4 ms·
Being "transparent about their policies" doesn't mean that the voter understands them or their consequences. This is just a fig leaf.
by RNAlfons 3y ago
Being "transparent about their policies" doesn't mean that the voter understands them or their consequences.
This is just a fig leaf.
- bigfudge 3y agoBeing transparent would be a start though. The tories in 2019 were still making Red Bus promises about how Brexit would save us all billions we could spend on the NHS.
- Almondsetat 3y agoThen just say people are stupid and abolish voting. If the public doesn't have the mental tools to evaluate the simplest of electoral programs then what's democracy even good for?
- 0thgen 3y agoIt's probably good for a lot of things, but clearly has drawbacks everyone intuitively agrees on (no one would want medical doctors to democratically seek advice from their patients, at least not on complex decisions like which medication to take) The "10% less democracy" concept (https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=28088 https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=28088) is interesting here, and frames the question as "when and how much" as opposed to "democracy or no-democracy"
- jdksmdbtbdnmsm 3y ago>then what's democracy even good for? Historically it's amazingly good for rhetorically justifying war crimes and genocide by way of claiming moral highground.
- avgcorrection 3y agoSubmission: X is antidemocratic HN users: hold my beer
- omnimus 3y agoYeah most people will percieve austerity as saving. As something like when they stop paying netflix or buy less of the expensive cheese they like. Inherently a good thing that will lead to having more money in future.
- asplake 3y agoOnly for a while. Here in the UK, pursued too long and too deep it’s seen as a recipe for decay and decline. We’re sick of it.