imdfantom t1_j4lgrq9 wrote
Reply to comment by shockingdevelopment in Democracy is Only a Means to an End (Examining the Inherent Political Authority of Democracy) by contractualist
>You're missing the inherent virtue of democracy: it provides the maximum dispersion of power throughout a population, which matters because in a free society everyone should have an equal voice, virtually by definition.
Direct democracy would provide maximum dispersion, what we have in most countries is representative democracies.
In a nutshell it is the method we have decided to do this:
>How could we decide which cabal of intellectuals is granted tyranny over us?
Not saying that we can do away with representative democracy, we can't (at least not for now if we want a functioning society)
Just that although a useful tool, it is just a popularity contest to see which king will be ruling over us.
shockingdevelopment t1_j4lj6k4 wrote
> it is just a popularity contest to see which king will be ruling over us.
Well yes but the cliche response is evergreen: any other system for nominating leaders is worse.
imdfantom t1_j4lk79c wrote
I did say that we can't do without it in the previous sentence.
JoKing311 t1_j4rmmji wrote
>Direct democracy would provide maximum dispersion, what we have in most countries is representative democracies.
Isn't the reason for representative democracy to maximize dispersion while also allowing minorities a voice? Like in the 2 wolves v 1 sheep case mentioned in the article, allowing the sheep a voice that actually matters, even though they're in the minority, can keep the majority from having complete power.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments