Corporation Socialism

[Immanuel Can]

Do you know for a fact that "free speech", "free conscience" and the right not to be "submerged in someone else's collective" are any more or less challenged than ever.

Yep, absolutely. So do you, if you watch the news at all.

So maybe your priorities could use some revisiting. Is that possible?

Always. One should constantly revisit one's priorities. But in this case, it's not about "priorities." It's about truth.

When you say, "free speech" is not being promoted, what would be an example of that?

Well, when the ideologue won't listen to a criticism, and won't permit the public even to hear of it, then that's an example of the suppression of free speech. And the terms I've listed for you, you will find abundantly employed by the Left, for exactly that purpose. So you can find as many examples, almost, as you can find uses of those words in the media.

I mean, I only know of the US and "free speech" is probably a bit better off today than it was as recently as the 1950s.

Much worse. Without question. Remember when California was regarded as the incubator of various freedom rights, back in the '60s? Remember the hippies, for example? The drop outs, the flop ins, the stick-it-to-the-man rhetoric for which Cali was justly renowned, at the time? Where has that all gone?

I mean, if I stand up and say, blacks aren't as smart as whites, then people are going to rightfully push back because not so long ago social atrocities were carried out with that mind set.

Well, I think racism is hogwash, but let me roll with your example, just to show you what censorship does.

What if you really believed it were true? And what if you had studies to back it up? And what if there were scientific reasons for why it was so, that actually had nothing to do with race, and everything to do with socialization? Would you be allowed to say so then?

No. You would not. There are NO conditions under which you would be allowed to say it, and if you did, you'd instantly be made a pariah. And it wouldn't matter whether you were right or wrong, or had science or hokey racism or just simple statistical truth on your side -- there would simply be no willingness on the part of the gatekeepers of information to allow you to suggest any such thing. They would fall upon you screaming with rage, and tear your reputation to tatters, bloodying their claws in their zeal to signal their own white-hot "antiracist" virtue. And no justification you could provide would reverse that.

So I suggest that in the present information environment, you steer clear of that example. It's very clearly a good illustration of my point. Censorship from the Left is a very real thing. And if you forget it, and get talking about that issue, you'll certainly find out the truth of that.

...we're a little better off today than we were decades ago.

I wouldn't think so, at least in regard to free speech. Back in the '60s, you could say practically anything, it seemed, and get away with it. The '70s and 80s even extended that, as more and more barriers to speech were dropped. But get to the '90s, and it starts to shrink, and now...good heavens...the whole concept of "political correctness" has become a universal issue in the West.

Here's an article about how even the extreme Left recognized the stifling of free speech in the name of "political correctness." You'll find fewer Leftists write this sort of thing today, because they've discovered that nowadays, stifling free speech serves their agenda -- a thing they didn't so much suspect back when Epstein was originally writing:

https://inthesetimes.com/article/wokene ... y-politics

[Gary Childress]

Yep, absolutely. So do you, if you watch the news at all.


Always. One should constantly revisit one's priorities. But in this case, it's not about "priorities." It's about truth.

When you say, "free speech" is not being promoted, what would be an example of that?

Well, when the ideologue won't listen to a criticism, and won't permit the public even to hear of it, then that's an example of the suppression of free speech. And the terms I've listed for you, you will find abundantly employed by the Left, for exactly that purpose. So you can find as many examples, almost, as you can find uses of those words in the media.

I mean, I only know of the US and "free speech" is probably a bit better off today than it was as recently as the 1950s.

Much worse. Without question. Remember when California was regarded as the incubator of various freedom rights, back in the '60s? Remember the hippies, for example? The drop outs, the flop ins, the stick-it-to-the-man rhetoric for which Cali was justly renowned, at the time? Where has that all gone?

I mean, if I stand up and say, blacks aren't as smart as whites, then people are going to rightfully push back because not so long ago social atrocities were carried out with that mind set.

Well, I think racism is hogwash, but let me roll with your example, just to show you what censorship does.

What if you really believed it were true? And what if you had studies to back it up? And what if there were scientific reasons for why it was so, that actually had nothing to do with race, and everything to do with socialization? Would you be allowed to say so then?

No. You would not. There are NO conditions under which you would be allowed to say it, and if you did, you'd instantly be made a pariah. And it wouldn't matter whether you were right or wrong, or had science or hokey racism or just simple statistical truth on your side -- there would simply be no willingness on the part of the gatekeepers of information to allow you to suggest any such thing. They would fall upon you screaming with rage, and tear your reputation to tatters, bloodying their claws in their zeal to signal their own white-hot "antiracist" virtue. And no justification you could provide would reverse that.

