If we combine paradoxes 5 and 6 we would REALLY be in trouble! Imagine a candidate whose only qualification is dubious celebrity who constantly makes the most outrageous and slanderous lies with absolutely shameless impunity, and is somehow charismatic enough for people to believe him with absolute reverence. If someone like that came to power, democracy would really be in jeopardy! Can imagine someone like THAT coming to power?
Or how about if we imagine a candidate whose only platform is their skin tan and genitals, that doesnt answer any questions, talks in winding word-salads, and was considered incompetent until their party deposed their actual candidate and anointed that person with no democracy at all.
Yup, and thats how the system works, anyone can be in it. If you don't like it, don't have a democracy or create arbitrary standards of entry that are elitist or decriminatory ie. The minimum age to become president being 35
I love videos that tackle this topic because democracy is one of those things we just kinda take for granted and rarely ever question unlike the usual “political issues”
As a Kazakh, and son of those that let the government destroy our democracy, please, go vote. Understand that the votes cast in most countries do not change a thing.
@@saulgoodmanKAZAKH Also don't forget that voting is not the only way to participate. Democracy doesn't end at the voting booth! In most democracies you can follow legislation as it goes through your electoral bodies and representatives often open it up for comments and expert input! You can have a more direct impact than you think. Wish more people would study the details of how legislation gets passed.
Benjamin Franklin said democracy was two wolves and a sheep arguing about what's for dinner. He wasn't a fan of it and that's why he pushed for all of the checks and balances that the US Republic has.
I sometimes think the true distinguishing strength of democracy is just the peaceful transfer of power. People get sick of the current leader for whatever reason and replace them with an alternative regardless of competence and at no point does this spiral out into violence.
The strength is a high trust society with low corruption. America actually has incredibly low corruption, but our level of trust is dropping for no good reason. Social media has created a contagious schizophrenia
"People get sick of the current leader for whatever reason and replace them with an alternative regardless of competence and at no point does this spiral out into violence." - _American Truth, 1801 to 2021_
Definitely. So many people don't know enough history to appreciate how long it took humanity to get to this point. It wasn't that long ago when almost all of humanity lived under the rule of hereditary monarchs.
@@amazin7006 There is a very good reason that people don't trust Trump with power, because he caused the first non-peaceful transfer of power in the US.
It took France 70 years between the revolution and the first stable democracy. It's a long project that requires more than just a system: it requires an entire culture, society, values to support it. That's why we see so many rushed democratic projects like Russia, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan or Palestine where they had pretty well designed systems but still failed.
@@EggsBenAddict thanks. I believe a lot of people today look at legislation as if it's a magical tool they can wave to solve every problem, when it isn't. Most of the time, important laws are manifestations of the consensus and are only enforceable because of it.
@@barzomer2639 A lot of African and Middle Eastern countries that got their independences in the 50s, 60s and 70s are approaching seventy years of independence pretty soon already. Maybe if we're lucky, they'll be under democratic systems of government. We'll just have to wait and see.
To have a system of checks and balances, the people themselves must support said checks and balances, only then it is a democracy and not a dictatorial country with "democracy" stickers.
Idiocracy isn't the dystopia most people (or even the movie itself) think it was. Look, he was a pro wrestler and... the other thing, but President Camacho also learned that a powerful computer algorithm had determined someone to be the smartest person on the planet and immediately wanted that person in his cabinet so he could advise him on important problems threatening America- which the smart person was able to determine the cause of. President Camacho then listened to the smart person and solved the crisis. I'd vote for a second term.
I'd still call that quite the dystopia. The world was in total decline, surviving only on the genius of the people that came before. They were saved through third party intervention that came in the form of a man smart enough to know that plants need water to live.
Anyone still extolling the virtues of "listen to the experts!" after the debacles of endless wars in the middle east, the complete farce that was the Covid 19 response, the open borders regime of the majority of liberal democracies (against the wishes of their populace), is just regurgitating propaganda; there's no way you can look at what the "experts" around the world have done and come to any conclusion other than "they're screwing the rest of us for their own benefit"
@@Colton-el4mp it wasnt a dystopia, it was just the human experience. For most of it, we were stupid, but we recognized and respected and adapted intelligence. Today, it seems as if although we do have commonly seen intellect, we refuse to recognize anything we do not personally like.
The problem I have with the movie Idiocracy isn't so much about the movie itself, but the fact that so many people take it as seriously as they do. I will die on this hill, but the Paradox of Idiocracy is that the only circumstance society would EVER reach anything close to it is because people treated that movie seriously. In fact, my best counter-example for Idiocracy is: if modern society is "smarter" than the world of Idiocracy, where did that "smartness" come from in the first place? It's like, you have to be as stupid/ignorant as the people in Idiocracy to believe that that conclusion is at all possible, such as believing that "smart people" are never born from "stupid people".
@@nickfifteen I remember reading that the average IQ is actually increasing. Low IQ had more to do with environmental factors like lead and other contaminants in food and drinking water. Developing nations have improved, infant mortality has declined, and as a global average, humans are better off than they were decades ago. Not to say there still aren't problems or that IQ is the best way to measure it, but humans aren't getting dumber like the movie claims
My mom grew up during a fascist dictatorship in Portugal, whose policies only enabled her to get a fifth-grade education. She's lived in the U.S. for so long that she understands U.S. politics and words better than Portuguese now. She assumed during the last parliamentary elections that the Democratic Alliance was the same as the Democrats here and voted for them on that basis alone. The party is a coalition of center-right, libertarian-ish, and monarchist parties and definitely not the Portuguese equivalent of Democrat. She was never taught growing up the virtues of civic participation beyond 'do what you're told' and never developed a habit, partly a result of said upbringing, that resulted in her voting for the AD party without reviewing any policies. Thus, the voting based on vibes fallacy hits close to home for me.
@@HeitorS.-dh2wl Mussolini described fachism as "nothing outside the state, nothing against the state" the church was "outside the state". I am not familar with his relationship with the church but at best it looks as opressive as his relation the corporations, and the public at large if he actually described his belives with that quote.
@@gaiagba Tehre exists this fascist offshoot called clerical-fascism(Austria, Slovakia,...), which is deeply intertwined with the church, so these two things do not cancel each other out
Yet another paradox is the problem of the crowd capture. The purest form of democracy - a politician literally doing just what the people want from him - is actually very dangerous. An example of that was during covid, policy was being made based on opinion polls. The reality is that people look to leaders not only for collective decisions, but also for leadership. A good leader familiarises himself with a problem, comes up with a solution, and promotes it to the people he leads. As Edmund Burke once said: "A good politician owes you not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays you, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
The irony of that being that the vast majority of issues are in fact not democratically decided, at least in the US. Large and sometimes absolute majorities of the voters want many reforms, from minimum wage increases to gun reform to abortion, and yet time and again the politicians go against that will at the behest of donors.
@@sempersuffragium9951 No, they’re really not. Background checks for gun purchase is routinely above 90% support, legal access to abortion is over 65% nationwide, etc. Devil in the details, but most issues do have a clear, majority-backed path forward. And they’re all, to a one, the ‘Democrat’ or even the ‘progressive’ position. Beyond that, support for a certain ME country has been dropping the last year, too. Both major parties still support it, at least in terms of military aid. Yet the populace says otherwise. People know what they want per issue, they’re just inept as to which party actually advocates it.
@@nenafan1if opinion poll is how governance is run, there is no "leader", no consistency of policy or direction. The whim of the majority will sway regularly. A good leaders role is to listen to not just the people, but also advisors who each have opinions on how a decision will impact all factors; governmental finances, citizen's standard of living, environmental concerns, international relationships and more. They then have to consider both the short term and long term impact of these decisions, and not only make the decision, but inform the descenting advisors and the public as to why that decision was made. I do not want leaders that simply bow to whims of a majority that don't necessarily have all the relevant facts and are often mostly reacting emotionally. Unfortunately, the experienced leaders that could do this well, rarely go into politics.
In my opinion, a strong democracy only works when the people have a sense of duty to partake in it. And I don’t just mean going to vote. I’m talking about a duty to being a strong citizen. Actively participating in community, caring for fellow country person, doing the best you can for the nation. Much of that has faded and deem old fashion. A switch from a collective society to a hyper-individualistic one.
Here's my paradox: the better the chance I have of impacting the outcome of an election, the less information I have to judge the candidates. Half the time I barely know anything about the position I'm voting for in local elections, let alone what qualifications the candidates have.
Absolutely agreed! I can usually find some information on the congressional candidates in my district. But, once you get to smaller and more local positions than that? Good freaking luck! I often struggle to even find their most rudimentary policy platform.
Hotdog with sunglasses is clearly a German plant. They think they can fool us by changing his name from frankfurter to hotdog. We didn't win 2 world wars against the Germans to get infiltrated like this. Smh
You know i had some serious doubts about his capabilities as a president, due to him being a hotdog and all that. But since this is what the people want ill support him, you dont wanna stand in the way of democracy after all! 😊
@@Jkh808 Trump Bad...very very bad... He seemed to be talking about democracies throughout history and around the world. Correct me IF I am wrong regarding this. It's OK IF that's how YOU think...
@@elliotnemeth could mean you believe the lies of the person @BlazPecnikCreations is thinking of. The truth, of course, is that virtually all of them lie.
I feel like JJ has really underestimated the threat of voting for money. I think many European systems in particular of facing serious stress because of pensionsers/retirees are voting themselves more and more generous benefits. This is increasingly problematic as these countries having ageing demographics and risk veering towards gerontocratic systems (rule by the old) that reward retirees with short term benefits at the expense of younger, working people and the long term financial health of the system.
There's also voting for money in the politicians themselves, they're all rich & will never pass anything that would diminish that, be that fixing the tax structure or passing regulations on labor & industry, they're all too focused on getting richer to actually help the people
By and large they’re not really voting themselves more money, only an inflation adjusted ‘fair share.’ Those workers were employed for decades on the understanding and promise their retirement was covered. Granted there are structural problems that need addressed, absolutely. But it’s not that bad in Europe yet. As for Japan, China, and S Korea, that might get much worse in another decade.
Absolutely on point, it's becoming a big problem. Also the OAPs are increasingly voting for populists with questionable relationship with democratic values. They don't care - they only care if their pensions will get raised.
Another paradox is that of ability: people who are voted in, are generally not experts in governance. This poses a great problem, especially in our age of great bureaucracies, where the state gives the impression of working, but in reality the politicians are not in control because, to hide their ineptitude, they give the reins to the bureaucrats.
This is why I get worried about the term-limits folks. I'm on a city council, and even after a year, I'm only just barely getting used to the comparatively low stakes job. Overly early term limits are often a great way to kick out people who are only now getting good at the job (just in time to be hired by a lobbying firm, I might add).
Politicians are absolutely still in control because of the policy they set, bureaucrats just carry out the enforcement. That’s one of the reasons why it seems like nothing gets done, because as soon as a politician with a different agenda is elected, progress can be wiped out.
This is why the Chevron doctrine was such a big deal. It brought challenges from the bureaucracy to the judiciary where officials elected by people make the decisions rather than technocrats who understand their field.
Lindsey Graham also pushed for the senate to approve a republican supreme court candidate in 2020 when he 4 years earlier said that SCOTUS vacancies should never be filled in an election year. So he was like that even before Trump was elected.
We could also call it J.D. Vance syndrome. The guy who called Trump, "America's Hitler," is now the man's running mate. All politicians to one degree or another are willing to trade some of their principles for power. Few are quite as bad as Lindsey Graham or J.D. Vance though. There's an honest realization that one's principles cannot be applied without power and so give up on a minor principle in favor of the chance to implement a greater principle and then there's doing whatever it takes, giving up any and all principles or actively having none in order to gain or maintain power. I mean, how many Republicans have said they don't like Trump, think he's a terrible man, that he shouldn't have power and then say they'll vote for him because he's a Republican? I've lost count.
That's not what he said. He said he wasn't going to fill the vacancy in an election year when the president was a sitting duck. I hate Lindsey Graham, but let's be accurate.
And you can thank Harry Reid the Democrat for switching to a simple majority vote for federal judges below the supreme court level a decade ago because he didn’t like that so few Obama appointed judges were getting through. McConnell literally warned him at the time that doing this would be a terrible idea
I kinda wish he mentioned that lying about democratic processes themselves (such as election integrity) is one of the most dangerous lies to democracy. I'm sure he'd agree, though.
Crazy how we're just going to conveniently ignore the fact that three months ago Harris flipped on pretty much every position she has ever held and when asked why she refuses to answer, anybody with a functioning brain understands she's going to immediately flip on all those positions again as soon as she gets into office aka she's engaging in the sixth paradox; lying about what you're going to do, to a degree never before seen in American politics. I will never vote for Trump, but anybody who thinks only one side engages in these paradoxes is completely delusional and a part of the threat to Democracy.
What you're calling "Lindsay Graham syndrome" is pretty much the norm in multi-party parliamentary systems. Political parties will claim to hate each other, end up in coalition together and be forced to defend each other because of cabinet collective responsibility, which prohibits them from publicly criticising the decision of a government they are a part of.
12:45 my grandma (RIP) literally voted for George Bush and Obama based on their physical appearance. I believe she liked Bush's nose and Obama's ears but I might be mistaken. She was treated like a child her whole life (getting an "allowance" from my rich grandfather during their marriage), and behaving accordingly.
That reminds me of the anecdote about the JFK/Nixon presidential debate where listeners on the radio thought that Nixon had won while viewers on TV thought that JFK had won, and polls suggested that one important factor was JFK's handsome appearance
@ScottJB while it can surely be improved "government" was required class to graduate from my High School, I believe it still is. I think this is pretty common in most of the country. While I support such effort to educate people, I think some have much higher expectations of it than they should.
6:31 I would say democracy is more about preventing accumulation of power than making sure we always have a good leader. It's a conservative system in that limits the impact of both very good and very bad leaders.
J.J., you did a _brilliant_ job in the last few minutes of skewering one particular politician without using a name. I don't know if you took that route because of RUclips policies or what, but regardless of the reason, I think it was much more impactful without mentioning names.
