Every single serious theorist of democracy has recognized this.
Democracy is about rule of law and institutions, not simply the mob.
Tyranny of the majority is the paramount concern of all democracies. Nevertheless, institutions can fail.
The idea that democracy always leads to desirable outcomes is evidently false by historical record.
I just don't understand people who think the state is better than Google. Google pretty much works. Google does not have police powers. Google cant surround your car and point guns at your family. Most of the bad things about Google are actually forced upon them by the state. Who could have even a passing knowledge of history and think states are somehow safer than corporations?
Take the United States. Should Donald Trump get a say in how to run Google? Maybe you like him, so how about the guy that comes after him, or the next one after that?
The American mob seems intent on leading their country into the gutter. Good thing (despite what the mob has thrown at it) that the United States still has strong institutions and strong markets. Without Silicon Valley, America would have already lost its place on the world stage.
But please lets hear more indictments from a population who can't even agree with itself on the issues already under the government's purview. Now let's set a precedent for even more state interference in the market, that way when your party (whatever side you are on) chokes the next future election away the next nut you don't agree with has even more power? Is that your plan?
Trump does have a say in how to run google, in a very real sense.
> The American mob seems intent on leading their country into the gutter. Good thing (despite what the mob has thrown at it) that the United States still has strong institutions and strong markets. Without Silicon Valley, America would have already lost its place on the world stage.
American elites are more than happy to follow basically whatever Trump wants them to do with the knowledge that they'll get preferential treatment by the law and win all the no-bid contracts he can award. But ask yourself if this would be any different if Trump were head of a large company under a smaller regulatory state. Seems pretty obvious that not much would change.
If by "the mob" you mean, a small cohort of wealthy, powerful, unscrupulous people, those people who make decisions that the rest of us have no say in, then I agree, that is a problem.
> But please lets hear more indictments from a population who can't even agree with itself on the issues already under the government's purview. Now let's set a precedent for even more state interference in the market, that way when your party (whatever side you are on) chokes the next future election away the next nut you don't agree with has even more power? Is that your plan?
In a smaller state, Trump would have continued to be an executive and the shape of his impact on the world might be slightly different, but would be no less oppressive. Ask tenants in NYC in the 1980s if they think a Donald Trump with smaller regulatory oversight who stayed in business would be better or worse for our country.
Do you think our country flips parties every year because our government does a good job of reflecting the will of the people?
> Trump does have a say in how to run google, in a very real sense.
Indeed, as does every President or government. But surely, you have noticed and take seriously that he has acted with greater executive fiat? That by American standards, while he may not be totally alien, he is not "normal"? The question then is whether we want to accelerate along this trend. What is interesting is many populists, whether on the right or left, seem to answer in the affirmative, confident giving their preferred president increased power is the right trade to make. I simply ask, what happens when the government flips, as it always does? Then maybe you will come to regret your position.
> American elites are more than happy to follow basically whatever Trump wants them to do with the knowledge that they'll get preferential treatment by the law and win all the no-bid contracts he can award. But ask yourself if this would be any different if Trump were head of a large company under a smaller regulatory state. Seems pretty obvious that not much would change.
The first part of this is ahistorical. American elites always line up behind the President. If Kamala had won Zuckerberg would be out front with DEI or w/e. The big companies, banks, Silicon Valley, always shower money and gifts on the incumbent. The government operates in many ways as a big public/private partnership. Again, the danger with Trump is the degree, not necessarily a wholesale difference. Some people use this to say it doesn't matter, makes no difference. I'm not one of those people. I believe at a certain point, tip the degree too far, and a difference appears.
As for the second part, democracy allows the people to correct for their mistake. The elites did not want Trump, and never have. He came to power after descending an escalator, elites on both sides mocked him. Elites wanted to repeat Bush v Clinton. Trump may be wealthy, but he is not an "elite", he is new money, and has basically always been a joke among the upper echelons of power in New York City. The elites are nice to him because they are forced to deal with who the mob elected. To not do so is shareholder suicide. Everyone knows he is insane. They simply cannot say it out loud. And why would they? What's with people who simultaneously think Google has too much power and yet want them to be out in front fighting Trump? It's not their job. Why did the American people elect him? What is Google supposed to do? Ignore the President of the United States? Tell the American people who to vote for?
> If by "the mob" you mean, a small cohort of wealthy, powerful, unscrupulous people, those people who make decisions that the rest of us have no say in, then I agree, that is a problem.
