of it left, and that’s in the absolute best of circumstance.
"It makes no difference!"
No, it makes a _small_ difference, as do we all. 🤓
Seems like “what would happen if I did this” Is inferior to “what would happen if everyone did this”.
I think the slight change in language makes someone a better person.
If I litter at the beach not much really happens. If everyone litters at the beach, the beach is ruined.
A democracy that has a philanthropic minded elected officials is the key. In America we have the opposite mindset of politicians, elected office are thought of a way to become wealthy. The American opportunity should not be extended to elected officials. Also removing corporate money from politics, citizens dont elect in America, corporations decided who is elected. Our democracy took many wrong turns.
Education, education, and more education will result in an educated society. People believe that it's "too hard" because it takes a few generations to see results.
Thinking about the long term began with the founders and it proved to be functional and the nation went all the way to the top. Until, it was no longer seen as a priority. Next to defense it should always be the first priority.
Educated citizens would see the benefit of voting and their votes would be beneficial to society and government alike.
Democracy doesn't reduce to voting(ratifying) alone. It seems that is what Alex thinks. Voting for people without participating in creating programs and decisions that will be implemented by your elected officials is not Democracy at all. This makes the US practically not a democracy, and this isn't controversial at all.
The voters in the US don't get to choose the programs to be implemented by their leaders, both parties serve and implement policies advocated by their primary constituency (corporate sector).
It is more accurate to call US a corporate oligarchy.
The US is officially a democratic republic, but functionally a corporate oligarchy.
@EskiltheWanderer Exactly.
The purpose of democracy is to make tge choices that best reflect the opinion of the people , it is NOT to make the best choices . First of all because who would be the arbiter of a choice’s quality other than the people who experience its consequences ? But more importantly because the goal of democracy is to give people what they deserve so that the consequences of its political outcomes find their cause in the very beliefs and actions of the people . Its goal is NOT to necessarily give the best outcomes or make the best choices . If a nation is made up of people who hold self-destructive beliefs , democracy ought to yield self-destructive beliefs . It is up to those people to face those consequences and then change their beliefs , thus changing the outcome , or persist in their ways . That is why democracy nurtures growth . And that’s also why it ought to be a perfect , spotless mirror which perfectly reflects a nation in its entirety , strengths and flaws included so that its constituents may benefit and suffer from them respectively .
I sympathize with the rule by the knowledgeable...as mentioned, it has its own host of potential problems. What if the people revolt against a perceived intellectual elite, even if the leaders are correct? And it's tough to say they would be more moral and ethical in particular.
Universal morals are based on the principle that if everyone were to do it, society would collapse. So you have a duty to protect that if you are benefiting from that society.
I don’t know anymore
Well, not the US-led version of democracy; that's to all intent and proposes an oligarchy now. People think the US version of democracy is the only one, clearly not looking at Europe. You can't have a democracy based on the US version of capitalism as its foundation; it just does not work as we see play out now in real-time, big business, an Australian and South African guy controls in large part the narrative of your politics, and Putin controls both at the very least.
It's a bit simplistic, but you get the jist: If Trump/GOP/Russia The loony right in the UK wins the next election, you only have yourselves/us to blame.
I'm Australian and I like the fact that I have to vote to avoid a fine. Once I'm actually there I know who I want to vote for and I care and think that it's good, but without this pressure from the fine I probably wouldn't go half the time because I'm kind of a mess. I imagine a lot of pretty normal young people like me would feel the same.
The problem with this is that once you get there to vote, if you don’t know anything about the candidates, your vote will be cast based on ‘vibes’ and how you feel about certain candidates, completely disregarding their politics. At least I have the option to nullify my vote where I live, but I defend the idea that voting should be optional.
@@rafhiks Just last night I watched Dr Huey Liu on Bridges make the argument that one of the advantages of democracy is that people's misjudgements cancel eachother out. So I suspect voting on vibes isn't actually as bad as we might think.
@@HippopotamusPenciljust because opposing poor choices "may" cancel themselves out doesn't make them any less poor.
I think there's plenty of data out there on exactly how effective "punishment" is.
Right off the bat, it would likely more effective to instead of "fining", to simply give a tax break or similar.
