[graemep]

I think that one problem is that politicians defer too much to "experts" in decisions like this.

I cannot remember who it was, but one British prime minister, when told by intelligence services that they needed greater surveillance powers, told them essentially, that of course they would claim that, and firmly refused.

Politicians now mostly lack the backbone. That does not stop them ignoring expert advice when it is politically inconvenient, of course.

[psychoslave]

The problem is not they ask experts. Politicians are so utterly incompetent on the thing they are putting law on, at the level they will believe openoffice is a firewall[1]. That doesn’t mean all of them are that blatantly unaware of the basics for which they are supposed to decide of some rule, but that is definitely a thing.

The next thing is, do they know how to rely efficiently on a diverse panel of expert, or do they take only yes-man/lobby-funded experts around them?

On a deeper level, are they accountable of the consequences of their actions when they enforce laws which any mildly skilled person in the field could tell will have disastrous side effects and not any meaningful effect on the (supposedly) intended goal?

What we need is direct democracy, where every apt citizen have a duty to actively engage in the rules applied without caste exception.

Let’s protect children, yes. What about making sure not any stay without a shelve to pass the winter[2]? Destroying the right of private conversation except for the caste which decide to impose that for everyone else is the very exact move to offering children a brighter future.

[1] https://framablog.org/2009/04/02/hadopi-albanel-pare-feu-ope... [2] https://www.nouvelobs.com/societe/20240919.OBS93798/en-europ...

[graemep]

> The next thing is, do they know how to rely efficiently on a diverse panel of expert, or do they take only yes-man/lobby-funded experts around them?

Unfortunately, I know the answer to that!

> The problem is not they ask experts

I think with with IT they do realise that they do not know. They also believe someone who says something is feasible, or a good solution over someone who says it is not.

[coretx]

> I think with with IT they do realise that they do not know.

We are no longer living in the 2000's. They know. Many are simply evil or have competing interests and want to loose their income/career.

Regarding your parent, "direct democracy" is a euphemism for mob rule.

[psychoslave]

>Regarding your parent, "direct democracy" is a euphemism for mob rule.

Anything that pretend to be democracy without imposing active participation of citizen in ruling is an euphemism for some other system which doesn’t dare to present itself for what it is.

Oligarchy is not democracy. Aristocracy is not democracy.

Assimilating the only actual form of democracy to its degenerated ochlocratic form, and pretending that whatever undemocratic political regime that officially brand itself as democratic is so: thus are the two basic strategy of newspeak control. War is peace.

Yes there is a risk with actual democracy. The full truth however is that there are risks of degeneration with any political system. Pseudo-representative systems used in western side have by far cross the threshold of mere theoretical possibility to degenerate into oligarchic plutocracies.

Moreover which caste brandishes the scarecrow of the hypothetical fickle crowd to evict actual democracy? And in support of which system, and what caste will it favor?

The nailing point of democracy is not that it’s perfect and immune of any big issue. The cardinal point of democracy is that people are promised the pains and joys they will self-provide for themselves; so the control feedback loop of changing their own behaviors and rules stay in their power.

# Related resources

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mob_rule