3 ms·

I think we need to clear this misconception that democracy is good. It may be the least evil form of managing societies we attempted until now, but it's in no w

I think we need to clear this misconception that democracy is good. It may be the least evil form of managing societies we attempted until now, but it's in no way good. Democracy is violently (under threat or by direct action) imposing the will of majority on a minority.

amelius 6y ago
I totally agree with this. But I believe we can only find something better by changing democracy's rules in an incremental manner.
- jokethrowaway 6y ago
  I believe we will just crash eventually, learn a lesson and try something else. Or we will all die before that. Or we will all get unlimited energy, defeat aging and become gods. The reason I think this is because of the USA: the USA started as a minarchy, it became very rich (probably because of it) and then slowly became the largest, fattest government ever. Similarly, tons of smaller governments in EU keep growing larger and more inefficient instead of cutting down and freeing the economy.
jfengel 6y ago
All modern democracies have tools in place to protect minorities. It's never as simple as a bare majority imposing its will. Ironically, it leads to the exact opposite, where certain minorities express disproportionate power. For example, the rules always favor the status quo, so a minority in power can retain power, and subvert even largish majorities from passing rules they favor. Democracy may well be the least worst form of government, but it's even worse than I think most people give it credit for. The assumption is that at least half the people are happy with at least half of the results, and it doesn't even guarantee that much.
- jokethrowaway 6y ago
  In a purely democratic event, the majority will impose its will on the rest of the population (eg. think about Brexit). I think you're conflating democracy in general with social democracies. Social democracies are much more complicated - but they have a corruptible government which pretty much guarantees that the richest minority will be able to get laws that appear to satisfy everyone while benefiting them. A clear example is progressive taxation - it sounds fair to a laymen. Then you see that all the rich people use tax loopholes to pay close to zero while middle class people struggle to get rich because of the extra tax hurdle. I think the situation is slightly better in Switzerland because it's a semi-direct democracy and the greater use of referendums gives the population a greater chance to shape their society.
sanp 6y ago
Or, depending on how you implement it l, imposing the will of the minority (red state populations) on a majority

amelius 6y ago

I totally agree with this. But I believe we can only find something better by changing democracy's rules in an incremental manner.

jokethrowaway 6y ago
I believe we will just crash eventually, learn a lesson and try something else. Or we will all die before that. Or we will all get unlimited energy, defeat aging and become gods. The reason I think this is because of the USA: the USA started as a minarchy, it became very rich (probably because of it) and then slowly became the largest, fattest government ever. Similarly, tons of smaller governments in EU keep growing larger and more inefficient instead of cutting down and freeing the economy.

jfengel 6y ago

All modern democracies have tools in place to protect minorities. It's never as simple as a bare majority imposing its will. Ironically, it leads to the exact opposite, where certain minorities express disproportionate power. For example, the rules always favor the status quo, so a minority in power can retain power, and subvert even largish majorities from passing rules they favor. Democracy may well be the least worst form of government, but it's even worse than I think most people give it credit for. The assumption is that at least half the people are happy with at least half of the results, and it doesn't even guarantee that much.

jokethrowaway 6y ago
In a purely democratic event, the majority will impose its will on the rest of the population (eg. think about Brexit). I think you're conflating democracy in general with social democracies. Social democracies are much more complicated - but they have a corruptible government which pretty much guarantees that the richest minority will be able to get laws that appear to satisfy everyone while benefiting them. A clear example is progressive taxation - it sounds fair to a laymen. Then you see that all the rich people use tax loopholes to pay close to zero while middle class people struggle to get rich because of the extra tax hurdle. I think the situation is slightly better in Switzerland because it's a semi-direct democracy and the greater use of referendums gives the population a greater chance to shape their society.

sanp 6y ago

Or, depending on how you implement it l, imposing the will of the minority (red state populations) on a majority