3 ms·

> So you don’t have to worry about an evil and selfish dictator by definition. How nice! Exactly. 'dictator' is a word loaded with negativity, so it's an attem

> So you don’t have to worry about an evil and selfish dictator by definition. How nice! Exactly. 'dictator' is a word loaded with negativity, so it's an attempt to balance that. Someone who still has a comparable amount of authority while being limited from becoming a tyrant. > First of all, democracy working cannot be judged on whether people make “educated” decisions: it works if people have the power to choose. I disagree. It can be judged by the results it garners, and looking at how bad the US is doing at the moment, I would say it is not working. Simple because things could be substantially better than they are, but the current democratic system is preventing that. > Yet this “democracy only works” line of thinking reeks of this attitude. You call it arrogance, I call it confidence and common sense. When half the population are voting based on belief and out of spite instead of science, fact and empathy, then they may as well be spiteful children. > Politics is almost always about self- and group-interest. This is not an exception; the “educated” will wax poetic about the virtues of an “informed public”, but most of them just want more power for themselves. This is a bug, and something that can be solved by patching the code (legislation).

avgcorrection 3y ago
> Exactly. 'dictator' is a word loaded with negativity, so it's an attempt to balance that. Nope. Being “loaded with negativity” is besides the point (you seem to love the idea); this form of governance is just particularly prone to failing due to the character of the tyrant. But you seem to acknowledge that anyway. > I disagree. It can be judged by the results it garners, and looking at how bad the US is doing at the moment, I would say it is not working. Weird. I haven’t read any serious research on this subject that says that America (or perhaps any liberal democracy, but I’ve only read research on America) is a democracy-in-practice. According to the mainstream elite democratic theory, elites govern with limited input from the general population. So maybe you should blame the elites if things are falling apart. But I bet you don’t want to do that, though. > This is a bug, and something that can be solved by patching the code (legislation). The smart-but-naive often think that you can tune politics like a machine.
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  > Nope. Being “loaded with negativity” is besides the point (you seem to love the idea) It's not beside the point in the context of your statement I was replying to, which is why I added the word benevolent to it. > this form of governance is just particularly prone to failing due to the character of the tyrant. But you seem to acknowledge that anyway. I acknowledged it while I refuted it. You can have someone with a similar amount of power and have checks and balances on some of that power. A carefully crafted system allowing for that hasn't really been created in modern day. > Weird. I haven’t read any serious research on this subject that says that America (or perhaps any liberal democracy, but I’ve only read research on America) is a democracy-in-practice. Huh, then I guess you haven't even read the basic stuff, since a representative democracy is a type of democracy. > According to the mainstream elite democratic theory, elites govern with limited input from the general population. You're confused. You're talking about conspiracy theory > So maybe you should blame the elites if things are falling apart. But I bet you don’t want to do that, though. The elites have power because the sheeple let them have it. Again, democracy at work. > The smart-but-naive often think that you can tune politics like a machine. It's not naive to recognize our current system is flawed and we can do better.

avgcorrection 3y ago

> Exactly. 'dictator' is a word loaded with negativity, so it's an attempt to balance that. Nope. Being “loaded with negativity” is besides the point (you seem to love the idea); this form of governance is just particularly prone to failing due to the character of the tyrant. But you seem to acknowledge that anyway. > I disagree. It can be judged by the results it garners, and looking at how bad the US is doing at the moment, I would say it is not working. Weird. I haven’t read any serious research on this subject that says that America (or perhaps any liberal democracy, but I’ve only read research on America) is a democracy-in-practice. According to the mainstream elite democratic theory, elites govern with limited input from the general population. So maybe you should blame the elites if things are falling apart. But I bet you don’t want to do that, though. > This is a bug, and something that can be solved by patching the code (legislation). The smart-but-naive often think that you can tune politics like a machine.

PrimeMcFly 3y ago
> Nope. Being “loaded with negativity” is besides the point (you seem to love the idea) It's not beside the point in the context of your statement I was replying to, which is why I added the word benevolent to it. > this form of governance is just particularly prone to failing due to the character of the tyrant. But you seem to acknowledge that anyway. I acknowledged it while I refuted it. You can have someone with a similar amount of power and have checks and balances on some of that power. A carefully crafted system allowing for that hasn't really been created in modern day. > Weird. I haven’t read any serious research on this subject that says that America (or perhaps any liberal democracy, but I’ve only read research on America) is a democracy-in-practice. Huh, then I guess you haven't even read the basic stuff, since a representative democracy is a type of democracy. > According to the mainstream elite democratic theory, elites govern with limited input from the general population. You're confused. You're talking about conspiracy theory > So maybe you should blame the elites if things are falling apart. But I bet you don’t want to do that, though. The elites have power because the sheeple let them have it. Again, democracy at work. > The smart-but-naive often think that you can tune politics like a machine. It's not naive to recognize our current system is flawed and we can do better.