[yingw787]

I agree with the notion that democracies aren't synonymous with "good", but I disagree that things shouldn't be democratic. The sole purpose of democracies is to make people's problems their fault. Most systemic issues we see today have a root cause in people giving up their ability to vote -- electorally, financially, or otherwise. Keeping things democratic means keeping people's options open and legally, in writing, preserving each person's share in the power pie. IMHO, that's a worthwhile goal in and of itself.

[kijin]

Things shouldn't be democratic. Governments should be.

Both corporations and charitable foundations often emulate democratic governments in some ways, most notably in their shareholder and/or board meetings. There's nothing wrong with emulating the good parts of democracy in other suitable contexts. But I'm not sure whether it's worthwhile to emulate them in every context.

Even when things are run democratically, it is sometimes better to limit participants to those who are directly involved. Would you like some democratic input from the general public as to what happens in your bedroom between consenting partners, for example?

[nearbuy]

> The sole purpose of democracies is to make people's problems their fault.

Why is this good?

I would say the goal is to reduce problems.

> Most systemic issues we see today have a root cause in people giving up their ability to vote

Could you provide examples? Is this responsible for poverty, war, or poor education?

> preserving each person's share in the power pie

Bit of a mixed bag. Depending on your political leanings, I might give Trump and Brexit as examples of democracies making poor choices.