3 ms·

I was with you on that first paragraph, then you had to bring in the "will of the people." Democracy simply replaces "smart people" with "a majority of voters,

I was with you on that first paragraph, then you had to bring in the "will of the people." Democracy simply replaces "smart people" with "a majority of voters," which is almost always a minority of the population. So instead of the ruling elites determining what's best for everyone, now you have a larger group of people -- still a minority -- determining what's good for themselves and foisting it upon everyone else.

alien_at_work 8y ago
That's not fair. Everyone had the option of voting so nothing is forced on anyone. If you don't like what the people who actually voted picked, then try voting next time.
- EliRivers 8y ago
  Everyone had the option of voting so nothing is forced on anyone I don't follow. Forcing things on a set of people who wanted something else is exactly how it works, and will still work that way with 100% participation in the vote. When two wolves vote to eat the lamb for dinner, the lamb having voted not to be dinner doesn't make it any less forced on the lamb.
adrianmsmith 8y ago
Surely a larger group of people (even if still a minority) is still better than a smaller group of people? (The above assumes that there are only those two options, of course. Are there any other options?)
ranie93 8y ago
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_State https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_State >Plato's Socrates compares the population at large to a strong but nearsighted shipowner whose knowledge of seafaring is lacking. The quarreling sailors are demagogues and politicians, and the ship's navigator, a stargazer, is the philosopher. The sailors flatter themselves with claims to knowledge of sailing, though they know nothing of navigation, and are constantly vying with one another for the approval of the shipowner so to captain the ship, going so far as to stupefy the shipowner with drugs and wine. Meanwhile, they dismiss the navigator as a useless stargazer, though he is the only one with adequate knowledge to direct the ship's course.

alien_at_work 8y ago

That's not fair. Everyone had the option of voting so nothing is forced on anyone. If you don't like what the people who actually voted picked, then try voting next time.

EliRivers 8y ago
Everyone had the option of voting so nothing is forced on anyone I don't follow. Forcing things on a set of people who wanted something else is exactly how it works, and will still work that way with 100% participation in the vote. When two wolves vote to eat the lamb for dinner, the lamb having voted not to be dinner doesn't make it any less forced on the lamb.

adrianmsmith 8y ago

Surely a larger group of people (even if still a minority) is still better than a smaller group of people? (The above assumes that there are only those two options, of course. Are there any other options?)

ranie93 8y ago

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_State https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_State >Plato's Socrates compares the population at large to a strong but nearsighted shipowner whose knowledge of seafaring is lacking. The quarreling sailors are demagogues and politicians, and the ship's navigator, a stargazer, is the philosopher. The sailors flatter themselves with claims to knowledge of sailing, though they know nothing of navigation, and are constantly vying with one another for the approval of the shipowner so to captain the ship, going so far as to stupefy the shipowner with drugs and wine. Meanwhile, they dismiss the navigator as a useless stargazer, though he is the only one with adequate knowledge to direct the ship's course.