So I suggest that in the present information environment, you steer clear of that example. It's very clearly a good illustration of my point. Censorship from the Left is a very real thing. And if you forget it, and get talking about that issue, you'll certainly find out the truth of that.

...we're a little better off today than we were decades ago.

I wouldn't think so, at least in regard to free speech. Back in the '60s, you could say practically anything, it seemed, and get away with it. The '70s and 80s even extended that, as more and more barriers to speech were dropped. But get to the '90s, and it starts to shrink, and now...good heavens...the whole concept of "political correctness" has become a universal issue in the West.

I don't know. You must live in a different America than I do. I was brought up to think that McCarthyism, segregation and warmongering were wrong. Now the only people war mongering seem to be the evangelicals who think they should "support the troops". They're being played like a fiddle by warmakers and then complain that "lefties" are persecuting them. They need look no further than George Bush, the president they voted for because they thought Al Gore was too "anti-American" and wanted to promote climate issues. Sounds like mass delusion to me but, hey, if that's what they want to think--"Freedom of thought" right?

[Immanuel Can]

I was brought up to think that McCarthyism, segregation and warmongering were wrong.

Then you weren't brought up by today's Left, obviously.

[Will Bouwman]

"The European Commission is held democratically accountable by the European Parliament, which has the right to approve and dismiss the entire political leadership of the Commission.

The European Commission is also accountable for putting the EU budget into practice."

What definition of "accountable" are you using that excludes the above?

The one in which "accountable to the local voters whom one's decisions control" is included in what it means for a politician to be "accountable." If your definition excludes that, I'd like to hear what it is.

Ah, so you mean that the 'unelected ideologues' are unaccountable because they are not directly accountable to the European voting public, but are instead accountable to the members of the European Parliament the voting public elected to represent their interests.

[Immanuel Can]

"The European Commission is held democratically accountable by the European Parliament, which has the right to approve and dismiss the entire political leadership of the Commission.

The European Commission is also accountable for putting the EU budget into practice."

What definition of "accountable" are you using that excludes the above?

The one in which "accountable to the local voters whom one's decisions control" is included in what it means for a politician to be "accountable." If your definition excludes that, I'd like to hear what it is.

Ah, so you mean that the 'unelected ideologues' are unaccountable because they are not directly accountable to the European voting public, but are instead accountable to the members of the European Parliament the voting public elected to represent their interests.

Quite so. It's the difference between DIRECT accountability, and INDIRECT (i.e. effectively NO) accountability. And when you think about it carefully, perhaps, you'll see why.

The voter in Newcastle, whom we'll call "Bob," can't vote for or against the persons who make and execute the decisions affecting him. He can't vote for anybody but his own EU figurehead in the parliament. He doesn't vote for the executive appointeed in the Commission. He can't make that appointee explain to him, nor can he remove that appointee. All he can do is potentially not vote for the figurehead above him in the next election...which will change nothing, either for the EU itself or for the Commission member.

The mere figurehead in the EU parliament, who does not actually decide the policy that affects Newcastle, and who is but a mere part of the collective of the EU parliament itself, isn't powerful enough to have decided the policy that affects Newcastle by himself. That was done by the whole EU parliament, presumably. The UK rep may even have voted against it, for all we know. But even if not, and if Bob realizes that, Bob in Newcastle can't reach the member of the executive in the Commission, which gets it's approval from the EU itself, not from Newcastle voters. So he can't make that person accountable for what the EU does, when it shuts down the Newcastle fishing fleet, or the shipyards, or sets an unreasonable tariff on corn or bananas, or tells Newcastle it has to serve as an entry port for surreptitious economic migrants.

The upshot is that the people who make policy affecting Bob in Newcastle are not in any way accountable to Bob. So there's nothing democratic about it. The decision-makers are simply insulated by layers of unaccountability from any protest or action by Bob and his compatriots in Newcastle...and for that matter, from anybody in the entire UK, or the whole UK put together.

The only option would be withdrawal from the EU...which has, in fact, had to happen.

[Will Bouwman]

Ah, so you mean that the 'unelected ideologues' are unaccountable because they are not directly accountable to the European voting public, but are instead accountable to the members of the European Parliament the voting public elected to represent their interests.

Quite so. It's the difference between DIRECT accountability, and INDIRECT (i.e. effectively NO) accountability. And when you think about it carefully, perhaps, you'll see why.

