Thread has been deleted
Last comment
Democracy
 | 
France TheArchitect 
Do you support real democracy ? I'm not talking about representative democracy which used to be called aristocracy back in the days (where a few chosen elites govern the masses), I'm talking about complete democracy. With total freedom of speech, high level participatory process directly involving the population in the projects, local scale of intervention and governance so everybody feels physically close to the decision making institutions/processes, ... stuff like that.
2019-01-21 12:29
No😛
2019-01-21 12:31
#3
 | 
France TheArchitect 
Do you support tyrany/elitism/aristocracy ? (when a single or a few people chose what is right or wrong for the others). Or any other form of governance ? And why ?
2019-01-21 12:32
I support Astralis😎
2019-01-21 12:33
#19
 | 
Cyprus Swishh_ 
XD
2019-01-21 12:41
#86
 | 
Brazil leo1mibr 
Yes.. I'm too busy working Let them choose for me
2019-01-21 13:32
#88
 | 
France TheArchitect 
So you would you agree with lowering the working time (like in the Netherlands, or other EU countries : 32h/week or 35h/week or 40 for the hard grinders) ? Working less could allow you to pay more attention to society and your environment and maybe involve yourself in the political process.
2019-01-21 13:36
#92
 | 
Brazil leo1mibr 
Sure, that would be fine. but it would not make sense to elect representatives if society will decide
2019-01-21 13:38
#2
ScreaM | 
Brazil HLTVolt 
No, I want the military to take over Brazil, Bolsonaro is doing a good job but still, I want everyone to be investigated and put in jail
2019-01-21 12:32
#4
 | 
France TheArchitect 
May I ask you to develop further ? I'd like to know why you would like a military dictatorship.
2019-01-21 12:33
#15
ScreaM | 
Brazil HLTVolt 
Because the military is a patriotic entity, and would care for the country, democracy isn't a good option for low IQ countries like mine, why would you give power to dumb people? They elected a communist in 2002 because he was a good talker and promised free stuff for poor people. We had a good military dictatorship in the past, and it worked better than any democratic election in my country
2019-01-21 12:37
Never thought I'd somewhat agree with this after your first comment but it totally makes sense. The U.S. is very similar, relying on a relatively low-IQ country of citizens to make the most important decisions is dangerous to say the least.
2019-01-21 13:13
This
2019-01-21 14:02
No. Democracy is the dictatorship of the majority upon the minority. A Democrat state is not necessarily free or fair, it can be as bad as any totalitarian regime.
2019-01-21 12:34
#8
 | 
France TheArchitect 
We're not talking about what is bad/wrong or good/right. Do you think complete democracy is an efficient way to organize society ?
2019-01-21 12:35
My point is that in ur post you associate freedom to democracy, which is bullshit.
2019-01-21 12:38
#18
 | 
France TheArchitect 
You can't have a complete democratic system without freedom. How can you expect the people to organize themselves and to get involved in the political system if they're not free to develop their ideas and arguments ?
2019-01-21 12:40
Retarded internet
2019-01-21 12:50
Yes, you can. Democracy says that the "will of the people will be heard". The thing is: if 50.1% wants something and the 49.9% rest don't, the "minority" will be forced to put up with what the "majority wants and that's not fair or free at all.
2019-01-21 12:46
#31
 | 
France TheArchitect 
i understand what you say, but it's then not a matter of democracy VS freedom but individualism VS collectivism. In your example then the 49.9% might chose between accepting the collective decision or living "out of the group" as individuals out of the society.
2019-01-21 12:50
But the thing is: Democracy is inherently a collectivist idea. It's the less worse we have, but it can't be worshipped at all, because it's failed and immoral like all other systems. The goal people should have is to keep the government as small as possible, cause that means more individual liberties will be respected, regardless of the political system.
2019-01-21 12:56
#39
 | 
France TheArchitect 
And what if you elect a strong leader who turns into a full dictator, concentrating all the powers (justice, legislative, executive) and deciding what is right or wrong for the people and deciding to restrict freedom as much as he can ? (Many examples through history)
2019-01-21 12:55
He won't have the power to do that if the government is small. Just look at Germany and Italy. Their states were only allowed to become nazis/fascists after the unification, because it meant more power to the government, which is automatically less power to the people.
