On 2/13/2026 at 9:50 PM, swansont said:

What is your definition of authoritarianism?

The authoritarianism is the situation when people in a country can't vote for some changes they want, for example increasing of equality in the country, or e.g. prohibition of the abundance of transgender athletes in big sports. Sorry for my last example, I understand that you don't like this theme (since you support the Left), but I can use this for illustraion of my views. When the people in Poland voted for PiS, they demanded exactly this, but they were unable to achive what they voted for, because in 2023 the PiS party was replaced by a coalition of Left parties. I want to repeat my point that the Polish people voted in 2023 for parties other than PiS not because they stopped wanting these changes, but because PiS made some bad laws in other subjects.

If during the rule of PiS some referendum in Poland was performed, the new parties would be unable to cancel the decision of the Polish people. But in most Western countries, the ruling elite understands that such referendums can threat its power, so the referendums are not performed.

I see exactly the same situation in Russia: Putin states that since the Russians have voted for him on last President elections, this means that the Russians "support all things he does", but in fact of course they don't support such things as blocking of youtube or messengers. When the Russians voted for Putin, they voted for "stability", not for this.

11 minutes ago, Linkey said:

The authoritarianism is the situation when people in a country can't vote for some changes they want, for example increasing of equality in the country, or e.g. prohibition of the abundance of transgender athletes in big sports.

That’s a different definition than most people have for it.

There are some restaurants that declare “no substitutions” on the menu, so if you don’t want the vegetable that comes with the entree, that’s too bad. You can’t get peas instead of cauliflower, even though you want the chicken dish and baked potato. According to your definition, that’s autocracy. Which is, of course, ridiculous. You can’t just co-opt words and expect to have a reasonable discussion.

As has been pointed out, this is an issue of choice and compromise. People have different priorities, and you’re presenting this as if they should have monolithic wants. That’s just naive idiocy, not autocracy. The world doesn’t work that way, nor (IMO) is that a desirable goal.

11 minutes ago, Linkey said:

Sorry for my last example, I understand that you don't like this theme (since you support the Left), but I can use this for illustraion of my views. When the people in Poland voted for PiS, they demanded exactly this, but they were unable to achive what they voted for, because in 2023 the PiS party was replaced by a coalition of Left parties. I want to repeat my point that the Polish people voted in 2023 for parties other than PiS not because they stopped wanting these changes, but because PiS made some bad laws in other subjects.

Given your posting history, I’m not inclined to assume that this has more than a passing similarity to the actual truth.

11 minutes ago, Linkey said:

If during the rule of PiS some referendum in Poland was performed, the new parties would be unable to cancel the decision of the Polish people. But in most Western countries, the ruling elite understands that such referendums can threat its power, so the referendums are not performed.

I see exactly the same situation in Russia: Putin states that since the Russians have voted for him on last President elections, this means that the Russians "support all things he does", but in fact of course they don't support such things as blocking of youtube or messengers. When the Russians voted for Putin, they voted for "stability", not for this.

Some things that make Putin an autocrat would be the fact that there is no other candidate because he jails and murders his opponent and is not accountable in any meaningful way.

5 hours ago, swansont said:

There are some restaurants that declare “no substitutions” on the menu, so if you don’t want the vegetable that comes with the entree, that’s too bad. You can’t get peas instead of cauliflower, even though you want the chicken dish and baked potato. According to your definition, that’s autocracy. Which is, of course, ridiculous. You can’t just co-opt words and expect to have a reasonable discussion.

In addition, folks may want contradictory things, say higher levels of governmental services as well as a massive reduction in taxes. Or voting for/against things that are not real, such as chemtrails. Folks that equate compromise (or a shared reality) with autocracy are, IMO, most susceptible to an authoritarianism.

The reason being that democratic system are held accountable against certain standards, whereas an autocrat can support a false reality (e.g., sports are overrun with transgender folks) and also make contradictory promises. Such as using tariffs to lower taxes. They are aware that they are not going to be tested against reality, as their plan is to consolidate power to such a degree that they will be in place regardless if they actually are improving things for the people.

5 hours ago, Linkey said:

I want to repeat my point that the Polish people voted in 2023 for parties other than PiS not because they stopped wanting these changes, but because PiS made some bad laws in other subjects.

Oh yes, the "some bad laws" included trying to dismantle the judiciary, which of course is a hallmark of authoritarianism. But of course the issue of banning less than a percent of the population in certain sports is pretty much of equal importance to having some sort of functioning democracy.

OP basically says that systems that are in the way authoritarianism are the real authoritarians.

Speaking of direct democracy and the problem of profanation of referendum decisions, how about this idea: to holdi a planetary referendum proposing a partial ban on work. Following the referendum, each country would have to pass a law allowing 30% of the daytime to be spent on any activity except work. Then, with that 30% of time, people might (maybe out of boredom) start becoming interested in subjects like history and economics. They will also begin to find friends based on such interests, and join political clubs.

30 minutes ago, Linkey said:

Speaking of direct democracy and the problem of profanation of referendum decisions, how about this idea: to holdi a planetary referendum proposing a partial ban on work. Following the referendum, each country would have to pass a law allowing 30% of the daytime to be spent on any activity except work. Then, with that 30% of time, people might (maybe out of boredom) start becoming interested in subjects like history and economics. They will also begin to find friends based on such interests, and join political clubs.

Wouldn't that be fun???

57 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Wouldn't that be fun???

I guess you're in for a really good time, then.

The news says some UK politicians want it enshrined in law that Scotland, Whales and Ireland can have referendums on secession from the UK anytime they see fit.
Everyone always thinks the grass is greener on the other side; didn't anyone learn anything from Brexit ?
( or is it because of D Trump opening his ignorant mouth with regard to Irish unification ? )

46 minutes ago, MigL said:

I guess you're in for a really good time, then.

The news says some UK politicians want it enshrined in law that Scotland, Whales and Ireland can have referendums on secession from the UK anytime they see fit.
Everyone always thinks the grass is greener on the other side; didn't anyone learn anything from Brexit ?
( or is it because of D Trump opening his ignorant mouth with regard to Irish unification ? )

Well they won't get it.

But regarding Ireland, there is specific provision in the Good Friday Agreement for a "Border Poll". https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/irish-reunification

This lays out the conditions that would trigger a poll and stipulates that at least 7 years would need to elapse after one poll before another could be held. At present neither the North nor the South is keen to hold such a poll. (The South would not want to take on responsibility for an economic liability with an entrenched minority of angry "No Popereaigh!!" Prods.)

In Scotland, this preoccupation with independence referenda is known as the "Neverendum". We had a referendum in 2014 that was lost 55:45 on an 85% turnout, so pretty conclusive at the time. This had been described by both sides at the time as a "once in a generation" opportunity, though the Scot Nats have subsequently argued that sufficient material change has occurred (notably Brexit) to justify revisiting it. This is a fair point perhaps. However it is noteworthy that the Scot Nat government likes to demand the right, without showing much enthusiasm for actually holding one in the near future. The issues involved, notably finance and defence, are very thorny and the EU, which an independent Scotland would intend to rejoin, does not want to encourage it. This is partly for fear of exacerbating separatism in other parts of the EU (e.g. Spain) and partly because Scotland is far from economically self-sufficient.

So I read this as a lot of posturing for their respective Nationalist bases, and little else.

12 hours ago, Linkey said:

Speaking of direct democracy and the problem of profanation of referendum decisions, how about this idea: to holdi a planetary referendum proposing a partial ban on work. Following the referendum, each country would have to pass a law allowing 30% of the daytime to be spent on any activity except work. Then, with that 30% of time, people might (maybe out of boredom) start becoming interested in subjects like history and economics. They will also begin to find friends based on such interests, and join political clubs.

30% of a day is 7.2 hours. Most of us spend that sleeping

If you mean literal daylight time, which would average ~12 hours, that’s 3.6 hours. So you’re advocating a workday of 8.4 hours. That’s longer than the workday in places with strong worker rights and/or unions.

If you don’t have it, a more realistic effort IMO is beefing up worker rights

21 hours ago, MigL said:

I guess you're in for a really good time, then.

The news says some UK politicians want it enshrined in law that Scotland, Whales and Ireland can have referendums on secession from the UK anytime they see fit.
Everyone always thinks the grass is greener on the other side; didn't anyone learn anything from Brexit ?
( or is it because of D Trump opening his ignorant mouth with regard to Irish unification ? )

No one learns anything from history, otherwise we'd still have an empire; contraction, under it's own weight, is inevitable.