The voter in Newcastle, whom we'll call "Bob," can't vote for or against the persons who make and execute the decisions affecting him. He can't vote for anybody but his own EU figurehead in the parliament.

Well, after careful thinking and some careful reading, this doesn't seem consistent with your assertion that Bob's ex Member of the European Parliament was simply a figurehead:
"The European Commission is held democratically accountable by the European Parliament, which has the right to approve and dismiss the entire political leadership of the Commission."

The mere figurehead in the EU parliament, who does not actually decide the policy that affects Newcastle, and who is but a mere part of the collective of the EU parliament itself, isn't powerful enough to have decided the policy that affects Newcastle by himself.

That is the nature of democracy; it is rare that one member is powerful enough to get everything that is favourable to their constituency. The idea of democracy is that a representative is elected to negotiate the best terms they can achieve for the people who elected them. Even in functional democracies, that will require compromise. You might not like democracy, but as Winston Churchill said: “Democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.”

[Immanuel Can]

Ah, so you mean that the 'unelected ideologues' are unaccountable because they are not directly accountable to the European voting public, but are instead accountable to the members of the European Parliament the voting public elected to represent their interests.

Quite so. It's the difference between DIRECT accountability, and INDIRECT (i.e. effectively NO) accountability. And when you think about it carefully, perhaps, you'll see why.

The voter in Newcastle, whom we'll call "Bob," can't vote for or against the persons who make and execute the decisions affecting him. He can't vote for anybody but his own EU figurehead in the parliament.

Well, after careful thinking and some careful reading, this doesn't seem consistent with your assertion that Bob's ex Member of the European Parliament was simply a figurehead:
"The European Commission is held democratically accountable by the European Parliament, which has the right to approve and dismiss the entire political leadership of the Commission."

Think more carefully. How does "Bob" have any influence on that? He has none. Zero.

Sure, the EU parliament can dismiss the Commission. Do they have a reason to want to do that, even if Bob wants them to? Why would they? If choking off fishing or shipbuilding in Newcastle serves the interests of the EU in repositioning these things in Portugal, why would they fire the Commission for doing it, even if the folks in Newcastle are unhappy?

Answer: they never have, and they wouldn't. They have no reason to. And the only representative in the EU from the UK has insufficient power to do dismiss or direct the Commission, because he's just one voice among all the many that serve the interests of the EU, not of the UK.

The mere figurehead in the EU parliament, who does not actually decide the policy that affects Newcastle, and who is but a mere part of the collective of the EU parliament itself, isn't powerful enough to have decided the policy that affects Newcastle by himself.

That is the nature of democracy...

No, it isn't, actually. There's nothing "democratic" about it.

Democracy implies "rule by the demos, the people." Bob is ruling nothing. He has no power, no voice and not even a vote relevant to the Commission. By contrast, if Bob is voting for the mayor of Newcastle, his vote may be only one among the many people of Newcastle -- but at least he can vote directly, and can mobilize his fellow voters to see his concerns. And if he succeeds, he can change policy, or even change the mayor.

But with the EU, he has no power at all. He's their pawn, to be moved around in any way that serves the interests of the EU, without regard for the consequences in Newcastle.

You might not like democracy,...

That's a perverse statement. I'm arguing in favour of democracy, and you're arguing in favour of unelected commissions, and you accuse me of not supporting democracy? That's a pretty transparent ruse. Shame on you.

[Will Bouwman]

Democracy implies "rule by the demos, the people." Bob is ruling nothing.

That's because it's not a Bobocracy. As I'm sure you are aware, any two or more people will have divergent interests. In any relationship, there will be negotiation and compromise.
The fact that EU commissioners were not directly accountable to Bob doesn't render the entire enterprise undemocratic, and the fact that EU commissioners are accountable to anyone at all means they are not unaccountable.

[Immanuel Can]

Democracy implies "rule by the demos, the people." Bob is ruling nothing.

That's because it's not a Bobocracy. As I'm sure you are aware, any two or more people will have divergent interests. In any relationship, there will be negotiation and compromise.

Aren't you getting it?

Bob has NO voice. No power. No leverage. Not even a vote. Certainly not an ability to organize a resistance or mount a criticism that can reach the unelected bureaucrats who run the EU.

Talk about hatred of democracy...

...the fact that EU commissioners are accountable to anyone at all means they are not unaccountable.