I believe it was because he is trying to keep this channel as politically neutral as it can be, which has earned him a lot of supporters because of this reason, but also really hating Trump and believing him to be an actual threat. This seems to be his compromise.
@@Cenriquezm To me it's more effective communication than compromise, though I guess it could be both. I feel like if you're trying to pass the kind of universally applicable message that people should be careful and responsible when voting, and not believe total and obvious lies, it is a lot better to present it in a way that anyone can take that message without immediately making their defenses go up, and letting them do some of the work from there. At least in this kind of video, I think its the right approach.
unleft isn't what I'd say. his stances and portrayal of issues aren't much concerned with being "not leftist" at all. from what I gather he's just a somewhat conservative John Locke Liberal (as opposed to "fox news liberal,") like most north americans. Iirc he's also referred to himself as a "dispositional conservative."
I honestly think you missed a big one. Career politicians. The fact that so many politicians are career politicians causes huge problems because it means their highest priority becomes to keep their job instead of it being to make the decisions that best help the country and its citizens.
@@OnkelJajusBahn I think they should be paid. What I’m against is politics as a career path. I think it’s extremely problematic that they prioritize keeping their jobs over making good decisions for the country and people.
I don’t agree with this at all. I think the least-dedicated politicians are the grifters who come in after having done nothing related to politics their entire careers thinking they know everything.
Wanting to keep their jobs is a positive: it keeps the politicians accountable to their voters. The alternative is not politicians doing what is best for their country, but doing whatever they want (be it corruption or some megalomanic projects to give themselves a legacy).
Politicians wanting to keep their job as a politician is not *inherently* a bad thing (though I think there should be term limits for all government officials) If a politician wants to keep their job because they want to keep doing right by their constituents and their constituents reward them with their vote, I don’t have a problem with that I have a problem with politicians like Lindsey Graham and JD Vance, who hold onto their political career by doing and saying whatever is politically expedient and not actually caring for their constituents In other words, careerist politicians aren’t bad if they’re doing it *for the right reasons*
As a more center right person. I have always hated Lindsey Graham syndrome. On the surface it seems like it's republicans stopping their fights and getting together, but in reality, it's the reason that republicans aren't taken seriously. You were so vitriolic before, I can't take you seriously if you suddenly start speaking in totally opposite terms.
same. Nikki Haley who I voted for in the primary ended up catching it unfortunately but at least there is Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski who seem principled. Collins said she would not support Trump after the Biden debate which I could not even bring myself to do. Luckily Kamala is now there.
I honestly just think Republicans are scared of their own base which is like 80-90% pro-Trump. Back in 2021 there was lots of talk that the Senate would have voted like 80-20 or 90-10 to convict Trump following the Jan 6 insurrection. But many Republicans didn’t because they knew they would lose their seats in the primaries.
@@Sebman1113 "Luckily Kamala is now there". Oh, I think we're fortunate that Biden was eased out so that Trump was not guaranteed a win. But while Harris lacks Trump's ethical baggage, she's not intellectually suited for the job. I mean, it used to be that both candidates, whether you agreed with their policy positions or not, were at least capable of holding the job. But we have not had an election since 2012 with two capable nominees, and _this_ year, I would argue, is the first one of my lifetime where _neither_ candidate has any business getting near the Presidency.
@@BS-vx8dg Please don't get mad but how exactly is she not "intellectually suited for the job"? She was attorney general of the biggest state in the US, she was a US senator and she has been VP for 4 years. Seems like the average resume for a candidate
A big one, which is particularly relevant to the USA now, is extreme polarization in which supporters of each party dehumanize supporters of the other party, and claim they are "Fascists" or "Communists". The danger, is that the party in power will feel justified to use anti-democratic means to undermine the other party, in order to support "democracy".
But that's okay if it's Democrats using anti-democratic means against the evil evil Republicans right? It'll totally just be short term power grabs and not a long term precedence being set. A political party believing they are correct and morally superior 100% of the time is dangerous regardless of the party labels.
One of the biggest paradoxes in democracy that comes to my mind is how often the people who would willing seek out the highest, most powerful offices in the land are the kind of people who would be the worst at holding those offices. It stands to reason that the worst people among us would be the people who are most attracted to that kind of power. And people who are actually moral, upstanding, and good citizens are far too humble and deferent to seek out positions of great power.
Most people understand that holding that much power is a terrible only someone hellbent on power over anything else would want to take on that headache
Democracy is not supposed to choose the best people. It is supposed to choose representative people. Representation creates policies that give something to stakeholders in a society and that creates stability. Stability creates great economies that allow people more freedom. Democracy fails to choose the best people, but that is not the goal in the first place.
There is some truth to this. The representatives are there to represent values in decisions, and not necessarily the technical details of those policies. That's what a competent executive branch is intended for. That being said, if your legislators can't even understand what they're being presented with, it becomes all too easy for the executive to manipulate them, or for them to force the executive to do nonsensical things if the legislators can't even listen to reason. There needs to be a balanced approach, ideally where all types of stakeholders are represented by knowledgeable people who actually understand how the values of those they represented intersect with the business of government. If only.
A good representative isn't necessarily the smartest person on every issue or even any issue. They do what most of us do when we have a problem, seek help from those who are experts to aid us. A bad representative is the kind that will act like they're the smartest or best at everything and try to convince you that only they can fix all the problems.
That perspective on democracy is one I strongly disagree with and will never support. Electing someone simply because they are relatable to the general population results in mediocrity and stagnation. Instead, we should be choosing leaders who exemplify the very best qualities of our society-individuals who possess exceptional vision, integrity, and the ability to elevate the nation. Voting should be about electing those who inspire progress, not merely those who mirror the ordinary.
@@mbogucki1 Ah, the old, “who would you want to have a beer with,” standard. Last two Republican presidents voters said that about didn’t drink alcohol. The other problem is, most people don’t understand what leadership is. Some think a leader is loud, chest beating, kicks down at the people they don’t like. On other words, someone who conflates cruelty for strength. I’ve always seen a leader as someone who stands out in front and leads by example. Someone who understands strength is compassion, wisdom, and never asking others to do what you’re unwilling to do. We have had a serious dearth of leadership in my lifetime.
@@Descriptor413democracy does not have to only be representative democracy. The current system concentrates too much power in the hand of professional politicians
There's a lot to be said about UBI, but because I've read quite a bit on the existing experiments with UBI, people are actually voting with consciousness about the national treasury, because usually UBI is pegged to the national wealth. In most places it also showcased a case where voters would opt for long term economical practices with risk of short term decrease of their income. Of course in most experiments with UBI the sample size was very small and usually it was a community rather than a whole county.
Give the people the stuff they need directly: the shelter, the healthcare, the education. Giving them money for the stuff just leads to the owners of that stuff jacking up the prices. Unless you pass a huge amount of price-fixing laws along with UBI, which itself is impossible to pass, rent will increase the same amount the UBI check is. Most schemes to fund UBI I've seen are just massive VATs, sometimes across the board and sometimes just on luxuries. If it's on luxuries alone it won't generate enough money, the rich will just buy them from Canada or wherever while the poor/middle eat the increased cost. If it's on everything then that directly cuts into the UBI making it useless.
@@Jcewazhere All countries but Italy had set the basic income based on the need of basics + some disposable income. The amount was varying based on the country and the year the experiment took place. In Israel for example the experiment took place in the 70s, basic income was a novelty and even though existing it was very tiny. All countries that did it, had some sort of public housing programme going on and the shelter percentage of the basic income was based on the public housing rent prices. Healthcare and education in Europe is already part of your taxation so UBI took those into consideration. Current funding of UBI and the real funding of a systemic UBI are different. Currently the funding comes from some companies, some organisations like the EU and economic lobbies usually as a research fund. In a system with UBI the funding comes from the national capital, productivity is tied to the national capital and UBI is aimed at maximising productivity. It really is more complex than that and much more volatile than some people make it sound but it is a very well put together alternative for issues that haven't been seen at big numbers yet.
@@Jcewazhere The issue with that approach, sometimes referred to as Universal Basic Services, is that not everyone have the same needs. It also takes agency away from the recipients, as they have to accept whatever service they receive, even if they would prefer a competitor. Furthermore, if the government decides to privatize the services, companies could lobby government to choose their company as a supplier. These suppliers can then raise the price and have the government pay whatever they ask. (This already happens in some sectors.) But just to be clear, I'm not proposing getting rid of all services. Shelter, healthcare and education should still be publicly funded. But other services like electricity, water, internet, transport, gym membership etc should be left up to people to decide. As for UBI being directly passed on to rents (or any other goods/service), this has been debunked many times. Higher wages don't increase rent, and neither does UBI. If anything, more money in your pocket gives you more freedom to move/bargain. And even if all landlords decide to hike up price simultaneously (which is illegal), at a certain point it will be cheaper to buy a house and pay mortgage instead. That reduces the demand for renting, putting downward pressure on landlords to cut rents so they don't keep a vacant house. If they insist on keeping rents artificially high, nothing is stopping other people from buying new houses and renting them cheaper. It's really not difficult to close the imports loophole, but also prices tend to stay more or less the same. Just compare the price of an iPhone in Europe to the US. (They have different VAT values in Europe, going from 8% in Switzerland all the way up to 27% in Hungary. Most being around 20% for luxury goods.) But also you used a bad example, since Canada has a VAT tax at >5% (depends on the province). Mexico also has VAT, at 16%.
@@gaarakabuto1 The largest scale UBI test had what, 10,000 people? That's really good on a statistical level, but doesn't compare to doing it to 330,000,000 people, or China's billion, or India's nearly 2 billion. I'm not saying the money wouldn't help, short term and long term it would. Even those two vocid checks helped people a ton, me included. It would just mostly get eaten up by landlords and their rent-seeking ilk unless a ton of supporting legislation could also be passed with it. America and China might be able to print and tax enough money to keep their economies from exploding, but most other countries either don't control the value of their currency as tightly, or don't have most of the planet depending on it for trade.
@@Jcewazhere yeah that's why I mentioned that the amount of people isn't enough and especially when the total amount of people are spread out and not on a community to see how it impacts the local economy even of a county or a city. But the landlord situation is kind of a prerequisite problem to solve before implementing ubi on mass.
Yeah, naming it "Lindsay Graham Syndrome" is just dishonest; could have easily called it "Bernie Syndrome" (he's been doing this schtick for decades) or "Bush Syndrome" (your example) or countless others. Every party, all throughout history, has operated in this fashion; fight until the party has made a decision, then rally to the party. Maybe you privately engage in cuthroat politics to get rid of people you hate, quietly undermine them, but never, ever, go against the party publicly. Graham especially can't be blamed because he saw the writing on the wall - Trump had remade the party in his image, and going against him would have accomplished nothing other than ending Graham's own career.
2:06 The Founding Fathers of the United States thought long and hard about this, and this is the exact reason why the Constitution of the United States is hard to amend and makes sure that only amendments that the American people can agree with, aka a broad and deep consensus, get passed
Ah, but later politicians came up with a glaring loophole: to pass amendments with time limits for ratification, usually something like five years. This was meant to stop Prohibition from being passed (unsuccessfully) but has been used to hold back all kinds of reforms that eventually gained consensus among the states. This is why I want Mr. Beat to cover _Coleman v. Miller._
"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent & untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because when once known, we accomodate [sic] ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilised society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." --- Thomas Jefferson, Proposals to Revise the Virginia Constitution: I. Thomas Jefferson to “Henry Tompkinson” (Samuel Kercheval), 12 July 1816
@@SamAronow The problem with having NO time limits means that a controversial amendment might get 1/4 of the states to sign off on it the year it's proposed. Then 50 years later, the issue comes up again, and political dynamics have shifted and another 1/4 of the states sign off on it. And then 100 years pass and the landscape has shifted again, and the last few states agree to it and pass it over that threshold despite the fact that some of those states which originally agreed to it may no longer think that it's a good idea.
@@adamperdue3178In the later periods of ratification, the states that ratified it decades before would have their attention on the amendments again, and may repeal them if it is found their amendment is still on the books.
James Madison, in The Federalist Papers, made a rhetorical distinction between “democracy” and a “republic”. Madison used Democracy as unconstrained majoritarianism, contrasting with a Republic with enforceable protections for minority rights. That is the probable origin of “this a republic, not a democracy” trope.
yeah, but it's the kind of distinction that does not really make sense in the modern day at all. Democracy and Republic as we understand them today, are distinct and not at all incompatible, and in fact often go hand in hand.
The "trope" comes from the difference in government from Athens (a democracy) and Rome (a republic/ aka, and oligarchy with some popular debate). Pretty much everyone wanted the US to be a republic like Rome, however some people wanted a stronger public debate and self rule. This eventually led to universal suffrage, expansions in citizenship, and made most positions elected. So people started to pejorativily call this system a democracy or a democratic republic, which made sense for what the system was trying to be, so it sort of stuck
@@mtk77621 Oh really? “Hate speech” and “malinformation” as exceptions to freedom of speech used by one party? Agreeing what rights minority parties have is still a controversy. Regulating the internet might have “democratic” support, but be flatly unconstitutional.
Democracy was still a dirty word up until well after the French Revolution. Back then Democracy wasn’t definitionally the “will of the people and the consent of the governed”. The consent of the governed was wholly unique the American Declaration of Independence. It is however not unique to democracy, as all forms of representational governments aim to have the consent of the governed informally, as Hobbes talked about the social contract in the Leviathan long before Locke started talking about property rights, which was really what the American revolution was fought over.
Hi J.J.! As automation increases, I don't see how we can avoid a system like UBI (or a negative tax for the lowest bracket). Can we just hope that there will always be enough new jobs in new fields for the employment rate to stay high?
The question is who wants to work if its going to cheat them out of what is presumably enough money to live comfortably on. If you have a UBI thats equal to a $12/hr job then all remaining 12/hr jobs die overnight, as do 13, 14, 15, probably up to 30/hr jobs as the slightly increased wages are not worth the infinitely higher amount of work. This upsets a huge amount of the evonomy and massively increases consumer prices while driving entire industries to third world countries. So to prevent this, you have to make who gets this money very choosy, in which case it isnt Universal, or make the money very minimal, in which case it isnt Basic Income.