Let me qualify that, no one with any influence on those who want a simple/specious solution, learns from history.

I am sure that the direct democracy can solve the overwhelming majority of human’s problems.

If a referendum is performed in US with two separate suggestions – banning transgender people in big sports and allowing abortions – I am sure that both the transgenders will be banned and the abortions will be allowed. The majority of Americans will vote for the first point, and slightly other majority, but still the majority, will vote for the second point. These results of the referendum will be good both for the Left supporters and for the Right supporters, because the Right supporters will not become greatly unhappy because of the allowance of the abortions (this question is less important for them, than the second question), and same for the Left supporters. Also, this referendum must cover questions like international politics vector (Ukraine) and the legalization of cryptocurrencies.

I don’t know why Trump has not declared that he wants to perform such a referendum. And anyway, maybe his wish is not really so important. I believe that the described referendum can be performed via people’s initiative only, without the actions of the government. Spreading information via forums like this, X and Meta will be enough. Does anybody here guess what I mean?

17 hours ago, swansont said:

30% of a day is 7.2 hours. Most of us spend that sleeping

If you mean literal daylight time, which would average ~12 hours, that’s 3.6 hours. So you’re advocating a workday of 8.4 hours. That’s longer than the workday in places with strong worker rights and/or unions.

If you don’t have it, a more realistic effort IMO is beefing up worker rights

Ok, but after the first referendum, a second one can be performed, and so on, until only 10% of all time can be spent for work.

1 hour ago, Linkey said:

am sure that the direct democracy can solve the overwhelming majority of human’s problems.

Explain who would design those referenda? How would those referenda be executed? What happens if results are contradictory (e.g. demand an increase in spending, but also reduction in taxes)? What if folks vote to replace fiat currency with crypto and then the economy crashes?

IOW, what would be safeguards for really stupid decisions? There are some in most democracies and the ultimate control is the ability to replace the government. If the government is, as you seem to describe, mob rule, who is responsible if institutions are randomly dissolved simply because the majority didn't know what they were good for?

2 hours ago, Linkey said:

I am sure that the direct democracy can solve the overwhelming majority of human’s problems.

What happens when the majority decides a minority, like Jews or transgender people, should just be rounded up and put to death?

2 hours ago, npts2020 said:

What happens when the majority decides a minority, like Jews or transgender people, should just be rounded up and put to death?

DeTocqueville's "tyranny of the majority" comes to mind. As he noted in his famous book on America, the threat of that has to be mitigated by Constitutional guardrails as well as local and state governments. Without referendums that are constrained by a Constitution, Linkey's dream is easily a nightmare. Or "mob rule" as @CharonY put it.

6 hours ago, CharonY said:

Explain who would design those referenda? How would those referenda be executed? What happens if results are contradictory (e.g. demand an increase in spending, but also reduction in taxes)? What if folks vote to replace fiat currency with crypto and then the economy crashes?

I can explain: these numerous referendums will be not the referendums in usual meaning, but rather just "super-accurate opinion polls". They will just indicate what people need; and if the government does not fulfill the wish of people, it will become illegitimate and loose next elections. And one more thing: I think that the referendums must be also able to make decisions usually made by judicial branch of power, and if e.g. a president starts a war while people forbid him to do this, after loosing the power this president will be imprisoned via one more decision made by referendum.

If the government thinks that a referendum was profane, ok maybe it is right, and it will have to prove that it was right for the people after leaving the power.

4 hours ago, npts2020 said:

What happens when the majority decides a minority, like Jews or transgender people, should just be rounded up and put to death?

I understand this problem, but firstly this problem is the same for usual representative democracy (90% of citizens can elect a party which will make the remaining 10% slaves), and secondly it can be solved, at least theoretically. I will explain this later.

Edited Wednesday at 02:28 AM5 days by Linkey

18 hours ago, Linkey said:

Ok, but after the first referendum, a second one can be performed, and so on, until only 10% of all time can be spent for work.

And the goods will just ship themselves, I suppose. Fires will put themselves out. If your job requires you to call someone in a different time zone, it won’t be a problem with them working just an hour or so a day. Everyone will commute during the thin slice of time mass transit is running.

It’s not possible for me to take your arguments seriously.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

It’s not possible for me to take your arguments seriously.

