The basic idea is that the will of the people may change at a whim, and that we therefore need safeguards to protect liberal parlamentarism and the basic order of society from changes that would otherwise be disruptive. This obviously protects the so-called elites from angry mobs, which is the main argument against this system, but it also make sure that our economies don't collapse due to various governments doing things like forced take-overs of international banks in times of financial unrest.

Alas, this order is often defended in the name of "democracy" when it's outright anti-democratic and patronizing.

Thanks, fair point. But then again that's democracy right? And riots aren't your weekend party- people are on streets because they are fed up of something.

Definitely. On the other hand, would this have been prevented if the desiscion to increase carbon taxes was taken through a referendum? I suspect many of the people that are currently rioting would do so even if the no-side had lost a referendum, especially if they are stuck in filter bubbles reinforcing the idea that everyone around them share their opinions.

That's also the point of the article, but the author blames it all on Facebook not preventing populist bubbles, when the main issue is that the entire industry has a problem with bubbles.

> Populist has a derogatory connotation

For a very good reason.

> insulting peoples will seems improper

It does seem improper, but drawing the connection between calling out people drawn to populism and insulting them is one of the least discrete attempts at muddying the waters I've seen recently.

What is that reason? Why should people not advocate for their own interest?

Socialism is populism on the Left (i.e. distributing wealth at the point of a gun). Populism on the Right is instead via a more democratic method of building a strong market that lifts all ships.

>Populism on the Right is instead via a more democratic method of building a strong market that lifts all ships.

...also at the point of a gun.

You're being disingenuous in evoking the monopoly of force but only applying it to "the left", in order to imply that, "socialist" governance is more coercive (and thus less legitimate) than any other.

If you live in a state that collects taxes or regulates the market, or any system other than anarchy, then you live under a regime that distributes wealth at the point of a gun.

And with anarchy, you're just trading the monopoly on violence for a free market of violence.

Socialist Populism seeks wealth redistribution for individuals by using force against people (in addition to organizations) via taxation.

Market Populism seeks wealth redistribution for organizations by using force against organizations exclusively to break up local maxima (monopolies, duopolies, etc.).

Both use force, but one operates on the individual level, the other at the organizational level.