Comment on I hear a lot of "ACAB", why don't I hear "APAB"? (P as in Politician)

• the_abecedarian@piefed.social ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  I don't exactly know what it'd mean to merge the judiciary and executive. If we're just tinkering with the system, the most democratic parts of the system are the US House of Representatives, UK House of Commons, and similar population-based representation, so I'd want to expand them at the others' expense.

  I don't believe that will solve much, though. In a hierarchical society, those on top will use any existing govt structures to their benefit, having more control when there is less democracy. In general, I believe in spreading power so thinly that it effectively disappears. Instead, people affected by a decision should be the ones to make it, not merely to vote for those who promise to do right by them.

  source

  • iii@mander.xyz ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    In a hierarchical society, those on top will use any existing govt structures to their benefit

    That’s exactly why there’s separation of power! The idea being that executive, legislative and judiciary are of equal power. One can block the strenghten the behaviour of the other on an independant, case-by-case basis.

    people affected by a decision should be the ones to make it, not merely to vote for those who promise to do right by them.

    Samesees. My utopia would be liquid democracy.

    But even here, there would be law! It’s a necessary good, imo.

    source

    • the_abecedarian@piefed.social ⁨16⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Cool yeah I need to look into liquid democracy more.

      I'm sorta ambiguous about the law -- it is always a blunt tool in that it can't possibly cover every situation (despite judicial contortions) and every person's particular circumstances. It ages badly and can be hard to keep it up with changing times.

      At this point, though, I'm willing to accept laws written and passed by community assemblies, covering their community. It'd be a huge step forward anyway.

      source