3 ms·
> Nominet was a non-profit, but not a democratic one. Democracy is not "choose your rulers", but "choose your rules". Having a board/parliament is by definition
by marcinzm 6y ago
> Nominet was a non-profit, but not a democratic one. Democracy is not "choose your rulers", but "choose your rules". Having a board/parliament is by definition the opposite of government by/for the people. The simple fact the community has to fight against the board is proof of that.
That's a No True Scotsman argument since by your definition there is no large scale democracy in existence. Most people would consider a representative democracy to be a democracy.
- southerntofu 6y ago> by your definition there is no large scale democracy in existence Take a look at Chiapas or Rojava. They are large-scale governance systems that most people would agree fit the definition of a democracy, if only because local assemblies and women's assemblies have a lot of power. They both have some forms of representation but nothing similar to what we have here in terms of accountability. You can for example watch "Viva Zapata" documentary about autonomy in Chiapas. Also, if it hypothetically did not exist yet, would it be a reason to give another meaning to the word? If we can admit a God does not exist, should we call an AI a God because its ways are ineffable? > Most people would consider a representative democracy to be a democracy. In some places, most people would consider vaccines a trojan horse of the Illuminati and homosexuality to be a sin. Does the majority always have to be right? Isn't the tyranny of the majority precisely one of the problems with our pretend-democracies? To be fair, tyranny of the majority would be better than the current tyranny of the minority elite elected by the majority (of people who have a right to vote, which is not everyone) in a process that resembles more reality TV shows than a political argument.