@@frmrfr So the comment I responded to said "The *problem* with this is that once you get there to vote ... your vote will be cast based on ‘vibes’ and how you feel about certain candidates" (emphasis mine)
To dispute this, I point to the idea that human error is essentially normally distributed around a mean that is either more moral, by representing the will of the people despite their ignorance of voting, or more correct, assuming that the average position is the correct one.
So your comments on punishment are irrelevant to the point I was making. Feel free to give tax breaks instead (although these amount to essentially the same thing as a fine).
However, I think you are dismissing the idea a little too flippantly, so I will point to the same example as from the podcast episode. Namely, if you get a person to guess how many balls are in a jar, they will on average be very wrong. But if you average the results of thousands of people making the guess, you end up with a fairly accurate representation. Hence, it seems like uninformed people can effectively make the same choices as informed people would, simply on average.
That said, this is all very speculative, I will admit, and worse still, I have been speculating wildly about systems that function without anyone actually understanding why for a few years now, and while I feel like I understand why science and markets can achieve this effect, before yesterday I did not have an explanation for why democracy works at all. I'll probably cling to this one, unless I can find another one.
I live in a country with mandatory voting and I don't like that an extra large portion of the voter base is made up of people who are completely politically uninformed
Citizens Assemblies by Sortition and democracy in workplaces (co-operatives) this is my preference
i recall reading about how early greek democracy worked (but as i cannot recall the name of the process i cannot find the reference) but basically all of the registered voters (which in this case was all of the male heads of households) names would be put into a bag and names drawn and assigned to random civic roles. this lead to a very well informed populous because you never knew if you were about to become in charge of the sewers (for example). these roles were intensely monitored and anyone found to be exploiting this position would be thrown from the city for a fixed time. this sounds great to me, just expand the notion of a citizen to include more than male heads of households and of course hugely increase the levels of education about civics. additionally, please do notice that more countries exist in the world than the usa please.
Thank god someone is talking about this. This should be talked about, alot. In the last century alone you had so much ideas about so many systems of gov. and now it seems like there is only "democracy" without competition. We are not even upgrading it. Where are all the "Marx" of our time?
Wil MacAskill argues that your *specific* vote is like donating $1000 to charity
*Sorry he said "thousands of dollars"
And in the US it can range from 10s of dollars in some states to millions in purge states
I would argue its borderline immoral and unethical to expect voters to be informed and responsible for societal scale problem solving. It is physically impossible for a majority of voters to properly understand the nuance policy debates around every issue. A properly functioning government would be solving problems before the majority of the population ever becomes aware they exist, the fact that your average person understands the greenhouse effect is a condemnation of democracy as a system of government, where problems MUST become popular and widespread impact in order for a majority to effect change within the system
Thank God we don't have an epistocracy, like imagine alex as a leader of a country, he has the compassion and personality of a wet paper bag, he'd probably have us in little dorm rooms to optimise the amount of people that can fit in a space
Guys who want to pretend they’re incredibly smart when these questions are just pub talk and already have established answers.
your Churchill quote is incorrect, he said "except all those other forms" not "including all those other forms"
He's assuming you know the quote and is disputing it.
exactly, notice how he puts emphasis on "including" because he specifically wants to say the opposite of churchill
You didn’t get it
Just because your vote doesn’t matter on its own doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter. I don’t know why this keeps getting repeated without push back. Your vote matters and counts. There is no paradox here.
@@Mi_Clown Because a lot of people are simple minded. They think that if they can’t change the world right now without any work or effort that they shouldn’t even bother trying. All they care about is instant gratification as if you couldn’t look at history and realize that change only happens when people fight for a very long time. Imaginative Martin Luther King gave up on the Montgomery bus boycott after a couple of days because things just weren’t going fast enough. Imagine if the people who started the gay rights movements just gave up because they were tired of going to jail or being messed with by the cops at Stonewall. They wanna be heroes without going through the training montage
18.00 What if the pilot is suicidal? I would prefer to have a vote in that situation. In real life we have no guarantee that the leaders will do what's best for the people, so voting while not perfect does act as a fail-safe.
Really happened here in Europe not many years ago. A mentally disturbed copilot unalived himself crashing down a whole airplane full of innocent passengers.
Destiny truely is as intelligent as he is tall
Alex has to believe that individual action does not matter or not being Vegan becomes a problem.
While the individual action does not always have a measurable impact at the moment, how you live your life impacts how others live theirs. The impact is broader than the action itself.
Decentralizing power is more important in the long run.
Intelligent people tend to think that because their map is highly elaborate, it must be highly accurate. Death by hubris becomes a strong contender.
The problem with all forms government is the humans will to power. That is why I have strong opinion in very short, term limits and restrictions on profiting off government positions. House members spend more time writing books, taking cash for influence, and pod casting. Becoming a senator is the fastest track to Becoming a millionaire. America is land of opportunity but that should not apply to elected offices.
Power can be decentralized in a democracy only when people vote in accordance with their sincere attitudes. When they compromise them is when the entities that convince them to compromise (e.g. media, propagandists, donors) gain power, since they're who politicians are being told to work for with every compromised vote.
@of9490 the problem with short terms is the incentivize short term thinking. No one wants to invest in the long run if they aren't around to benefit.
Whether you think democracy "works" or is the "worst form of government" depends on your political principles. From an equalitarian perspective, democracy; political equality, is the means and the end, and the essential question is rather how democratic the societal structures are, not if it works.
And, of course, it should be pointed out that western democracies, especially US, isn't particularly democratic (since they're, for the most part, structured around the pursuit of economic inequality, which of course stands in opposition to the concept of democracy), and so using them as a basis for democracy leads to a superficial perspective.
@@wisshard4448 There will always be economic inequality. I would even argue that economic inequality isn’t a bad thing as long as there is mobility. If we actually lived in a meritocratic society where somebody who grew up in the projects could be become president, then economic inequality wouldn’t be such a bad thing. The problem is, we don’t live in such a society. There are a lot of systemic issues that keep people poor and I think before we try to fight for the equality of outcome, we should make sure that there’s at the very least inequality of opportunity first.
To determine whether something works or not, you must first have a goal.
If the goal of democracy is to abolish property, then democracy seems to work well, you just have to cook the frog slowly.
Before the West became liberal you were the serf of the king, now that the West is democratic you are the serf of the majority.
@@jordanwhite8718 Economic inequality isn’t a bad thing for whom and for what? My point was that from an equalitarian perspective (which is generally the foundation of the political left), the principle of democracy; that no one's freedom and rights should be subordinate to anyone else's; that everyone should be included equally in decision-making that governs society, is the point in and of itself. In addition, history suggest that facilitating and encouraging the autonomy and solidarity of all is also more likely to result in political decisions that benefits all, both materially and psychologically, than a society where political/economic power is more concentrated and exclusive (regardless if the ruling class is driven by self-interests or benevolent good intentions).
Who decides what's considered merits in a meritocracy? Even if you are able to design your perfect meritocracy to start with, it'll be corrupted as the people who succeeds can use their elevated position in society to shift the social structures to the advantage of their family and friends, effectively changing the merits that is rewarded in society. And personally, as a leftist, I don't think the criticism of hierarchies of power and privilege, regardless if they're aristocratic or meritocratic or oligarchic or bureaucratic, should be that it's the wrong people lording over the people, it's that such political/economic inequality is wrong to start with.
you can only reject democracy if you're subscribed to an ideology that claims to have a monopoly on the total truth
6:08 Are you the only one who knows? I'd find that the right thing to do here is to remain utterly silent, and watch on in horror as you stew in your powerlessness. Maybe sit down and pull out some Camus lol. If there was a way to somehow convince somebody, maybe you could make an effort to whisper to the person next to you. But the burden to prove your case would be so insurmountable that you'd be deemed schizophrenic and removed from the stadium (which can happen to people if they make too big of waves against the societal norm...). That can be how it feels sometimes, as you do your silent part, and watch on as the world continues acting the way it does. What if, say 5% knew? That could make somewhat of a difference, add some and maybe you could influence some change. Alex says there is no change, but I'd argue there is no objective change (decibels) but that the subjective change is night and day in that sense. That's a fun but scary analogy, man this convo was so good hope to see y'all talk in the future
This level of nihilism is regressive
no one told destiny the social contract is dead?
