A personal belief that isn't often discussed

[Outis]

One fundamental issue that I really believe is that the state has evolved along a line that is not democratic and overreaches what the state should be for.

The book Sapiens is an interesting read in that it charts the evolution of society and culture and how what we are experiencing today is an anomaly in history.

Throughout history, people have formed communities to survive and succeed. We're a social species, we connect and form groups because as individuals we struggle. But the social bond is really important, it what creates cohesion in the group. A tribe, a village, a clam, it's small enough to develop a cohesion since the individuals can connect and understand each other. So historically this is what happened.

But at times things happened that required wider collaboration such as the threat of invaders, so communities would form coalitions that became countries. A king or emperor would take on those national issues such as forming a national army or building a transport system or securing trade routes or creating a national food store. But for individuals, their interaction with the state was minimal. Pay some taxes for those national projects, maybe donate some grain but it wasn't the state that impacted the 99% of their life. It was family and that local community still.

Want an abortion? That's a matter for you, your family and maybe your local community, friends etc.
Having a relationship with someone? That's for you, your family and maybe the local community.
Personal matters are personal, extending out to family and your local community because they know you, they know the context and so can support with personal issues on a personal level.

That is how the state is meant to work. The state is for state level issues, not for personal issues. The state has no context, the state doesn't know you or your situation. The state knows this so it does the best it can, it imposes national laws such as AoC. No one under X can have sex! So Mrs X who's 36 who doesn't want a sexual relationship is in a marriage and feels pressed into fulfilling her marital duties does so, the state is fine with that although if the choice was local by those who know her and her situation they might judge that this is wrong and give her different protections. Equally, Miss Y is 14 and in a relationship with a man she loves and who cares for her and there could be wedding bells in the future, her family and community knowing them and their love might be supportive and helpful to them while the state breaks them apart and punished them.

Every detail of your life is now touched by the state. Education, health, relationships, what you can and can't do to your body, what you can talk about and think about, what you can read or believe. The state has power over all these things and more even though they have no national significance.

People recognise their loss of autonomy and self determination so the state has sold the idea of democracy to them, but it's democracy in name only.
Once every 4 years you get to vote for a leader. Then that's it, you are no longer involved in the democratic process for another 4 years. It's a ceremony, not a practical application of democracy.

Democracy means the people determine the rules. Power comes from the people, decisions come from the people. If that was the case then we'd be consulted on laws, economy, defence, spending, education, religious rights etc. But we are not except in referendums which are very very rare. Taking part in elections is wrong in my opinion because it sends a signal to the state that people are happy with a system that isn't democratic and people don't want a say in how the country is governed.

So in my opinion, democracy is a wonderful idea, it would be amazing to have that some day, and the state has got wildly out of proportion and control.

[Outis]

And the book Home Deus extrapolates to the future and whether there will be any need for family at all as rights and responsibility to the state.
A baby is born and transfers to the state to raise, ensuring the child gets the correct education and provisions, freeing the parents to focus on being productive citizens.

[PorcelainLark]

I take it you mean true democracy is direct democracy (like what they have in Switzerland)?

[Outis]

I take it you mean true democracy is direct democracy (like what they have in Switzerland)?

Yes, direct democracy. I read an aricle recenntly that cross-referenced happiness index's with conflict index's with the level of citizen participation in democracy and there was a clear trend that countries with direct democracy and higher levels of citizen participation in governance have lower levels of military conflict and increased citizen happiness. That didn't surprise me since citizens tend to not want war and can direct national funding towards projects citizens want.

Voting every 4 years means citizens who really want to engage with the political system can be involved at most 0.07% of the time (1 day every 4 years), hardly enough to be considered a contributor to governance.

[Fragment]

Two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner is democracy.

Making it direct democracy doesn’t solve that.

[Outis]

Two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner is democracy.

Making it direct democracy doesn’t solve that.

It is a risk but a strong constitution can largely mitigate that risk.
In Switzerland for example there are strong protections for minorities in the constitution, for example you couldn't vote to remove a minority of rights. But then in California without the same protections you can get same sex marriages banned through a ballot, so it is a danger without suitable protections.

In the UK, US and other democracies that have representational democracy, minorities are often treated poorly since political parties chase majority votes.

Authoritarion regines prioritise state control which often entails dominant ethnic and religious groups.

In my opinion, the safest option remains direct democracy but with a tight constitution that protects minority groups.