[buboard]

You know what, if we assume that most people people are too gullible and dumb to live in a society, there is no longer any reason to uphold the social contract. It's not set in stone that i must live in a democracy if half of them are not fit for it.

(Predictable irrational downvotes only serve to prove this point)

[kadendogthing]

>if we assume that most people people are too gullible and dumb to live in a society

Most people don't have the experience to properly discern information that they aren't intimately familiar with. They don't practice it. They don't have jobs requiring it.

You probably can't run a marathon if you've never trained before. Why are we assuming it's any different with information?

>there is no longer any reason to uphold the social contract.

Explain.

[philwelch]

Well, these are the necessary skills for the citizen of a democracy to have and to exercise properly. If you're going to assume that the majority of people are incapable of gaining that skill, the only logical conclusion is that democracy is a mistake.

[buboard]

the social contract in democracies relies on trusting the judgement of your compatriots. if they cant be trusted you don't have to pretend they can, or that you can have a democracy or that they are your compatriots. e.g. Why should i pay the taxes that distrustful people instituted?

If we stop assuming a reasonable level or rationality on the electorate , then why choose to have a democracy - that's irrational

[kadendogthing]

We don't have direct democracy. We don't usually rely on any form of democracy for a large set of actions we take as a society.

So I truly don't understand your confusion.