[maldonad0]

Democracy, or "Democracy"? Did the people have any choice in the Patriot Act and many others? On the actions following the 2007 crisis and the extraordinary bailout? Do EU citizens have any choice in the actions of the EU Comission, like Chat Control?

Democracy only exists for a short time after a revolution. After a while, the power permanently consolidates in a number of elites and the democracy becomes "democracy", that is, little more than a show.

The only time democracy works incorruptibly is in small groups where everyone knows each other and everyone knows what's going on.

[credit_guy]

"Democracy" is just our short word for "checks and balances and the rule of law", which is quite a mouthful.

> and the democracy becomes "democracy", that is, little more than a show.

Autocrats all over the world rejoice when they hear this type of arguments. If nothing is perfect, then every system is as good as theirs.

I'm sure that's not what you are trying to say, but unfortunately, that's the logical conclusion of what you are saying.

[hulitu]

> checks and balances and the rule of law

Except the checks are not working, balances favour the milion dollars lobbyists and the rule of law is applied depending on the person it is applied to.

I vote with a candidate and then "Google"[1] comes and gives him money, vacation and some good, expensive meals. How "democratic" is this ?

[1] "Google" can be any company which lobbies the EU.

[maldonad0]

Ha! I meant it. Every system has its pros and cons. I find quite a lot of modern democracies to be extraordinarily dishonest and shortsighted, pretending to be ruled by the people while the same oligarchy has in fact been ruling since time immemorial, and I hate it when I am lied to my face.

As another commenter said, democracies pride themselves in being transparent and true to themselves, things that are needed to be able to choose your collective destiny wisely, which is in turn the core a working democracy.

At least the Sultan of Oman is honest about him ruling and not me! We pretend to live in democracies while we live in oligarchies, because if we admited democracy has been corrupted, the house of cards would fall, since we have been building our worldview and values on the position that they are more just than others because it's the will of the people.

Finally, I'll add that liberalism is not unique to democracy, but able to fit into other governing systems.

I think there are better systems than democracy, one of them being mixed systems. Monarchism at the head of the country, democracy at the city level, and a parliament composed half and half of democratically elected local municipality representants and experts.

[credit_guy]

> I think there are better systems than democracy, one of them being mixed systems.

It looks to me you have some idyllic notion of democracy. If you use my definition (which is generally accepted) of "checks and balances and the rule of law", then a "mixed system" as you suggested definitely qualifies. But you have to realize that in all systems there will be people who lie. If you "hate when you are lied to your face", then I have some terrible news for you: you will not find any system where people don't lie to your face.

Except, possibly, in the Sultanate of Oman.

[johnecheck]

I'd word that last idea differently. All democracies are vulnerable to corruption to a degree determined by factors like information quality and personal relationships/accountability. Small groups with great relationships and communication often work well democratically.

While larger democracies generally have fallen to increasing concentrations of wealth and power, I don't think we should conclude this is inevitable. We can do a lot better than this.

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

I think concluding that concentrations of wealth and power is inevitable is exactly what the evidence suggests. Has there ever been a society where this did not eventually happen?

[johnecheck]

Historically, we've seen countless examples of societies becoming more and more unequal. Essentially all of them, true. But note a key piece: those societies weren't always getting more unequal. You can find many examples of societies pulling back from the brink after a period of consolidation.

Perhaps the goal isn't for wealth inequality to never increase. What if instead of perpetual increase or a sharp decrease, society achieved a sin-wave like equilibrium centered around some desirable level of wealth/power inequality?

It doesn't work if the level you desire is zero. Sorry, Marxists.

[kingstnap]

In small groups, you can often manage consensus rather than majority rule.

If you had a small group that actually frequently had 50%+1 rulings, I feel like you would fracture real fast.

[maldonad0]

In small groups, democracy is synonomous with consensus.

[nosignono]

> The only time democracy works incorruptibly is in small groups where everyone knows each other and everyone knows what's going on.

This is demonstrably untrue, there are plenty of cases of stable democratic systems. They just tend to exist outside of capitalism (or stand in opposition to traditional capitalist practice). It often relies on syndicalism or federation to stay distributed. Maybe that's compatible with your "small groups" statement, where many small groups coordinate together to form big groups to get things done.

[QuadmasterXLII]

Trumps election was full democracy: no one truly powerful in 2015 wanted that.

You are way underestimating the malignant stupidity of voters.

[rsynnott]

> Do EU citizens have any choice in the actions of the EU Comission, like Chat Control?

I mean, yes. On its first run, a few years back, it was essentially torn apart by the parliament. Now the commission is trying again. The EU doesn't work that differently to any other parliamentary democracy; there's an executive cabinet (in this case appointed by member states) and a legislative body (elected by the people of member states).

For various practical reasons, the commission and legislature are more inclined to public conflict in the EU than in most systems; in many parliamentary democracies the executive will be reluctant to bring a bill that the parliament will reject, and its viability will be tested behind closed doors before it's brought; if the proposers don't think they have the numbers they'll never actually propose it. So you do see this sort of conflict a lot more with the EU. But it's the same basic system.