2019-01-21 13:00
#43
 | 
South Africa kHYRR73 
yet freedom can be achieved without democracy
2019-01-21 12:58
I dont think true freedom can be archived as long as there is a state.
2019-01-21 13:02
#49
 | 
South Africa kHYRR73 
South Korea or Singapore for example
2019-01-21 13:01
What's ur point?
2019-01-21 13:02
#53
 | 
South Africa kHYRR73 
#43
2019-01-21 13:03
I know, but I dont get the SK and Singapore examples
2019-01-21 13:10
#73
 | 
South Africa kHYRR73 
They were dictatorships that established "free and prosperous" countries
2019-01-21 13:20
Not thanks to democracy.
2019-01-21 13:21
#80
 | 
South Africa kHYRR73 
Can you read, mate?
2019-01-21 13:28
#54
 | 
France TheArchitect 
In your opinion, state, which is the reflection of the collective decision, is undermining your freedom. So you would prefer a world with no law, no restriction, no official organisation ?
2019-01-21 13:04
No. I believe the state is necessary to maintain order in some areas, such as the law system, public infrastructure and public security, but nothing more than that. The state is a bad thing that is necessary in some areas, because we assume that it would be much worse without it. The problem is that most people don't realize it and want the state to grow further than that, which results in their freedoms being taken away.
2019-01-21 13:09
#65
 | 
France TheArchitect 
In your message you say that the State should still be in charge of security and law system, but that's exactly the two tools used by any system to undermine freedom and impose restrictions. Can you maybe try to explain your point of view in other words or with an example because I have a hard time understanding what kind of system you would like actually.
2019-01-21 13:11
I would like a system with a small government, responsible for the only areas I mentioned, and as decentralized as possible. I also don't think the legislative power should exist.
2019-01-21 13:18
#28
ScreaM | 
Brazil HLTVolt 
"My point is that in ur post you associate freedom to democracy, which is bullshit" I like your point mate
2019-01-21 12:47
#11
 | 
Finland ToxicDUD 
I mean u cant have everyone happy but rather the 80% than 20% right?
2019-01-21 12:37
That's not the point, and no. You can't have that with democracy, actually. You can have it as long as people don't allow the state to take away their freedoms, regardless of the political system.
2019-01-21 12:40
#22
 | 
France TheArchitect 
In a democratic system the state is supposed to be "the people" together. I can't develop it too much on HLTV as it might take a loooot of time for nothing but you should look on the concept of "Res Publica" which means "public stuff". Public in this sense means related to the collective decision.
2019-01-21 12:43
The state will never be the people. If it were it wouldn't need coercion to exist. The state is a criminal gang, whose purpose is to have the monopoly of crimes.
2019-01-21 12:49
#33
 | 
France TheArchitect 
You that the state is 100% financed by the people ? Actually you're owning it. It might do bad stuff to your insterests or your group of people, or whatever community you're in, but it actually gets it's legitimacy from the people. Maybe the people are too asleep and need to change how the state work but in any case, the state is 100% dependant on the people.
2019-01-21 12:52
#7
 | 
United States flybywire12 
Yes.
2019-01-21 12:34
#9
 | 
France TheArchitect 
May I ask you to develop further arguments ? I'd like to know your personnal opinion on it and maybe you can give me a few hints and your point of view on political system and governance.
2019-01-21 12:36
#108
 | 
United States flybywire12 
To me a democracy in the simplest terms would be everyone taking part in the decisions of their government, everyone has a voice .People here disagree because we have not seen a direct democracy since ancient athens, and even then democracy was flawed due to them not allowing women and slaves to take part. Here in US we have a flawed democracy, or representative democracy, because elected officials and not the people make decisions. I believe in a democracy where all of eligible age could participate. In the future we will for the first time ever, have direct democracy. How you say? Technology is the answer. Imaging living in a country where you can vote from your phone to pass a bill. An issue like Trumps wall today will not be resulted in a government shutdown, where flawed democracy and flawed Republicans would fight to pass funding. We the people would vote to pass the funding. We need to get to an age where we have digital trust, and trust in people, as well as elected officials.
2019-01-21 16:57
I prefer dictatorship above democracy
2019-01-21 12:36
#13
 | 
France TheArchitect 
May I ask you to develop further ? I'd like to know why you would prefer dictatorship. Also what kind of dictatorship do you fancy ?
