A question if I may:

Are you suggesting that YOU get to decide who the "stuid and gullible" are?

If not...how will that be decided? — Frank Apisa

On whether or not they can spell the word "stupid".

S
10.1k

A question if I may:

Are you suggesting that YOU get to decide who the "stuid and gullible" are?

If not...how will that be decided? — Frank Apisa


On whether or not they can spell the word "stupid". — S

Oh, fuck. And you gotta be the one to spot it.

I (everyone) should check each post before actually posting it.

My bad.

I suppose you're quite right when you point out the flaws of democracy, however, in theory, a dictatorship/aristocracy etc. (assuming a, by any measure, "perfectly suitable" person/group of persons in charge) works out just fine as well, whereas in practice its flaws begin to surface; the magnitude of which, especially considering (recent) history, surely exceeds the flaws of democracy you are lamenting.
I'm not saying don't criticise unless you can offer something better (though that's always desirable) but in this debate it is useful to question the alternative.
Furthermore, your argument (which (subliminally) isn't inherently undemocratic; I suppose you still believe in contest of ideas etc.) erodes the legitimacy of democracy which, for instance, would be legitimized by the social contract in which citizens confer power to a group of leaders that in return provides security and rule of law etc. (e.g. Hobbes or Locke) or the natural right to property etc. which legitimizes legislative power. So if you're unwilling to give citizens their say you are inevitably endorsing tyranny etc.

Well, I agree it would be nice, but the problems of the two party system is that it redefines itself until it doesn't fairly represent the people, as I said was indicated by Aristotle as an inescapable flaw with government based on a voting majority.

With regard to votes, [Aristotle's] debate centers on the benefit of oligarchy versus equality for all, the latter of which is of course, appears controlled by the poor, because there are always more of them. And I will try to summarize it because it is quite long. If you have say 2 rich and 4 poor voting equally, one of the poor quickly realizes they can be more powerful by voting with the rich. If there 2 rich and 6 poor, the poor realize they can split in two and each group can partner either with the rich group or the other poor group to win. And the latter example can collapse into the first, because there 1 person realizes, again, he can switch groups to make a 4:4 split. So what naturally evolves is a system where the rich and poor have equal power decided by a tiny swing group, or even a single person.

then it would not be rule by the people, it would be rule by some of the people. which pretty much describes every form of government other than democracy. words have meaning.