[armchairhacker]

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others."

A monarchy of genuinely good rulers is a better government than a democracy, but it's hard to ensure a good ruler because whoever gets chosen, there's always a risk they're corrupt. Democracy gives the people more of a chance to prevent bad laws than a monarchy, even if it's a small chance.

Maybe one day we'll something better than Democracy, like an AI-controlled government, but nobody's come up with anything so far.

[midoridensha]

>A monarchy of genuinely good rulers is a better government than a democracy, but it's hard to ensure a good ruler because whoever gets chosen, there's always a risk they're corrupt. Democracy gives the people more of a chance to prevent bad laws than a monarchy, even if it's a small chance.

No, this isn't the problem with monarchies at all (or maybe I'm just disagreeing with your wording). The problem with monarchies is heredity: sure, you can get a great ruler like Marcus Aurelius, but the problem is the great ruler doesn't live forever, and eventually he dies (or is secretly murdered) and this his shitty son takes over. Then the Praetors have to murder him in his bathtub before he completely destroys the empire.

[lost_tourist]

It's impossible to have a benevolent dictator over the long term with something as big as a nation state.

[armchairhacker]

Ok, an oligarchy of genuinely good rulers for each region and specialty...which is exponentially harder to ensure, because it only takes one to cause problems.

The point still stands that we're better off with a democracy.

[HPsquared]

That's more an argument to keep states small, for optimal internal governance. Interstate conflict drives states to become larger though so it's a balance.

[immibis]

this does not prohibit its discussion as a theoretical ideal model. It's true that benevolent dictatorships outperform democracy as long as they remain benevolent, which is not long.

[flagrant_taco]

Why would an I-controlled system be better? How do we guarantee the alignment problem never rears it's head?

[Gud]

This is not an inherent problem with democracy but with representative democracy. These problems go away when the populace have actual power, in a direct democracy.

And why on earth e we liked i want to be ruled by a machine?

Come on dude

[lillecarl]

A problem I see with direct democracy is that "the common man" doesn't have time to get educated in everything they'd have to vote for.

The swiss model where things can be raised to referendum seems pretty reasonable to me (Swede). I'd love it over here, so we can tell our government (including the party I voted for) to kindly shove it sometimes.

[Gud]

The Swiss model is exactly what I propose. Local decision making, with referendums.

[immibis]

Does it really? you think the average man won't vote for the Everyone Gets A Free House Also Encryption Is Illegal Because Only Criminals Use It bill?

[Gud]

Switzerland has direct democracy and it works great. Your concerns are invalid!

[rpdillon]

This may be the wrong conclusion to draw. Larger populations present different governance challenges than small ones do, since decisions that affect fewer are easier to make. Switzerland has about the same population as NYC.

[Gud]

Yes, I believe these massive superstates(U.S., China, India, E.U.) need to be dismantled into smaller components - move the power closer to the people.

You can still have interstate trade, regulations etc.

[thayne]

Direct democracy has other problems. Perhaps the biggest is it just isn't practical to ask the entire population about every question of policy and law.

[Gud]

Look into Switzerland. They have found a great balance, with three levels of decision making(Gemeinde, Canton and Federal) and where everything is put to vote if a proposal get enough signatures.