EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4018
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
KwarK
United States41958 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22673 Posts
On July 19 2023 07:50 Sermokala wrote: Revolutionary socialism is democratic. You may want to look into it more?And again we have calls to abandon democracy, the only tool available to solve problems. You cannot realistically expect to derail a system that has been going on for more than 250 years by complaining things arn't happening fast enough for your liking. It's not about my "liking" (though yesterday isn't soon enough for the US to stop having slaves "to my liking"), it's about the overwhelming scientific consensus that says things aren't happening fast enough to even just reasonably mitigate an impending global ecological catastrophe. I'm also under no illusion that complaining about it is a fix (that's Democrats'/their supporters' strategy as was covered with tracking who the police kill) | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11313 Posts
On July 19 2023 08:22 KwarK wrote: There are non revolutionary options. Tossing a grenade into the Supreme Court chambers in a video game would allow Biden to nominate his own court and undo the impact of the seats stolen by McConnell without destroying the entire system. Which kind of shows just how stupid and absurd that system is. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15392 Posts
On July 19 2023 07:50 Sermokala wrote: And again we have calls to abandon democracy, the only tool available to solve problems. Revolutionary socialism only provides a framework to help republicans win elections and make things worse in america and the world. At some point you need to embrace reality and recognize that the only way to avoid things getting worse is by participating in the system. You cannot realistically expect to derail a system that has been going on for more than 250 years by complaining things arn't happening fast enough for your liking. Have you ever thought that centrist dems never do anything the left wants beacuse they can't expect leftist dems to actualy go out and vote to support them? Surrendering your power to get anything done for the sake of your ideals helps no one. The real useful idiots in american politics are the far left. Democracy is not intrinsically good. Democracy is riddled with issues we are all deeply aware of. Citing something as not being democratic does not indicate it is a bad thing. It just means it isn’t democratic. I also don’t think GH is using revolution in the sense he is being interpreted as. I think he is using is to describe complete and total rejection of what is being pushed. There are an enormous number of people who would PREFER straight up government funded “insurance” where it is simply shaved off of billionaires. Many people would prefer many such things, but they have been conditioned to keep their heads down and just accept what they are being told is all they get. Many of the centrist dems you are describing would not hesitate to wave a magic wand and poof we have socialized medicine funded by billionaires and mega corps. It’s just that they have this bizarre idea in their heads that corruption and stuff and profits and stuff means you can’t have it. And so you should just roll over and take the abuse. This is the critical moment that needs re-wiring. The moment where people say “that’s how it is”. No, this isn’t some god-chosen, fixed parameter. This entire society we have is just a series of coincidences and mistakes and good ideas and bad ideas and weird ideas, and many other things. It could have gone 99999999 other ways. It could have been much worse or much better. We have no reason to treat our current reality in some special way. It isn’t special. It’s just what we’ve got right now. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13735 Posts
On July 19 2023 11:44 GreenHorizons wrote: Revolutionary socialism is democratic. You may want to look into it more? It's not about my "liking" (though yesterday isn't soon enough for the US to stop having slaves "to my liking"), it's about the overwhelming scientific consensus that says things aren't happening fast enough to even just reasonably mitigate an impending global ecological catastrophe. I'm also under no illusion that complaining about it is a fix (that's Democrats'/their supporters' strategy as was covered with tracking who the police kill) If you call to abandon electoralism you are calling to abandon democracy seeing how that is how democracy works in the country, maybe you want to look into that more? It does not matter your opinion on if a thing is happening fast enough or slow enough. If you take any second to realize the effect of what you advocate for and what would happen if people followed what you ask you will see that you are the one slowing it down and giving republicans more and more wins to peel back any progress we might find. If people like you voted for, or at least the brand of politics you represent, hillary than we wouldn't have lost abortion rights. We are asking you to fix the house we live in and stop trying to burn it down. Your solutions are to make things worse and they end at that. On July 19 2023 13:40 Mohdoo wrote: Democracy is not intrinsically good. Democracy is riddled with issues we are all deeply aware of. Citing something as not being democratic does not indicate it is a bad thing. It just means it isn’t democratic. I also don’t think GH is using revolution in the sense he is being interpreted as. I think he is using is to describe complete and total rejection of what is being pushed. There are an enormous number of