| ▲ | laweijfmvo an hour ago |
| but there will be voting; all of the elected officials will have to face elections at some point, and voters can put their feet down right now: everyone is voted out. |
|
| ▲ | nomorewords an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| When the damage is already done? |
| |
| ▲ | shimman 44 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | It's okay, as the on-going damage continues Americans tend to be well armed enough to go on a few rampages here and there. | |
| ▲ | philipallstar 44 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | That is how everyone decision works, yes. That's why you want limited government. Voting where you can't vote with your money is a very low-quality, delayed signal. | | |
| ▲ | tech_ken 27 minutes ago | parent [-] | | If you assume that decision makers operate entirely in silo from their constituents then yes, that's how this works. Howver if you are operating in the normal mode of democracy where decision makers consult impacted parties through town halls, solicited feedback, subcommittees, etc etc then there are ample opportunities to obtain high-quality, low-latency signals. "Voting with your money" is (IM personal O) a scapegoat for government leaders to avoid doing their due-diligence (not to mention the massive power imbalance that results from people with lots of money 'voting' way more than people with less money). |
|
|
|
| ▲ | kovek 21 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What negative consequences does being unelected have? |
|
| ▲ | pertymcpert an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| That's already factored in the cost of doing business for them. |