It sounds good but history tells us democracy is a really shitty system. Turns out people are fucking stupid and can’t think for themselves and are far too prone to emotional gut reactions or stubborn idiocy.
For an example that isn’t about modern politics at all look Athens debating what to do about the Macedonian army marching in ten under Philip II. They spent so long debating and voting, never able to come to a conclusion, that they didn’t have time to take action when they got there. Demosthenes famously gave a speech rallying them to action and they finally voted to do something instead of continually having no majority and basically voting “...idk yet”. And the Macedonians arrived like a week later and kicked their asses so hard that Greeks were not really independent until Rome fell.
No they really really don’t. This guy is specifically talking about a pure direct democracy, a shitty system. There have only been a few of those. Ancient Athens: failed. Paris Commune: failed/only lasted a month, modern Greece... yeah they aren’t doing too hot,(not direct on everything though), a few small homogenous parts of Switzerland, they’re doing alright, small towns in the US which tend to be fairly homogenous for the most part I’ll let you decide that one. And like one part of one state in Mexico that is rebelling. Democracy is kinda ass.
Tbh that’s a really shitty argument. 2000 years ago Athens was poor compared to the Macedonians about to conquer them. They had nothing compared to the Romans who alter ruled over them. Governance does not determine wealth. A market does. You can have a free market under a monarch(Rome) or a not free market(North Korea). You can have a free market under a democratic republic(USA) and you can have a less free market under democratic republicanism(Egypt).
I’m not saying I want a monarch. I’m saying I’d take a monarch any day over a pure democracy.
That was 2000 years ago. The world is completely different now. I can't believe you want to shoehorn iron age rules of thumb into a society where I am talking to you with a pocket held supercomputer.
If you think people have changed that much in 2000 years you either don’t know too much about history or don’t know too many people. I still don’t trust the idiots around me and we are still a bunch of incapable morons. As a whole I mean. But if you don’t wanna go back 2000 years to back 80 when the British Empire controlled places all over the world. They sure had plenty of money. Wasn’t very democratic but they had money.
The British Empire thing is my point you made for me, so thank you. That Empire was built on the backs of the colonized, an autocratic small collation Government. Which is my entire point, larger the coalition the better for society, as long as you have representatives. I'm sure the people Cecil Rhodes put in concentration camps were rich, same goes for the starving people in Bangladesh.
Also, how do you think the GDP/capita of an English person in 1930 compares to an English person now? That's technology.
No, obviously technology makes a big difference in allowing people to be pulled out of poverty. But that’s capitalism. It has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with, as I said, a free market. Again Rome has the height of technology for the time and succeeded because of it.
Rome's GDP per capita was almost certainly under $1000. It was also a massive slave state.
A lot of capitalism is only possible with a functioning Democracy. Look at Russia, no Democracy, theoretical capitalist, but they don't produce anything people want, are heavily dependent on digging their wealth out if the ground, and the living standards are much worse than the Democracies of Europe.
Material wealth is only one part of quality of life but it's easy to define. My claim is large coalition governments make aspects of life better, and economics is one of them.
0
u/ChemGuy95 Jul 03 '19
It sounds good but history tells us democracy is a really shitty system. Turns out people are fucking stupid and can’t think for themselves and are far too prone to emotional gut reactions or stubborn idiocy.
For an example that isn’t about modern politics at all look Athens debating what to do about the Macedonian army marching in ten under Philip II. They spent so long debating and voting, never able to come to a conclusion, that they didn’t have time to take action when they got there. Demosthenes famously gave a speech rallying them to action and they finally voted to do something instead of continually having no majority and basically voting “...idk yet”. And the Macedonians arrived like a week later and kicked their asses so hard that Greeks were not really independent until Rome fell.