people who would PREFER straight up government funded “insurance” where it is simply shaved off of billionaires. Many people would prefer many such things, but they have been conditioned to keep their heads down and just accept what they are being told is all they get. Many of the centrist dems you are describing would not hesitate to wave a magic wand and poof we have socialized medicine funded by billionaires and mega corps. It’s just that they have this bizarre idea in their heads that corruption and stuff and profits and stuff means you can’t have it. And so you should just roll over and take the abuse. This is the critical moment that needs re-wiring. The moment where people say “that’s how it is”. No, this isn’t some god-chosen, fixed parameter. This entire society we have is just a series of coincidences and mistakes and good ideas and bad ideas and weird ideas, and many other things. It could have gone 99999999 other ways. It could have been much worse or much better. We have no reason to treat our current reality in some special way. It isn’t special. It’s just what we’ve got right now. Citing something as not being democratic makes it a bad thing when you are operating in a democracy. If I start saying soccer is stupid then it won't help the soccer team I'm on win a game. The problem with the scope you're describing ignores the fundamental aspects of democracy you need to understand if you want to get done. When you get GH's everywhere that refuse to support you then you must go to the right to get the support for doing anything. There is no "re-wiring" basic electoral logic, there is no "That's how it is" its a constant gambit to go from generating political capitol to spending it. People like GH love to ruin any sort of political capitol for the change they want and then grumble about things being worse than they could be if they actually wanted anything to get better. It is rather hard to make reality any better if you reject it as a concept from the beginning. We have every reason to treat our current situation as the status quo and to endevor to make it better. At the end of the day we exist in a very tribal system of the people who want to make things better vs the people who want to make things worse, and GH is on the team that wants to make things worse. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22673 Posts
On July 19 2023 14:37 Sermokala wrote: ....At the end of the day we exist in a very tribal system of the people who want to make things better vs the people who want to make things worse, and GH is on the team that wants to make things worse. I think I've clearly demonstrated that it's socialists that have been fiercely and diligently working under threat of imprisonment, torture, assassination, etc from Democrats and Republicans to drag this country kicking and screaming to be better and your argument is in favor of those going to such extreme measures to try and stop them. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17833 Posts
On July 19 2023 14:37 Sermokala wrote: If you call to abandon electoralism you are calling to abandon democracy seeing how that is how democracy works in the country, maybe you want to look into that more? It does not matter your opinion on if a thing is happening fast enough or slow enough. If you take any second to realize the effect of what you advocate for and what would happen if people followed what you ask you will see that you are the one slowing it down and giving republicans more and more wins to peel back any progress we might find. If people like you voted for, or at least the brand of politics you represent, hillary than we wouldn't have lost abortion rights. We are asking you to fix the house we live in and stop trying to burn it down. Your solutions are to make things worse and they end at that. Citing something as not being democratic makes it a bad thing when you are operating in a democracy. If I start saying soccer is stupid then it won't help the soccer team I'm on win a game. The problem with the scope you're describing ignores the fundamental aspects of democracy you need to understand if you want to get done. When you get GH's everywhere that refuse to support you then you must go to the right to get the support for doing anything. There is no "re-wiring" basic electoral logic, there is no "That's how it is" its a constant gambit to go from generating political capitol to spending it. People like GH love to ruin any sort of political capitol for the change they want and then grumble about things being worse than they could be if they actually wanted anything to get better. It is rather hard to make reality any better if you reject it as a concept from the beginning. We have every reason to treat our current situation as the status quo and to endevor to make it better. At the end of the day we exist in a very tribal system of the people who want to make things better vs the people who want to make things worse, and GH is on the team that wants to make things worse. Why is it undemocratic to want to tear down the current democratic system and replace it entirely with a new, different, but also democratic system? I mean, sure, you can look at socialist states in the past and say they weren't democratic, but that is not the type of revolution GH wants, so why argue against that? In fact, from what GH has said he *does* want, it sounds more democratic than the current system. | ||
|
Mikau
Netherlands1446 Posts
