Why does everyone think democracy is so great?

[Ifreann]

The right to vote is the ultimate right to self-expression. If people cannot have a say in the democratic process, then their freedom of expression is enormously curtailed. Besides, in practise, a non-democratic state always devolves the human rights protection in a country. The neccesary safeguards of a just and legal society, being the Constitution and the independent courts, depend on a checked power on the executive. If the executive controls the legislature, there is no use for an independent judiciary.

I'll look up some specific case law from the ECHR, they make a pretty good case for democracy and human rights.

In my view its not the ultimate version of self-expression. That honour would go to something else, like creating artwork or writing a book.

Voting is in many situations a form of submission... its saying to the government "I know my vote won't change anything but I recognise your right to rule over me and I will certify, along with millions of others, that one of these two political party rep is a true representation of what I am and what this country needs."

Its the new era's mockery of a tribute ceremony to the gods or an oath of fealty. And people see it as self-expression or freedom? Come now.

I'd rather kneel and swear allegiance to a king or a lord because at least that has more class then this.

Fascinating. You don't vote because you don't think your single vote is influential enough to bother casting it, but you'd prefer a system of government under which you would have even less influence.

[Taostic Aesthetics]

Yes democracy has it flaws but it works, it works damn good.

[San Lumen]

Yes democracy has it flaws but it works, it works damn good.

agreed. People who have written comments saying their vote doesn't matter or they dont care about freedom have never resided under a dictatorship and have no idea how awful it is. Or they post ridiculous proposals that would never work.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Yes democracy has it flaws but it works, it works damn good.

agreed. People who have written comments saying their vote doesn't matter or they dont care about freedom have never resided under a dictatorship and have no idea how awful it is. Or they post ridiculous proposals that would never work.

I would say that those who defend freedom are blind to the effects it has had on our society.

[San Lumen]

agreed. People who have written comments saying their vote doesn't matter or they dont care about freedom have never resided under a dictatorship and have no idea how awful it is. Or they post ridiculous proposals that would never work.

I would say that those who defend freedom are blind to the effects it has had on our society.

So you think a dictatorship like Eritrea, Uzbekistan or North Korea is better?

[United Muscovite Nations]

I would say that those who defend freedom are blind to the effects it has had on our society.

So you think a dictatorship like Eritrea, Uzbekistan or North Korea is better?

You really need to stop putting words into people's mouths. Expressing support for suppression of ideas doesn't express support for specific regimes. I would prefer a regime similar to the Russian Empire.

[San Lumen]

So you think a dictatorship like Eritrea, Uzbekistan or North Korea is better?

You really need to stop putting words into people's mouths. Expressing support for suppression of ideas doesn't express support for specific regimes. I would prefer a regime similar to the Russian Empire.

And the Russian Empire was the for the most part a absolute monarchy. Unless you were in the Royal Court or wealthy you had no rights.

[United Muscovite Nations]

You really need to stop putting words into people's mouths. Expressing support for suppression of ideas doesn't express support for specific regimes. I would prefer a regime similar to the Russian Empire.

And the Russian Empire was the for the most part a absolute monarchy. Unless you were in the Royal Court or wealthy you had no rights.

Not true at all, rights were in place in the Russian Empire's legal code since Catherine the Great. I've actually read the legal code. In fact, even conquered peoples in the Russian Empire had more rights than many others in more democratic countries (Catherine abolished slavery of conquered peoples).

[The One True Benxboro Empire]

agreed. People who have written comments saying their vote doesn't matter or they dont care about freedom have never resided under a dictatorship and have no idea how awful it is. Or they post ridiculous proposals that would never work.

I would say that those who defend freedom are blind to the effects it has had on our society.

Freedom being rather like the state of a kid who's been breastfed mama's sweet tyranny being weaned and told to go off and find something good to eat. Like swastika-fried tyranny
They weren't educated to see anything good in the matter nor incentivized enough to make the effort if they were. I'm reminded of a quote by Kurt Andersen: "You wouldn't let your kids eat a casserole you got off the street, would you?"

[Summertimequestionswine]

Democracy is an utterly overrated system of government because having uneducated turds make important national decisions seems like it would be detrimental to a country.

I for one welcome the ascendance of our self-important tyrannical turd overlords.

