@sam0x17, are you aware of this finding?:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...

> Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

Especially the part with "policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans" made me think that it is not only those elites who do this or businesses. Does this mean that the government (NSA) doesn't care what we want? They are allowed to essentially patronize us because we do not know any better? Can you explain to me why the NSA is spying on us despite it being unpopular? We didn't ask to be spied on, right? I don't understand politics or the role of government anymore. I am utterly confused. Politics is so contradictory I cannot wrap my head around it. Or perhaps, I am missing something?

Yes I completely agree with this analysis. The only solution in my opinion is to elect leaders willing to dismantle this structure a bit, i.e. there are a number of senators and house members on the far left (and probably even on the right) that would vote for a bill that sets a per-entity yearly political donation cap at $500 if given the chance (meaning an individual or a corporation can only donate $500 per candidate per year). Centrists would never do this because they get tons of corporate money, but if we remove the incentives completely through legislation, we'd probably see a much less corrupt governmental structure at the end of the day.

The NSA's mandate concerns sigint, so that's what they do. Other entities (eg the PCLOB and federal courts) can constrain it, and the NSA constrains itself proactively to avoid embarrassments. The current result is a tradeoff between surveillance/security and privacy: NSA policy is that they can listen to foreign suspects' conversations, including if Americans are on the call. Metadata is collected on calls two "hops" from a suspect. Whether it's the right tradeoff is an interesting debate.

I think the practical effect, if not intended design purpose, of a republic is to launder responsibility. To create a layer of indirection and uncertainty between the people who have power and the popular perception of who to hold accountable. The wealthy write the rules and use politicians as patsies. In return for their service to the elite, politicians are offered some privileges and a degree of protection from the angry mobs. The mobs are made to believe that the most effective way to effect change is to vote in new politicians, allowing the old ones to peacefully retire. The economic elite rest easy, knowing the new politicians will serve their interests just as the old ones did.

Sometimes a renegade politician who earnestly has the interests of the common people gets voted into power, but the 'damage' such a renegade can do is regulated by term limits (and sometimes assassination: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gracchi) Other times, the public believe they are voting for such a renegade, but accidentally empower a tyrant who aims to usurp the elite and have true power for himself. But by in large, a republic regulates the system, maintaining the status quo to the benefit of those who already have power in the status quo.

> Sometimes a renegade politician who earnestly has the interests of the common people gets voted into power, but the 'damage' such a renegade can do is regulated by term limits

Interesting to view the term limit, as a way to protect the wealthy from the public

To be fair, term limits also protect the public from whatever tyrants they might accidentally vote into power. But this too has the effect of stabilizing the status quo, which benefits those who like the status quo the most (the wealthy.)

> term limits also protect the public from whatever tyrants they might accidentally vote into power

Yes, and "everyone" is aware about that, so that is not interesting :-)