• ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      10·
      3 days ago

      I mean, that also the same with democracy.

      Democrats (as in, people who believe in democracy, not the US political party) have to win elections every time and constantly have to battle against threats of autocracization, but autocrats only need to win once to destroy the democratic system.

      • Lime Buzz@beehaw.orgEnglish
        2·
        3 days ago

        I would argue that representative democracy isn’t true democracy then.

        Any system that can do this kind of thing isn’t, when the people have said no that means no forever unless the people decide it isn’t.

        It seems to me therefore that only direct democracy could ever be considered true democracy because it would be truly the will of the people. The people would bring issues forward, not someone or a party supposedly ‘representing’ us.

        • JasminIstMuedeEnglish
          6·
          3 days ago

          Someone more versed in political science than I can correct me here, but I’m pretty sure direct democracy and true democracy would be synonyms. But that doesn’t mean there wouldn’t still be a need to fight back against antidemocratic forces. In any system where the laws can change, so too can the holders of power, and people are very capable of voting against their self interest. Complacency is, unfortunately, never an option.

  • AllNewTypeFace@leminal.spaceEnglish
    2·
    2 days ago

    Goddamn Sweden, with their 300 years of peace and their faith in institutions, asserting that it’s perfectly fine for the police to comb through your sexts because, at least in Sweden and/or in theory, the police are consummate professionals who would never abuse their power