Enlightened rule by a select few self interested souls is far superior to relative self-governance.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

agreed. People who have written comments saying their vote doesn't matter or they dont care about freedom have never resided under a dictatorship and have no idea how awful it is. Or they post ridiculous proposals that would never work.

I would say that those who defend freedom are blind to the effects it has had on our society.

Freedom is an excellent idea, but "liberals" are defined by the restrictions they support on freedom. Our problem is not enough freedom.

[Infected Mushroom]

In my view its not the ultimate version of self-expression. That honour would go to something else, like creating artwork or writing a book.

Voting is in many situations a form of submission... its saying to the government "I know my vote won't change anything but I recognise your right to rule over me and I will certify, along with millions of others, that one of these two political party rep is a true representation of what I am and what this country needs."

Its the new era's mockery of a tribute ceremony to the gods or an oath of fealty. And people see it as self-expression or freedom? Come now.

I'd rather kneel and swear allegiance to a king or a lord because at least that has more class then this.

Fascinating. You don't vote because you don't think your single vote is influential enough to bother casting it, but you'd prefer a system of government under which you would have even less influence.

Well I primarily don't vote because I greatly value my free time. There's simply no good return for using the time for that.

[Albrenia]

Personally, I think not voting is a failure of duty as a democratic citizen.

[Republic of the Cristo]

I would say that those who defend freedom are blind to the effects it has had on our society.

Freedom is an excellent idea, but "liberals" are defined by the restrictions they support on freedom. Our problem is not enough freedom.

How so?

[Computer Lab]

Fascinating. You don't vote because you don't think your single vote is influential enough to bother casting it, but you'd prefer a system of government under which you would have even less influence.

Well I primarily don't vote because I greatly value my free time. There's simply no good return for using the time for that.

>highly values free time
>posts regularly on NSG

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Freedom is an excellent idea, but "liberals" are defined by the restrictions they support on freedom. Our problem is not enough freedom.

How so?

"Liberals" packaged legalising divorce as increasing freedom, since now you can get a divorce when before you couldn't. Obviously true right?

Well no, since marriage with divorce is a fundamentally different agreement to marriage without it. "Liberals" introduced a new form of state-backed agreement for managing relationships and outlawed the old one. That didn't increase freedom at all!

If we had free contract in marriage, most children would be born inside agreements designed to facilitate having the most number of children (right?). And those would probably look mighty similar to Medieval religious marriages.

[Albrenia]

So making marriage a life sentence increases freedom?

Uh... ok.

[Republic of the Cristo]

So making marriage a life sentence increases freedom?

Uh... ok.

Marriage shouldn't be dependent upon government contracts.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

So making marriage a life sentence increases freedom?

Uh... ok.

The particular form of state-backed marriage neither increases nor decreases freedom. In any case, you are presented with one possible deal and you can take it or leave it. If you take it, you cannot complain the terms restrict your freedom because you agreed to that restriction on your freedom, just as you cannot complain that you are being sent into a war zone "against your will" after deciding to enlist in the army.

What reduces freedom is the state prescribing one form of marriage and outlawing all the others in the first place.

If we had total freedom of contract in marriage, some would have very loose marriages and others very strong marriages. Probably (and I may be wrong!) strong marriages would be the best for producing and raising children, so they'd probably come to dominate over time.

[Albrenia]

I assume by 'Medieval' style marriage you don't mean arranged marriage though, right?

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Not necessarily - no reason why not though!

[Albrenia]

So it's better to have some marriages be life sentences without the consent of one of the parties involved, than to have a one-size-fits all imperfect system which does demand both sides consent?

[Improved werpland]

.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

An arranged marriage isn't the same as a forced marriage. You can, in principle, sign a contract saying you will agree to marry whoever some agency finds for you, just as you can sign a contract saying you will work for whatever company some agency finds for you. That doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea, it's just a legitimate contract that you can make and sign.

There are some arguments for arranged marriages. There are also obvious arguments against them. I don't intend to get into it here.

Calling marriage without divorce a "life sentence"(!!) is just propagandist rhetoric. That's the point of it: have and hold until death do you part... If you don't like it, just don't get married. Or, in a free contract system, change your vows to "have and hold until I find someone who is hotter and doesn't do that annoying thing with her chin". Which would be way more romantic.

[Jefferson-Madison]

I think it has to do with the human instinct to want to freely make any decision, and instinct to complain when things don't go their way, I suppose.