4 ms·
Direct democracy is bad. All one has to do is whip people into an emotional frenzy. Essentially you are arguing that the people should further circumscribe Indi
by controversy 6y ago
Direct democracy is bad. All one has to do is whip people into an emotional frenzy. Essentially you are arguing that the people should further circumscribe Individual rights like entering into a contract. Now people that made extra money, probably needed extra money, will be denied this option because the people will put the requirement of health benefits onto the contracting company.
- drummer 6y agoAll 'democracy' is bad. People should just decide for themselves and not for others and not enforce their opinions ("laws") on others using government force.
- controversy 6y agoWhile I agree with this in the abstract, government force is needed to prevent a vendetta system to rise in its absence.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- drummer 6y agoSo you create a vendetta system to prevent one?
- apta 6y agoSo everything is up for grabs? A person can decide that he should be able to drink and drive.
- drummer 6y agoEveryone can live and do as they like as long as they respect the right to life of everyone else.
- erichocean 6y agoWe don't support democracy because it always produces the "right' answer, we support it because the alternative is authoritarian rule and violence. Far better to have the consent of the governed, even when imperfect.
- controversy 6y agoYou can do this with a republic. California’s direct democracy has shown itself time and again to be a bad idea. People vote emotionally. They approve expenses without requiring funding. They vote property taxes down. Ultimately you need the buffer of a republican system to cool heads.
- apta 6y ago> we support it because the alternative is authoritarian rule and violence. False dichotomy. A middle ground can include people with expertise voting on a specific matter, and not any random layperson who can easily be manipulated.