3 ms·

I don't think that's a good argument. "Democracy" has been implemented in various forms, one of which is what the US has, where some people have less represent

I don't think that's a good argument. "Democracy" has been implemented in various forms, one of which is what the US has, where some people have less representation than others, e.g. senate, house seats, electoral college. What they are expressing is not that we should not have democracy either.

edgyquant 3y ago
The US was specifically designed as a Republic and those institutions you mention specifically designed to be anti-democratic. Democracies are subject to mob rule and historically unstable, republicanism adds a layer of stability and a check on majority rule.
- PartiallyTyped 3y ago
  And those "institutions" are clearly working /s. These institutions exist to avoid relinquishing power to the people and their will, but of course we label democracy as "mob rule" when it doesn't suite us. Tyranny of those born in a different place! Democracy has been historically unstable except for all the cases that it has been. The house has achieved lots last session!
  - oooyay 3y ago
    A democracy that had some level of class consciousness would be optimal at this stage in the US. Instead, our democracy observes relative power and that power is exercised through money.
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    No, democracy is basically always mob rule and every historical democracy was unstable. The institutions are working actually, if you look at what the average person actually wants. It’s that what those people want is to prevent the extreme minorities from getting their way, and this understandably upsets those extreme minorities of the left and right.
    - PartiallyTyped 3y ago
      Choose, either it's mob rule, or extreme minorities. The two are mutually exclusive. The people don't get what they want, e.g. republicans blocking things that were voted BY THE PEOPLE on the ballot. There's of course all the gerrymandering as well, further preventing people from being adequately represented, and of course, let us not forget all the effort spent on making it harder to vote in the first place.
toolz 3y ago
There are far more countries than the U.S. so I'm not sure I understand your point, or maybe you misunderstand my point. My point is simply that you can use and list you want that ranks countries in the order of most/least democratic and you'll find the citizens of the most democratic countries are consistently doing much better than those in the least democratic, which is evidence that democracy is far from the worst system.
- PartiallyTyped 3y ago
  > which is evidence that democracy is far from the worst system. I agree. I don't disagree with that, at all. I am, however, expressing that there ought to be limits to "democracy". Just as we have a lower bound, there need to be limits to ensure that younger people are not left to clean up the mess of a system they couldn't even participate in.

edgyquant 3y ago

The US was specifically designed as a Republic and those institutions you mention specifically designed to be anti-democratic. Democracies are subject to mob rule and historically unstable, republicanism adds a layer of stability and a check on majority rule.

PartiallyTyped 3y ago
And those "institutions" are clearly working /s. These institutions exist to avoid relinquishing power to the people and their will, but of course we label democracy as "mob rule" when it doesn't suite us. Tyranny of those born in a different place! Democracy has been historically unstable except for all the cases that it has been. The house has achieved lots last session!
- oooyay 3y ago
  A democracy that had some level of class consciousness would be optimal at this stage in the US. Instead, our democracy observes relative power and that power is exercised through money.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  No, democracy is basically always mob rule and every historical democracy was unstable. The institutions are working actually, if you look at what the average person actually wants. It’s that what those people want is to prevent the extreme minorities from getting their way, and this understandably upsets those extreme minorities of the left and right.
  - PartiallyTyped 3y ago
    Choose, either it's mob rule, or extreme minorities. The two are mutually exclusive. The people don't get what they want, e.g. republicans blocking things that were voted BY THE PEOPLE on the ballot. There's of course all the gerrymandering as well, further preventing people from being adequately represented, and of course, let us not forget all the effort spent on making it harder to vote in the first place.

toolz 3y ago

There are far more countries than the U.S. so I'm not sure I understand your point, or maybe you misunderstand my point. My point is simply that you can use and list you want that ranks countries in the order of most/least democratic and you'll find the citizens of the most democratic countries are consistently doing much better than those in the least democratic, which is evidence that democracy is far from the worst system.

PartiallyTyped 3y ago
> which is evidence that democracy is far from the worst system. I agree. I don't disagree with that, at all. I am, however, expressing that there ought to be limits to "democracy". Just as we have a lower bound, there need to be limits to ensure that younger people are not left to clean up the mess of a system they couldn't even participate in.