reply n edit

yt/DraconianDiscourse/DragonsDesk/2025-06-25 Sowell-Peterson.md

@@ -5,7 +5,24 @@
 5. Yes, the establishment clause clearly doesn't state that the nation is Christian, *legally speaking,* and yes, the moral foundations and system of law in America transcend the Judeo-Christian ethic. But that doesn't mean that a Judeo-Christian ethic wasn't required in order to forge her. The Protestant influence was so heavy that Jefferson, arguably the most Deist of the founding fathers, held overtly Christian meetings in the Capitol and the White House. They were non-denominational, but they were going off of the most common systems of worship that were present, which were largely Protestant, albeit a little tangled and confused. The letter of the law is objectively defined, but the spirit of the law is inherently Protestant. I say this with very little personal bias; I'm an agnostic Mormon (thx Peterson).
 
 ---
+reply thread 2
 
 Uh, I sure hope not? I suspect that's not what you wish, nor what you meant. Direct democracy is mob rule, which has neither check nor balance in considering the rights of the individual. A direct democracy can vote to enslave or execute you at will, with impunity. A democracy with checks and balances has limited ability to do the same.
 
 I also take issue with the premise that there's anything 'amazing' about social safety nets and welfare programs. If you read Sowell, I suspect you would be disabused of these notions. Don't be so sure he *doesn't* disapprove of precisely the 'left' you have surmised as praiseworthy.
+
+---
+thread 2 reply again i need to sleep
+
+If there are systems in place that prevent such votes, it is not a direct democracy. That's not a thought exercise, that's categorical. Switzerland is a federal republic with a parliamentary system. Referendums and initiatives do not a direct democracy make, and thank God for that.
+
+
+I suspect you're willing to ignore the downside largely due to the high levels of social cohesion in your nation, which is a point of praise, to be sure. America's melting pot does not allow for this on a federal level, we're too large and culturally diverse. It's a tradeoff; less shared values = less trust = more chaos, but chaos breeds many flavors of innovation. Bureaucracies and authority aren't scary when you have plenty of reason to believe that the people running them have the exact same values and goals as you. It's entirely possible that doesn't work in America, because we decided to ditch centralization of power and cultural hegemony, in lieu of maximal trade between tight-knit cultures. It's a big part of the reason I'm for localism as our solution; no one culture gets to rule over another. Bureaucracy as a form of ruling, inherently requires a shared ethic. America's ethic is fragmented, especially now. We're still a young nation.
+
+> i see how you guys live
+
+And how is that? Loud? Irreverent? Suicidally self-indulgent? Whatever you've seen of America is merely a sliver; we're at least as culturally diverse and spacious as all of Europe with a fraction of the national history.
+
+But I don't blame you for not wanting to swap. We're certifiably mad over here. Though funnily enough, some of my ancestors decided they'd leave Switzerland for America a century and a half ago. Hey, maybe we're related, lol.
+
+edit: i agree that high fructose corn syrup and artificial sweeteners suck ass. but I don't believe that the State is justified in limiting one's ability to indulge in it, even if it kills them. I'm sorry if that's painfully American...