2019-01-21 12:37
#45
 | 
South Africa kHYRR73 
he is Italian so the answer should be - Il Duce
2019-01-21 12:59
No.
2019-01-21 12:37
#14
 | 
France TheArchitect 
May I ask you to develop further ? What kind of political system do you fancy ?
2019-01-21 12:37
Without haven given it too much thought or pondered over better alternatives, I would currently say that I prefer authoritarianism. I believe that democracy is flawed in the sense that too many people have unfounded opinions, and the rotation of political leaders results in wrongful incentives for 'politicians'.
2019-01-21 12:43
#29
 | 
France TheArchitect 
Alright, thanks for sharing your point of view. Don't you think with a proper education level, real respectful debates including anyone who wants to, good information (and free information), etc ... it's not possible to have the majority of people taking a reasonable decision ?
2019-01-21 12:48
I think that with rising education levels people become aware that they do not have the knowledge to make factually based decisions are refrain from voting. This would create an issue, as the people who think they need to have a say in everything and think they know everything will become the majority in polls, leading to unfounded decision making. I think where democracy does work is when it comes to personal opinion questions, where there is no good or bad answer. But distinguishing these decisions from ones that should be made on a factual is probably pretty challenging and are probably significantly fewer that their counterpart. Should democracy truly be superior, why isn't their calls for companies to be democratic. You could argue that smart people know how to manipulate the masses and thus will be in power in representative democracy, but that must be considered an inefficient political system.
2019-01-21 12:57
As democracy is a source of power rather than a power ideology, my preference equivalent to democracy would be something along the lines of a meritocracy or technocracy.
2019-01-21 13:15
#75
 | 
France TheArchitect 
In my OP I'm saying that the well known and most used system in the world nowadays, representative democracy, isn't really democratic actually. It's an aristocracy, when a small elite is chosen to decide for the others. It's quite close to technocracy. Also about meritocracy you should read the books and works from the famous sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (There might be plenty of good translations of his work), who showed that meritocracy can't actually exist has all of us have different background and different environment. In the end he shows that those born from rich or powerful families will remain rich and powerful and those born in poor and rejected families will remain poor and rejected ("Primary socialization and social reproduction"). Also no matter what you do and how good you do, if you have a certain background you'll still have 90% of the people/institution judging you by this background. Many experiments with children with the same grades at school showed that, again with the same grades, those coming from upper class families were offered more chances and second chances than the sons and daughters of lower class families, even if they had the same teacher, the same grades etc ....
2019-01-21 13:22
"In the end he shows that those born from rich or powerful families will remain rich and powerful and those born in poor and rejected families will remain poor and rejected ("Primary socialization and social reproduction")." Why is that an issue? People who do more for society should be richer. If that is, on average, the rich, then so be it. The U.S. may be close to a technocracy in the regard that the president, as far as I know, appoints his cabinet. But still, the legislative branch and the rotation of the executive members is where the flaws I mentioned above come into effect, as well as the appointment of the president. And regarding your point about real democracy, it is because of the legislative that the power still remains with the many in a representative democracy and is thus still considered a democracy. And the appointment of the president in the U.S. is done by the voting population, and hence it can't be considered an aristocracy.
2019-01-21 13:42
#20
 | 
Cyprus Swishh_ 
May I ask you to develop further ? What kind of political system do you fancy ?
2019-01-21 12:42
No Democracy means the power of the society is higherthan the govt. Most of the people in fact doesnt really know whats going on with govt plant and how it works. Democracy only works in developed countries where everyone at least understand whats going on
2019-01-21 12:42
#24
 | 
France TheArchitect 
Ok ok so you prefer to trust a small elite who might be able to know better about the policy making, strategies, etc ... Also, about your words "power of the society is higher than the govt" you should look further into the concept of "Res publica". In a complete democracy the govt is you so you can't be higher than it.
2019-01-21 12:45
I take an economics policy for example, would you want the economics plan (export or import) to run by the society? I dont see any good thing from that point No, that s not what i mean. I mean we should not let the power of society is higher than the govt because as being said our society dont know whats going on and the implications etc
2019-01-21 12:52
Democracy overrated Dictatorship underrated. Look whats happening in America
2019-01-21 12:52
#36
 | 
France TheArchitect 
May I ask you to develop further ? I'd like to know your personnal point of view. Also can you tell me, in your very personnal opinion, the US political system right now ?
