Direct democracy is bad. All one has to do is whip people into an emotional frenzy. Essentially you are arguing that the people should further circumscribe Individual rights like entering into a contract. Now people that made extra money, probably needed extra money, will be denied this option because the people will put the requirement of health benefits onto the contracting company.
All 'democracy' is bad. People should just decide for themselves and not for others and not enforce their opinions ("laws") on others using government force.
You can do this with a republic. California’s direct democracy has shown itself time and again to be a bad idea. People vote emotionally. They approve expenses without requiring funding. They vote property taxes down. Ultimately you need the buffer of a republican system to cool heads.
This feels like the inverse to me. Every traditional industry has gotten an exception carved out for itself in the law, this is basically just discriminate targeting of Uber and Lyft.
17 comments
[ 6.2 ms ] story [ 49.8 ms ] threadOnce that's done, the court can either continue the stay or enforce it depending on the outcome. Either way, democracy wins.
Far better to have the consent of the governed, even when imperfect.
False dichotomy.
A middle ground can include people with expertise voting on a specific matter, and not any random layperson who can easily be manipulated.
Btw not criticizing this comment :D just adding context