I think it's just dumb to say your one vote doesn't matter at all. It matters just a tiny bit and that's an important distinction. Tiny bit is fair in a country with millions of people. Why should your vote carry more weight? I think this idea that democracy is broken is rooted in frustration and narcissism. People who say that we should switch to a different system for sure envision this other system aligning more with their goals.
Does democracy even lift bro?
Have tjump on
americans said it best
"no taxes without representation"
Are there anymore videos of Alex talking about why he hates democracy?
I won’t say that this is him ‘hating’ democracy but check out Within Reason #53 (Jason Brennan).
Next question: who are the knowledgeable?
And knowledgeable on what?
This is kinda dangerous cause then you can just cut of education to certain people and now they no longer have a voice
just as you can have a right to vote such a hypothetical
Destiny, you say that people are motivated to represent people like them and therefore a technocracy would be bad because they wouldn't represent the whole population.. and I agree that it's bad. However, how many non-millionaires are representing the population right now? I'm not saying that it's an inherent property of democracy but it is anyway a consequence of the current system.. and therefore would warrant criticism.
Isn't this similar with the concept of the state? There is factually nothing that members of a state share in common, it is an imagined community, but their belief in it makes it real. If they stopped believing in it because of their realisation that they factually share nothing in common, it would cease to exist. This is "weird".
Normally people within a state share many things. For example a language.
Democracy built planes. Did Democracy invent planes?
The Wright Brothers were from Ohio, so, kinda yes.
@@bracero7628 The Write Brothers weren't democracy.
@@jonnyvelocity Political systems exist to create the conditions for human behavior. American history shows democracy allows for a pretty unparalleled degree of innovation and technological progress.
@@bracero7628 That makes sense I think, maybe. But I think you need at least a little mini kingdom, because as a guy who's middle-aged and trying to build a workshop to putz around in... I need a bit of room and sovereignty to stack up enough tools and supplies to experiment before anything good becomes really possible. But if I lived in a better world without pollution and stress, I wouldn't be too tired to go to a hackerspace instead. I suppose living in a democracy allows for both options; collectives (corporations, organizations) and private homes... as long as you can get enough money to make it happen, otherwise you're stuck in an apartment working a dead-end job barely making rent. Imagine if I had access to choice of lifestyle instead of poverty as a younger person... all that potential for innovation totally squandered.
@@mistercohaagen Democracy =/= collectivism. The point is you give up enough of your natural freedom that the state can prevent other people from taking your shit, but you're also allowed to own a pretty large share of the rewards of your labor. Kings imposed taxes too, the only difference is you weren't able to vote them out of office. I don't think there's some alternate form of government where things like pollution and stress didn't exist. I mean, yeah, you could be a medieval peasant (pretty stressful existence imo), but most of what alleviates stress is technological innovation, which, again, democracies are proven to excel at. As far as pollution, well, just look at how China's doing on that front.
Democracy is when 2 wolves and 1 lamb decide what to have for dinner
Is Destiny even a guy's name? @Democracy
its not tha complicated bro every vote matters, the more people vote the less individual votes change the outcome but they still matter individually. the less people vote the bigger the impact like fr you two make it sound way to complicated and abstract its not that deep.
We need to build a system and structure of collective ideation, reasoning, and truth determination that creates a map of what everyone believes is important, true, and what to do about it. An immutable public record of what everyone thinks is most important and what happens through time in a concise manner. This system will live and grow through time. Representing the ideas of all individuals and groups and map out where there is consensus or not and what worked and what didn't, fostering collective wisdom. The problem right now is everybody is just screaming at each other, which is quite interesting but not very useful, and nobody is really keeping track of the big picture through time in a concise manner.
This is interesting. I am not a huge fan of Destiny, and I actually subscribe to a more Aristotelian Meritocracy. I am not saying Meritocracy is not without its faults, but the uneducated lunatic who spends all day on twitter should not have the same power as a climatologist. Yet again, Democracy can be solved if people were simply to be more educated and rational.
If voting made a difference, the powerful elite wouldn’t allow the general public to do so.
