Post #1358567
2026-04-13 03:54 UTC
> But not every citizen is going to be able to individually weigh in on every decision, right?
The idea is that every citizen is able and has a right to weigh in on every decision that affects them, if they want to. Anarchists generally propose direct democracy and/or consensus based decision making systems.
> It would make more sense for people to pick someone to represent their interests in their stead.
The problem with representative democracy is that power corrupts, as we've clearly seen, again and again and again. Even a good person given power will almost definitely use it in some way to benefit themselves. It usually starts out in a very small, nearly harmless way, but progressively corruption worsens, especially as the need to cover up the previous acts of corruption becomes a concern.
Replies (2)
-
@thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 2026-04-13 08:32
How do you propose, in practice, to ensure that every citizen has a practical opportunity to weigh in on all the individual things affecting them, without giving them the option to have a representative? Off the bat, I can think of a myriad of reasons this becomes prohibitively difficult for anything more than a few dozen people, but I'm honestly interested in hearing about a solution that could even conceivably work at a district (tens of thousands of people) not to speak of societal (millions) or international (billions) level.
-
@Triumph@fedia.io 2026-04-13 05:07
Tyranny of the majority, especially considering that very many people are shit.