An addendum to "Voting for vibes" I argue would be voting for the party blindly. "Vote blue, no matter who" sort of mentality. If voting should be a thorough process, detailing who is the BEST candidate, it should be determined by the candidate and not the party.
The founding fathers (at least a majority of them) supposedly disapproved of parties, calling party systems "factionalism." The believed that politicians would form temporary coalitions to advance a cause or issue, which would then fall away when the issue was resolved. That notion fell apart fairly quickly, though.
@@benjaminrobinson3842 DUnno much about the States, but in Mexico, there is a lot of favoritism to a party enough to blind people. I don't agree with the reason the US founding parties disaporve of parties, but I kind of agree in general.
I feel like Karl Popper's "paradox of tolerance" would be worth at least a passing mention in a video on the paradoxes of democracy: "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." -- _The Open Society and its Enemies,_ 1945
Yeah, this also gets into the conflation of the concepts of electoral democracy and little l liberalism as in a rights based order. They are related, but distinct ideas that don’t always perfectly fit together.
While I agree that inclusion of Popper's paradox would have been appropriate, I think his idea is more often misused than applied properly. The problem is _defining the intolerant_ . Popper himself (IIRC) defined the intolerant as those who claim the right to act outside the bounds of the law. I would argue that Trump probably meets this criterion. But Popper either did not foresee or did not recognize those whose intolerance actually *_uses_* the law to suppress those they will not tolerate. And _that_ I think presents the greater threat to democracy, and the threat comes from both Left and Right.
Admission of tolerance for political opponents has become increasingly lefty coded over 30 years or so and has probably become a little too spicy for a J.J. video - but it’s a game that only works if everybody plays, so it’ll probably make a comeback into banal discourse in a few years, but probably not in a way we’d expect by then.
@@nkanyezihlatshwayo3601 "Admission of tolerance for political opponents has become increasingly lefty coded over 30 years or so" . Kanye, I _honestly_ am not sure what you're saying there, but I'm also okay if you want to drop the matter. I'm just saying I was confused.
J.J., I must say, that video was a great award-winning video, but also very American-centric. Priority threats for democracy in other western countries like Italy, Hungary, Poland, France, Israel, Japan, Bulgaria... are very different than the priorities you mentioned.
@@JJMcCullough I understand, what I meant was that the "high-low" threats for democracy, are different in Eastern Europe for example. The socio-political culture is very different. I can't say that "vibe-based vote" there is a high threat, at all. Especially compared to other threats.
@user-sh3cf7kd6e Don't worry when you guys finish this war and discard us again (hopefully permanently) like the Liberty, JJ will shift focus away from America
There's also the inherent flaws in being a popular vote-the winner isn't necessarily going to be the best leader, just the best at convincing others they'll be the best leader. Democracy is the best system we have, and I don't know if there even is a better one possible, but it's far from a perfect system.
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” or Republics are the worst form of government, except for all the others tried.
“….i don’t think people who behave that way get that far in life.” I won’t name names, but I can list off a lot of CEOs, billionaires, and politicians who are where they are because of lying to other people (the right people) and other questionable behavior. It kind of tracks with my personal theory that you can get away with pretty much anything and everything if you’ve rolled high enough of a Charisma roll and modifier when born.
There are so many questions and stipulations that you have to answer if you want to keep it as free, open, and concise as everyone wants it to be. Without that it is just a veil of progress.
Rather than saying we live in a plain old "democracy", we could more accurately describe our systems as "adversarial representative liberal democracies with guardrails to protect minorities based on unimpeachable universal human rights"... But then again, that doesn't roll off the tongue as easily, so why bother 😵💫
There's also a paradox in the way that news organizations exist to inform, yet in a politically diverse democracy people will often choose the news sources that most comfortably fit their pre-existing positions, resulting in a broad range of publicly available opinions with segments of the population purposefully cloistering themselves in comfortable propaganda instead.
On paper, it seems like the "people voting themselves money from the public treasury" scenario should happen. Yet the opposite seems to be the case: people voting to take money from themselves and give it to billionaires.
*Excellent* video. Some observations: > I agree with you ranking #5 as the greatest threat. > I think #3 is actually much more of a threat than you believe. I'd rate it medium in the short term, high in the long term. > In your analysis of #4, I think you elide the ultimate protection of minorities (at least in the US), namely, the US Constitution. While it _has_ frequently fallen short in its role as a protector of minority rights, it is nonetheless the Constitution that provides the principle that majority rule cannot be used to deny the minority their rights (See the Bill of Rights). And it is the _Constitution_ that the Supreme Court turns to overturn laws passed by majorities.
Paradox 3 is a huge huge issue!!! All politicians say is that they will give more and more free things and benefits. No candidate can ever say they will cut any benefit for fear of losing votes. This is why we are trillions in debt! Both parties are guilty of this. No politician can even mention social security reform for example. Republicans want to grow the military and cut taxes. Democrats want to grow welfare and do things like paying off student debt/slavery reparations. All of these things increase the deficit more and more and more! Logically to lower the deficit we would have to increase taxes and/or cut benefits... and no one has ever or will ever win a political debate on that platform lol
Great topic! I've read Applebaum, Snyder, Paxton, Ben-Ghiat, Albright, and others writing on these paradoxes. They're all well documented and we've yet to agree on a solution to autocracy proof democracy. You can't possibly do it without abridging a fundamental right here or there...
In Colombia in respects of the first paradox there are some constitutional articles that are protected from any amendment so we can garantee some democracy and fundamental rigths even if there is a concensus to change them. It could only be trough a change of constitution
@@JJMcCullough The only significant example of this in the US is the Article V (note: original _Article_ , not an amendment) which prohibits any constitutional amendment which would change the equal representation of all states in the Senate [unless *all* states approve]. Given that we need 38 of 50 states to ratify an amendment, and that to accomplish this would effectively take _two_ such amendments, I think that this is a pretty strong protection. A coup by a President not wanting to leave office would be far easier to pull off than this.
I wonder if there's room for a sequel video because in more recent years we also see talks of things like tyranny of the minority. A good example of this was the Prussian nobility that was strictly calvinist and made laws based on calvinist beliefs, but the overwhelming majority of its citizens were Lutherans and faced oppression in spite of Prussia, on paper, being a religiously free state. I get that Prussia was a monarchy but I think you can find examples in democracy too. Even if it's controversial, affirmation action and related policies absolutely could be seen as a stepping stone to this.
I believe "Voting Yourself Money" is a very high risk for democratic countries that have gracious pension benefits. As the average age in Western democracies keeps going up, the already sizeable and influential group of pensioners will only grow and is unlikely to vote for politicians cutting pensions to reduce the financial cost on the active workers. Pensions as they are now in Europe are unsustainable in 20-30 years.
Mexican Here. Last week our new president took office, which comes from the same party that the former president comes from and also holds majority in both chambers: MORENA. And I can argue that they fall in almost all of the paradoxes discussed in the video. Let me explain: Constitutional amendment: under the pretext of "getting more democracy into the powers", both chambers (which are also controlled by a majority of the regime party) passed with zero revisions a new constitutional amendment where now supreme court judges shall be elected, which many people argue it is bad as it now implies all those paradoxes now affect the judicial power. Lindsey Graham syndrome: the MORENA party always argued they were the real opposition, with the arguments that all other parties were members of a "mafia of rulers", while they were the only party that actually cared for the people. But when they came to power, many many many many many many politicians from those other parties switched to them, and all former accusations of them being corrupt were suddenly forgotten or absolved, including people which were involved in very heavy corruption scandals in past decades. Voting yourself money: the former president was governor of Mexico City in the early 2000's, and becasue he implemented lots of social programs like senior pensions, both in his last presidential campaign and the one for all his party on this past elections many people voted for them expecting money in the form of welfare programs. Tyranny of the majority: fortunately no minority groups were victims of such policies, specially as this party claims to be leftist, which means special care towards minorities. Voting based on vibes: the MORENA party uses a populist campaign arguing that they are going to fix the country so profoundly that they are going to be on the level of the independence, reform war and Mexican revolution, even to the level of calling their platform "the fourth transformation". Not to mention that the former president had a cult of personality around so deep that every single candidate for the party had the president face on the poster alongside the politician being promoted. Heck, even the new president was heavily promoted as her successor. Lying: the former president gave every single day a "press conference" that was more of a morning show than anything, riddled with lies. When his brother was caught receiving in envelopes, the president said they where "public donations". When he was confronted with murder statistics from the national institute of data and statistics, he claimed they were fake and he had "another data". For years they protested to get the military outside of the streets, but in office he created a new national guard that was supposed to have a civil command, but last month they were enrolled under the army as a new branch. And I could go on and on.
It's not a high risk because it is literally ubiquitous. Look at any politician you want. They constantly promise things that are literally impossible for them to guarantee. Like someone running for senator and say that they will "clean up the streets" and be "tough on crime". Except that they are in DC, not in their state, and have no power over policing or social policy inside of their state.
@gavinriley5232 at this point, the risk isn't about policy, we're at the blatant lying stage, the trump-era republican strategy is to make up heinous things your opponent is secretly pushing for (namely, that every liberal politician is trying to forcefully turn your kindergartener trans so they can bring them to their satanic orgies) to make the people trying to strip your rights away look like the heroes of christian ideals & common decency, it's a disaster threatening to run the country into the ground at top speed
@@gavinriley5232 There's a functional difference between failing to keep a promise and trying to convince you that something untrue is true. Senators actually do have power over sate\local policing though through the national budget. Local police can't run only on local monies, they need federal support. Increasing that funding can help hire more police, invest in better equipment and training, build better prisons, hire more social workers to take some of the pressure off police so they can focus more on investigating crimes. On a less policy related note, they can also champion certain values they want police to adopt.
@@gavinriley5232 That is the kind of lying JJ specifically said he was not referring to. The kind of lying meant here is the kind which is untruthful about basic facts. Like saying that in California something called "post-birth abortion" is legal. There are a lot of Trump voters who somehow actually believe this, because Republican politicians and media figures have made the claim.
@@robgronotte1 That's an objective implication of no-limits abortion policies that have no reporting requirements for failed abortions where the fetus remains alive. I don't know about California, but Minnesota had a handful of cases where babies were born as a result of an abortion attempt and were treated as DNR, being left to die on the table. Minnesota then got rid of reporting requirements, which obfuscates data collection on the matter.
Posted right in the day where we hold mayor elections here in Brazil. Some candidates are almost the living personifications of some threats you showed. It's scary.
You should do a video analyzing what, in your opinion, are the best and worst government forms! I also really like the idea of discussing safeguards required for thriving democracies. Maybe another video?
One paradox of democracy would be that in most cases, voting is irrational in the sense that the chance your vote will change the outcome of the election is basically 0 percent. So, spending any time researching an issue would be a waste of our valuable time. So democracy is based on millions of people making an irrational decision.
Yes although that’s kind of the case with any collective action. Like if we all have to lift up the sofa I could say “well my contribution isn’t going to make that much of a difference”
@JJMcCullough Thankfully the choice is clear for Americans this time around. Everyone needs to vote Trump to save democracy and propel America to another thousand years of prosperity😌
@JJMcCullough although we could say in some collective actions, our actions may not make the difference, but we reduce the work of other people involved, like in the case of moving a couch, other people will have to exert less energe. But this wouldn't be analogous in an election
@@Goblin-Nixon You're thinking about it wrong. A good analogy would be the soldiers who went overseas to fight in a big conflict like WW2. No 1 soldier made any meaningful impact to the war overall. Maybe they changed the course of a mission, or meaningfully contributed to a larger operation. But I'm pretty sure there's no 1 soldier you can remove that alters the outcome of the war. So naturally one might say "well why should I go and fight, my efforts won't make a difference?". Yeah, they probably won't. But if you choose to sit it out, maybe some of your friends do, maybe some of their friends do. If that idea gains traction, maybe a million people who would have signed up stay home. Now THAT does make a difference. Same thing with voting, though you make arguably more of a difference there. The recent Toronto St Pauls by election was won by just 600 votes. Maybe there were a few hundred liberal voters who thought they didn't need to vote because it was a safe riding. Or perhaps a few hundred CPC voters could have said "we won't win, why bother". Wouldn't have taken a lot to change the result. Voting is a team sport, it's not about you making the decision all by yourself, it's about you and millions of other people making your small contribution and having a voice in the process.
10:19 pretty weird calling out UBI, but not tax cuts. Both give money to people, but one equally to everyone, while the other to disproportionately rich people
@@blackhawk8920Tax cuts that bloat the deficit lead to increased inflation that reduces everyone’s else’s purchasing power. Direct tax vs. indirect tax.
You could easily use all these as chapters in a case study of what has gone wrong in Britain for the last decade or two. Despite being a mature democracy, we really lack any good systems to deal with any of these. Voting system and parliamentary sovereignty even combines to turn tyranny of the majority into a tyranny of a small plurality. (Constitutional amendments paradox doesn't directly come into that story, except for that we have no system for this other than standard parliamentary votes, which spills into the others.)
Britain has been going wrong since 1997. The Tory leadership fell in love with Blair and his style of bureaucratic management of everything to the point Cameron wanted the party to be "Blue Blairites". The UK public isn't even allowed to vote for opposition parties. Reform, the closest thing they got, is controlled opposition and Farage a grifter. The real reason the UK is failing is because the UK public are cuckholds who put their heads down and accept it.
I work professionally on trying to amend the US Constitution. I agree with your assessment on the first section. It is too difficult, not too easy. Scalia, who I don't agree with often, said it should be a little bit easier. "It ought to be difficult, but not that difficult."
Yeah people always point this out but 99 percent of the time they said negative stuff about eachother because they each wanted the slot and where campainging against himself. Its not like Lindsey grhams ideological backbone Brock because he partnered with Trump who has marginally different views than him.
Not sure what country you are talking about, there are so many where this applies. The 17:35 made me love the state of denial. Really, politicians having an aversion to to being completely dishonest in public? Sure, Trump is world class, but he is far from being the exception.
It's been happening for almost a decade. Horrible slander calling him Hltler and fear mongering people, saying if he gets voted in, he'll be dictator for life.