On July 19 2023 14:37 Sermokala wrote: If you call to abandon electoralism you are calling to abandon democracy seeing how that is how democracy works in the country, maybe you want to look into that more? It does not matter your opinion on if a thing is happening fast enough or slow enough. If you take any second to realize the effect of what you advocate for and what would happen if people followed what you ask you will see that you are the one slowing it down and giving republicans more and more wins to peel back any progress we might find. If people like you voted for, or at least the brand of politics you represent, hillary than we wouldn't have lost abortion rights. We are asking you to fix the house we live in and stop trying to burn it down. Your solutions are to make things worse and they end at that. Citing something as not being democratic makes it a bad thing when you are operating in a democracy. If I start saying soccer is stupid then it won't help the soccer team I'm on win a game. The problem with the scope you're describing ignores the fundamental aspects of democracy you need to understand if you want to get done. When you get GH's everywhere that refuse to support you then you must go to the right to get the support for doing anything. There is no "re-wiring" basic electoral logic, there is no "That's how it is" its a constant gambit to go from generating political capitol to spending it. People like GH love to ruin any sort of political capitol for the change they want and then grumble about things being worse than they could be if they actually wanted anything to get better. It is rather hard to make reality any better if you reject it as a concept from the beginning. We have every reason to treat our current situation as the status quo and to endevor to make it better. At the end of the day we exist in a very tribal system of the people who want to make things better vs the people who want to make things worse, and GH is on the team that wants to make things worse. And if I start advocating for changes to the offside rule you would be out of line to act like I'm being "anti soccer" because "that's just the way soccer is played". The idea that wanting to change an (arguably failed/unwanted) aspect of US democracy with some better democratic system is somehow anti-democratic is borderline gaslighting. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21340 Posts
On July 19 2023 15:53 Acrofales wrote: I could be entirely wrong here (and please correct me if I am) but the way I read this the argument from Sermokala isn't that the new different system won't be democratic. But that the way to get there, aka by tearing down the current system, would be.Why is it undemocratic to want to tear down the current democratic system and replace it entirely with a new, different, but also democratic system? I mean, sure, you can look at socialist states in the past and say they weren't democratic, but that is not the type of revolution GH wants, so why argue against that? In fact, from what GH has said he *does* want, it sounds more democratic than the current system. If we all agree that Democrats are unlikely to ever get to this new, better, system. (which we can probably agree on would be better if fully implemented) then how do you get there? Through democratic means would require a new party which means fighting the Democrats, which means Republicans win by default for however many years it takes to switch left leaning voters from Democrats to Socialists. which means untold suffering and destruction of civil liberties and rights that would set America back to the 1800's. (and that is assuming there is a democratic system left after the first few Republican administrations, we all see their ever increasing relationship with strait up fascism) So if we want to avoid handing Republicans a Fascist States of America what democratic means of implementing revolutionary socialism are left? We have had this discussion here multiple times before. The problem is never the end result, we can all agree on a hundred things America should do and implement to be a 'better' nation for all. The problem is always how to get there without praying a revolution just happens to work out how you want it despite all the myriad of unknowns and powerful opposing forces. That is where the discussion should take place that I'm not seeing. Not what the end result will be, but how to get from A to B. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10596 Posts
Trying to dismantle Democracy by "revolution/coup" to immediatly put in another Democracy is so... FFS most military dictators had more sound reasoning for their coups. This is just banana republic level thinking. Btw: Wtf are you gonna do when this "new" democracy starts and a guy running against many of the changes wins and proceeds to undo them? Coup again? Wait with the "new" Democracy until you reeducated enough people? | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3709 Posts
So what often goes unmentioned is that democracy without checks and balances would be as tyrannical as a dictatorship. Remind you of something? That's right, Russia. People can argue "but Russia's democracy is fake". A valid point, but realistically irrelevant. It proves that democracy can evidently not prevent tyranny. If democracy can be made into a farce, then it, by itself, doesn't have the power to be enough of a force for good. It would require something more. And that is checks and balances. Separation of powers is one example that can prevent tyranny. And power must be separated also through time, meaning no one can be allowed to hold a seat of power forever. This is why it is such a disaster that the German chancellor can both hypothetically and realistically stay in power for 18 years and beyond. Representation, legality of protesting, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and many other things like that are also