No I mean the ~100,000 average Americans who actually make a difference in electing presidents, in places like Wisconsin, where the state is sufficiently purple and there is a small "swing vote" that is often well under a million people. When are they going to be held responsible for their mistake? Why is Google my enemy? I can stop using Google. Google provides me excellent services at a reasonable price (often $0 - I understand I give them data but who cares, really only the government would care about my individual data, and I know Google simply aggregates it to "subsidize" the numerous free services I get). So, a pretty fair deal, and one I can not enter to if I actually wish. On the other hand, what does someone in Wisconsin give me? I can't stop someone in Wisconsin from voting against my interests. Is Google supposed to be the tyranny here? Extend this same logic to any state on the wrong side of your preferred electoral divide. Like many Americans, I really have no say in Presidential elections, because I live in a populous, blue state. My vote doesn't matter, my electoral votes are already priced in. Meanwhile people in red flyover states get the same number of senators as my state, which has a multiple of their population. This makes corporations my enemy? Did Google sponsor the Connecticut Compromise?
> In a smaller state, Trump would have continued to be an executive and the shape of his impact on the world might be slightly different, but would be no less oppressive. Ask tenants in NYC in the 1980s if they think a Donald Trump with smaller regulatory oversight who stayed in business would be better or worse for our country.
Let's not move the goalposts. I never said I was against all government regulation. If you want to regulate Google, then fine. Make a sensible proposal. What is not serious nor sensible is saying "Google is evil" or "Google should not exist".
> Do you think our country flips parties every year because our government does a good job of reflecting the will of the people?
You need to not think only of the current case relative to your supposed best case, but also a worse case. What is the will of the people? Who decides? How? It seems obvious to me the government being defective is somewhat by design (separation of powers) because the founders knew as many people know now, that America is very large, very divided, and very dangerous. A federal government that doesn't give some of the voters 100% of what they want every four years is a lot better than another civil war. Yes things could be better. They could also be a lot worse.
I tend to think people who say "Google is evil" have a rather limited view of the downside risks that occur when humans congregate. Google does not even begin to scratch the surface of the historical depravities we have visited upon each other.
Have you been to states that predominantly vote against your particular preferred political party? You will find "the corporations" are not your enemy. It's what it always has been, all the time, throughout every historical age. The problem of civilization is other people. You will not get around that by trying to treat corporations as some special case.
Propose sensible regulations. Maybe even a way to reform the electoral college that has a chance of passing. I am interested in these ideas. Innovation can happen in technology and in government. That's why I like this forum. But too often interesting conversations are drowned out by "Google is evil" as if this is useful. I would love to hear more interesting solutions, and less hyperbole. Thanks for the pushback.
Only if the goal is profit. All else be damned.
> What's your alternative? Executive fiat? Mob rule?
It is always bewildering to me that people see the world being raped by corporations and their negative externality, and they think that this is the pinnacle that humanity can achieve.
Nothing else can be better, if all your options are "mob rule" or "executive fiat".
I fancy myself a misanthrope, but damn, next to people in this forum I am probably the last humanist walking through the ruins of civilization.
> Deepmind is objectively good.
Google is objectively bad, and the world would be a much nicer place if they ceased to exist.
> I fancy myself a misanthrope, but damn, next to people in this forum I am probably the last humanist walking through the ruins of civilization.
A humanist who uses a term of sexual violence so cavalierly?
If you are in the United States and you want a good civic lesson in state power, you should go to your nearest metropolitan criminal court. Maybe you will have a more accurate view of what government means then. At the very least, you will likely learn to banish such a casual invocation of that word from your lexicon.
> Nothing else can be better, if all your options are "mob rule" or "executive fiat".
What we have now is the middle ground between king and mob. It took centuries and much carnage to achieve. Does the famous Churchill quote really need to keep being repeated? Do you have an alternative proposal? Or maybe you have a sensible proposal that falls within the established democratic bounds? Or perhaps instead by "would be a much nicer place if they ceased to exist" we should simply infer a generalized whining rather than any specific policy prescription?
What's your actual idea, do you have one?
Maybe if you endeavored to communicate without self-satisfied hyperbole you would find we actually have reason to agree with each other.
Try talking to a misanthrope.
You’ll quickly learn that humanity sucks and “the planet” would be better off without us. And the sooner the better.
Go, survey the field.
Proceeds to write a rant that would make r/teenagers blush, based on a misunderstanding of the word misanthrope.
Solutions that worked for hunter gatherer civilisations 5000 years ago may no longer be viable, since they are incompatible with global supply chains.