Seriously? Seriously, you want to make that argument? It's so bad, I literally cannot imagine you'd want to try to make it.

So...according to that theory, a medieval torturer is "democratic" and "accountable" because the Grand Inquisitor is his boss? It's the same thing, because the EU Commissioner, who is the actual policy maker, is only ever has to give answer to the EU...not to any of the folks in Newcastle, and in no way to Bob...and cannot be voted for, replaced by, made accountable to, or even reached by a faint voice of protest from anybody in Newcastle. They may as well hope to have influence with the medieval torturer.

So there's no "democratic accountability" involved at all. That's pretty darn obvious.

[Will Bouwman]

Democracy implies "rule by the demos, the people." Bob is ruling nothing.

That's because it's not a Bobocracy. As I'm sure you are aware, any two or more people will have divergent interests. In any relationship, there will be negotiation and compromise.

Aren't you getting it?

Bob has NO voice. No power. No leverage. Not even a vote. Certainly not an ability to organize a resistance or mount a criticism that can reach the unelected bureaucrats who run the EU.

At a general election, Bob has the opportunity to vote for a candidate for member of parliament for his constituency. His preferred candidate may or may not win. Even if his choice of candidate does win, the party he or she is a member of may not win a majority and Bob ends up with a ruling party he did not want. Like it or not, Bob has been part of a democratic process that has elected a Prime Minister who, when the UK was in the EU, would have sat on the European Council, along with the elected heads of the other member states. Those democratically elected heads of state then get to nominate commissioners to head the various departments, much as the Prime Minister appoints his or her Cabinet with the voting public having no say in the matter. In the case of the EU, once upon a time, Bob could have voted for an MEP for his constituency and the nominated commissioners are then subject to the approval of the duly elected European Parliament. Having a vote doesn't mean you get to run the shop.

...the fact that EU commissioners are accountable to anyone at all means they are not unaccountable.

Seriously? Seriously, you want to make that argument? It's so bad, I literally cannot imagine you'd want to try to make it.

It's simple semantics. Your assertion that the European Commission is unaccountable is wrong.

So...according to that theory, a medieval torturer is "democratic"...

How do you imagine that follows?

[Gary Childress]

Democracy implies "rule by the demos, the people." Bob is ruling nothing.

That's because it's not a Bobocracy. As I'm sure you are aware, any two or more people will have divergent interests. In any relationship, there will be negotiation and compromise.

Aren't you getting it?

Bob has NO voice. No power. No leverage. Not even a vote. Certainly not an ability to organize a resistance or mount a criticism that can reach the unelected bureaucrats who run the EU.

Talk about hatred of democracy...

...the fact that EU commissioners are accountable to anyone at all means they are not unaccountable.

Seriously? Seriously, you want to make that argument? It's so bad, I literally cannot imagine you'd want to try to make it.

...

So there's no "democratic accountability" involved at all. That's pretty darn obvious.

It seems to me that if you want to pursue it that way, then there is no democratic nation on Earth. Which is a possibly valid view. Certainly, President Trump is going to appoint people in positions of power that I didn't vote for. Democracy seems like a relative thing. Some countries may be more or less democratic than others.

I guess it would depend upon how democratic local municipalities are or how much leeway they may have to control their own affairs. Does the European Union micromanage the affairs of local municipalities? For example, if the town of X wants to have a local water supply improved because it is currently contaminated, are they able to do that on and of their own accord?

And if local governments have a reasonable degree of autonomy and are able to improve their own situations as they deem fit, then my next question would be, are local governments elected or are they appointed by people higher up? If local governments are elected by local citizens, then that seems more democratic than local governments being appointed by higher officials.

[Immanuel Can]

That's because it's not a Bobocracy. As I'm sure you are aware, any two or more people will have divergent interests. In any relationship, there will be negotiation and compromise.

Aren't you getting it?

Bob has NO voice. No power. No leverage. Not even a vote. Certainly not an ability to organize a resistance or mount a criticism that can reach the unelected bureaucrats who run the EU.

Having a vote doesn't mean you get to run the shop.

Bob doesn't actually have a vote. The commissioners are all appointees, and then only answer to the EU itself, not to the UK or to Bob.

...the fact that EU commissioners are accountable to anyone at all means they are not unaccountable.

Seriously? Seriously, you want to make that argument? It's so bad, I literally cannot imagine you'd want to try to make it.

It's simple semantics. Your assertion that the European Commission is unaccountable is wrong.

You're being disingenuous. You've left out the word "democratically." Being accountable to an autocrat, a bureaucracy or a despot is not democratic accountablilty.

