Why nobody is pro democracy

Author: RemyBrown

Posts

Total: 26
Topic's author
#1
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 866
3
2
6
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
3
2
6
You ask left wingers if they would rather:

  1. Have Trump as a POTUS for the next 4 years and every single subsequent election we have a different MAGA style republican win the presidency indefinitely.  His successive train of republicans gradually prohibit abortion federally, they ban porn, they outlaw HRT and even dick removals for transwomen (because they see them as fraudulent men and HRT enables fraud).  They bring back legalizing segregation (free market, plus transparency), they may even go so far as to bring back slavery because they see China doing it overseas and they don't want to act like slavery is bad when they buy stuff from China, so they bring it back here.  But they elected it, so it's democracy at work.
  2. Have AOC win in 2028 and make herself Queen of America by executive order.  She ends the genocide in Gaza, she abolishes ICE, she repeals Qualified immunity and gives reparations to ADOS.  But there are no more elections; AOC is your permanent monarch.  She gives us a more powerful Roe V Wade than ever before.  She implements Medicare for all (even for gender surgeries); free college (even for undocumented gender studies majors), and a bunch more left-wing stuff.  BUT she is your monarch and implements policy that you agree with 100% of the time.  She ends child poverty worldwide; she never becomes corrupt because she's poor and knows what it's like to suffer (so she never imposes suffering on other people).  But she's a monarch.
Then I think they would pick the monarch.

You decide Trump will be the dictator and an AOC style democrat wins every future election, the MAGA person picks the monarch.

Everybody it seems is pro monarchy and executive order if the monarch or executive order is someone/something that agrees with them politically.


#2
LucyStarfire
LucyStarfire's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 810
3
3
6
LucyStarfire's avatar
LucyStarfire
3
3
6
-->
@RemyBrown
There are few countries which are good, which have democracy type.
#3
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,143
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
The main reason democracy is good is because if the wrong dictatorship happens, then it is far harder to fight it.

If you set a system up where the army and all would coup an evil leader and truly believe in morality and religion to their core, that sort of dictatorship can work out.
#4
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,130
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Democracies throughout history have failed, and now the USA has elected a downright moron again.
#5
LucyStarfire
LucyStarfire's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 810
3
3
6
LucyStarfire's avatar
LucyStarfire
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
Democracies throughout history have failed, and now the USA has elected a downright moron again.
Average american voter has IQ of a squirrel.
#6
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,130
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@LucyStarfire

I don't think it is that high.
#7
LucyStarfire
LucyStarfire's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 810
3
3
6
LucyStarfire's avatar
LucyStarfire
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
I dont think democracy can work when voters are dumber than squirrels.
#8
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,680
4
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
4
4
9
I liked the title of the thread thinking it's worth discussing. Then I see it's Remy and am disappointed. We need a serious take on this issue
#9
MayCaesar
MayCaesar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 78
0
1
3
MayCaesar's avatar
MayCaesar
0
1
3
Maybe because democracy is self-contradictory. It is supposed to have someone represent the individual, but the masses vote for the representative. It is as if I went to a grocery store to buy apples, and people voted for me buying bread instead. This contradiction is bound to result in the system descending into a corrupt oligarchy eventually.

An individual can only be represented by those individuals who he himself appoints. There can be no voting for that. In democracy, no one is represented - instead, everyone is ruled over. The pretense of top-down accountability is still much better than an open tyranny, but it is not sustainable in the long run.

#10
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 28,002
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@MayCaesar
I think democracy only becomes a real problem when the government gets so powerful that your day to day freedoms depend on government whims. In a smaller government, neither democracy nor tyranny would matter much. When those American freedoms get redefined by centralized interests is when tyranny of the majority becomes a personal individual issue.
#11
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,503
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
I liked the title of the thread thinking it's worth discussing. Then I see it's Remy and am disappointed. 
Turns out he thinks he is funny.

Topic's author
#12
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 866
3
2
6
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
3
2
6
-->
@WyIted
I liked the title of the thread thinking it's worth discussing. Then I see it's Remy and am disappointed. We need a serious take on this issue
So then provide it (or give me credit where it's due but you can't because you are programmed to hate me no matter what).
#13
yachilviveyachali
yachilviveyachali's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 265
0
2
3
yachilviveyachali's avatar
yachilviveyachali
0
2
3
“Rule by the people” is not rule by the people when there are traitors and invaders who destroy the rule.
#14
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 4,045
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
Remy thread = Rage bait + Strawman

Title is something like "Gay men secretly love AIDS"

Then the post will be something like

"Gay men: We need to do something about AIDS!

Me: Have you tried not having sixteen different sexual partners?

Gay men: You're homophobic!

Gay men don't understand basic cause and effect. This is why they shouldn't be allowed to vote until they pass a cognitive reasoning test or commit to a monogamous relationship."
#15
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,820
3
3
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
3
2
-->
@Savant
That's hauntingly reminiscent. I think there are probably already enough to train an LLM on it.
#16
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,667
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
All government is a level of tyranny, it's the way government and social collectives function. 