Hey JJ Could you do a video about direct vs. indirect democracy? I think that would be very interesting. You could compare the ancient greek system to a half-direct system like Switzerland and to an indirect system like the U.S. Thanks!
11:05 A point about segregation in the South. The black population outnumbered the white population in Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia, even before the Civil War.
I believe some of your figures are wrong. The only state in the South that I know was categorically majority black was South Carolina. I think Mississippi _might_ have been one as well, but the others you mention were not black majority. Still, your implied point, that majority rule was not always practiced literally, remains valid.
This could fall under Tyranny of the Majority and Vibes, but I think the fact that a lot of elections are no longer or haven't been competitive is becoming a big issue (certainly in the US). For example, my home state has not really been competitive outside of a few rare instances. Split ticketing was far more common before 2010 on a federal level in the state and now that is completely gone. State level or State Legislative elections have been non-competitive since the early 1980s, with a few exceptions there. The only way to get a bad politician out in South Dakota is to vote in the primary, which is hard considering we use closed primaries and the type of people voting in a primary are usually far more loyal party members. Plus now we are seeing a lot more willingness to embrace arguably illiberal tendencies in politicians, not just in South Dakota but it has become far more common for the state legislature to overrule voters when they try to make things fairer or do nominally positive things.
I think another problem is gridlock. Also when our only options are politicians who are unqualified or incompetent for one reason or another. Which of course can lead to gridlock.
There should be gridlock at a federal level. When you are passing a bill that affects the Inuit in Alaska, the Cajuns in the Bayou, the Yuppies in NYC, and the stoners in Colorado, things should move slowly and a lot of compromise should happen. These people are completely and totally different, and the problems they face are just as varied. Where gridlock is a problem is our local city or state officials. Because they're the ones responsible for our roads, power system, water filtration, etc.
I feel like gridlock is good, but only when it acts as a check against new ideas. You do want progressive (by that I just mean different than what we currently do) ideas to prove that they can work, before you just throw them into law and find out what the consequences are later. Gridlock can force people to have those debates and better flush out those policies. That said... gridlock just for the sake of opposing the other side or keeping government small is kinda dumb and counterproductive. Gridlock without an underlying willingness to compromise when necessary is a bad thing, in my opinion.
The biggest problem for a democracy is when one is facing massive crises, but the best solutions are the least popular because they require short term sacrifices for long term gains. Nobody wants to cut social security even though it will go bankrupt because they would rather get benefits now and ignore a future crash than lose current benefits for future stability.
Great video, JJ! What happened to my home country of Russia is very sad. Growing up in the 90s and 2000s there was a lot of hope for democracy but alas. Luckily I got out of there before it entered the full-on dictatorship mode.
The two greatest weapons we have against tyranny are education and information. People who are well educated and well informed are far less likely to make poor decisions when it comes to governance. Unfortunately, as of late, both of these institutions are being badly damaged. We have these great big fights over education, trying to dismantle public education in favor of private education, which will end up making it the privilege of the wealthy. We also have public media that is corporate owned and don't like to report on anything that'll hurt their bottom line, even if it's better for society to know such things.
I'd say the education system being damaged is a function of democracy, rather than just something that has just happened. Who holds the power to shape education? Politicians. Who stands to lose the most from an informed electorate? Politicians. Seems like a forgone conclusion that politicians are going to damage the education system as much as possible in this format.
The public education system failing kids preceded calls to fund private options. I can promise you that nobody wants to put their kids in private schools because public ones are educating them too well.
@@Leafsdude_ Depends on the party. The Republicans benefit from a less educated, less informed populace while the Democrats benefit from a well-educated and well-informed populace. It's the same with voter turnout. Republicans benefit from low voter turnout while Democrats benefit from high voter turnout. If your ideology within a democracy depends on keeping people stupid and away from the polls, it's a bad ideology.
I'm surprised at your nonchalance about politicians lying, saying it's not a high level danger, given Trump's lies about the validity of elections. I thought this was leading up to "and that's why this is the biggest danger to democracy"
I mean it's failed system to begin with. All you have to do is talk with your average member of society and realize that's our voterbase. Quite depressing actually.
Trump wouldn't have arguments if the US Electoral process wasn't so ridiculously flawed as to try and avoid basic ID checking to vote as racism and giving private companies with secret closed source code power to run said elections.
UBI isn’t about “voting yourself money”, it’s a structured redistribution of wealth aimed at creating a safety net for those with the least leverage in society. By making it universal, it reduces the bureaucracy needed to verify eligibility, making it more efficient. It disproportionately benefits the poor and middle class, who make up the majority. The slippery slope argument misses nuance, UBI is about addressing real economic challenges: like automation and corporate consolidation, which are shrinking job opportunities and reducing the demand for human labor. It’s not just about people not wanting to work, it’s about finding solutions for a future where fewer jobs exist. UBI is meant to be a safety net, not a replacement for job income (at least not yet at our current level of automation). As technology advances and human labor becomes even less necessary, we may eventually need to rethink how income and work are structured in society. But for now, UBI could help provide stability for those most vulnerable. Of course, the source of redistribution depends on effectively taxing those who can afford it the most, which means closing tax avoidance loopholes, which is a related but separate issue. The fear that voters will demand endlessly increasing payouts overlooks the reality, UBI is a response to declining labor demand, not an open invitation for unchecked spending, especially when most people still rely on work to drive both society and its’ advancement.
I would argue that UBI does invite the possibility of a slippery slope, because it introduces the mechanism that voters could use to quickly give themselves raises as opposed to the current "voting for money" system which entails voting for tax cuts and stimulus checks. Plus, Sam Altman's study on UBI found that the net worth of people getting the most UBI funding actually decreased over the time of the study. Granted, the money was paid on a monthly basis and not as a lump sum like it should have been to truly test UBI's effectiveness (because a lump sum is better for paying off loans and as such would be better in the long run), so there is still a small chance UBI could work, but more research is needed before we put it in place.
The recent democratic national convention in the US emphasized "joy" as an important feature of the democrat party. Specific policy positions were glossed-over.
@@Alverant project 2025 is not Trump's plan, although most conservatives have no problem with what it proposes. The democrats of course are opposed to it. It advises that the unelected deep state have less power, which should be returned to the various states.
@@samanteatervibes are actually important, the rhetoric that presidents and their party use can either start or prevent issues, for example the orange causing Jan 6 with just his words
@@engineergaming1669 Politicians should absolutely be held accountable for the things they say. My point was more that a sizeable chunk of people on the left expect a Harris victory to be a cure-all for the broader problems they have with "the zeitgeist" and the campaign is pandering hard to those people. I just think it's important to have a reality check and remember that one president isn't going to change the moods of 300 million people overnight. If you want the world to be a more positive place, you have to do the work to make it that way.
The amount of lying from the mouths of our politician's over and over and over again drives voter apathy. I voted for voter reform with Trudeau 1.0 and he did nothing with it. Now's he's viewed as a total dip (which he actually is) and I'm just done with politics. But I still consume political content of course
I suppose historically the 6th paradox hasn't been a big threat (Even just a few decades back, getting caught in enough blatant lies tanked your winning chances, either through public or party pressure). That being said, given recent trends (especially in combination with the 'vibes' paradox), I would say it's a pretty high threat. Maybe I am biased/tunnel visioned as a US citizen though.
I'm pretty sure Godel actually never revealed what the paradox in the U.S. Constitution is, and people just assumed it was, "What if we amend the Constitution to make it authoritarian?" because they couldn't think of any other possibility. You never know, there may still be a seventh paradox of democracy lurking somewhere.
Really good video. Would liked to have seen some mention of gerrymandering, first past the post / the electoral college and other ways that democratic systems can “function” according to their rules but still be set up in a way as to produce a result that most people didn’t vote for.
Paradox 3 is a huge huge issue!!! All politicians say is that they will give more and more free things and benefits. No candidate can ever say they will cut any benefit for fear of losing votes. This is why we are trillions in debt! Both parties are guilty of this. No politician can even mention social security reform for example. Republicans want to grow the military and cut taxes. Democrats want to grow welfare and do things like paying off student debt/slavery reparations. All of these things increase the deficit more and more and more! Logically to lower the deficit we would have to increase taxes and/or cut benefits... and no one has ever or will ever win a political debate on that platform lol
I think access to the treasury is a much higher threat than low. No party offers everyone a check, but redistributes money from some to others. The Canadian carbon tax rebate is a good example, or the college debt forgiveness.
I like Socrates' example of two politicians: one is like a doctor, the other like a candy shop owner. The former will do what is right but unpleasant, the latter what is wrong, but pleasant. Socrates' contends, that the masses will vote overwhelmingly for the latter, and he seems to have been by and large vindicated in this view.
This video was conveyed with an objectivity I've come to expect and hope-for from you JJ, and I didn't come out of it feeling like you were trying to convince us that any one American candidate was any more or less guilty of these things than the other, and it certainly had the potential to do that. Good job! I'm guessing people that are vehemently in favor of one of the candidates would like to assign all of these problems to one candidate and not the other, but I think those with some intellectual honesty can see that they both demonstrate risk in some of these areas, the degree to which is rather unclear IMHO.
![Chino Pacas - Modo Capone (with Drake & Fuerza Regida) [Video Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zjv8TQ0gBkg/mqdefault.jpg)
![FNAF vs TF2 - Episode 2 [SFM]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/z5b3V2-VLb0/mqdefault.jpg)
If we combine paradoxes 5 and 6 we would REALLY be in trouble! Imagine a candidate whose only qualification is dubious celebrity who constantly makes the most outrageous and slanderous lies with absolutely shameless impunity, and is somehow charismatic enough for people to believe him with absolute reverence. If someone like that came to power, democracy would really be in jeopardy! Can imagine someone like THAT coming to power?
Or how about if we imagine a candidate whose only platform is their skin tan and genitals, that doesnt answer any questions, talks in winding word-salads, and was considered incompetent until their party deposed their actual candidate and anointed that person with no democracy at all.
He was in power for 4 years and did less damage than the person of the 4 years after that
Yeah Reagan sucked
@@xX_SushiRoll_Xxwhat damage did biden do that was directly his fault
Yup, and thats how the system works, anyone can be in it. If you don't like it, don't have a democracy or create arbitrary standards of entry that are elitist or decriminatory ie. The minimum age to become president being 35
J.J. looks like a retired Glam Rock singer who is currently hosting an afternoon children's program.
I kinda just assumed that was true when I subbed to him... Was I misled?
They don't retire, check your nearest casino.
With the orange shirt and green vest, he's like if Brock (of pokemon) could actually see success with the ladies.
@@TheBuckBratagerI don't think J.J. is concerned about success with the ladies.
@@andromina31 It's a tragedy, really. I have to turn them down left and right.
I love videos that tackle this topic because democracy is one of those things we just kinda take for granted and rarely ever question unlike the usual “political issues”
As a Kazakh, and son of those that let the government destroy our democracy, please, go vote. Understand that the votes cast in most countries do not change a thing.
@@saulgoodmanKAZAKH Also don't forget that voting is not the only way to participate. Democracy doesn't end at the voting booth! In most democracies you can follow legislation as it goes through your electoral bodies and representatives often open it up for comments and expert input! You can have a more direct impact than you think. Wish more people would study the details of how legislation gets passed.
Benjamin Franklin said democracy was two wolves and a sheep arguing about what's for dinner. He wasn't a fan of it and that's why he pushed for all of the checks and balances that the US Republic has.
@@anguscampbell3020 I geniunely had no idea this was a thing at y'all's lands. Good job, democracy!
@@saulgoodmanKAZAKH @anguscampbell3020 I agree wholeheartedly with both
I sometimes think the true distinguishing strength of democracy is just the peaceful transfer of power. People get sick of the current leader for whatever reason and replace them with an alternative regardless of competence and at no point does this spiral out into violence.
The strength is a high trust society with low corruption. America actually has incredibly low corruption, but our level of trust is dropping for no good reason. Social media has created a contagious schizophrenia
"People get sick of the current leader for whatever reason and replace them with an alternative regardless of competence and at no point does this spiral out into violence."
- _American Truth, 1801 to 2021_
Definitely. So many people don't know enough history to appreciate how long it took humanity to get to this point. It wasn't that long ago when almost all of humanity lived under the rule of hereditary monarchs.
@@amazin7006 There is a very good reason that people don't trust Trump with power, because he caused the first non-peaceful transfer of power in the US.
@@amazin7006America has plenty of corruption it’s just done legally
It took France 70 years between the revolution and the first stable democracy. It's a long project that requires more than just a system: it requires an entire culture, society, values to support it. That's why we see so many rushed democratic projects like Russia, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan or Palestine where they had pretty well designed systems but still failed.
Hey, that's actually really nuanced, thank you.
Arabs cant do democracy. Russia can do democracy just their government is wildly corrupt.
@@EggsBenAddict thanks. I believe a lot of people today look at legislation as if it's a magical tool they can wave to solve every problem, when it isn't.
Most of the time, important laws are manifestations of the consensus and are only enforceable because of it.
@@barzomer2639 A lot of African and Middle Eastern countries that got their independences in the 50s, 60s and 70s are approaching seventy years of independence pretty soon already.
Maybe if we're lucky, they'll be under democratic systems of government. We'll just have to wait and see.
To have a system of checks and balances, the people themselves must support said checks and balances, only then it is a democracy and not a dictatorial country with "democracy" stickers.
Idiocracy isn't the dystopia most people (or even the movie itself) think it was. Look, he was a pro wrestler and... the other thing, but President Camacho also learned that a powerful computer algorithm had determined someone to be the smartest person on the planet and immediately wanted that person in his cabinet so he could advise him on important problems threatening America- which the smart person was able to determine the cause of. President Camacho then listened to the smart person and solved the crisis. I'd vote for a second term.
I'd still call that quite the dystopia. The world was in total decline, surviving only on the genius of the people that came before. They were saved through third party intervention that came in the form of a man smart enough to know that plants need water to live.
