3 ms·
i don’t understand this attitude. we know that democracy is flawed and the best answer is “we’ll keep it flawed”? think how software evolves. now think how dem
by kmlx 8y ago
i don’t understand this attitude. we know that democracy is flawed and the best answer is “we’ll keep it flawed”?
think how software evolves. now think how democracy stagnates.
i know humans are extremely conservative by nature, but this is just absurd.
- vermilingua 8y agoYou aren’t the only person to have had this idea. Most of those that follow through on it, have a tendency to commit war crimes.
- okket 8y ago> we know that democracy is flawed and the best answer is “we’ll keep it flawed”? As long as the democracy with flaws is better than the alternative, yes.
- lm28469 8y agoAre you implying that there is a system free of flaws that we have yet to discover ? First, "democracy" is pretty vague, do you mean direct democracy, representative democracy, presidential democracy, &c. Then "democracy" isn't a fixed thing, it's been changing continuously for thousands of years. 500BC Athens democracy hasn't much to do with today's US version of democracy. So no, we don't "keep it flawed". Democracy means "power to the people", the way you implement it might be flawed but the underlying principle sounds very sane. > think how software evolves. now think how democracy stagnates Change doesn't necessarily mean progress. You don't get to "move fast and break things" in geopolitics.
- Juliate 8y agoStagnates? Name one country where the democracy system in place is stagnating, and why. And then in these cases, why/how less democracy would improve the people prospects altogether.