Screenshot of post from lemmygrad
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 1 year ago (8 children)

I think it's much too susceptible to populist authoritarians. One of the nice benefits of representative democracies is that representatives don't want to give too much power to the head of government, because that removes their power and let's the next party have more power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    Ok so no, we have no idea how a direct democracy would work becauase we've never tried giving that much influence to individuals.

    Take a moment and realize that "tyrrany of the majority" is literal propaganda to make stupid people throw away their freedoms and embrace a tyrannical minority.

    You shouldn't repeat Capitalist propaganda, it has no substance

    Human beings are perfectly capable of being their own masters.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    It was a thing in ancient Athens, and they tended to elect populist leaders who had a lot of power. Populism has given us people like Hitler and Trump, so I really don't think that'd a road we want to go down, because a sufficiently popular tyrant can just dismiss democracy.

    My ideal is a small, representative government with strict constitutional limitations on power so people can just go about their lives and be their own masters, as you put it. Oh, and with a certain amount of wealth redistribution baked in to care for the poor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    What do you mean leader?

    Direct democracies don't have representatives

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    A direct democracy can certainly have an executive, they just don't have a legislature, because they are the legislature.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    When you have to keep making up different situations than I described in order to discredit what I described it feels forced and petty.

    The tyranny of the majority will always be objectively better for everyone than a tyrrany of the minority.

    If you think people need to elect rulers that will eventually stab them in the back for personal gain that says something about you, not human society.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    People will elect rulers, that's how people work. That you can't show a single example of a leaderless, stable country is really strong evidence of that. The closest was probably Athens, and they elected a strong leader.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments