It was a thing in ancient Athens, and they tended to elect populist leaders who had a lot of power. Populism has given us people like Hitler and Trump, so I really don’t think that’d a road we want to go down, because a sufficiently popular tyrant can just dismiss democracy.
My ideal is a small, representative government with strict constitutional limitations on power so people can just go about their lives and be their own masters, as you put it. Oh, and with a certain amount of wealth redistribution baked in to care for the poor.
When you have to keep making up different situations than I described in order to discredit what I described it feels forced and petty.
The tyranny of the majority will always be objectively better for everyone than a tyrrany of the minority.
If you think people need to elect rulers that will eventually stab them in the back for personal gain that says something about you, not human society.
People will elect rulers, that’s how people work. That you can’t show a single example of a leaderless, stable country is really strong evidence of that. The closest was probably Athens, and they elected a strong leader.
I certainly can, but I’m not talking about me, I’m talking about people generally, and I don’t think the quiet majority can handle not having a master.
It was a thing in ancient Athens, and they tended to elect populist leaders who had a lot of power. Populism has given us people like Hitler and Trump, so I really don’t think that’d a road we want to go down, because a sufficiently popular tyrant can just dismiss democracy.
My ideal is a small, representative government with strict constitutional limitations on power so people can just go about their lives and be their own masters, as you put it. Oh, and with a certain amount of wealth redistribution baked in to care for the poor.
What do you mean leader?
Direct democracies don’t have representatives
A direct democracy can certainly have an executive, they just don’t have a legislature, because they are the legislature.
When you have to keep making up different situations than I described in order to discredit what I described it feels forced and petty.
The tyranny of the majority will always be objectively better for everyone than a tyrrany of the minority.
If you think people need to elect rulers that will eventually stab them in the back for personal gain that says something about you, not human society.
People will elect rulers, that’s how people work. That you can’t show a single example of a leaderless, stable country is really strong evidence of that. The closest was probably Athens, and they elected a strong leader.
Ok so you can’t even fathom not having a master.
You don’t care about reading what i type.
I’m disengaging now.
I certainly can, but I’m not talking about me, I’m talking about people generally, and I don’t think the quiet majority can handle not having a master.