essential parts of checks and balances. Is any of that democratic? Not at all. All of the examples of checks and balances concern both majority and minority. So where do democratic countries go wrong? It's simple: when they allow for unilateral and unreasoned decisions affecting the population, without such decisions costing the decision-maker their position. In the case of the US, the cost for the president to installing three favorable judges and thus skewing the SC's balance in a certain direction is small. You might say "but Trump wasn't re-elected. So the checks and balances work! There was a cost for him!" Until you realize the decision to overturn Roe v Wade happened under the next administration, and so Trump's decision will have very long-term effects caused by people who remain unanswerable long after the tyrant is no longer seated. They're not losing their seats. Maybe Trump's decision cost him his seat, but the fight is happening not only against Trump. He, completely unopposed, opened the door to several other tyrants, and suddenly representation goes out the window. Why? Because there's a lack of separation of powers. In a democracy, the president wouldn't have the power to unilaterally reform the SC. And the SC wouldn't have the power to overturn a landmark ruling without substantive reason when the population is so clearly in favor of the status quo. At least if they overturned it, they would not remain unopposed. Where are the checks and balances now? What can be done to undo the SC's actions? The SC did not even provide an explanation for this decision. Completely unanswereable in a democratic country. Absurd. Did democracy allow for this outcome? Yes, Trump was elected democratically. Is it part of a functioning society? Certainly not. So the debate shouldn't be about democracy this or democracy that. That's a red herring. A functioning society worries about much greater things than the basic voting method. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10180 Posts
| ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3709 Posts
On July 19 2023 18:14 BlackJack wrote: By overturning Roe v Wade the Supreme Court returned the issue to the state legislatures. Now in California where the majority supports abortion they can allow abortions and in say Arkansas where the majority opposes abortion they can ban it. Regardless of how you feel about abortions and the right to access them, the argument that Dobbs is an affront to Democracy because it rejects the will of the majority makes little sense. And that adds to my point. Unchecked democracy is not good, it's tyranny. Edit (to elaborate): My point wasn't that overturning Roe v Wode is undemocratic. My point is that it shouldn't be a democratic decision to begin with. I only explained why neither making a democratic decision nor an undemocratic decision is good. It's both bad. The decision should have nothing to do with democracy, it should be a decision that is good for society. What is "good" is a matter of debate. The SC has ended the debate, not restarted it, by overruling Roe v Wade. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10180 Posts
On July 19 2023 18:33 Magic Powers wrote: And that adds to my point. Unchecked democracy is not good, it's tyranny. Edit (to elaborate): My point wasn't that overturning Roe v Wode is undemocratic. My point is that it shouldn't be a democratic decision to begin with. I only explained why neither making a democratic decision nor an undemocratic decision is good. It's both bad. The decision should have nothing to do with democracy, it should be a decision that is good for society. What is "good" is a matter of debate. The SC has ended the debate, not restarted it, by overruling Roe v Wade. There was little "debate" prior to Dobbs. If the people of the state of Arkansas opposed abortion and wanted to ban it in the first trimester of pregnancy in their state they had absolutely no recourse to do so because 7 judges in 1972 who are all dead now said so. Post-Dobbs if the people now living in Arkansas where abortion has been banned want access to abortion they can elect representatives to change their laws, they can elect representatives to amend their state constitution to enshrine abortion rights, or they can have a state referendum to allow abortion access. It's quite clear between these two decisions which one has more room for checks and balances and the will of the people. If however your point was that in your opinion abortion access is a fundamental right and any laws prohibiting access to abortion should be banned outright by decree then that's fine. It's an opinion I share, actually. I'm just not disillusioned into thinking this is the opinion with the checks and balances. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3709 Posts
On July 19 2023 19:03 BlackJack wrote: There was little "debate" prior to Dobbs. If the people of the state of Arkansas opposed abortion and wanted to ban it in the first trimester of pregnancy in their state they had absolutely no recourse to do so because 7 judges in 1972 who are all dead now said so. Post-Dobbs if the people now living in Arkansas where abortion has been banned want access to abortion they can elect representatives to change their laws, they can elect representatives to amend their state constitution to enshrine abortion rights, or they can have a state referendum to allow abortion access. It's quite clear between these two decisions which one has more room for checks and balances and the will of the people. If however your point was that in your opinion abortion access is a fundamental right and any laws prohibiting access to abortion should be banned outright by decree then that's fine. It's an opinion I share, actually. I'm just not disillusioned into thinking this is the opinion with the checks and balances. I don't care if the people as a whole more generally oppose or support abortion. That to me is entirely irrelevant. I generally don't care about what the majority of people thinks. I'm not sure whether or not I've made this clear enough. I don't care about the majority any more than I care about the minority. I care about what's best for the people who are affected. They matter, no one else matters. The debate shouldn't take place between those who are unaffected. The ones involved should speak, the rest can listen. The SC justices are certainly not among the ones affected by abortion rights, and yet the SC unilaterally decided to overturn Roe v Wade without substantive reason. They did it because they could and for no other reason. That is unanswerable authority and should therefore not be accepted. A reasonable path forward would've been to formulate a number of alternatives to the existing abortion rights. Each of the points could've been debated and looked into for what's best for those involved. Instead what we got is a worse sitiation than what we had before. No one was asked and no better alternative was proposed. We went back to a worse situation and there's no recourse. The SC decision is final. This now allows states to act against the interest of a meaningful portion of the population, not because this is the right thing to do, but because they can. It's tyranny. | ||
|
SEB2610
59 Posts
On July 19 2023 00:01 JimmiC wrote: The lefts messaging sucks and it is super elitist at this point. This thread is a perfect example (while an extreme example) of what is wrong. They need to go with something simple like, we want our country to be like Denmark and then show everything they have that Americans do not and that they do it with less money than Americans spend. Whenever Denmark is brought up in context of American political discourse (whether by Fox News or Bernie Sanders), I always wonder how well the actual realities of Denmark is known. For instance, here Denmark is held up as an example of what the American left wants to USA to look like; What part? The part where abortion is illegal after 12th week of pregnancy (rarely granted exemption can be granted by board of doctors if medical implications occur) — a harsher cut-off than blue states? The part where there is no minimum wage? The part where Danish border integrity is actually maintained? The part where Denmark is a culturally and ethnically homogeneous high-trust society? The part where Denmark holds the current record for longest on average European pre-trial detentions? | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3709 Posts
On July 19 2023 21:29 SEB2610 wrote: Whenever Denmark is brought up in context of American political discourse (whether by Fox News or Bernie Sanders), I always wonder how well the actual realities of Denmark is known. For instance, here Denmark is held up as an example of what the American left wants to USA to look like; What part? The part where abortion is illegal after 12th week of pregnancy (rarely granted exemption can be granted by board of doctors if medical implications occur) — a harsher cut-off than blue states? The part where there is no minimum wage? The part where Danish border integrity is actually maintained? The part where Denmark is a culturally and ethnically homogeneous high-trust society? The part where Denmark holds the current record for longest on average European pre-trial detentions? You bring up a valid point. Abortion rights in European countries have always been abysmal, with very few exceptions like Sweden or Netherland. But I think that's a topic for another existing thread. What happens (or doesn't happen) in Europe shouldn't distract from events in the US. To address it briefly though: Europe's abortion laws are generally backwards and not making meaningful progress. Here's more information: https://reproductiverights.org/european-abortion-law-comparative-overview-0 What's important to understand is that, psychologically and culturally, it pains people even more if they lose a right they previously had than if they never had that right to begin with. This is why the US ruling appears to be more relevant than the backwards laws in Europe. The other reason why the US ruling is such a problem is that it symbolizes the general global direction. The people who deserve rights are not getting them, and instead their rights are being removed from them. If this can happen in the US, what can we expect from other countries? Is this going to become a trend? Can we never hope for broad change? That's why I think it's so important to highlight the SCOTUS decision. Not because "US bad, world good". If that was it, we could at least hope that the world will be left intact. But no, even American citizens now have to be afraid that they can't keep their rights. It shows that the conservative front is too powerful globally, including what used to be the most free country in the world. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28553 Posts