For somebody who was, just a short while ago, trying to falsely accuse me of being uninterested in democracy, you're remarkably uninterested in it yourself, it seems.

[Immanuel Can]

That's because it's not a Bobocracy. As I'm sure you are aware, any two or more people will have divergent interests. In any relationship, there will be negotiation and compromise.

Aren't you getting it?

Bob has NO voice. No power. No leverage. Not even a vote. Certainly not an ability to organize a resistance or mount a criticism that can reach the unelected bureaucrats who run the EU.

Talk about hatred of democracy...

...the fact that EU commissioners are accountable to anyone at all means they are not unaccountable.

Seriously? Seriously, you want to make that argument? It's so bad, I literally cannot imagine you'd want to try to make it.

...

So there's no "democratic accountability" involved at all. That's pretty darn obvious.

It seems to me that if you want to pursue it that way, then there is no democratic nation on Earth.

There are only representative democracies, of course. There are no direct democracies (I'm assuming you know the difference between those two technical terms.) But the former is preferable to practically any alternative, and direct democracy is only practical for small polities...it's too unwieldy for the operations of a nation state.

Democracy seems like a relative thing. Some countries may be more or less democratic than others.

Democracies are only ever relatively democratic, it's true: but there are certainly polities that are not democratic at all.

Does the European Union micromanage the affairs of local municipalities?

Yes, and in the extreme. And it even interferes with the personal affairs of private business and private life. It's a very totalitarian body.

For example, if the town of X wants to have a local water supply improved because it is currently contaminated, are they able to do that on and of their own accord?

Not if the EU will not let it.

...are local governments elected or are they appointed by people higher up?

In what country?

If local governments are elected by local citizens, then that seems more democratic than local governments being appointed by higher officials.

Yes, you're intuiting correctly.

But here's the problem in the US: how to give a voice to regions that are less populous than major centers are.

For example, if Montana wants to be in the union, it has a population of about 1.1 million. By contrast, California alone has a population of 38.97 million. In any situation in which votes are counted strictly democratically, Montana would literally never win a vote against Cali. Cali would have total effective say over Montana.

So Cali is short of water (this is true, of course: it's a desert in many places). It decides it wants to divert and draw water from Montana's watershed. To do this, suppose it wants to build dams and reservoirs in Montana and Idaho, profoundly changing the local water table and potentially causing environmental disasters upstream: what power does Montana have to prevent its water being taken by Cali?

So then, what's the incentive for the people of Montana want to stay in the Union?

This is just an example, of course. But it explains the rationale for representative or (small "r") republican democracy. It's never enough to equalize Montana with Cali -- nothing close, in fact -- but with the representatives present in other states, it becomes possible for Montana to say "no" to Cali, if that's what Montana needs to do. Otherwise, Montana's just a slave state, effectively, one that simply has to accept whatever Cali dictates.

[Gary Childress]

Aren't you getting it?

Bob has NO voice. No power. No leverage. Not even a vote. Certainly not an ability to organize a resistance or mount a criticism that can reach the unelected bureaucrats who run the EU.

Talk about hatred of democracy...
Seriously? Seriously, you want to make that argument? It's so bad, I literally cannot imagine you'd want to try to make it.

...

So there's no "democratic accountability" involved at all. That's pretty darn obvious.

It seems to me that if you want to pursue it that way, then there is no democratic nation on Earth.

There are only representative democracies, of course. There are no direct democracies (I'm assuming you know the difference between those two technical terms.) But the former is preferable to practically any alternative, and direct democracy is only practical for small polities...it's too unwieldy for the operations of a nation state.

Democracy seems like a relative thing. Some countries may be more or less democratic than others.

Democracies are only ever relatively democratic, it's true: but there are certainly polities that are not democratic at all.

Does the European Union micromanage the affairs of local municipalities?

Yes, and in the extreme. And it even interferes with the personal affairs of private business and private life. It's a very totalitarian body.

For example, if the town of X wants to have a local water supply improved because it is currently contaminated, are they able to do that on and of their own accord?

Not if the EU will not let it.

...are local governments elected or are they appointed by people higher up?

In what country?

If local governments are elected by local citizens, then that seems more democratic than local governments being appointed by higher officials.

Yes, you're intuiting correctly.

But here's the problem in the US: how to give a voice to regions that are less populous than major centers are.

