@freemo Exactly. Ultimately, this philosophy is likely rooted in my whole-hearted belief that "power corrupts". Even if we found someone venerated for peace and wisdom (i.e. Ghandi, Mother Theresa, etc.) and made them king of the world, I believe that power would corrupt them, as it would any man or woman.
That's the real beauty of democracy: It puts the most devastating power collectively in the hands of those who wield no power individually.
(Although, that's not to say the system is without its own flaws.)

@LouisIngenthron Ok then yea, if thats what you meant, sure, im willing to subscribe to your newsletter :)

@freemo @LouisIngenthron "an ideal king" - that's how democracies die. "A strong man to rectify what goes wrong" is a fallacy easily subscribed to, though. However, that's what every junta claims: to restore order and bring back rule to the people and relieve them from whatever oppression of the scapegoat-to-be. There exist zillions of such in history and many as-of-now on Earth and very few evidence to the contrary. NEVER trade freedom for security - or you will eventually loose both. There is no benevolent dictator.

@taz There's no perfect solution. But I'll take "the whims of the collective whole" over "the whims of a single individual" to determine which rights should be enforced by the state any day of the week.

@taz What happened since then proves my point. "The moral arc of the universe is long" and all that.

Reform doesn't happen overnight. It has to be preceded with changing public opinion, which comes with increasing education. As ignorance falls, tolerance spreads.

We now live in the information age. Ignorance is no longer an immutable question of upbringing; it's a choice. Do some still choose the creature comforts of seeking information that reinforces their biases? Sure. Such is the human condition.

But more and more people seem to be seeking to educate themselves and seek real justice. And I believe that, as information continues to proliferate and expand, along with our increased free time due to automation, that widespread desire for self-improvement will only accelerate.

@taz It literally did happen under my preferred system.

@taz Those courts only did so by interpreting laws put into place by the very system you so oppose.

@taz So then you support those same courts taking away rights if they feel it just?

The courts overturned Roe. If a democratically-elected Congress passed a law protecting abortion rights, would you feel any differently about which power structure you prefer?

Also, it's worth noting that the courts don't have any interest in "protecting minorities". Their interest is in upholding laws. Period. When the law was that slaves were property, they upheld that.
Not until the democratic republic as a whole passed the 14th Amendment did they start, on its basis, enforcing "Equal Protection Under The Law"... an idea imposed by... "mob rule".

@taz "Back in the states where it belongs"?
If we left civil rights to the states, black folks still wouldn't be able to vote in most of the south.

Why are you so confident in state legislatures to get the Roe question right, but believe that a small council of oligarchs should override the will of the masses at the federal level? How does that square up?

As for your claim that the 13th and 14th amendments weren't popular, then why did their predecessor, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, pass with such overwhelming support as to override a presidential veto? Especially following a period where the "mob" you so loathe *went to war* to defend the rights of others not to be enslaved.