Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics.
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I think the main problem with democracy is that it combines several things that should not be combined, specifically the who, the what and the how.
In the current democratic system you can vote for a person or party (the who), you can choose these people based on their claims of what they want to achieve and how they want to achieve it. This allows for all kinds of fuckery. For example: the people you voted for may not actually implement the measures they claimed they would or the proposed method of achieving a goal may not actually have that effect (intentionally or out of ignorance). Some party could claim they want to improve the economy (what) by lowering the taxes on the richt (how), while their actual goal is simply to lower taxes for the rich knowing full well it won’t help the economy whatsoever.
What I would like to see is what I’d call a ‘democratic technocracy’. People get to vote only on the ‘what’, i.e. the goals they want to achieve, and their relative priority. The ‘who’ are the people most qualified to achieve these goals, and the how should be determine through a thorough scientific process. These people should then regularly be evaluated based on their performance in achieving these goals and replaced it they don’t.