The alternative would be anarchy.

Though anarchy would not work, because people would rapidly organise into collectives based upon natural hierarchy, which would be more or less tyrannical.




#17
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 28,002
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Close, but no cigar.

All government is authoritarian. So when they call a president "Authoritarian"....it's just redundant terms to a normal person.
#18
MayCaesar
MayCaesar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 78
0
1
3
MayCaesar's avatar
MayCaesar
0
1
3
-->
@Greyparrot
@<<<MayCaesar>>>
I think democracy only becomes a real problem when the government gets so powerful that your day to day freedoms depend on government whims. In a smaller government, neither democracy nor tyranny would matter much. When those American freedoms get redefined by centralized interests is when tyranny of the majority becomes a personal individual issue.
And is there any mechanism in the system that should prevent the government from getting this powerful? The Founding Fathers cautioned against democracy in favor of a republic for this very reason: democracy is bound to descend into various political factions fighting for the vantage point up the hill. Republican institutions were supposed to be the barriers preventing the barbarians from getting to the gates: "No matter what you guys want, this is a hard rule that will never be violated". But when the culture overall starts favoring democracy over republic, then maintaining those barriers becomes impossible. Ultimately, the rules are, at best, words on paper, and if nobody accepts them, then they have zero power.

I think that the whole idea of a centralized government is rotten to the core and is a remnant of the tribal times, with chiefs and shamans. A democracy is better than an outright dictatorship - at least, the government cannot do whatever it wants without major repercussions for its members - but we are till talking about two forms of top-down tyranny. Humans should not organize themselves in a central way, but should self-organize by choosing who to interact with and on what terms. This is how the free market is supposed to work, this is what makes it so efficient - and this extends to all areas of human life, far beyond just economics.

As long as "the government of the United States of America" has any meaning, the United States of America will, at best, feature a softcore tyranny. Which is still better than anything any other country has to offer, to the best of my knowledge.
#19
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,130
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

What is the best way for China to be the World Leader? Get the USA to elect a downright moron as President and a foreign sex worker as First Lady.
#20
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,667
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
And breed faster.

Also make and sell lots and lots of cheap stuff, cheaply, to invest in lots and lots of military toys.

And teach Chinese kids how to be cleverer than Americans and less stupid than Russians.

And be nice and kind to lots and lots of small countries who have  lots and lots of minerals and rare earth stuff.

Even though China already  has 44 million tons of the rare earth stuff.


#21
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 28,002
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Remember, Mienkein called everyone who said something nice about Jesus a moron.
#22
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,130
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

It's Mencken.
#23
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 28,002
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Remember, Munchken called everyone who said something nice about Jesus a moron.
#24
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,130
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

We should have a national vote to see if the majority of the people want to sell our country to China when Trump bankrupts the USA.
#25
MayCaesar
MayCaesar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 78
0
1
3
MayCaesar's avatar
MayCaesar
0
1
3
-->
@FLRW
What is the best way for China to be the World Leader? Get the USA to elect a downright moron as President and a foreign sex worker as First Lady.
China does not have brilliant people in charge either. Jinping praises Mao regularly, despite his own father having been sent to Mao's political prison camps... A guy like this is not going to run the world any time soon.
#26
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,870
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
Then I think they would pick the monarch.

You decide Trump will be the dictator and an AOC style democrat wins every future election, the MAGA person picks the monarch.

Everybody it seems is pro monarchy and executive order if the monarch or executive order is someone/something that agrees with them politically.
You're missing the point.

Democracy isn't valuable because we enjoy casting ballots or feeling like we have a choice. We value democracy because history and human psychology show that it's the system most likely to deliver outcomes that serve the broadest range of people over time. When leaders are accountable to voters, they’re incentivized to act in the public interest. When power is seized or maintained through fear (as in dictatorships) leaders are primarily incentivized to protect themselves. They govern to maintain control, not to serve the people.

Your hypothetical ignores that foundational insight. It reduces democracy to a procedural ritual and then asks us to weigh it against a fantasy scenario with predetermined outcomes. But by fixing those outcomes in advance, your scenario eliminates the very uncertainty and pluralism that make democracy both valuable and necessary. You're not offering a real dilemma, you’re offering a false dichotomy: "Would you rather have democracy and hell, or dictatorship and utopia?" Framed like that, of course people lean toward the latter. That’s not hypocrisy. That’s coercion disguised as choice.

Worse still, your setup reverses the actual purpose of democracy: it's not an end in itself, but a means to safeguard freedom, pluralism, and human dignity. So when you ask democracy advocates to choose between democratic process and the results democracy is designed to achieve, and then accuse them of inconsistency for preferring those results, you're attacking a straw man.

Your scenario is not the "gotcha" you think it is. It shows that when people are pushed to extremes, they’ll choose survival, dignity, and justice over abstract principles. But that’s not a flaw of democracy, it’s an argument for strengthening it so people aren’t forced into that kind of choice in the first place.