[6 / 2 / ?]
Quoted By: >>11286193 >>11286255 >>11286256
What do you think about democracy?
I am a libertarian and I believe in freedom and not coercing others, theoretically, as Milton Friedman said, you should persuade others, and reach unanimity, of course unanimity is impossible so you need an expedient, that can be various methods of determining winners, majority rule being the simplest, then you have various types of vote like direct democracy or representative democracy.
While I agree with non coercion principles, i find democracy a very inefficient and ill way of government, because it favours not brilliant ideas and bright people, but the ones who are better at directing the sheeps, giving power to snakes for the most part and not to decent men and women, whose ideas may be brilliant but not be understood by the simple man.
Democracy also divides the population, every time a decision is taken through democracy the population gets divided between the satisfied and unsatisfied.
The decency of a democratic state government depends heavily on the cultural level of its average citizen.
Democracy at least provides all groups with a venting valve, at the election they can at least try, and not feel oppressed by not being able to choose their leader.
In a non democratic centralized government the opposition will probably turn violent because it will feel oppressed, and will have to be repressed, even in a non oppressive dictatorship, imagine a dictator that just makes sure that liberty and free markets aren't damaged by other political ideas, it wouldn't be an oppressive state like other dictatorships were, but non aligned people would still violently protest since they are being coerced into this type of state.
You may have a government made solely of councils composed by remarkable people in their field, economics, law, army, police, environment etc, and let them decide, but still there would be disagreements and it would have some of the problems the representative democracy has.
I am a libertarian and I believe in freedom and not coercing others, theoretically, as Milton Friedman said, you should persuade others, and reach unanimity, of course unanimity is impossible so you need an expedient, that can be various methods of determining winners, majority rule being the simplest, then you have various types of vote like direct democracy or representative democracy.
While I agree with non coercion principles, i find democracy a very inefficient and ill way of government, because it favours not brilliant ideas and bright people, but the ones who are better at directing the sheeps, giving power to snakes for the most part and not to decent men and women, whose ideas may be brilliant but not be understood by the simple man.
Democracy also divides the population, every time a decision is taken through democracy the population gets divided between the satisfied and unsatisfied.
The decency of a democratic state government depends heavily on the cultural level of its average citizen.
Democracy at least provides all groups with a venting valve, at the election they can at least try, and not feel oppressed by not being able to choose their leader.
In a non democratic centralized government the opposition will probably turn violent because it will feel oppressed, and will have to be repressed, even in a non oppressive dictatorship, imagine a dictator that just makes sure that liberty and free markets aren't damaged by other political ideas, it wouldn't be an oppressive state like other dictatorships were, but non aligned people would still violently protest since they are being coerced into this type of state.
You may have a government made solely of councils composed by remarkable people in their field, economics, law, army, police, environment etc, and let them decide, but still there would be disagreements and it would have some of the problems the representative democracy has.