Tbb, i think in political science circles, the notion that a good despot produces better results than most democracies is a fairly commonly held belief, with the main two challenges being that most people who seek that type of power not being suitable to wield it/that even if they initially were, they become corrupted by it, as well as the whole succession issue. The latter is a big problem because if you get a bad dictator, this ends up being far more damaging than a bad democratically elected government, which will normally a) have some limits in place for what can be done and b) have limits in place for how long it can govern. So, in line with the 'democracy isnt a good system of governance but it is the best one we've tried' or whatever the quote is, democracy doesnt necessarily produce the best results - but it generally produces the least bad ones. Imo, the way to make democracies produce better results is less about the nuts and bolts of the system, and more about having an enlightened population, but sadly, even that question (what constitutes an enlightened population) is kinda political in nature.. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3709 Posts
On July 19 2023 22:46 Liquid`Drone wrote: MP, pretty much everybody agrees that 'do what is best for people' is the ideal way to govern, the question is how you are most likely to get there. So far the world has tried various systems of democracy and various systems of despotism and while there are definitely examples of enlightened dictators/kings producing overall betterment for the people, most would agree the democratic countries have overall been more successful by that metric. Are you arguing for more of a technocracy or for some type of selective democracy where we somehow determine who will be affected by a certain policy and then ceding decision power to those people? Tbb, i think in political science circles, the notion that a good despot produces better results than most democracies is a fairly commonly held belief, with the main two challenges being that most people who seek that type of power not being suitable to wield it/that even if they initially were, they become corrupted by it, as well as the whole succession issue. The latter is a big problem because if you get a bad dictator, this ends up being far more damaging than a bad democratically elected government, which will normally a) have some limits in place for what can be done and b) have limits in pmace for how long it dan govern. So, in line with the 'democracy isnt a good system of governance but it is the best one we've tried' or whatever the quote is, democracy doesnt necessarily produce the best results - but it generally produces the least bad ones. Imo, the way to make democracies produce better results is less about the nuts and bolts of the system, and more about having an enlightened population, but sadly, even that question (what constitutes an enlightened population) is kinda political in nature.. I've explained it previously as democracy (in contrast to a dictatorship) opening the door to checks and balances, but not representing checks and balances itself. Democracy is a vehicle that can be used for many different purposes, for liberty or for oppression. In other words: just because B becomes possible through A doesn't mean B necessarily follows from A. That is A being democracy and B being checks and balances. It's the latter (checks and balances) and not the former (democracy) that protects people from tyranny. Of course, in a dictatorship, checks and balances are not even possible. That's really the only reason why democracy is preferable. Preferable to tyranny. That's not a very high bar. Russia, China, and many other countries are examples of countries that are democratic for all intents and purposes, but have failed to incorporate sufficient checks and balances. Consequentially they're tyrannical in many ways. Meanwhile the US and Europe have accomplished something by balancing out the powers. This shows us is that there's nothing about democracy that makes it inherently non-tyrannical. But at least it's a foundation - unlike dictatorships or other concentrated forms of power - on which it becomes possible to stamp out tyranny. Whether or not this actually happens depends on what the people in power do with their power. Yes indeed, ironically it's the people with power who must hold each other at gunpoint to prevent each other from overstepping. But how? First this dynamic of a power balance must be created, and that is something that tyrants try to prevent at all cost. This is why countries exist that are democratic without being mostly free from tyranny. There the tyrants gaslight the population into believing that democracy is only another form of tyranny. That is of course not the case. The argument lacks nuance: democracy can allow for tyranny, but doesn't have to. The possibility for freedom exists. Dictatorships can only be tyrannical. In cases where the separation of power finally is instated, tyrants will keep trying to end it and return to absolute power. The battle for and against absolute control therefore continues forever. A democratic country is not inherently safe from tyranny, its people have to kick the despots out over and over again, and there is no end to this battle. Why is it so important to understand that democracy doesn't in and of itself produce good policies? There are a number of reasons. 1) The majority is NOT - contrary to some people's beliefs - more likely to be right. 2) Those who are in the minority are without power. Their only hope is that the majority sides with them. 3) One majority can overrule another majority. 4) The majority is often arbitrary. Which leads to point 5) 5) Often the majority is not a true majority (e.g. gerrymandering, to name only one of the more prolific examples). 6) Culturally the idea will be instilled that democratic decisions are good (due to the conflation of democracy with freedom or general goodness). This makes "democracy" a knockout argument that makes fruitful and nuanced discussions difficult. There are probably a lot more issues with democratic outcomes, I'm only naming the ones I can readily come up with. | ||
| ||
