4 ms·

Totalitarianism always had its benefits but the population is left with no backup mechanism if the group in charge happens to be really bad at their jobs and/or

Totalitarianism always had its benefits but the population is left with no backup mechanism if the group in charge happens to be really bad at their jobs and/or their interests do not line up with those of the population. An efficient government can be a really bad thing when its goals does not align with the population's. One advantage of democracy is that there is a mechanism for peaceful transition of power if the current leadership isn't working. Without this, a country has to resort to armed rebellion. China has historically legitimized armed popular rebellion with the concept of the "mandate of heaven". When an armed popular rebellion topples a dynasty, the previous dynasty is said to have lost its mandate of heaven and the successful rebel leader is said to have gained it. This is why China has historically had dynastic cycles. Democracy is a possible solution for escaping the cycle of often disastrous and very bloody armed rebellions.

mikeash 9y ago
“If you remember nothing else about the superiority of democracies to other forms of government, remember the fact that in three years, we will have a change of leadership and almost no one is stocking up on canned goods to prepare for the inevitable civil war.” - http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-faq/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-fa... I would go so far as to say that the peaceful transition of power is the defining advantage of democracy.
- thablackbull 9y ago
  Democracy, or that standards of living are so high its not worth it to deviate from the status quo? With no political science knowledge, I'm willing to have my view challenged and changed. I think there are 2 elements that are more important than democracy in and of itself. 1. High standards of living that alter the risk-reward ratio for making a political change 2. The rise of Corporations - these days, people view the government as a bureaucratic, slow, and useless entity with decent, but low pay. People aspire to work and move up the ranks in private corporations. The role of the government has been greatly reduced in the ordinary lives of citizens. That means the necessity of making a grand political change is just not as important as it was historically.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    I think high standards of living help a lot to prevent popular revolutions. But I don't think they do anything to stop violent infighting in a succession dispute. The people at the top are usually well off no matter what, and their goal is more power.

mikeash 9y ago

“If you remember nothing else about the superiority of democracies to other forms of government, remember the fact that in three years, we will have a change of leadership and almost no one is stocking up on canned goods to prepare for the inevitable civil war.” - http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-faq/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-fa... I would go so far as to say that the peaceful transition of power is the defining advantage of democracy.

thablackbull 9y ago
Democracy, or that standards of living are so high its not worth it to deviate from the status quo? With no political science knowledge, I'm willing to have my view challenged and changed. I think there are 2 elements that are more important than democracy in and of itself. 1. High standards of living that alter the risk-reward ratio for making a political change 2. The rise of Corporations - these days, people view the government as a bureaucratic, slow, and useless entity with decent, but low pay. People aspire to work and move up the ranks in private corporations. The role of the government has been greatly reduced in the ordinary lives of citizens. That means the necessity of making a grand political change is just not as important as it was historically.
- mikeash 9y ago
  I think high standards of living help a lot to prevent popular revolutions. But I don't think they do anything to stop violent infighting in a succession dispute. The people at the top are usually well off no matter what, and their goal is more power.