• sugar_in_your_tea
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      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.

      • sugar_in_your_tea
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

          • sugar_in_your_tea
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

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

            • SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              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.

              • sugar_in_your_tea
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                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.

                • SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  23 hours ago

                  Ok so you can’t even fathom not having a master.

                  You don’t care about reading what i type.

                  I’m disengaging now.

                  • sugar_in_your_tea
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    15 hours ago

                    I certainly can, but I’m not talking about me, I’m talking about people generally, and I don’t think the quiet majority can handle not having a master.