Anyone still extolling the virtues of "listen to the experts!" after the debacles of endless wars in the middle east, the complete farce that was the Covid 19 response, the open borders regime of the majority of liberal democracies (against the wishes of their populace), is just regurgitating propaganda; there's no way you can look at what the "experts" around the world have done and come to any conclusion other than "they're screwing the rest of us for their own benefit"
@@Colton-el4mp it wasnt a dystopia, it was just the human experience. For most of it, we were stupid, but we recognized and respected and adapted intelligence. Today, it seems as if although we do have commonly seen intellect, we refuse to recognize anything we do not personally like.
The problem I have with the movie Idiocracy isn't so much about the movie itself, but the fact that so many people take it as seriously as they do. I will die on this hill, but the Paradox of Idiocracy is that the only circumstance society would EVER reach anything close to it is because people treated that movie seriously. In fact, my best counter-example for Idiocracy is: if modern society is "smarter" than the world of Idiocracy, where did that "smartness" come from in the first place?
It's like, you have to be as stupid/ignorant as the people in Idiocracy to believe that that conclusion is at all possible, such as believing that "smart people" are never born from "stupid people".
@@nickfifteen I remember reading that the average IQ is actually increasing. Low IQ had more to do with environmental factors like lead and other contaminants in food and drinking water. Developing nations have improved, infant mortality has declined, and as a global average, humans are better off than they were decades ago. Not to say there still aren't problems or that IQ is the best way to measure it, but humans aren't getting dumber like the movie claims
My mom grew up during a fascist dictatorship in Portugal, whose policies only enabled her to get a fifth-grade education. She's lived in the U.S. for so long that she understands U.S. politics and words better than Portuguese now. She assumed during the last parliamentary elections that the Democratic Alliance was the same as the Democrats here and voted for them on that basis alone. The party is a coalition of center-right, libertarian-ish, and monarchist parties and definitely not the Portuguese equivalent of Democrat. She was never taught growing up the virtues of civic participation beyond 'do what you're told' and never developed a habit, partly a result of said upbringing, that resulted in her voting for the AD party without reviewing any policies. Thus, the voting based on vibes fallacy hits close to home for me.
Salazar was autoratarian righ, not a fashist. To much attention to the cathlic church.
He had no problem being called a fascist before WWII, neither did Mussolini had any problems with th Catholic Church
@@HeitorS.-dh2wl
Mussolini described fachism as "nothing outside the state, nothing against the state" the church was "outside the state". I am not familar with his relationship with the church but at best it looks as opressive as his relation the corporations, and the public at large if he actually described his belives with that quote.
Mean while salazar's ideas of desindustrialization come diretly from the church.
Sorry for bad english.
@@gaiagba Tehre exists this fascist offshoot called clerical-fascism(Austria, Slovakia,...), which is deeply intertwined with the church, so these two things do not cancel each other out
Yet another paradox is the problem of the crowd capture. The purest form of democracy - a politician literally doing just what the people want from him - is actually very dangerous. An example of that was during covid, policy was being made based on opinion polls. The reality is that people look to leaders not only for collective decisions, but also for leadership. A good leader familiarises himself with a problem, comes up with a solution, and promotes it to the people he leads. As Edmund Burke once said: "A good politician owes you not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays you, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
The irony of that being that the vast majority of issues are in fact not democratically decided, at least in the US.
Large and sometimes absolute majorities of the voters want many reforms, from minimum wage increases to gun reform to abortion, and yet time and again the politicians go against that will at the behest of donors.
@nenafan1 gun reform would be racist
@@nenafan1 I think all of these are hotly debated between the voters as well
@@sempersuffragium9951
No, they’re really not.
Background checks for gun purchase is routinely above 90% support, legal access to abortion is over 65% nationwide, etc.
Devil in the details, but most issues do have a clear, majority-backed path forward. And they’re all, to a one, the ‘Democrat’ or even the ‘progressive’ position.
Beyond that, support for a certain ME country has been dropping the last year, too. Both major parties still support it, at least in terms of military aid. Yet the populace says otherwise.
People know what they want per issue, they’re just inept as to which party actually advocates it.
@@nenafan1if opinion poll is how governance is run, there is no "leader", no consistency of policy or direction.
The whim of the majority will sway regularly.
A good leaders role is to listen to not just the people, but also advisors who each have opinions on how a decision will impact all factors; governmental finances, citizen's standard of living, environmental concerns, international relationships and more. They then have to consider both the short term and long term impact of these decisions, and not only make the decision, but inform the descenting advisors and the public as to why that decision was made.
I do not want leaders that simply bow to whims of a majority that don't necessarily have all the relevant facts and are often mostly reacting emotionally.
Unfortunately, the experienced leaders that could do this well, rarely go into politics.
In my opinion, a strong democracy only works when the people have a sense of duty to partake in it. And I don’t just mean going to vote. I’m talking about a duty to being a strong citizen. Actively participating in community, caring for fellow country person, doing the best you can for the nation. Much of that has faded and deem old fashion. A switch from a collective society to a hyper-individualistic one.
A collective society is communist and we certainly don't want that!
Well said
Here's my paradox: the better the chance I have of impacting the outcome of an election, the less information I have to judge the candidates.
Half the time I barely know anything about the position I'm voting for in local elections, let alone what qualifications the candidates have.
Absolutely agreed! I can usually find some information on the congressional candidates in my district. But, once you get to smaller and more local positions than that? Good freaking luck! I often struggle to even find their most rudimentary policy platform.
"Voting on vibes" is basically the norm now in America. Whether you're moderate or an extremist can often be dictated by how brash your rhetoric is.
What if I'm an extreme moderate?
Can you give an example of this, Tory ?
Definitely happening right now this election
“Who would you rather have a beer with?”
TRUMP 2024
Honestly, if a hotdog with sunglasses was running for president, I'd vote for him.
You're part of the problem.
@@dannyarcher6370 So are people who lack humor detectors.
Hotdog with sunglasses is clearly a German plant. They think they can fool us by changing his name from frankfurter to hotdog.
We didn't win 2 world wars against the Germans to get infiltrated like this. Smh
@@BS-vx8dg Like you?
You know i had some serious doubts about his capabilities as a president, due to him being a hotdog and all that.
But since this is what the people want ill support him, you dont wanna stand in the way of democracy after all! 😊
the hair is exquisite
I’m glad someone thinks so
Facts
Leonine.
If you haven’t gone through JJ’s past videos, you’ll find a plethora of excellent hair styles. Have fun!
As always
The last few minutes were basically "DON'T NAME TRUMP, DON'T NAME TRUMP, DON'T NAME TRUMP"
Your filter is obvious
LOL how to say his name without actually saying his name.
@@ericirwin4385and what is that filter Eric?
He should’ve named Trump tbh
@@Jkh808 Trump Bad...very very bad...
He seemed to be talking about democracies throughout history and around the world.
Correct me IF I am wrong regarding this.
It's OK IF that's how YOU think...
17:45 yeah, absolutely no one comes to mind 👀
Obviously he's talking about joe biden and kamala harris.
Make sure you vote Donald Trump To save democracy💪😎🤟
Same here, although it's probably the opposite of who you're thinking of
@@elliotnemeth could mean you believe the lies of the person @BlazPecnikCreations is thinking of.
The truth, of course, is that virtually all of them lie.
@@elliotnemeth dogs are not being eaten by immigrants
Muh project 2025
I feel like JJ has really underestimated the threat of voting for money. I think many European systems in particular of facing serious stress because of pensionsers/retirees are voting themselves more and more generous benefits. This is increasingly problematic as these countries having ageing demographics and risk veering towards gerontocratic systems (rule by the old) that reward retirees with short term benefits at the expense of younger, working people and the long term financial health of the system.
There's also voting for money in the politicians themselves, they're all rich & will never pass anything that would diminish that, be that fixing the tax structure or passing regulations on labor & industry, they're all too focused on getting richer to actually help the people
@brandonmiller8816 This, so much this
By and large they’re not really voting themselves more money, only an inflation adjusted ‘fair share.’
Those workers were employed for decades on the understanding and promise their retirement was covered.
Granted there are structural problems that need addressed, absolutely. But it’s not that bad in Europe yet.
As for Japan, China, and S Korea, that might get much worse in another decade.
@nenafan1 Japanese TFR already rose and reached an equilibrium worry about SK and then probably China
Absolutely on point, it's becoming a big problem. Also the OAPs are increasingly voting for populists with questionable relationship with democratic values. They don't care - they only care if their pensions will get raised.
Another paradox is that of ability: people who are voted in, are generally not experts in governance. This poses a great problem, especially in our age of great bureaucracies, where the state gives the impression of working, but in reality the politicians are not in control because, to hide their ineptitude, they give the reins to the bureaucrats.
*cough* Canadian Liberals *cough*
This is why I get worried about the term-limits folks. I'm on a city council, and even after a year, I'm only just barely getting used to the comparatively low stakes job. Overly early term limits are often a great way to kick out people who are only now getting good at the job (just in time to be hired by a lobbying firm, I might add).
@@Descriptor413 Indeed. I'm no fan of them either
Politicians are absolutely still in control because of the policy they set, bureaucrats just carry out the enforcement. That’s one of the reasons why it seems like nothing gets done, because as soon as a politician with a different agenda is elected, progress can be wiped out.
This is why the Chevron doctrine was such a big deal. It brought challenges from the bureaucracy to the judiciary where officials elected by people make the decisions rather than technocrats who understand their field.
Lindsey Graham also pushed for the senate to approve a republican supreme court candidate in 2020 when he 4 years earlier said that SCOTUS vacancies should never be filled in an election year. So he was like that even before Trump was elected.
Yeah that's how it works. Correct.
Lindsey Graham will do and say anything to appease the party that would treat him as a second-class citizen if he was open about his sexuality
We could also call it J.D. Vance syndrome. The guy who called Trump, "America's Hitler," is now the man's running mate. All politicians to one degree or another are willing to trade some of their principles for power. Few are quite as bad as Lindsey Graham or J.D. Vance though. There's an honest realization that one's principles cannot be applied without power and so give up on a minor principle in favor of the chance to implement a greater principle and then there's doing whatever it takes, giving up any and all principles or actively having none in order to gain or maintain power. I mean, how many Republicans have said they don't like Trump, think he's a terrible man, that he shouldn't have power and then say they'll vote for him because he's a Republican? I've lost count.
That's not what he said. He said he wasn't going to fill the vacancy in an election year when the president was a sitting duck. I hate Lindsey Graham, but let's be accurate.
And you can thank Harry Reid the Democrat for switching to a simple majority vote for federal judges below the supreme court level a decade ago because he didn’t like that so few Obama appointed judges were getting through. McConnell literally warned him at the time that doing this would be a terrible idea
I wonder if J.J had someone special in mind when he decided on the topic of this video
Someone orange perhaps
We will never know
I kinda wish he mentioned that lying about democratic processes themselves (such as election integrity) is one of the most dangerous lies to democracy. I'm sure he'd agree, though.
Where's Garfi- GARFIELD, STOP FILLING THE BALLOTS!
@@cllncl😂
Crazy how we're just going to conveniently ignore the fact that three months ago Harris flipped on pretty much every position she has ever held and when asked why she refuses to answer, anybody with a functioning brain understands she's going to immediately flip on all those positions again as soon as she gets into office aka she's engaging in the sixth paradox; lying about what you're going to do, to a degree never before seen in American politics. I will never vote for Trump, but anybody who thinks only one side engages in these paradoxes is completely delusional and a part of the threat to Democracy.
Thankfully we're gonna be voting Trump so we won't have to deal with Lying politicians In the white house for a while😎
What you're calling "Lindsay Graham syndrome" is pretty much the norm in multi-party parliamentary systems.
Political parties will claim to hate each other, end up in coalition together and be forced to defend each other because of cabinet collective responsibility, which prohibits them from publicly criticising the decision of a government they are a part of.
12:45 my grandma (RIP) literally voted for George Bush and Obama based on their physical appearance. I believe she liked Bush's nose and Obama's ears but I might be mistaken.
She was treated like a child her whole life (getting an "allowance" from my rich grandfather during their marriage), and behaving accordingly.
That reminds me of the anecdote about the JFK/Nixon presidential debate where listeners on the radio thought that Nixon had won while viewers on TV thought that JFK had won, and polls suggested that one important factor was JFK's handsome appearance
This supports the idea that civic education should be a requisite for voting
@@ScottJBbased, let’s arbitrarily find ways to exclude people in our democracy.
@ScottJB while it can surely be improved "government" was required class to graduate from my High School, I believe it still is. I think this is pretty common in most of the country. While I support such effort to educate people, I think some have much higher expectations of it than they should.
My grandma decides who to vote for while in the line
6:31 I would say democracy is more about preventing accumulation of power than making sure we always have a good leader. It's a conservative system in that limits the impact of both very good and very bad leaders.
The only trouble there is that there are other ways power can accumulate outside of government, which can carry many of the same dangers.
J.J., you did a _brilliant_ job in the last few minutes of skewering one particular politician without using a name. I don't know if you took that route because of RUclips policies or what, but regardless of the reason, I think it was much more impactful without mentioning names.
I believe it was because he is trying to keep this channel as politically neutral as it can be, which has earned him a lot of supporters because of this reason, but also really hating Trump and believing him to be an actual threat. This seems to be his compromise.
@@Cenriquezmor he could have mentioned an Austrian painter
@@Cenriquezm To me it's more effective communication than compromise, though I guess it could be both. I feel like if you're trying to pass the kind of universally applicable message that people should be careful and responsible when voting, and not believe total and obvious lies, it is a lot better to present it in a way that anyone can take that message without immediately making their defenses go up, and letting them do some of the work from there. At least in this kind of video, I think its the right approach.
@@Cenriquezm The channel isn't really neutral - it is "unleft".
unleft isn't what I'd say. his stances and portrayal of issues aren't much concerned with being "not leftist" at all. from what I gather he's just a somewhat conservative John Locke Liberal (as opposed to "fox news liberal,") like most north americans. Iirc he's also referred to himself as a "dispositional conservative."
"My allegiance is to the Republic! To Democracy!"
palpatine was democratically elected emperor. obi wan violated his oath by fighting the empire.
I honestly think you missed a big one.
Career politicians.
The fact that so many politicians are career politicians causes huge problems because it means their highest priority becomes to keep their job instead of it being to make the decisions that best help the country and its citizens.
This is unavoidable.
Yes, we need full time politicians.
I don't want leaders, that work part time for some random investment fond.
@@OnkelJajusBahn I think they should be paid. What I’m against is politics as a career path. I think it’s extremely problematic that they prioritize keeping their jobs over making good decisions for the country and people.
I don’t agree with this at all. I think the least-dedicated politicians are the grifters who come in after having done nothing related to politics their entire careers thinking they know everything.
Wanting to keep their jobs is a positive: it keeps the politicians accountable to their voters. The alternative is not politicians doing what is best for their country, but doing whatever they want (be it corruption or some megalomanic projects to give themselves a legacy).
Politicians wanting to keep their job as a politician is not *inherently* a bad thing (though I think there should be term limits for all government officials)
If a politician wants to keep their job because they want to keep doing right by their constituents and their constituents reward them with their vote, I don’t have a problem with that
I have a problem with politicians like Lindsey Graham and JD Vance, who hold onto their political career by doing and saying whatever is politically expedient and not actually caring for their constituents
In other words, careerist politicians aren’t bad if they’re doing it *for the right reasons*
This video's comment section: 33% concern for democracy, 66% thirsting at JJ's luscious locks.
Honestly id prefer the latter b/c the analysis of democracy is lacking.
The democratic process has spoken.
Just because you are greying doesn't mean you don't need to use conditioner. And JJ is on point
fact
Paradox #5 for ya
As a more center right person. I have always hated Lindsey Graham syndrome. On the surface it seems like it's republicans stopping their fights and getting together, but in reality, it's the reason that republicans aren't taken seriously. You were so vitriolic before, I can't take you seriously if you suddenly start speaking in totally opposite terms.
Lindsey Graham is one of the people that has caused this center-right person to utterly reject the Republican Party.
same. Nikki Haley who I voted for in the primary ended up catching it unfortunately but at least there is Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski who seem principled. Collins said she would not support Trump after the Biden debate which I could not even bring myself to do. Luckily Kamala is now there.
I honestly just think Republicans are scared of their own base which is like 80-90% pro-Trump. Back in 2021 there was lots of talk that the Senate would have voted like 80-20 or 90-10 to convict Trump following the Jan 6 insurrection. But many Republicans didn’t because they knew they would lose their seats in the primaries.
@@Sebman1113 "Luckily Kamala is now there". Oh, I think we're fortunate that Biden was eased out so that Trump was not guaranteed a win. But while Harris lacks Trump's ethical baggage, she's not intellectually suited for the job. I mean, it used to be that both candidates, whether you agreed with their policy positions or not, were at least capable of holding the job. But we have not had an election since 2012 with two capable nominees, and _this_ year, I would argue, is the first one of my lifetime where _neither_ candidate has any business getting near the Presidency.
@@BS-vx8dg Please don't get mad but how exactly is she not "intellectually suited for the job"? She was attorney general of the biggest state in the US, she was a US senator and she has been VP for 4 years. Seems like the average resume for a candidate
I like the framing at the desk quite a bit more than the stool on its own, even if you don't have any trinkets to show. Keep up the good work JJ
A big one, which is particularly relevant to the USA now, is extreme polarization in which supporters of each party dehumanize supporters of the other party, and claim they are "Fascists" or "Communists". The danger, is that the party in power will feel justified to use anti-democratic means to undermine the other party, in order to support "democracy".
don't forget "Marxist" as well
I have yet to meet a fascist but I have met many self proclaimed communists that support the democrats.
They’re proud of it and are self proclaimed.
But that's okay if it's Democrats using anti-democratic means against the evil evil Republicans right? It'll totally just be short term power grabs and not a long term precedence being set.
A political party believing they are correct and morally superior 100% of the time is dangerous regardless of the party labels.
Whatever term is used to scare tactic the voters nowadays. "Dihydrogen Monoxide"
See also: Germany and the UK.
One of the biggest paradoxes in democracy that comes to my mind is how often the people who would willing seek out the highest, most powerful offices in the land are the kind of people who would be the worst at holding those offices. It stands to reason that the worst people among us would be the people who are most attracted to that kind of power. And people who are actually moral, upstanding, and good citizens are far too humble and deferent to seek out positions of great power.
Most people understand that holding that much power is a terrible only someone hellbent on power over anything else would want to take on that headache
"Growing Up In A Cynical Age"
Great album title 🔥🔥🔥
Lindsay Graham Syndrome sounds like a cover band played by the Republicans Senators.
Nice try JayJay, we're not restoring the McCullough dynasty.
I'd vote for him. He has a nice vibe.
@@ourgreatsociety4965 I felt what you did there.
I mean look at his hair. That’s a vibe in and of itself :)
Democracy is not supposed to choose the best people. It is supposed to choose representative people. Representation creates policies that give something to stakeholders in a society and that creates stability. Stability creates great economies that allow people more freedom. Democracy fails to choose the best people, but that is not the goal in the first place.
There is some truth to this. The representatives are there to represent values in decisions, and not necessarily the technical details of those policies. That's what a competent executive branch is intended for.
That being said, if your legislators can't even understand what they're being presented with, it becomes all too easy for the executive to manipulate them, or for them to force the executive to do nonsensical things if the legislators can't even listen to reason. There needs to be a balanced approach, ideally where all types of stakeholders are represented by knowledgeable people who actually understand how the values of those they represented intersect with the business of government. If only.
A good representative isn't necessarily the smartest person on every issue or even any issue. They do what most of us do when we have a problem, seek help from those who are experts to aid us. A bad representative is the kind that will act like they're the smartest or best at everything and try to convince you that only they can fix all the problems.
That perspective on democracy is one I strongly disagree with and will never support. Electing someone simply because they are relatable to the general population results in mediocrity and stagnation. Instead, we should be choosing leaders who exemplify the very best qualities of our society-individuals who possess exceptional vision, integrity, and the ability to elevate the nation. Voting should be about electing those who inspire progress, not merely those who mirror the ordinary.
@@mbogucki1 Ah, the old, “who would you want to have a beer with,” standard. Last two Republican presidents voters said that about didn’t drink alcohol. The other problem is, most people don’t understand what leadership is. Some think a leader is loud, chest beating, kicks down at the people they don’t like. On other words, someone who conflates cruelty for strength. I’ve always seen a leader as someone who stands out in front and leads by example. Someone who understands strength is compassion, wisdom, and never asking others to do what you’re unwilling to do. We have had a serious dearth of leadership in my lifetime.
@@Descriptor413democracy does not have to only be representative democracy. The current system concentrates too much power in the hand of professional politicians
There's a lot to be said about UBI, but because I've read quite a bit on the existing experiments with UBI, people are actually voting with consciousness about the national treasury, because usually UBI is pegged to the national wealth.
In most places it also showcased a case where voters would opt for long term economical practices with risk of short term decrease of their income.
Of course in most experiments with UBI the sample size was very small and usually it was a community rather than a whole county.
Give the people the stuff they need directly: the shelter, the healthcare, the education.
Giving them money for the stuff just leads to the owners of that stuff jacking up the prices.
Unless you pass a huge amount of price-fixing laws along with UBI, which itself is impossible to pass, rent will increase the same amount the UBI check is.
Most schemes to fund UBI I've seen are just massive VATs, sometimes across the board and sometimes just on luxuries. If it's on luxuries alone it won't generate enough money, the rich will just buy them from Canada or wherever while the poor/middle eat the increased cost. If it's on everything then that directly cuts into the UBI making it useless.
@@Jcewazhere All countries but Italy had set the basic income based on the need of basics + some disposable income. The amount was varying based on the country and the year the experiment took place. In Israel for example the experiment took place in the 70s, basic income was a novelty and even though existing it was very tiny.
All countries that did it, had some sort of public housing programme going on and the shelter percentage of the basic income was based on the public housing rent prices. Healthcare and education in Europe is already part of your taxation so UBI took those into consideration.
Current funding of UBI and the real funding of a systemic UBI are different. Currently the funding comes from some companies, some organisations like the EU and economic lobbies usually as a research fund. In a system with UBI the funding comes from the national capital, productivity is tied to the national capital and UBI is aimed at maximising productivity.
It really is more complex than that and much more volatile than some people make it sound but it is a very well put together alternative for issues that haven't been seen at big numbers yet.
@@Jcewazhere The issue with that approach, sometimes referred to as Universal Basic Services, is that not everyone have the same needs. It also takes agency away from the recipients, as they have to accept whatever service they receive, even if they would prefer a competitor. Furthermore, if the government decides to privatize the services, companies could lobby government to choose their company as a supplier. These suppliers can then raise the price and have the government pay whatever they ask. (This already happens in some sectors.)
But just to be clear, I'm not proposing getting rid of all services. Shelter, healthcare and education should still be publicly funded. But other services like electricity, water, internet, transport, gym membership etc should be left up to people to decide.
As for UBI being directly passed on to rents (or any other goods/service), this has been debunked many times. Higher wages don't increase rent, and neither does UBI. If anything, more money in your pocket gives you more freedom to move/bargain. And even if all landlords decide to hike up price simultaneously (which is illegal), at a certain point it will be cheaper to buy a house and pay mortgage instead. That reduces the demand for renting, putting downward pressure on landlords to cut rents so they don't keep a vacant house. If they insist on keeping rents artificially high, nothing is stopping other people from buying new houses and renting them cheaper.
It's really not difficult to close the imports loophole, but also prices tend to stay more or less the same. Just compare the price of an iPhone in Europe to the US. (They have different VAT values in Europe, going from 8% in Switzerland all the way up to 27% in Hungary. Most being around 20% for luxury goods.)
But also you used a bad example, since Canada has a VAT tax at >5% (depends on the province). Mexico also has VAT, at 16%.
@@gaarakabuto1 The largest scale UBI test had what, 10,000 people? That's really good on a statistical level, but doesn't compare to doing it to 330,000,000 people, or China's billion, or India's nearly 2 billion. I'm not saying the money wouldn't help, short term and long term it would. Even those two vocid checks helped people a ton, me included. It would just mostly get eaten up by landlords and their rent-seeking ilk unless a ton of supporting legislation could also be passed with it.
America and China might be able to print and tax enough money to keep their economies from exploding, but most other countries either don't control the value of their currency as tightly, or don't have most of the planet depending on it for trade.
@@Jcewazhere yeah that's why I mentioned that the amount of people isn't enough and especially when the total amount of people are spread out and not on a community to see how it impacts the local economy even of a county or a city.
But the landlord situation is kind of a prerequisite problem to solve before implementing ubi on mass.
An earlier example of Lindsay Graham Syndrome is Poppy Bush calling Supply Side Economics “voodoo economics” but becoming Reagan’s VP
Indeed. There are _countless_ examples.
@@BS-vx8dg yup. Was just the 1st example to come to mind.
Reagan grew the GDP by 33%
@@ericveneto1593 Reagan grew the GDP by 33%.
Yeah, naming it "Lindsay Graham Syndrome" is just dishonest; could have easily called it "Bernie Syndrome" (he's been doing this schtick for decades) or "Bush Syndrome" (your example) or countless others. Every party, all throughout history, has operated in this fashion; fight until the party has made a decision, then rally to the party. Maybe you privately engage in cuthroat politics to get rid of people you hate, quietly undermine them, but never, ever, go against the party publicly.
Graham especially can't be blamed because he saw the writing on the wall - Trump had remade the party in his image, and going against him would have accomplished nothing other than ending Graham's own career.
2:06 The Founding Fathers of the United States thought long and hard about this, and this is the exact reason why the Constitution of the United States is hard to amend and makes sure that only amendments that the American people can agree with, aka a broad and deep consensus, get passed
Ah, but later politicians came up with a glaring loophole: to pass amendments with time limits for ratification, usually something like five years. This was meant to stop Prohibition from being passed (unsuccessfully) but has been used to hold back all kinds of reforms that eventually gained consensus among the states.
This is why I want Mr. Beat to cover _Coleman v. Miller._
"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent & untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because when once known, we accomodate [sic] ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilised society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
--- Thomas Jefferson, Proposals to Revise the Virginia Constitution: I. Thomas Jefferson to “Henry Tompkinson” (Samuel Kercheval), 12 July 1816
@@SamAronow the ERA comes to mind
@@SamAronow The problem with having NO time limits means that a controversial amendment might get 1/4 of the states to sign off on it the year it's proposed. Then 50 years later, the issue comes up again, and political dynamics have shifted and another 1/4 of the states sign off on it. And then 100 years pass and the landscape has shifted again, and the last few states agree to it and pass it over that threshold despite the fact that some of those states which originally agreed to it may no longer think that it's a good idea.
@@adamperdue3178In the later periods of ratification, the states that ratified it decades before would have their attention on the amendments again, and may repeal them if it is found their amendment is still on the books.
James Madison, in The Federalist Papers, made a rhetorical distinction between “democracy” and a “republic”. Madison used Democracy as unconstrained majoritarianism, contrasting with a Republic with enforceable protections for minority rights. That is the probable origin of “this a republic, not a democracy” trope.
yeah, but it's the kind of distinction that does not really make sense in the modern day at all. Democracy and Republic as we understand them today, are distinct and not at all incompatible, and in fact often go hand in hand.
The "trope" comes from the difference in government from Athens (a democracy) and Rome (a republic/ aka, and oligarchy with some popular debate).
Pretty much everyone wanted the US to be a republic like Rome, however some people wanted a stronger public debate and self rule.
This eventually led to universal suffrage, expansions in citizenship, and made most positions elected. So people started to pejorativily call this system a democracy or a democratic republic, which made sense for what the system was trying to be, so it sort of stuck
That's true, but it's now become a dishonest trick to roll out when democracy in any other sense is mentioned.
@@mtk77621 Oh really? “Hate speech” and “malinformation” as exceptions to freedom of speech used by one party? Agreeing what rights minority parties have is still a controversy. Regulating the internet might have “democratic” support, but be flatly unconstitutional.
Democracy was still a dirty word up until well after the French Revolution. Back then Democracy wasn’t definitionally the “will of the people and the consent of the governed”.
