[jrumbut]

It's probably a weakness of democracy, sure, but it's not as though "total financial freedom and anonymity" are common properties of non-democratic states.

Most of the problems in democracies seem to exist, possibly magnified, in the alternatives.

[dllthomas]

IIUC, the "problem with democracy" being pointed to is not the outcome in this particular case, but the general tendency for us to make decisions that sound good without thinking too deeply.

[squiggleblaz]

In a democracy, we're not the ones who are making the decisions. The decisions are, by and large, out of our control. We decide who makes the decision, but the same decisions tend to get made on the majority of issues.

So is the problem that our decider selection process is flawed and puts up deciders who don't think deeply, or is it (more likely) that whoever you put into that position is likely to come up with the same answers, because they tend to answer important questions, and then to provide a different justification because it sells better?

[dllthomas]

> In a democracy, we're not the ones who are making the decisions.

In a representative democracy, as opposed to a direct democracy, yes. In much of the US, we have a bit of both, in practice.

But even in the case of representative democracy, as long as deciders are judged based on (proposed or actual) actions, our decisions about the deciders will be based on what we think about those actions. To whatever degree it's a problem that we don't think too deeply about things, it will be a problem in a representative democracy by virtue of deciders thinking deeply about what people generally will think more than what will actually give the outcomes people generally want (where those differ - which is at least "sometimes" by the nature of our premise).