| Eagle367 said: You refuse to acknowledge or even talk about anything I mentioned. Your argument is basically, "hey democracies can't have safe guards and have to be absolutes. They have to be structured in such a shitty way that they end up failing". You don't seem to want to acknowledge that there are some anti democratic actions needed to protect democracy. Just like if you like peace, you have to fight sometimes. If you like freedoms, you might have to trample on the freedom of a human being to do whatever they like because some freedoms harm and restrict other people's freedom. Democracy isn't an on/off switch and I am telling you there's a better system but you're pretending I am talking about something else which I am not. In the real world, your idealized systems just don't work. Absolutism doesn't get you anywhere unless you just want browny points and don't have a clue why you would want democracy in the first place, except maybe as a cool exercise. |
Democracy needs safeguards in place to protect itself and it's people against tyranny of course. What you are suggesting though is so anti-democraric it's actually a threat to democracy and most importantly it would be an ineffective safeguard. Someone like Putin wouldn't let his intentions to be known. He sure didn't, I still remember him promising freedom of press etc in 2000 or something. Not that Russia was ever a democracy anyway.
So you'd still need all the other safeguards.
This is not an idealized system at all. I live in such country and it's ranked as one of the most democratic. It's democracy is also very much protected despite letting people vote who they want.
