The New York Times: Elections Are Bad for Democracy
(web.archive.org)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (50)
sorted by:
Unironically agree, just not for the same reasons they chose
Large scale democracy doesn't work because the bigger and more distant people are from direct consequences, the less responsibility they take for their actions so feel fine voting for a scumbag because 'they said nice things on tv'. Democracy should be limited to towns and possibly city districts, it'd be better if higher positions than mayor were chosen by a battle royale.
I've been listening to a monarchist podcast for the last year or so which makes similar arguments.
I'm skeptical though that a system like a monarchy that relies on the benevolence of a king to do what's right for their subjects is a better option.
In the case of a monarchy, the rule of the king is balanced by the barons.
As long as everyone is doing very well under the king, the barons are very happy. If things go to shit because there is a bad king, then the barons raise armies and take the capital and install a new king.
It is a Mexican standoff. The barons have real power and means, but they are regional. A few times a year the king summons the barons to the capital, where they may only have a small bodyguard. If the king wants to have them killed, he has an army to do it.
The whole knighthood ceremony has a newly minted noble helpless, literally on their knees while their monarch has a literal sword at their neck. Both parties are vividly aware that events could take a turn. "Knighthood? lol, no. Execution!"
Monarchy absolutely isn't perfect, but real steps have been made away from the absolute rule of a tyrant.
The worst part about monarchism is that normal people are left with nothing but a patron they hope will protect them, and only does so if they are a great king.
If you get a bad one, you're stuck with that unfathomably bad one for centuries. Not just one generation of a bad king, but a bad king leads to more bad kings, and ruins the kingdom. You end up getting this 4th turning cycle among the elites that goes: Good king for 40 years, followed by "Meh" king for 40 years, followed by bad kings for 120 years, followed by a good king for 40 years.
We have that now, except the monarchs aren't publicly visible, so no one knows where to stage the peasant's revolt and who to stick in the choppy boi.
And that's different from our current system how? "Just vote out the bad politicians bro"? We've had generations of bad political rulers under a so-called repubilc