4 ms·

You're implying that a representative democracy is a liberal system, which does not follow. Maybe you could argue that it has the best potential to be liberal,

You're implying that a representative democracy is a liberal system, which does not follow. Maybe you could argue that it has the best potential to be liberal, but history is replete with examples of huge violations of individual liberties under these governments. Perhaps calling into question the legitimacy of democracy is a good thing? Indeed, why is it legitimate to violate an individual's liberties through a vote of 50% + 1 of her peers? Edit: I'll echo the peer comment that a reasonable compromise could be smaller units of government, which better represent the people. Smaller states also the limit the scope of abuse of the people within and the threat to people without.

anoncake 8y ago
> Perhaps calling into question the legitimacy of democracy is a good thing? Indeed, why is it legitimate to violate an individual's liberties through a vote of 50% + 1 of her peers? Someone has to decide what these liberties are. You can require a greater majority than 50%, but replacing democracy by something else does not help.
ihm 8y ago
Maybe you mean the legitimacy of majoritarian rule? And even more, representative majoritarian rule. Democracy is the idea that people should have a say in how their own lives are run, the exact mechanism could be many things.