5 ms·
I don't believe in best. Point was that democracy by design allows censorship. It's just a matter of majority agreement if implemented to all. To answer your q
by t0bia_s 7mo ago
I don't believe in best. Point was that democracy by design allows censorship. It's just a matter of majority agreement if implemented to all.
To answer your question: Anything that abandons idea of centralised power with unknown electorate. History many times proves that it cause deaths of millions innocent people. Wars are possible only because idea of giving up personal responsibility for action in name of "safety, right, nation, greater good, you name it...", that centralised authority decide about.
- dudefeliciano 7mo agoThe way I understand it you are not against centralized power in itself, but against the unknown electorate, or lack of personal responsibility when acting in official roles (i.e. immunity). The flaw seems to be in the execution (i.e. corruption) rather than the system itself. And there should be safeguards against those (again it's about execution). I'm probably limiting myself when I compare a "Democratic West" against an "Oligarchich Russia" and an "Autocratic China", but what other forms of government are there, that would better fit your description?
- t0bia_s 7mo agoIt depends how you define governance. We cannot morally justify system, that by definition supports involuntary money collection, right to oppress of minority when majority decide for or accept electorate without responsibility. It is possible to pretend that it is best system we can have just because we live in society, where state has monopoly to violence, thus unhealthy obedience to authority. And it is cultivated since our childhood in state funded schools as I mention earlier.