Sidechat icon
Join communities on Sidechat Download

landtrust

What are the pros and cons of democracy?
upvote 5 downvote

default user profile icon
Anonymous 1w

Pros- relatively speaking help limit the formation of authoritarian power structures and keeping the people happy remains a priority of the government Cons- the people are fucking idiots and are easy to manipulate. Also what is popular may not be the best decision

upvote 7 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 1w

We have access to comforts, but we are punished for wanting to be comfortable.

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 1w

Con: Majoritarian rule might allow policies, laws, etc rooted in racist, supremacy, homophobia, and so on. E.g., recent anti-sodomy law in Iraq, Nation-State bill in Israel, and so on

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 1w

Bros going back to basics

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #2 1w

If a truly benevolent dictatorship could exist that would be the best form of government. But that is purely theoretical and doesn’t exist in reality.

upvote 10 downvote
🎏
Anonymous replying to -> #2 1w

Could we have aspects of both?

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> landtrust 1w

I mean I suppose the “dictatorship of the proletariat” is theoretically a high degree of state power with some democratic elements but as we have seen historically speaking it devolves into just run of the mill authoritarianism pretty easily

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #2 1w

A powerful executive in a presidential system could also be seen as a mix of those two ideas but that we have also seen can go downhill very fast. The problem is that people who aren’t truly benevolent will attempt to get into power, and if you give the state too much power they will misuse it. And even if we had a theoretically benevolent dictator, they can’t know everything and would be manipulated by those around them.

upvote 1 downvote
🎏
Anonymous replying to -> #2 1w

Im talking about something new

upvote 1 downvote
🎏
Anonymous replying to -> #3 1w

So in both ways, minority groups are harmed. So then what?

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> landtrust 1w

The balancing act is that democracy limits the power of the government to keep it from being abused, but that limits the government from taking actions which may be necessary but unpopular. But when you give more power to the government with less of a democratic safeguard, that then enables abuses because people are flawed.

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #2 1w

We have seen that happen with our own Supreme Court, for example. It was made with the intent that the people aren’t informed enough to choose good justices. But that has caused there to be corrupt unaccountable justices. An example of where this can be good would be with like NOAA or the FWS where people are SUPPOSED to be employed there because they are experts and make the decisions necessary with their expertise. But that’s all gotten fucked lately with DOGE cuts and bad appointments.

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> landtrust 1w

Checks and balance, guaranteeing rights to people regardless of sexual orientation/race/etc. Though that doesn’t guarantee anything, and I don’t know what solution there is

upvote 1 downvote