3 ms·

I think democracy has vastly more legitimacy than alternative forms which all rely on violence. I also believe that democracy needs cool and considerate heads.

I think democracy has vastly more legitimacy than alternative forms which all rely on violence. I also believe that democracy needs cool and considerate heads. A Trump here and there is for the fun. At least as a non-US citizen it was quite funny but perspectives might diverge here.

88840-8855 4y ago
The benefit of a democracy is that you can blame the guy who was ruling before you for stuff that did not work well. This is my criticism of the Chinese party and Xi's unlimited terms. The CCP seems to be alright in many ways, but there must be a transfer of power after a certain period of time. It worked so well for China when power was limited and did not work well when you had unlimited terms.
EddieDante 4y ago
> I think democracy has vastly more legitimacy than alternative forms which all rely on violence. If you think that democracy doesn't also rely on violence then I have some waterfront property in Arizona you might be interested in buying. It's called the "tyranny of the majority" for a reason.
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  I see what you're saying, but I also think a case could be made that democracies rely on violence less than other forms. I'm assuming that solid democracies are less likely to have civil wars, international wars, or genocides, than countries that are more authoritarian. They may also have less violent crime and less use of the death penalty. Anyway, if you think "the tyranny of the majority" is bad, just wait until you see "the tyranny of the minority".
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  Democracies defend themselves if someone tries to circumvent the election process, but rule is with consent of the governed. The legitimacy is that government won the election. A monarch doesn't have any legitimacy aside power. This power is established with violence. No democracy is perfect but most are better than competing ideas by significant margins.

88840-8855 4y ago

The benefit of a democracy is that you can blame the guy who was ruling before you for stuff that did not work well. This is my criticism of the Chinese party and Xi's unlimited terms. The CCP seems to be alright in many ways, but there must be a transfer of power after a certain period of time. It worked so well for China when power was limited and did not work well when you had unlimited terms.

EddieDante 4y ago

> I think democracy has vastly more legitimacy than alternative forms which all rely on violence. If you think that democracy doesn't also rely on violence then I have some waterfront property in Arizona you might be interested in buying. It's called the "tyranny of the majority" for a reason.

dane-pgp 4y ago
I see what you're saying, but I also think a case could be made that democracies rely on violence less than other forms. I'm assuming that solid democracies are less likely to have civil wars, international wars, or genocides, than countries that are more authoritarian. They may also have less violent crime and less use of the death penalty. Anyway, if you think "the tyranny of the majority" is bad, just wait until you see "the tyranny of the minority".
raxxorraxor 4y ago
Democracies defend themselves if someone tries to circumvent the election process, but rule is with consent of the governed. The legitimacy is that government won the election. A monarch doesn't have any legitimacy aside power. This power is established with violence. No democracy is perfect but most are better than competing ideas by significant margins.