Democracy gives people the right to be stupid if that is what they want. The right to choose, even if they are wrong, lets them at the end live with the consequences of their decisions.
@@nicholassmith3719 You are right. That is the problem of making decisions. Group decisions don't benefit everybody all the time. The consequences could be bad for lots of people. Some democracies sometimes choose dictators, slavery, etc.
. (1:02:10) The Washington Consensus imposing an end to national borders on capital and commerce brought a distortion of the perception of the world. . All military analysts in the mainstream neoliberal media were wrong to bet that Russia would not invade Ukraine in February-2022. And then they were wrong again saying that Ukraine would not resist the Russian army for a week. . The neoliberal West believed that there would be no more wars with the end of the Soviet Union and the Washington Consensus became a dogma to be followed blindly and they believed that countries like Russia and China would do the same as beneficiaries of globalization. By mistake, China pretends to be neutral in the war in Ukraine, but if NATO proves weak, the Chinese will also demand the incorporation of Taiwan because it is inhabited by Chinese. . That's why many Europeans and Americans are enchanted by the Ukrainian people who have not yet been indoctrinated by neoliberal ideology, which implants exacerbated individualism and narcissism. Its people were busy with the collapse of the USSR and soon after with Putin's Russia.
Democratic democracy in one word is that it is unsymaphetic to the cour and if the citizens understood what unsymaphetic mean then we the people will have meaning ❤❤❤❤
Sandel argues against neoliberalism and its excesses however the power of wealth in neoliberal America controls these matters today and their power is hard to defeat by unorganized voters working hard to make ends meet. In fact, the majority of Americans don’t understand political economy and think of economic systems are created and controlled by nonhuman or extra human forces as are weather systems or the forces of gravity. The forces and concepts of political economy are alien to the American mindset. I am American and I am college educated and I know these things from personal experience among friends or from social gatherings. Oligarchy is a problem because America is impressed by material wealth and think wealthy people are superior human beings. Moral Character has nothing to do with wealth or education. That should be obvious but it is not. Why this is so is a long story; perhaps a Protestant one but is the way things are here today. Neoliberalism is both the cause and result of this belief system. It seems all too obvious to me but it is a mystery to most Americans.
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many. The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests. It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is fired only after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
I have to partly attribute our problems to the practice of teaching children from a young age to accept concepts without evidence and education leads you away from god. Critical thinking is ver umderestimated .
University education is not the problem. The problem is university funding and related political influence. Money can corrupt the mind and skewer the truth.
Successful members of Congress should introduce persuasive political opinions to the masses and get the most votes from the masses. They do not need to rely on their own academic qualifications to gain an advantage in votes.
Love the Socratic approach by this brilliant people's philosopher, Professor Sandel.
Democracy gives people the right to be stupid if that is what they want. The right to choose, even if they are wrong, lets them at the end live with the consequences of their decisions.
Yes but they hurt other people too
@@nicholassmith3719 You are right. That is the problem of making decisions. Group decisions don't benefit everybody all the time. The consequences could be bad for lots of people. Some democracies sometimes choose dictators, slavery, etc.
And hurt people hurt people. @@nicholassmith3719
. (1:02:10) The Washington Consensus imposing an end to national borders on capital and commerce brought a distortion of the perception of the world.
. All military analysts in the mainstream neoliberal media were wrong to bet that Russia would not invade Ukraine in February-2022. And then they were wrong again saying that Ukraine would not resist the Russian army for a week.
. The neoliberal West believed that there would be no more wars with the end of the Soviet Union and the Washington Consensus became a dogma to be followed blindly and they believed that countries like Russia and China would do the same as beneficiaries of globalization. By mistake, China pretends to be neutral in the war in Ukraine, but if NATO proves weak, the Chinese will also demand the incorporation of Taiwan because it is inhabited by Chinese.
. That's why many Europeans and Americans are enchanted by the Ukrainian people who have not yet been indoctrinated by neoliberal ideology, which implants exacerbated individualism and narcissism. Its people were busy with the collapse of the USSR and soon after with Putin's Russia.
Democratic democracy in one word is that it is unsymaphetic to the cour and if the citizens understood what unsymaphetic mean then we the people will have meaning ❤❤❤❤
Sandel argues against neoliberalism and its excesses however the power of wealth in neoliberal America controls these matters today and their power is hard to defeat by unorganized voters working hard to make ends meet.
In fact, the majority of Americans don’t understand political economy and think of economic systems are created and controlled by nonhuman or extra human forces as are weather systems or the forces of gravity. The forces and concepts of political economy are alien to the American mindset.
I am American and I am college educated and I know these things from personal experience among friends or from social gatherings.
Oligarchy is a problem because America is impressed by material wealth and think wealthy people are superior human beings.
Moral Character has nothing to do with wealth or education. That should be obvious but it is not. Why this is so is a long story; perhaps a Protestant one but is the way things are here today.
Neoliberalism is both the cause and result of this belief system. It seems all too obvious to me but it is a mystery to most Americans.
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs.
The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues.
The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many.
The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to.
The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests.
It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is fired only after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
I have to partly attribute our problems to the practice of teaching children from a young age to accept concepts without evidence and education leads you away from god. Critical thinking is ver umderestimated .
University education is not the problem. The problem is university funding and related political influence. Money can corrupt the mind and skewer the truth.
Successful members of Congress should introduce persuasive political opinions to the masses and get the most votes from the masses. They do not need to rely on their own academic qualifications to gain an advantage in votes.