Radical empathy is both radical and empathetic.
Probably the classics.
Laws enforcing how public transit is provided. They literally kept a station open for a single high school student.
Public health is top notch, it goes above and beyond for patients, be they citizens or not.
While suicide is high in Japan, it’s considered a public policy and social failure than a personal one so the government dumps money into improving suicide help.
Waste sorting and just general cleanliness.
Fair. As a halfbreed myself I can say it’s awful if you are not Japanese.
They do have some really kickass laws though.
Perfection
I didn’t have one. I was asserting the idea that people were going to attack your post for saying “Use AI.”
I hear where you are coming from, but you just said “Use AI” on Lemmy. This should be fun 😁
Holy crap. Hi SARGE.
30mg edible can get me close to non-verbal some days and just not really hit that hard others.
I have GAD so I think that messes with my perception.
I am happy to concede that point.
That said, in the US, evidentially speaking, the current administration has a near all time low in approval.
I am not convinced the veto panels would be any worse off than the current administration in terms of approval.
There are a few ways that the Socratic position (epistocracy) could be implemented and he covers them in the book. I am partial to a panel of experts that can only veto laws in their area of expertise.
For example. Congress passes a law to allow offshore drilling and the climate change panel vetos it.
I am not sure I buy the conditional statement
“If a population is well educated then they will vote well”
There is a component of research time that greatly limits ones ability to vote in most matters.
Furthermore the afformentioned conditional statement ignores the litany of cognitive biases that would influence a vote.
Without spoiling too much from the book, the argument is “protection from the tyrrany of the massively misinformed.”
The arguments hinge on the idea that, if voting is equal (I am not 100% sure on his stance for equitable), then the under informed masses force us into subjugation through their ignorance.
Pragmatically, his major point is, it’s very hard (and likely impossible) for everyone to be informed on every topic, so we should abstain from topics where we are under informed (which for most of us, most of the time, is most topics).
I both think people have a right to dignity, which by extension means they should have a say of how to live their lives. I also think that the general population shouldn’t vote. Against Democracy is a really good read if you haven’t read it.
For the record, I literally will drive people to the polls (since our current system creates better outcomes if more people vote) but I do really wish that most of them wouldn’t XD.
I love the digital library idea. Sadly, given the state of the US we would see folks on the street going
“The govs online libraries make kids want to be trans” or something like that.