> The point is that a crowd doesn't always have a right answer...
> popular opinion can be wrong
By that logic, all the laws, regulations and norms would possibly be meaningless. So if we were to ignore those, we all would descend into anarchy.
> A morality by plurality is arbitrary and non-universal
In fact, a majority of popular support is a necessary (may not be sufficient) condition for morality of a society. Something is not considered moral if it is not supported by most of the members.
> society A vs society B
irrelevant. Morality based laws in a society generally consider morality only of that society. That's why we have the notion of sovereignty.
> move to a cheaper city or country for retirement if your house goes up in price
What kind of life experience would lead to such a conclusion? It's almost like you have no idea what a community is - with one's friends, neighbors, familiar shops, clubs, church etc. Money is not everything in life. Any policy which forces people in their late 60's to uproot and go somewhere else to rebuild their lives is bound to face a very angry backlash. A mindset like yours is why we got prop 13 here in California.
> If the board is unable to bring their house in order, the state should fire them, not let their incompetence ruin the lives of the working class.
Oh no please! Last thing I want is letting Donald Trump (or AOC if you are a right-winger) decide which board to fire based on their whims about a company.
> I disagree with the assessment of that being a good thing.
Management is also fired in this instance. What you are probably suggesting is that management should have been fired sooner and replaced with competent ones. That is the job of the board, who is the proxy for shareholders. Since the board didn't do its job properly, their shares are also going to zero.
Again, working as intended. There should be no free lunch or bailouts for incompetent work.
> affirmative action being destroyed by the Trump administration.
Affirmative action was gutted by SCOTUS when Biden was president. Not that it was popular before. California of all places rejected it by 56-44 margin in 2020.
(non-chinese) asian equivalent of whatsapp is still whatsapp, it completely dominates in some of the biggest asian countries like india, indonesia or pakistan along with a bunch of other smaller places
TIL about karoshi, or “death from overwork”. With that kind of culture, no wonder Japanese population is in decline. Why have kids if you are expected to work 12, 14, 16 hours a day? Who is going to nurture those kids?
But most of the people live in countries with death penalties. All the top 6 countries by population have death penalty and only 4 out of biggest 17 countries do not have death penalty.
Mid-2000's were the pinnacle of the Western power in general and the American power in particular. First Iraq war, then the GFC punctured the halo from the 90's.
After that, the soil was fertile for the rise of populism. Bungled post-GFC recovery, algorithmic manipulations from social media, unmitigated immigration, COVID and its aftermath just fueled the fire further.
A lot of people complain about American FPTP system. But it seems that the French system, with a final round of top 2 in case no one gets clear majority, isn't any better. I am also familiar with the Indian system which gives rise to coalition politics which has its own problems.
The difference is that people are protesting against ICE, writing op-eds openly across various forms of media and a prominent governor is trolling Federal govt's actions in public.
Good luck trying to do any of that in China. US and other democratic societies may have warts, but there is a huge gap between those systems and China.
By that logic, all the laws, regulations and norms would possibly be meaningless. So if we were to ignore those, we all would descend into anarchy.
> A morality by plurality is arbitrary and non-universal
In fact, a majority of popular support is a necessary (may not be sufficient) condition for morality of a society. Something is not considered moral if it is not supported by most of the members.
> society A vs society B
irrelevant. Morality based laws in a society generally consider morality only of that society. That's why we have the notion of sovereignty.