I mean, I don't see how that is even theoretically possible though? You could set up a system of laws such that nobody has the legal authority to either revoke people's rights or to change the law to allow them that authority, but at the end of the day, laws are just words on paper (or whatever other medium). If someone can physically overpower the state and any other group that attemps resistance, that person can just rip up all those laws and establish new systems, and since that can theoretically be achieved by just getting enough people to follow and listen to you, and communication is one of those rights people generally seek to protect anyway, you can't entirely eliminate the risk that some demagogue will find a way to whip up a cult following big enough.

[–] crumbguzzler5000@feddit.org 10 points 3 days ago

In democracies like the UK, Australia and Canada, I'm pretty sure they have it setup like this. The top person "running" the country has actually very little power to just come in and start removing rights or creating new laws without it having to actually be reviewed and approved.

They definitely are not perfect systems by any means and are still open to corruption by bad actors. But they are slightly better at stopping one bad person being able to remove rights.

[–] YoiksAndAway@lemmy.zip 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I think the problem is that the system in the US is built on elected officials being serious leaders who want to govern for the good of all. The Republicans have turned that on its head. They can stop this any time they want, and could have for nearly a decade.

[–] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

The system is built on the idea that if elected officials aren't serious leaders they won't win their next election. America is falling because of Americans.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Yeah ultimately all authority rests on force. This is why I don't take "abolish the government" types seriously. The government is just an entity we've empowered with force, moderated by checks and balances.

Getting rid of the government only creates a power vacuum that will be filled by the next most powerful group, but without the benefit of moderation.

[–] otacon239@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

I think one of the only ways this works is if it’s a random pull of candidates (relative to their current field), and relatively short office terms. If you want a system reflective of the general population, I think it’s reasonable to assume you can’t pick them based on any particular traits outside of occupation. Payment would also have to be the same for all positions, regardless of importance.

At the very least, it would end the question once and for all if the “average” person has good intentions.

If this system routinely diverges a society into savage chaos, well, that’s sort of reflective of what the average of society thinks they need in the world and we have our sad truth. No idea where we would go from there to improve things.

But I’m an optimist. I think we’d find the “average” person would make very selfless choices because there’d be no incentive to try anything to remain in office or gain votes or gain power. In a year or so, you’ll just right back to your day job, so you might as well try to improve the life you’re about to be put back into.