2019-01-21 12:54
The Constitution is fine and working as is but the dumb millennials are going to take over congress who seem to be in politics for the glamour. Trump needs to further consolidate more power to the Presidency again by doing more executive orders. He can't even get 5 billion for a wall or do basic diplomacy with Russia because the media and Democrats are running a witch hunt on him. There are no more serious adult-like debate. Completely childish politics.
2019-01-21 13:07
#63
 | 
France TheArchitect 
So you're telling me that on one hand the constitution is fine and working but on the other hand your president needs to change it ?
2019-01-21 13:10
#37
 | 
Other beeg 
Yes.
2019-01-21 12:54
#38
 | 
South Africa FragtioN 
Depends which country and population. In a multicultural society, democracy doesn't work, because the black (often majority, with uncontrolled exponential growth) population expects perpetual welfare from the white (often minority). Case in point is my country, South Africa. But South Africa is becoming increasingly more communist anyways with laws showing less regard for private property or freedom of speech
2019-01-21 12:55
#44
 | 
France TheArchitect 
Imo it might be related to the way you, and other people, consider themselves and the relationship to the state. Example : In France, no matter what, the state and any other public institution is blind to your ethnicity, your religion, your community, origins or whatever. No matter what, first thing you are is a french citizen, all the other identity marks are irrelevant and up to you. Also what you're talking about is welfare system and resource redistribution, not really democracy.
2019-01-21 12:59
#83
 | 
South Africa FragtioN 
True. We don't have a true democracy here because everyone votes by race. Worst party maintains power because of false promises. = Failed democracy & the reason I cant support democracy in this sense
2019-01-21 13:28
#84
 | 
France TheArchitect 
That's a tricky way to think. It's like saying you won't try to cook potatoes for 15 minutes because when you cooked it 5 minutes it was undercooked. You might be confusing elect representatives (aristocracy) to actual complete democracy. Democracy isn't giving the power to someone, it's using the power collectivly.
2019-01-21 13:30
#41
tabseN | 
Germany NatsuS 
You need a lot less people for direct democracy. There are more bad or stupid people than smart and good people. Brexit also showed that people vote for anything if you told them the right lies. So as much as I hate decisions of politician. I know normal people more dumb as fuck. A reason why you I Germany can only vote all 4 years. A referendum isn't allowed by "Grundgesetz"
2019-01-21 12:57
#52
 | 
France TheArchitect 
In my original post, when I made a quick description of complete democracy I talked about local scale of decision/intervention. This local scale permits to always be physically close to the place of power and to also reduce the population involved at the same time. As you're German it's like if you took all the power from the federal government and gave it to the Landers, or even a smaller scale, to the metropolitan cities
2019-01-21 13:03
#72
tabseN | 
Germany NatsuS 
You built an ideal status. It isn't possible with millions of people. If you would do that. Maximum of 1000 people are a group that decides local what they want and put it together with other groups. And such things will never work. Because everyone is selffish and people who aren't selfish has always to eat the shit decision by the selfish people. As example you want money for DSL so 80% get money for DSL. And what is with the 20%? The 80% say "you don't need DSL I don't wanna spend money for this" This is daily politics. Also you ignore scientist stuff. You need always a motivation for the people to do or to don't do things... But to tell all the things you miss is too much for hltv.
2019-01-21 13:23
#55
allu | 
Finland Jodecast 
+1
2019-01-21 13:05
Yes, but in order to do that you need to involve people into politic much more than they are. So they need a better education than they have, and more important, more time spend on subject they have to vote for. And since there is only 24h a day, the only way to do that is to lower the amount of hours worked.
2019-01-21 12:58
#47
 | 
France TheArchitect 
I'm 100% agreeing with what you said. May I ask your political stance in nowadays french politics ?
2019-01-21 13:00
My personal interest made me vote for Macron. But if I wasn't in this wealth situation, or voted for the greater good, I would have voted Melenchon.
2019-01-21 13:01
#59
 | 
France TheArchitect 
Interesting. I like the way you take distance from your vote. Also it's quite interesting to see you develop communist ideas in your first message but actually being aware that it might not be in your personal economic interests.
2019-01-21 13:08
I don't develop communist idea at all. Since I was paying the "ISF" ofc no left policy is in my personal economic interest.
2019-01-21 13:10
I dont beleive in democracy and freedom.