As a 25yo Australian. I don't think that my vote significantly helps or hinders the outcomes for policy changes. I think that the amount of control you get for the outcomes you have along with the inconvenience of it makes voting meaningless to me. I think that voting should be both easier and more specific. I would rather a digital voting scheme with regular referendums on policy and not everyone needs to participate. I don't particularly care which party is in power because it's up to their whim as to whether they follow through on their policy suggestions.
This is all so dumb. It's easy to say your vote or any given persons vote didn't matter in hindsight. But on polling day, when the result is unknown, of course it matters. Elections are won by the votes of people who you say individually don't matter.
As to the child being tortured in response to a sports crowds noise? Does it really matter if you make noise if the crowd will be noisy anyway? Yes it does Alex. Jesus f'ing Christ. Don't make noise. Don't be that guy. Whatever the outcome.
They both sound vacuous
Democracy is the ability for anyone to choose whoever they want to sleep with
- Destiny's wife Melina
If the idea of voting matters more, it makes you ideologues.
How? The idea of voting matters in the sense that it will ensure enough people participate in the act of voting for the government to continue to function.
It’s a way to intellectualize the importance of something.
@@ogolthorp if you accept that there are enough intellectuals to vote well
@@MrJesseBell what? You don’t have to be an intellectual to understand the importance of voting. That just sounds like eugenics style thinking.
@@ogolthorp yes you do. Which is why it doesn't work.
there is an entire theory around this already you aren't pointing out anything new. Basically, yes-it tends that way because most of the time, those unwilling to educate themselves zero each other out leaving the symmetry breaking to the educated.
Democracy is great if you want to find out who is the most popular kid. If you’re looking for the most qualified person it’s likely the worst system imaginable.
One could argue that this is only the case when voting for people. But you can also vote for policy. So a system that puts less focus on candidates(or does not deal with candidates) and more focus on parties and policy ming circumvent this slightly
@@erikholgersson9235 voting for policies? whoa buddy. now you are getting in dangerous territory. such a system would actually be a democracy, not the shitshow that north korea or the united states call a democracy. do you really think the elites would allow that?
Please tell me a system of government that would find the most qualified person? I really don't think you've thought about this statement
@@NEprimo it's called a meritocracy. I really don't think you should speak down to people.
It's far from perfect but at least it answers to the will of the people more than any other system.
If you're for democracy, you wouldn't be voting for Kamala lmao
Pro Tip: Never trust someone’s political opinion if it ends with “lmao”
@@OdorGod What a retarded way to disregard anyone's political opinion. Anyways, Kamala is the first candidate that wasn't voted into to place. She was put there by the powers that be. So yeah, voting for her would be extremely undemocratic.
No
Low likes I wonder why lol
Being a Homeless Veteran for 10yrs if any of you think it's easy it's not. Nobody cares about our situation Now i make 22k weekly. have a home, a wife, a lovely daughter... A child of God. HALLELUJAH
How did you do it? Do explain please 😯
My family have been into series of sufferings lately
All thanks to Christina Ann Tucker
After I raised up to 325k trading with her I bought a new House and a car here in the states 🇺🇸🇺🇸 also paid for my daughter's surgery (Joey). Glory to God.shalom.
I do know Christina A. Tucker, I also have even become successful....
Absolutely! I've heard stories of people who started with little to no knowledge but made it out victoriously thanks to Christina Ann Tucker.
dislike this video, because your one dislike doesn't matter anyway, guys.
All I got from this video is Destiny actually doesn't know what he's talking about
It always seems to me like Destiny could really contribute to public dialogue, but always falls short because he's unwilling to consider the positives of any position he disagrees with. In other words: he's not looking to understand, he's looking to improve his position and disprove other's. More concisely and as has been put by others, he's just looking to be right. It's so very noticeable in all of his argumentation.
Do you have an example?
I watch a good amount of Destiny’s content, and this feels very off base. If anything, he typically feels more open than many others in his medium.
I feel like there’s a very notable distinction between someone not willing to be open minded, and someone so knowledge and confident in their position that it would take a lot more than most to change their mind.
I cannot watch anything with Density, makes my brain hurt. 😂