okwithmydecayUnder half of young Australians believe democracy is always a preferable form of government
fizzleI don’t really get it, the actual question is:
Democracy is always and under all circumstances preferable to any other kind of government.
I don’t really know how you can agree with that.
naevaTheRatI think if you really experienced democracy you would believe that. Like when would democracy not be preferable?
Ah, in the neolithic era?
I’m only kind of joking. The trouble with statements predicated with “always and under all circumstances” is that they are intended to include all circumstances.
The situations we’re most likely to encounter where we want our leaders to be more dictatorial is of course war, where I presume elections may be suspended temporarily.
In the case of a global disaster like a solar flare or meteor strike democracy probably wouldn’t be preferable.
Another issue is that what is preferable is subjective. So if a majority wants to implement a fascist policy persecuting a minority, then obviously democracy is not preferable for that minority.
I think your brain is maybe a little broken by the propaganda here. Democracy != westminster shite or tyranny of the majority. It’s just broadly rule by the people. Proper democracy works via consensus with protections for marginalised voices, and can grant people revocable authority when fast decisions are needed. Like you can democratically decide to listen to a firey when your house is on fire without giving that person dictatorial powers.
You’ve kinda just imposed your own definition of democracy there chief. Its not necessarily incorrect, but its another problem with such a comprehensive generalisation. Are all definitions of democracy always preferable? Which definition of democracy is always preferable?
Regardless, thats not really my point.
I disagree that democratically listening to the advice of the firey is the preferable form of governance when your home is burning down. There are loads of reasons why people in a burning house may not be able to make sound judgements. Its precisely the type of emergency where an authoritarian crisis manager, the firey, should be calling the shots.
Romans tried that, sucked for them. Learn from history, don’t as Marx said repeat it as farce
When you’re holed up with a bunch of morons
You’d prefer to be ruled by a subset of them?
Mean depends if you accept the people voting as as knowledgeable as they should be before casting a vote, or perhaps those that are not knowledgeable are so few they won’t impact the election.
Then I look at the US and well…see their point… As much as I’m a champion of democracy obviously there are some issues to overcome when that douche becomes president in a democracy. Mostly eyeing the propohanda media but the downside of democracy is everyone should have their choice and all opinions be heard. Though good education needs to be there too otherwise you get an orange stain on world politics.
We have compulsory voting in Australia.
Presently we have a centre left government. They demolished our centre right party at the last election, they’re pretty much non-viable now.
I understand why you might be reluctant to force idiots to vote, but it tends to have a normalising effect given that idiot votes are kind of white noise.
Usually in my experience, people that would make such a statement or even try to convince others that such as statement is true, have skin in the game. It’s not always obvious where, but it is usually there.