The consent of the governed was wholly unique the American Declaration of Independence. It is however not unique to democracy, as all forms of representational governments aim to have the consent of the governed informally, as Hobbes talked about the social contract in the Leviathan long before Locke started talking about property rights, which was really what the American revolution was fought over.
Hi J.J.!
As automation increases, I don't see how we can avoid a system like UBI (or a negative tax for the lowest bracket). Can we just hope that there will always be enough new jobs in new fields for the employment rate to stay high?
The question is who wants to work if its going to cheat them out of what is presumably enough money to live comfortably on. If you have a UBI thats equal to a $12/hr job then all remaining 12/hr jobs die overnight, as do 13, 14, 15, probably up to 30/hr jobs as the slightly increased wages are not worth the infinitely higher amount of work. This upsets a huge amount of the evonomy and massively increases consumer prices while driving entire industries to third world countries. So to prevent this, you have to make who gets this money very choosy, in which case it isnt Universal, or make the money very minimal, in which case it isnt Basic Income.
17:26 MEDIUM are you kidding me? You must be living in 2015.
An addendum to "Voting for vibes" I argue would be voting for the party blindly. "Vote blue, no matter who" sort of mentality. If voting should be a thorough process, detailing who is the BEST candidate, it should be determined by the candidate and not the party.
The founding fathers (at least a majority of them) supposedly disapproved of parties, calling party systems "factionalism." The believed that politicians would form temporary coalitions to advance a cause or issue, which would then fall away when the issue was resolved. That notion fell apart fairly quickly, though.
@@benjaminrobinson3842 DUnno much about the States, but in Mexico, there is a lot of favoritism to a party enough to blind people. I don't agree with the reason the US founding parties disaporve of parties, but I kind of agree in general.
I feel like Karl Popper's "paradox of tolerance" would be worth at least a passing mention in a video on the paradoxes of democracy: "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." -- _The Open Society and its Enemies,_ 1945
Yeah, this also gets into the conflation of the concepts of electoral democracy and little l liberalism as in a rights based order. They are related, but distinct ideas that don’t always perfectly fit together.
Yeah, definitely weird that wasn’t brought up
While I agree that inclusion of Popper's paradox would have been appropriate, I think his idea is more often misused than applied properly. The problem is _defining the intolerant_ . Popper himself (IIRC) defined the intolerant as those who claim the right to act outside the bounds of the law. I would argue that Trump probably meets this criterion. But Popper either did not foresee or did not recognize those whose intolerance actually *_uses_* the law to suppress those they will not tolerate. And _that_ I think presents the greater threat to democracy, and the threat comes from both Left and Right.
Admission of tolerance for political opponents has become increasingly lefty coded over 30 years or so and has probably become a little too spicy for a J.J. video - but it’s a game that only works if everybody plays, so it’ll probably make a comeback into banal discourse in a few years, but probably not in a way we’d expect by then.
@@nkanyezihlatshwayo3601 "Admission of tolerance for political opponents has become increasingly lefty coded over 30 years or so" . Kanye, I _honestly_ am not sure what you're saying there, but I'm also okay if you want to drop the matter. I'm just saying I was confused.
Out of curiosity, how much of the time and effort of a video goes into the illustrations? Whatever it is, it's definitely worth it.
I usually spend three days editing and I spent a whole day just drawing for this one
J.J., I must say, that video was a great award-winning video, but also very American-centric. Priority threats for democracy in other western countries like Italy, Hungary, Poland, France, Israel, Japan, Bulgaria... are very different than the priorities you mentioned.
That’s not the point of this video
@@JJMcCullough
I understand, what I meant was that the "high-low" threats for democracy, are different in Eastern Europe for example. The socio-political culture is very different. I can't say that "vibe-based vote" there is a high threat, at all. Especially compared to other threats.
@user-sh3cf7kd6e Don't worry when you guys finish this war and discard us again (hopefully permanently) like the Liberty, JJ will shift focus away from America
There's also the inherent flaws in being a popular vote-the winner isn't necessarily going to be the best leader, just the best at convincing others they'll be the best leader.
Democracy is the best system we have, and I don't know if there even is a better one possible, but it's far from a perfect system.
AI technocracy is the solution
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” or Republics are the worst form of government, except for all the others tried.
@@cocomonkillagenuinely feel like this might bw the only solution at this point. Assuming someone doesnt tamper with the ai
“….i don’t think people who behave that way get that far in life.” I won’t name names, but I can list off a lot of CEOs, billionaires, and politicians who are where they are because of lying to other people (the right people) and other questionable behavior.
It kind of tracks with my personal theory that you can get away with pretty much anything and everything if you’ve rolled high enough of a Charisma roll and modifier when born.
There are so many questions and stipulations that you have to answer if you want to keep it as free, open, and concise as everyone wants it to be. Without that it is just a veil of progress.
Rather than saying we live in a plain old "democracy", we could more accurately describe our systems as "adversarial representative liberal democracies with guardrails to protect minorities based on unimpeachable universal human rights"... But then again, that doesn't roll off the tongue as easily, so why bother 😵💫
Does it roll off the tongue any easier in German?
@@Rum-RunnerDoes anything in German? ;)
Lol lmao
There's also a paradox in the way that news organizations exist to inform, yet in a politically diverse democracy people will often choose the news sources that most comfortably fit their pre-existing positions, resulting in a broad range of publicly available opinions with segments of the population purposefully cloistering themselves in comfortable propaganda instead.
On paper, it seems like the "people voting themselves money from the public treasury" scenario should happen. Yet the opposite seems to be the case: people voting to take money from themselves and give it to billionaires.
its cause billionaires are so good at propaganda
@@TaliyahP And bribery, don't forget the bribery of both politicians AND judges.
Wdym? Most third world countries have issues with this.
Greece is a good example of people voting for a share of the treasury.
the weakest democracy is a new democracy, that’s what i think too
*Excellent* video. Some observations:
> I agree with you ranking #5 as the greatest threat.
> I think #3 is actually much more of a threat than you believe. I'd rate it medium in the short term, high in the long term.
> In your analysis of #4, I think you elide the ultimate protection of minorities (at least in the US), namely, the US Constitution. While it _has_ frequently fallen short in its role as a protector of minority rights, it is nonetheless the Constitution that provides the principle that majority rule cannot be used to deny the minority their rights (See the Bill of Rights). And it is the _Constitution_ that the Supreme Court turns to overturn laws passed by majorities.
Paradox 3 is a huge huge issue!!! All politicians say is that they will give more and more free things and benefits. No candidate can ever say they will cut any benefit for fear of losing votes. This is why we are trillions in debt! Both parties are guilty of this.
No politician can even mention social security reform for example. Republicans want to grow the military and cut taxes. Democrats want to grow welfare and do things like paying off student debt/slavery reparations. All of these things increase the deficit more and more and more!
Logically to lower the deficit we would have to increase taxes and/or cut benefits... and no one has ever or will ever win a political debate on that platform lol
@@dinocollins720 Agree completely.
@@BS-vx8dg 👊🙌
Great topic! I've read Applebaum, Snyder, Paxton, Ben-Ghiat, Albright, and others writing on these paradoxes. They're all well documented and we've yet to agree on a solution to autocracy proof democracy. You can't possibly do it without abridging a fundamental right here or there...
democracy failing is when a politician i dont like is elected
I’m impressed with the analysis, only came here for the glorious hair.
In Colombia in respects of the first paradox there are some constitutional articles that are protected from any amendment so we can garantee some democracy and fundamental rigths even if there is a concensus to change them. It could only be trough a change of constitution
But you could just pass an amendment stating “any amendments previously stated to be unamendable are hereby declared amendable.”
@@JJMcCullough The constitutional court might consider it unconstitutional
@@JJMcCullough The only significant example of this in the US is the Article V (note: original _Article_ , not an amendment) which prohibits any constitutional amendment which would change the equal representation of all states in the Senate [unless *all* states approve]. Given that we need 38 of 50 states to ratify an amendment, and that to accomplish this would effectively take _two_ such amendments, I think that this is a pretty strong protection. A coup by a President not wanting to leave office would be far easier to pull off than this.
@@juanjosevasquezruiz4437however no court is uncorruptable
In Brazil we also have an Entrenched clause that determines what can't be altered
I wonder if there's room for a sequel video because in more recent years we also see talks of things like tyranny of the minority. A good example of this was the Prussian nobility that was strictly calvinist and made laws based on calvinist beliefs, but the overwhelming majority of its citizens were Lutherans and faced oppression in spite of Prussia, on paper, being a religiously free state.
I get that Prussia was a monarchy but I think you can find examples in democracy too. Even if it's controversial, affirmation action and related policies absolutely could be seen as a stepping stone to this.
This user was sued for discrimination
there's a term for tyrany of the minority, it's called oligarchy. It has many forms, but appears an iron law when it comes to large groups of people.
I believe "Voting Yourself Money" is a very high risk for democratic countries that have gracious pension benefits. As the average age in Western democracies keeps going up, the already sizeable and influential group of pensioners will only grow and is unlikely to vote for politicians cutting pensions to reduce the financial cost on the active workers. Pensions as they are now in Europe are unsustainable in 20-30 years.
Helldivers 2 has taught me that democracy can be fun
Mexican Here. Last week our new president took office, which comes from the same party that the former president comes from and also holds majority in both chambers: MORENA. And I can argue that they fall in almost all of the paradoxes discussed in the video. Let me explain:
Constitutional amendment: under the pretext of "getting more democracy into the powers", both chambers (which are also controlled by a majority of the regime party) passed with zero revisions a new constitutional amendment where now supreme court judges shall be elected, which many people argue it is bad as it now implies all those paradoxes now affect the judicial power.
Lindsey Graham syndrome: the MORENA party always argued they were the real opposition, with the arguments that all other parties were members of a "mafia of rulers", while they were the only party that actually cared for the people. But when they came to power, many many many many many many politicians from those other parties switched to them, and all former accusations of them being corrupt were suddenly forgotten or absolved, including people which were involved in very heavy corruption scandals in past decades.
Voting yourself money: the former president was governor of Mexico City in the early 2000's, and becasue he implemented lots of social programs like senior pensions, both in his last presidential campaign and the one for all his party on this past elections many people voted for them expecting money in the form of welfare programs.
Tyranny of the majority: fortunately no minority groups were victims of such policies, specially as this party claims to be leftist, which means special care towards minorities.
Voting based on vibes: the MORENA party uses a populist campaign arguing that they are going to fix the country so profoundly that they are going to be on the level of the independence, reform war and Mexican revolution, even to the level of calling their platform "the fourth transformation". Not to mention that the former president had a cult of personality around so deep that every single candidate for the party had the president face on the poster alongside the politician being promoted. Heck, even the new president was heavily promoted as her successor.
Lying: the former president gave every single day a "press conference" that was more of a morning show than anything, riddled with lies. When his brother was caught receiving in envelopes, the president said they where "public donations". When he was confronted with murder statistics from the national institute of data and statistics, he claimed they were fake and he had "another data". For years they protested to get the military outside of the streets, but in office he created a new national guard that was supposed to have a civil command, but last month they were enrolled under the army as a new branch. And I could go on and on.
Lying not being a high risk is a real 2015-era take
It's not a high risk because it is literally ubiquitous. Look at any politician you want. They constantly promise things that are literally impossible for them to guarantee.
Like someone running for senator and say that they will "clean up the streets" and be "tough on crime". Except that they are in DC, not in their state, and have no power over policing or social policy inside of their state.
@gavinriley5232 at this point, the risk isn't about policy, we're at the blatant lying stage, the trump-era republican strategy is to make up heinous things your opponent is secretly pushing for (namely, that every liberal politician is trying to forcefully turn your kindergartener trans so they can bring them to their satanic orgies) to make the people trying to strip your rights away look like the heroes of christian ideals & common decency, it's a disaster threatening to run the country into the ground at top speed
@@gavinriley5232 There's a functional difference between failing to keep a promise and trying to convince you that something untrue is true. Senators actually do have power over sate\local policing though through the national budget. Local police can't run only on local monies, they need federal support. Increasing that funding can help hire more police, invest in better equipment and training, build better prisons, hire more social workers to take some of the pressure off police so they can focus more on investigating crimes. On a less policy related note, they can also champion certain values they want police to adopt.
@@gavinriley5232 That is the kind of lying JJ specifically said he was not referring to. The kind of lying meant here is the kind which is untruthful about basic facts. Like saying that in California something called "post-birth abortion" is legal. There are a lot of Trump voters who somehow actually believe this, because Republican politicians and media figures have made the claim.
@@robgronotte1 That's an objective implication of no-limits abortion policies that have no reporting requirements for failed abortions where the fetus remains alive. I don't know about California, but Minnesota had a handful of cases where babies were born as a result of an abortion attempt and were treated as DNR, being left to die on the table. Minnesota then got rid of reporting requirements, which obfuscates data collection on the matter.
“Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.” -H.L. Mencken
Posted right in the day where we hold mayor elections here in Brazil. Some candidates are almost the living personifications of some threats you showed. It's scary.
You should do a video analyzing what, in your opinion, are the best and worst government forms!
I also really like the idea of discussing safeguards required for thriving democracies. Maybe another video?
One paradox of democracy would be that in most cases, voting is irrational in the sense that the chance your vote will change the outcome of the election is basically 0 percent. So, spending any time researching an issue would be a waste of our valuable time. So democracy is based on millions of people making an irrational decision.
Yes although that’s kind of the case with any collective action. Like if we all have to lift up the sofa I could say “well my contribution isn’t going to make that much of a difference”
@JJMcCullough Thankfully the choice is clear for Americans this time around.
Everyone needs to vote Trump to save democracy and propel America to another thousand years of prosperity😌
@@TheEverFreeKing nice try, but I'm voting for Jeb!
@JJMcCullough although we could say in some collective actions, our actions may not make the difference, but we reduce the work of other people involved, like in the case of moving a couch, other people will have to exert less energe. But this wouldn't be analogous in an election
@@Goblin-Nixon You're thinking about it wrong. A good analogy would be the soldiers who went overseas to fight in a big conflict like WW2. No 1 soldier made any meaningful impact to the war overall. Maybe they changed the course of a mission, or meaningfully contributed to a larger operation. But I'm pretty sure there's no 1 soldier you can remove that alters the outcome of the war. So naturally one might say "well why should I go and fight, my efforts won't make a difference?". Yeah, they probably won't. But if you choose to sit it out, maybe some of your friends do, maybe some of their friends do. If that idea gains traction, maybe a million people who would have signed up stay home. Now THAT does make a difference.