Since when ?? 😄 😄

5 hours ago, swansont said:

And the goods will just ship themselves, I suppose. Fires will put themselves out. If your job requires you to call someone in a different time zone, it won’t be a problem with them working just an hour or so a day. Everyone will commute during the thin slice of time mass transit is running.

It’s not possible for me to take your arguments seriously.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easterlin_paradox

18 hours ago, Linkey said:

I can explain: these numerous referendums will be not the referendums in usual meaning, but rather just "super-accurate opinion polls". They will just indicate what people need;

A poll doesn't determine need, it determines wants. And often the wants are decoupled from reality. For example, if folks believe immigration is detrimental to the economy, but are unaware that for the most part the opposite is true, especially over longer time periods, how would you want to enact a policy that removes immigrants, but somehow doesn't crash the economy?

I.e. there are decisions that should be done with some knowledge on the matter, yet if you just go by feeling, pretty bad things might happen. There is a reason why populism has a negative connotation in traditional political discourse.

19 hours ago, Linkey said:

I understand this problem, but firstly this problem is the same for usual representative democracy (90% of citizens can elect a party which will make the remaining 10% slaves), and secondly it can be solved, at least theoretically. I will explain this later.

You do not understand representative democracy, then. A part of it is that representatives are supposedly gatekeepers of the laws and constitution. In your proposal you seem to suggest to remove all guard rails. In your model you seem also remove separation of powers by mixing at least judicial with executive powers. The proposal pretty much bypasses centuries of experiments and thoughts on democratic systems. And especially at a time, where the public is increasingly prone to misinformation with critical thinking skills in decline, this is seems like a really good way to accelerate our demise.

Meanwhile, I am looking forward to a 0% tax rate with doubling of all services while no one is working to provide them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easterlin_paradox

What about it ?

Here is a much better expert from the same era on the subject.

16 hours ago, Linkey said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easterlin_paradox

While it’s nice to know that you are capable of providing references, they need to be pertinent. The Easterlin paradox is about income and happiness, and my objection is to productivity in response to your proposal about time spent at work. You haven’t made any connection whatsoever. Nor have you demonstrated that this isn’t just more trolling.

18 hours ago, swansont said:

While it’s nice to know that you are capable of providing references, they need to be pertinent. The Easterlin paradox is about income and happiness, and my objection is to productivity in response to your proposal about time spent at work. You haven’t made any connection whatsoever. Nor have you demonstrated that this isn’t just more trolling.

I meant that if 90% of all day time will be prohibited for work, the world GDP will be lower 10 times, but this fact itself will not make anybody unhappy.

Currently the techologies allow people to live a life which was considered very rich in Middle Ages, if only 1% of the population are working and making the food and goods for others.

5 hours ago, Linkey said:

I meant that if 90% of all day time will be prohibited for work, the world GDP will be lower 10 times, but this fact itself will not make anybody unhappy.

Currently the techologies allow people to live a life which was considered very rich in Middle Ages, if only 1% of the population are working and making the food and goods for others.

Are you trying to demonstrate your ignorance of the economy?

6 hours ago, Linkey said:

I meant that if 90% of all day time will be prohibited for work, the world GDP will be lower 10 times, but this fact itself will not make anybody unhappy.

I’m not sure starvation makes people happy

6 hours ago, Linkey said:

Currently the techologies allow people to live a life which was considered very rich in Middle Ages, if only 1% of the population are working and making the food and goods for others.

If you want to live like that, you are free to do so. Give up modern medicine, food availability, indoor plumbing, transportation, and all manner of technology.

But I think most people would not want that.

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Are you trying to demonstrate your ignorance of the economy?

I think he's just extremely prone to 'spin'.
The category that best describes him was posted by @TheVat in another thread.

"This seems especially true in current US populism where facts are completely ignored. There's quite a labor shortage, e.g., in construction here which can only be mitigated by migrant hiring. But try to tell anyone in the MAGA brigade that we either have to double wages for laborers ( native-born won't do such work) or else hire immigrants - falls on deaf ears."

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Are you trying to demonstrate your ignorance of the economy?

That's not fair. There is a broad range of uncritical ignorance.

2 hours ago, MigL said:

I think he's just extremely prone to 'spin'.

I think it goes beyond then. There is also a strong resilience to learning or aligning with facts. Spin is fundamentally presenting information in a way to influence perception. But these arguments are entirely decoupled from facts and information with zero engagement in critical questioning.