Plato on democracy:

>Jacques Ranciere's "Hatred of Democracy".
interesting

I don’t know why you think individuals are less capable of making rational decisions than the masses when mass hysteria/group think/etc are well documented facts.

Furthermore juries can be and are more informed than the masses. That’s what trials are for: every side presents all of the facts for the jury to see. It’s exactly the opposite of news media spin. And sequestering juries could work just as well in this case as it does in criminal trials.

Examining US history shows that in any given time frame the masses were fairly reasonable and the intelligentsia preferred counterproductive policies.

You can't sequester public (from which jury will be randomly drawn later) from lobbied policy. You want to lobby in fracking? Fine, launch a massive media campaign so that average poll gives you >50% for-fracking opinion. This is even easier if the jury demographic is known beforehand.

The worst part about fracking is that it's not yes/no policy which is about as much "rational" a jury can get (guilty/not guilty). It's a highly political thing about which watertables to ruin for good, trading oil prices, jobs. Hundreds of regional interests at play. The policy which lands in congress is a hairball of those interests, a compromise of various oligarchies, but also do-gooders and political posturing. And even then it can go back and forth several times. Jury has pretty much zero chance judging all that, they'd need to trust an expert witness in politics. An expert which can't go on record about all the standard backroom dealing and favor trading involved which produced the policy in the first place.

And if your point is to get rid of all that backroom dealing as well as media influence? Oligarchies will remove your system. Oligarchies allow for current system because it's sufficiently apprehensive to their wishes and it is at least quasi-fair.

The masses being "dumb" is not necessarily a bad thing. The Western "intellectual" tradition has led the intelligentsia to believe that hormone therapy and/or genital mutilation makes women into men, importing Mexican peasants is good because increasing the population makes GDP go up, etc. dumb people are not smart enough to follow the logic of this, they just instinctively react against it (and that's a good thing). Between American Progressivism and Communism on the other side of the Atlantic I think it's clear that rule by the intelligentsia is about the worst thing you can have, and any attempt to do this indirectly via epistocracy etc. will be a disaster.

You literally discarded your own argument in your last line (what you're describing is, by and large, alread happening, and has been for the last century at least). And you were right in doing so. kys

>and incidentally in favor of the common man.
I think this is a leap. I also think the real idealistic bullshit is the idea that you’re going to have a system where the common man doesn’t at least have the *illusion* of having a voice in government. That’ll never happen unless society literally completely collapses like a Hollywood post-apocalyptic move.

You’re just talking about going backwards, not proposing a real system than can be implemented going forward.

>implying a philosopher king is not a tyrant
voila, plato was a brainlet with cognitive dissonance

>Jury has pretty much zero chance judging all that, they'd need to trust an expert witness in politics.

This is obviously a contradiction. A jury can judge all that if they are hearing testimony of multiple experts. In fact I would much rather have a handful of ordinary people (even if some are dumb) doing a deep dive on something like that with a bunch of “experts” weighing in on their various sides and so on, rather than our current system where these decisions are made by people whose loyalties are divided by virtue of the political parties they serve and the monied interests they serve.

A jury really is more likely to make a decision, as best it can, that is in the best interest of the people than any elected official ever would.

Media influence would exist regardless, but would be mitigated in a sortitioned citizen jury system by the fact that the people making the decision are put in a room with various experts to have it explained to them in a way that the ordinary citizen never will by watching CNN. The jury is more well informed.

>the common man doesn’t at least have the *illusion* of having a voice in governmen
It depends on what the common is brainwashed with. Russia never really got used to the democracy.

As for going forward? Neo-Cameralism kinda makes sense because it reduces nature of coercive power to what it really is. Proles still need to get behind the idea it's just about cutting off the pointless middlemen.