2019-01-21 13:07
#60
 | 
France TheArchitect 
May I ask you to develop further arguments?
2019-01-21 13:08
Sure. People are not born as equals so some people's opinions will be more important than others. Some of them are born rich and nobody can touch them, some were born smart and nobody thinks that such a person can even be wrong, some are born with a talent to attract people and talk - natural leaders that are able to lead by an example(or any other way). This is the first argument - people are NEVER equal and it feels good(at least for me). Real democracy is the dictatorship of a majority. But id people are not equal how can you count the votes? As to freedom. Nobody is really free. We try to think that we can do everything but in reality it is bullshit. I can make the most ridiculous decisions in my life, switch everything upside down but deep inside I know that there are things that will never let me go, let me be free. Just a part of life, I guess. I am not good at politics cause I dont really care about it - I am hooked on science and it is my life. Just my two words, sorry if it sounded offensive or something =)
2019-01-21 13:28
#87
 | 
France TheArchitect 
Don't worry it wasn't offensive at all, you just stated your opinion which is the point of this topic, people talking about their views on the political system. Also even if you were offensive I wouldn't mind as I believe in total freedom of speech and I'm ready to read/hear anything. Your opinion is interesting, as you said we're not equal (intellectually) and for you we then shouldn't be equal legally (some decide and some follow)
2019-01-21 13:34
Probably you can see that I am leaning towards Technocracy. Seems fair from one point and view and disastrous from another. I know how shitty on the inside smart people can be. Even those who bear a scientist title. Probably I would say we should be equal in our possibilities to achieve something at the same time not being equal in our abilities. Doubt if it can ever be achieved.
2019-01-21 13:42
#97
 | 
France TheArchitect 
Yeah that's the meritocracy theory but it doesn't exist, most of our destinies are already designed just because of where we were born, who are our family members etc ... So except if we were all living in a super vertical dictatorship on the moon we will never see meritocracy
2019-01-21 13:52
Gatekeeping
2019-01-21 13:07
#68
 | 
Poland mamba99999 
Today's democracy is ten times more oppressive than the aristocracy democracy. There was never a time when the governments had so much power over the individuals. Going back to absolute monarchies would be a step in the right direction. And democracy is trash and leads the mases to divide and fight each other, the poor majority is for high taxes for the most successful people, which leads to higher taxes for all - you're French, you should understand it the best. Karl Marx said it the best - "in order to introduce socialism, first we need to introduce democracy, and the stupid mases will lead the system into socialism". Political decisions should be made by people who know what they are doing. Farmers should work in the field, mechanics should fix cars, and politicians should govern the states, local and federal.
2019-01-21 13:21
#79
 | 
France TheArchitect 
About the Karl Marx quote you made, I never read it before and can't find anything about it on the web. Are you sure about it ? Also right now, except of a few small countries like Swiss or Iceland, all the others are really really far to complete democracy. Most of the world countries (including all EU's countries, USA, CA, ...) are aristocracies.
2019-01-21 13:26
#69
Europe Soec 
Yes. But it will only work in high-educated countries. Non-educated people is fooled so easily so it won't work. Lack of people interest in politics, bad education and misinformation in a democracy results in populists goverments so it doesn't work. Level of democracy should be proportional to the education level of its citiziens (i.e. with critical view, informed, etc.); otherwise it's a mess. You can check how democracy worked in countries that were not 'ready' for that (irak, afganistan...). When people's education reaches a threshold, they will ask for a certain level of democracy by themselves. Goverments should be able to 'hear' when this happens and do what people is asking for. That's ideally imho. But sadly, in fact goverments act opposite, trying to get miseducated citiziens and fool them so they can get more power. So we should fight to get better education, fight against fake news/articles etc, fight against black/white easy arguments.... don't wait for the goverment to do it for you, because they don't want that. Reading the ZA guy, I would stress that good education should reach every citizien so opportunities are same and race doesn't matter at all. I was living in Cape Town for a while and I think South african case is sooooo complex for my understanding xD
2019-01-21 13:17
sounds too idealized to me like communism. works theoretically but with the assumption that humans are rational. which they definitely arent. tldr for #41 i guess.
2019-01-21 13:17
#77
 | 
France TheArchitect 
Actually complete democracy is a concept highly similar to communism as Karl Marx intended it, that's why you have the same feeling about these two.
