[sethammons]

What if a true democracy is not a worthy goal? What if some people should have more or less say in something.

Should someone unrelated and likely non-impacted by a thing have as strong a voice in that thing?

Should someone non-knowledgeable have an equal say to someone experienced? Is that fair?

If A knows 2+2=4 and B says it is five, we don't average votes and call it 4.5. And if a large debate happens and B convinces enough people that for very large values of 2, the answer is five, democracy says the answer is 5. How do you protect against this outcome in a pure democracy?

[TFYS]

Education would probably be the answer. In a true democracy we would need to make sure everyone is well educated. Of course there are a lot of decisions that require very specialized knowledge that can't be taught to everyone, and in such cases it might be necessary to have limited participation or some kind of weighted voting.

[pqtyw]

Unfortunately that seems to be highly subjective and different people have a very different understanding of what "well educated" means.

[pqtyw]

> What if some people should have more or less say in something.

Yes, I certainly agree.

The problem (which IMHO outweighs all the benefits by quite a bit) is that when you allow drawing these artificial lines the ones in charge of them will inevitably design the system in such a way that benefits them (maybe even without ill intentions).

It's similar to geographical gerrymandering just openly based on social/education/etc. class.

Also... balancing interests of diverse social and economic groups is not exactly straightforward, its certainly not basic math.

[esafak]

You instill civic virtue from a young age.

[pqtyw]

That's how totalitarian regimes maintain their grip on power as well. At the end of the day someone needs to define what "civic virtue" is, if its done top down well that might not necessarily work out that well (of course it might be the opposite but it seems like a very dangerous method).

[esafak]

I don't know what you're talking about. What kind of civic participation do you see in North Korea?

[pqtyw]

I don't, you don't either, quite a few people in North Korea might view it differently.

My point is what methods do you use to "instil civic virtue"? How do you define it? And most importantly how do you prevent people from diverging from them?

Historically totalitarian societies were often quite good at instilling any kind of "virtue" you wanted. Free and democratic societies generally tend to struggle with the "instilling" part. (Of course to be fair there a few success stories (to an extent) like France)

[esafak]

Education, and the fostering of independent civil society, which is something you don't see in authoritarian societies. The virtues you want to instill in a democratic society, contrasted with authoritarian ones, are truth vs. propaganda, accountability vs. loyalty, and courage vs. obedience.

I think you are leaning too hard into moral relativism. The differences between free- and authoritarian societies are plain to see.

[pqtyw]

Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not equating the values themselves, as you said they are the polar opposite. And to be honest I'm certainly not a fan of moral relativism in the direct sense.

The methods seem more concerning. First you have to give someone the right to define what these virtues mean in practice. Then you need to somehow impose them on the wider population. This is a rather dangerous tool and I think actual examples of such a top down approach working in democratic societies are quite rare.

It works if the consensus already exists in the society. Clearly these days that's not the case in quite a few places.

What do you then? Force children of people who have a radically different understanding of what these civil virtues are to attend schools which teach them against their will? Take them away if the parents refuse? Well that's what totalitarian states do...