democracy has always been "members only"
Even "universal suffrage" is not universal when it is restricted by districts, provinces, or national borders that have been drawn by a select few. Certainly not when those in power draw district lines to buttress their own incumbency (aka gerrymandering). And certainly not when ballot access is restricted to only a few political parties. [My own congressional district has always voted >60% for Democrats for decades, there's no real competition here, I may as well live in a one-party dictatorship.]
Did you have any say in drawing the jurisdictional boundaries within which you vote? No, your boundaries choose you. Your only choice is whether to stay put or to move.
And in our global economy with a global ecology, so many things each of us does within our jurisdiction affect people outside of our jurisdiction. How is anything universal suffrage when outsiders cannot vote within your jurisdiction on matters affecting them?
As an extreme example, when the US Congress voted to give GWB the power to invade Iraq, did we allow the Iraqi people a vote?
Plus, we've never extended the vote to nonhuman species, nor have we appointed a representative for those species who has the power to negotiate on their behalf. Although we've formally banned human slavery in every country, I'm not aware of a single country that has banned the ownership of all nonhuman animals.
Now I'm sounding like a vegan ;-) But I am a financial supporter of PETA.
My only point is that democracy has always been "members only". A set of specific procedures for making decisions within a specific defined group of people. By definition, other people are not included. In the US, you can't simply show up and vote at any ballot location, you first have to register to vote within that precinct. When a city council votes, you have to be a member of that city council to vote. Party primaries are often closed to registered party members only. Etc.
-----
And then not every decision made by a democratic vote is legitimate or even enforceable. Courts may throw out the law or limit its application, police may refuse to enforce or may not have the resources to enforce or may arrest innocent people, prosecutors may not bring charges or may charge the innocent, juries may not convict or may convict the innocent, leaders may pardon those convicted.
A favorite author from my childhood often joked that a state legislature had just passed a law mandating that π is equal to exactly 3.
And it is clear that our criminal laws are applied disproportionately to POC and those with less money/power.
-----
As you can tell I'm punching at my deep-seated support for democracy. Usually democracy is presented as the only alternative to dictatorship, but the other alternative is anarchism --> making decisions without reference to laws, governments, or hierarchies. You can have a government chosen by a group of specific people (democracy), a government chosen by its governor (autocracy), or no government at all (anarchy).
Anarchism is a difficult ideology to pursue because by definition it has no particular definition LOL.
Recently I've been down on anarchism because I've thought solving the problems I want to solve will absolutely require police power. But police power is never enough and introduces its own problems.
But a world without police power ... I find it impossible to imagine what that world would look like, because it would be abolutely out of control ... but isn't our actual world out of control? Certainly out of my control. And when the world is made up of 200+ countries, no single country is in control. Solving the problems I want to solve would require the vast majority of these 200+ countries to agree on a common set of enforceable rules.
Sometimes I think anarchism is the default against which --> those who want to control the world constantly battle as they also battle each other. Anarchorealism.
-----
OK, I gotta get up and have my pre-run breakfast so I can run at the trail. It will be a hot one, already "feels like" 79 degrees outside.
Did you have any say in drawing the jurisdictional boundaries within which you vote? No, your boundaries choose you. Your only choice is whether to stay put or to move.
And in our global economy with a global ecology, so many things each of us does within our jurisdiction affect people outside of our jurisdiction. How is anything universal suffrage when outsiders cannot vote within your jurisdiction on matters affecting them?
As an extreme example, when the US Congress voted to give GWB the power to invade Iraq, did we allow the Iraqi people a vote?
Plus, we've never extended the vote to nonhuman species, nor have we appointed a representative for those species who has the power to negotiate on their behalf. Although we've formally banned human slavery in every country, I'm not aware of a single country that has banned the ownership of all nonhuman animals.
Now I'm sounding like a vegan ;-) But I am a financial supporter of PETA.
My only point is that democracy has always been "members only". A set of specific procedures for making decisions within a specific defined group of people. By definition, other people are not included. In the US, you can't simply show up and vote at any ballot location, you first have to register to vote within that precinct. When a city council votes, you have to be a member of that city council to vote. Party primaries are often closed to registered party members only. Etc.
-----
And then not every decision made by a democratic vote is legitimate or even enforceable. Courts may throw out the law or limit its application, police may refuse to enforce or may not have the resources to enforce or may arrest innocent people, prosecutors may not bring charges or may charge the innocent, juries may not convict or may convict the innocent, leaders may pardon those convicted.
A favorite author from my childhood often joked that a state legislature had just passed a law mandating that π is equal to exactly 3.
And it is clear that our criminal laws are applied disproportionately to POC and those with less money/power.
-----
As you can tell I'm punching at my deep-seated support for democracy. Usually democracy is presented as the only alternative to dictatorship, but the other alternative is anarchism --> making decisions without reference to laws, governments, or hierarchies. You can have a government chosen by a group of specific people (democracy), a government chosen by its governor (autocracy), or no government at all (anarchy).
Anarchism is a difficult ideology to pursue because by definition it has no particular definition LOL.
Recently I've been down on anarchism because I've thought solving the problems I want to solve will absolutely require police power. But police power is never enough and introduces its own problems.
But a world without police power ... I find it impossible to imagine what that world would look like, because it would be abolutely out of control ... but isn't our actual world out of control? Certainly out of my control. And when the world is made up of 200+ countries, no single country is in control. Solving the problems I want to solve would require the vast majority of these 200+ countries to agree on a common set of enforceable rules.
Sometimes I think anarchism is the default against which --> those who want to control the world constantly battle as they also battle each other. Anarchorealism.
-----
OK, I gotta get up and have my pre-run breakfast so I can run at the trail. It will be a hot one, already "feels like" 79 degrees outside.