|
|
|
|
|
|
by int_19h
3456 days ago
|
|
|
In essence, you are arguing that people aren't smart enough (or are otherwise too prone to being manipulated) to decide for themselves in general, and if they're allowed to, then their decision-making process will be manipulated by some much smaller group of people. Assuming that is okay for a moment. Your solution to that is to give another small group of people the power to explicitly override that decision-making, by fiat, without even having to go through the motions of convincing propaganda. Which is better how exactly? Because this latter small group of people will be "benevolent dictators", acting in the larger group's best interests even as they override its decisions? They certainly claim to be that, but why should we believe them over the other guys? |
|
|