Same thing with voting, though you make arguably more of a difference there. The recent Toronto St Pauls by election was won by just 600 votes. Maybe there were a few hundred liberal voters who thought they didn't need to vote because it was a safe riding. Or perhaps a few hundred CPC voters could have said "we won't win, why bother". Wouldn't have taken a lot to change the result.
Voting is a team sport, it's not about you making the decision all by yourself, it's about you and millions of other people making your small contribution and having a voice in the process.
15:22 I have concepts of a plan
Caleb Hammer reference?
come for the facts, stay for the mane.
Please consider doing videos on Direct Democracy!!!!!!!!!
I love how you change your hair/style a lot. COULD be nice if you did a one off video on what you do or how you decide to pick your style.
Great video and important topic.
"Morally incoherent" is a phenomenon that I wish was talked about more.
much love jj
10:19 pretty weird calling out UBI, but not tax cuts. Both give money to people, but one equally to everyone, while the other to disproportionately rich people
No tax cuts is not giving people money. Tax cuts is just require some people to give less of THEIR money to the government.
@@blackhawk8920Tax cuts that bloat the deficit lead to increased inflation that reduces everyone’s else’s purchasing power. Direct tax vs. indirect tax.
@@Adsper2000 That is assuming it is the tax cuts fault first and not the spending by the government that is causing the inflation.
You could easily use all these as chapters in a case study of what has gone wrong in Britain for the last decade or two. Despite being a mature democracy, we really lack any good systems to deal with any of these. Voting system and parliamentary sovereignty even combines to turn tyranny of the majority into a tyranny of a small plurality.
(Constitutional amendments paradox doesn't directly come into that story, except for that we have no system for this other than standard parliamentary votes, which spills into the others.)
Britain has been going wrong since 1997. The Tory leadership fell in love with Blair and his style of bureaucratic management of everything to the point Cameron wanted the party to be "Blue Blairites".
The UK public isn't even allowed to vote for opposition parties. Reform, the closest thing they got, is controlled opposition and Farage a grifter.
The real reason the UK is failing is because the UK public are cuckholds who put their heads down and accept it.
Thanks JJ from S3 English at IRA in Irvine. This was an excellent video in the context of studying 'Animal Farm'.
I work professionally on trying to amend the US Constitution. I agree with your assessment on the first section. It is too difficult, not too easy. Scalia, who I don't agree with often, said it should be a little bit easier. "It ought to be difficult, but not that difficult."
Time stamp 4.01 should have added: "Looking at you Australia"
Care to elaborate?
@@Hailphage It was about how Australia rejected the voice referendum.
5:08 "It was a debate! That happened because of the debate!"
Yeah people always point this out but 99 percent of the time they said negative stuff about eachother because they each wanted the slot and where campainging against himself. Its not like Lindsey grhams ideological backbone Brock because he partnered with Trump who has marginally different views than him.
@@appropriate-channelname3049the original comment is about Kamala bashing Biden.
@@billfrench1069 I know I'm just making the point this happens all the time
15:45 huh that sounds like a guy who’s running for president right now
Not sure what country you are talking about, there are so many where this applies. The 17:35 made me love the state of denial. Really, politicians having an aversion to to being completely dishonest in public? Sure, Trump is world class, but he is far from being the exception.
It's been happening for almost a decade. Horrible slander calling him Hltler and fear mongering people, saying if he gets voted in, he'll be dictator for life.
Excellent video. You did a great job analyzing, explaining, and presenting the subsections.
Hey JJ
Could you do a video about direct vs. indirect democracy? I think that would be very interesting. You could compare the ancient greek system to a half-direct system like Switzerland and to an indirect system like the U.S.
Thanks!
I can't remember the title offhand, but I could swear JJ has talked about this topic before.
@@benjaminrobinson3842 Really? Thanks, I'll go check it out
@@fourseventyseven2830 I just did a search, and found "What system of democratic government is best?"
11:05 A point about segregation in the South. The black population outnumbered the white population in Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia, even before the Civil War.
I believe some of your figures are wrong. The only state in the South that I know was categorically majority black was South Carolina. I think Mississippi _might_ have been one as well, but the others you mention were not black majority. Still, your implied point, that majority rule was not always practiced literally, remains valid.
This could fall under Tyranny of the Majority and Vibes, but I think the fact that a lot of elections are no longer or haven't been competitive is becoming a big issue (certainly in the US). For example, my home state has not really been competitive outside of a few rare instances. Split ticketing was far more common before 2010 on a federal level in the state and now that is completely gone. State level or State Legislative elections have been non-competitive since the early 1980s, with a few exceptions there. The only way to get a bad politician out in South Dakota is to vote in the primary, which is hard considering we use closed primaries and the type of people voting in a primary are usually far more loyal party members. Plus now we are seeing a lot more willingness to embrace arguably illiberal tendencies in politicians, not just in South Dakota but it has become far more common for the state legislature to overrule voters when they try to make things fairer or do nominally positive things.
I think another problem is gridlock. Also when our only options are politicians who are unqualified or incompetent for one reason or another. Which of course can lead to gridlock.
I feel like gridlock is more a problem with a specific structure of a democratic government
I love gridlock. I don't think the federal government should be doing much, so I like the difficulty in passing bills
There should be gridlock at a federal level.
When you are passing a bill that affects the Inuit in Alaska, the Cajuns in the Bayou, the Yuppies in NYC, and the stoners in Colorado, things should move slowly and a lot of compromise should happen. These people are completely and totally different, and the problems they face are just as varied.
Where gridlock is a problem is our local city or state officials. Because they're the ones responsible for our roads, power system, water filtration, etc.
I feel like gridlock is good, but only when it acts as a check against new ideas.
You do want progressive (by that I just mean different than what we currently do) ideas to prove that they can work, before you just throw them into law and find out what the consequences are later. Gridlock can force people to have those debates and better flush out those policies.
That said... gridlock just for the sake of opposing the other side or keeping government small is kinda dumb and counterproductive. Gridlock without an underlying willingness to compromise when necessary is a bad thing, in my opinion.
The biggest problem for a democracy is when one is facing massive crises, but the best solutions are the least popular because they require short term sacrifices for long term gains.
Nobody wants to cut social security even though it will go bankrupt because they would rather get benefits now and ignore a future crash than lose current benefits for future stability.
Great video, JJ! What happened to my home country of Russia is very sad. Growing up in the 90s and 2000s there was a lot of hope for democracy but alas. Luckily I got out of there before it entered the full-on dictatorship mode.
The two greatest weapons we have against tyranny are education and information. People who are well educated and well informed are far less likely to make poor decisions when it comes to governance. Unfortunately, as of late, both of these institutions are being badly damaged. We have these great big fights over education, trying to dismantle public education in favor of private education, which will end up making it the privilege of the wealthy. We also have public media that is corporate owned and don't like to report on anything that'll hurt their bottom line, even if it's better for society to know such things.
I'd say the education system being damaged is a function of democracy, rather than just something that has just happened. Who holds the power to shape education? Politicians. Who stands to lose the most from an informed electorate? Politicians. Seems like a forgone conclusion that politicians are going to damage the education system as much as possible in this format.
The public education system failing kids preceded calls to fund private options. I can promise you that nobody wants to put their kids in private schools because public ones are educating them too well.
@@Leafsdude_ Depends on the party. The Republicans benefit from a less educated, less informed populace while the Democrats benefit from a well-educated and well-informed populace. It's the same with voter turnout. Republicans benefit from low voter turnout while Democrats benefit from high voter turnout. If your ideology within a democracy depends on keeping people stupid and away from the polls, it's a bad ideology.
I'm surprised at your nonchalance about politicians lying, saying it's not a high level danger, given Trump's lies about the validity of elections. I thought this was leading up to "and that's why this is the biggest danger to democracy"
I mean it's failed system to begin with. All you have to do is talk with your average member of society and realize that's our voterbase. Quite depressing actually.
Trump wouldn't have arguments if the US Electoral process wasn't so ridiculously flawed as to try and avoid basic ID checking to vote as racism and giving private companies with secret closed source code power to run said elections.
UBI isn’t about “voting yourself money”, it’s a structured redistribution of wealth aimed at creating a safety net for those with the least leverage in society. By making it universal, it reduces the bureaucracy needed to verify eligibility, making it more efficient. It disproportionately benefits the poor and middle class, who make up the majority. The slippery slope argument misses nuance, UBI is about addressing real economic challenges: like automation and corporate consolidation, which are shrinking job opportunities and reducing the demand for human labor. It’s not just about people not wanting to work, it’s about finding solutions for a future where fewer jobs exist.
UBI is meant to be a safety net, not a replacement for job income (at least not yet at our current level of automation). As technology advances and human labor becomes even less necessary, we may eventually need to rethink how income and work are structured in society. But for now, UBI could help provide stability for those most vulnerable. Of course, the source of redistribution depends on effectively taxing those who can afford it the most, which means closing tax avoidance loopholes, which is a related but separate issue.
The fear that voters will demand endlessly increasing payouts overlooks the reality, UBI is a response to declining labor demand, not an open invitation for unchecked spending, especially when most people still rely on work to drive both society and its’ advancement.
I would argue that UBI does invite the possibility of a slippery slope, because it introduces the mechanism that voters could use to quickly give themselves raises as opposed to the current "voting for money" system which entails voting for tax cuts and stimulus checks. Plus, Sam Altman's study on UBI found that the net worth of people getting the most UBI funding actually decreased over the time of the study. Granted, the money was paid on a monthly basis and not as a lump sum like it should have been to truly test UBI's effectiveness (because a lump sum is better for paying off loans and as such would be better in the long run), so there is still a small chance UBI could work, but more research is needed before we put it in place.
If companies paid fair wages and treated their workers better, UBI wouldn't be controversial because so few people would need it.
UBI -> Uber-Big-Inflation. You give something to everyone, it instantly becomes worthless because everyone has it.
It a perfect world probably yes but we diffidently do not live in that world.
UBI is dumb, and it 100% is voting for free money. Get real.
Democracy is no guarantee of good government. What it does deliver - always - is the government that we deserve.
I’m not sure if Jj should do Canadian travel commercials or haircare commercials but my word
The recent democratic national convention in the US emphasized "joy" as an important feature of the democrat party. Specific policy positions were glossed-over.
Not true. They had more than a "concept of a plan" that was better than Project 2025.
@@Alverant project 2025 is not Trump's plan, although most conservatives have no problem with what it proposes. The democrats of course are opposed to it. It advises that the unelected deep state have less power, which should be returned to the various states.
There's definitely a naive sense of "vote Kamala and the vibes will stop being bad!" among a lot of people.
@@samanteatervibes are actually important, the rhetoric that presidents and their party use can either start or prevent issues, for example the orange causing Jan 6 with just his words
@@engineergaming1669 Politicians should absolutely be held accountable for the things they say. My point was more that a sizeable chunk of people on the left expect a Harris victory to be a cure-all for the broader problems they have with "the zeitgeist" and the campaign is pandering hard to those people. I just think it's important to have a reality check and remember that one president isn't going to change the moods of 300 million people overnight. If you want the world to be a more positive place, you have to do the work to make it that way.
The amount of lying from the mouths of our politician's over and over and over again drives voter apathy. I voted for voter reform with Trudeau 1.0 and he did nothing with it. Now's he's viewed as a total dip (which he actually is) and I'm just done with politics. But I still consume political content of course
I suppose historically the 6th paradox hasn't been a big threat (Even just a few decades back, getting caught in enough blatant lies tanked your winning chances, either through public or party pressure). That being said, given recent trends (especially in combination with the 'vibes' paradox), I would say it's a pretty high threat. Maybe I am biased/tunnel visioned as a US citizen though.
I'm pretty sure Godel actually never revealed what the paradox in the U.S. Constitution is, and people just assumed it was, "What if we amend the Constitution to make it authoritarian?" because they couldn't think of any other possibility. You never know, there may still be a seventh paradox of democracy lurking somewhere.
Really good video. Would liked to have seen some mention of gerrymandering, first past the post / the electoral college and other ways that democratic systems can “function” according to their rules but still be set up in a way as to produce a result that most people didn’t vote for.
Paradox 3 is a huge huge issue!!! All politicians say is that they will give more and more free things and benefits. No candidate can ever say they will cut any benefit for fear of losing votes. This is why we are trillions in debt! Both parties are guilty of this.
No politician can even mention social security reform for example. Republicans want to grow the military and cut taxes. Democrats want to grow welfare and do things like paying off student debt/slavery reparations. All of these things increase the deficit more and more and more!
Logically to lower the deficit we would have to increase taxes and/or cut benefits... and no one has ever or will ever win a political debate on that platform lol
I think access to the treasury is a much higher threat than low. No party offers everyone a check, but redistributes money from some to others. The Canadian carbon tax rebate is a good example, or the college debt forgiveness.
I like Socrates' example of two politicians: one is like a doctor, the other like a candy shop owner. The former will do what is right but unpleasant, the latter what is wrong, but pleasant. Socrates' contends, that the masses will vote overwhelmingly for the latter, and he seems to have been by and large vindicated in this view.
Exactly. It’s the only explanation for why Trump is even remotely close to Harris in election polls at this point
@@coyotelong4349 I mean... they both are candy shop keepers, make no mistake
Your best video yet. While I enjoy most of your light, fluffy, puff pieces, you have a gift of political insight I would love to see more of.
This video was conveyed with an objectivity I've come to expect and hope-for from you JJ, and I didn't come out of it feeling like you were trying to convince us that any one American candidate was any more or less guilty of these things than the other, and it certainly had the potential to do that. Good job! I'm guessing people that are vehemently in favor of one of the candidates would like to assign all of these problems to one candidate and not the other, but I think those with some intellectual honesty can see that they both demonstrate risk in some of these areas, the degree to which is rather unclear IMHO.