2019-01-21 13:23
humanity just inst evolved enough to put idealized systems into place. there will be a time in the far future where you are completely right but right now its like sci-fi technologies; only in our dreams.
2019-01-21 13:26
#81
 | 
France TheArchitect 
So to put it in a nutshell for you democracy will only be possible in a far future because people are too irrational right now ? Are you assuming that later people will be more rational than nowadays ? And how ?
2019-01-21 13:28
because the overall intelligence of humans will increase because of things like the internet or other technologies.
2019-01-21 13:32
#90
 | 
France TheArchitect 
There's a problem in your reasoning. Actually the overall intelligence of humans is DEcreasing because of things like internet or other technologies. Mosly because we're asked to think less and consume more, so we spend too much time distracting ourselves instead of thinking about our situation and how to improve it. But maybe we'll find a trick one day.
2019-01-21 13:37
agree with you to some extent. but think of it this way: our brain has a limit of how much we can know. no matter how much you learn you can mostly never give 100% back. nowdays we need to know more than ever we are basically flooded with information so we need to enhance/train/improve our brains to keep up. since our brains are already vastly more evolved than in the stone age we will most likely hit a biological limit of our brain capacities (im assuming this not an actual fact) so we have to either merge with technology or make an external mind (smartphones kinda like this). and thats why i THINK the overall inteligence will increase. but this is just an big IMO.
2019-01-21 13:52
Well people are not really getting dumber But the intellectual difference between really smart people and an average person is rapidly increasing. With enhancements they will become superhumans and average people will just stay average. The future is grim =)
2019-01-21 13:58
Just read Hans Herman Hoppe's Democracy The God that Failed. Great book where he shows how the transition from monarchy to democracy actually was a civilizatory backtrack that unleashed the true orwellian state upon us.
2019-01-21 13:22
Freedom of speech. Rights for property. Everyone voting? This is why democracy fails. The ones who gets elected are the ones with succesful advertising campaigns, not better candidates. Competency isn't what gets you elected, but shilling.
2019-01-21 13:38
#91
 | 
France TheArchitect 
Read my first post correctly please. Electing process is quite different to democracy, it's more related to aristocracy where a small elite govern the masses.
2019-01-21 13:38
Most of people are busy with their everyday lives, they don't desire to get involved in politics. And you say "feel like involved" in politics, not actually involved. Voting based on feelings and allegiance not on educated views and research is the problem, not voters feeling dissatisfied.
2019-01-21 13:42
#99
 | 
France TheArchitect 
Sorry if I used "feel like involved" I should have say "are involved", English isn't my mother tong and it requires me a lot of attention to avoid these kind of mistakes. Anyway
2019-01-21 13:55
The problem I see is that quantity of voices isn't neccesarily way to solve hard problems. I'm not sure what you're trying to tackle, a problem of governments turning towards corruption, or the risk of voters feeling dissatisfied and revolting against democratic system. Maybe you just want to see more people involved in politics.
2019-01-21 14:18
Ofc
2019-01-21 13:46
#102
 | 
United States ph3n0m3n 
No. Pleb masses are stupid and dangerous. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy
2019-01-21 14:17
#103
 | 
Germany PurpleSlimer 
yesh
2019-01-21 14:17
#105
 | 
Finland xcel 
Democracy isnt good, but it is yet the only political system that has been working good enough. The problem is simply people being too lazy or ignorant/stupid to know whats good for them. This causes two problems, one being easily manipulated, and second not voting at all. Even as a person who has voted for every election, it is really hard to find information about the candidates and their values and what are the things or problems they want to improve and bring up. And after all that there are political parties adding one more spoon in to the soup, which for many is already too hard to understand. Socialism is a beautiful idea, but it doesn't work. Dictatorship would possibly be the system with good leadership, since you don't have to worry about the next election, and can focus on problems looking at the big picture and how they can solve them in the long run. World is yet to find a perfect system, and i doubt it ever will. You can not just "test" it and see how it goes, way too many lifes on the line for that. And that is the reason why most developed countries run democracy, the only political system that has proven to last, even if it isnt perfect.
2019-01-21 14:36
Yes, but the democratic process needs to be more compulsive for it to truly be representative. That can be incredibly difficult without creating a sense of authoritarianism. On the local level direct democracy has been very successful in Switzerland which seems to have served them well.
2019-01-21 14:39
Login or register to add your comment to the discussion.