For example, if Montana wants to be in the union, it has a population of about 1.1 million. By contrast, California alone has a population of 38.97 million. In any situation in which votes are counted strictly democratically, Montana would literally never win a vote against Cali. Cali would have total effective say over Montana.

So Cali is short of water (this is true, of course: it's a desert in many places). It decides it wants to divert and draw water from Montana's watershed. To do this, suppose it wants to build dams and reservoirs in Montana and Idaho, profoundly changing the local water table and potentially causing environmental disasters upstream: what power does Montana have to prevent its water being taken by Cali?

So then, what's the incentive for the people of Montana want to stay in the Union?

This is just an example, of course. But it explains the rationale for representative or (small "r") republican democracy. It's never enough to equalize Montana with Cali -- nothing close, in fact -- but with the representatives present in other states, it becomes possible for Montana to say "no" to Cali, if that's what Montana needs to do. Otherwise, Montana's just a slave state, effectively, one that simply has to accept whatever Cali dictates.

Are you unaware that the Senate operates on the principle of 1 state 1 vote (or more precisely every state has 2 Senators = 2 votes)? There's also the House of Representatives that operates based on population demographics. Any bill that Congress passes has to pass both branches. If the Senate vetoes a bill that the House wants, then it doesn't make it. How else would you envision a more democratic America? Should the House of Representatives be dissolved?

[Immanuel Can]

It seems to me that if you want to pursue it that way, then there is no democratic nation on Earth.

There are only representative democracies, of course. There are no direct democracies (I'm assuming you know the difference between those two technical terms.) But the former is preferable to practically any alternative, and direct democracy is only practical for small polities...it's too unwieldy for the operations of a nation state.

Democracy seems like a relative thing. Some countries may be more or less democratic than others.

Democracies are only ever relatively democratic, it's true: but there are certainly polities that are not democratic at all.

Does the European Union micromanage the affairs of local municipalities?

Yes, and in the extreme. And it even interferes with the personal affairs of private business and private life. It's a very totalitarian body.

For example, if the town of X wants to have a local water supply improved because it is currently contaminated, are they able to do that on and of their own accord?

Not if the EU will not let it.

...are local governments elected or are they appointed by people higher up?

In what country?

If local governments are elected by local citizens, then that seems more democratic than local governments being appointed by higher officials.

Yes, you're intuiting correctly.

But here's the problem in the US: how to give a voice to regions that are less populous than major centers are.

For example, if Montana wants to be in the union, it has a population of about 1.1 million. By contrast, California alone has a population of 38.97 million. In any situation in which votes are counted strictly democratically, Montana would literally never win a vote against Cali. Cali would have total effective say over Montana.

So Cali is short of water (this is true, of course: it's a desert in many places). It decides it wants to divert and draw water from Montana's watershed. To do this, suppose it wants to build dams and reservoirs in Montana and Idaho, profoundly changing the local water table and potentially causing environmental disasters upstream: what power does Montana have to prevent its water being taken by Cali?

So then, what's the incentive for the people of Montana want to stay in the Union?

This is just an example, of course. But it explains the rationale for representative or (small "r") republican democracy. It's never enough to equalize Montana with Cali -- nothing close, in fact -- but with the representatives present in other states, it becomes possible for Montana to say "no" to Cali, if that's what Montana needs to do. Otherwise, Montana's just a slave state, effectively, one that simply has to accept whatever Cali dictates.

Are you unaware that the Senate operates on the principle of 1 state 1 vote?

The Senate is not the primary law-making body. The House is. But you do raise a further issue, and that is the division of powers. However, again, you don't have direct democracy. You live in a republic. Did you not realize that?

How else would you envision a more democratic America?

Direct democracy, or representative democracy? Maybe you might want to look up those terms, so we can continue to discuss this cogently.

An "America" could not work on a direct democracy. And in surprising ways, it would turn out to be tyrannical, especially to regions and minority individuals. So would direct democracy be "more democratic"? In a pure sense, we might say yes: but it would also be more unmanageable and more tyrannical to small groups, and those things are not what we would want to associate with being "more democratic," would we?

So it's bound to be a balancing act, in which the problem is how to represent the interests of smaller constituencies and minorities over and against the masses. That's not an easy problem to solve, and I suspect there's no absolutely perfect solution. It's going to end up being some democracy arrangment that's not ideal, not perfect, but whatever the best balance we can contrive is. And "best" will be defined as "most able to serve the interests of preserving individual liberties and rights," not "whatever serves an ideal that is "more democratic" in theory, but more tyrannical in practice.