In most other political systems there is a central authority with a monopoly of violence that can enforce rules via violence.
If your political system only works if everyone acts in the interests of society over their own, then it’s not a political system. It’s a failure. Because there are plenty of selfish people, and you can’t change that.
In a democracy, governments derive their power from the legitimacy that the support of their voters give them. If someone in government decides to “not be nice about it”, then most likely the rest of the government would stop it. Remember, the government is made up of a LOT of people. If an entire political party goes nuts, then the opposition would get votes and reclaim the monopoly of violence.
“the rest of the government would stop it” HAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA LMAO
Sincerely, an American, a citizen of a country responsible for countless genocides and acts as of brutality and oppression, all under a republic, and is currently being taken over by fascists.
First of all, the US is a flawed democracy, not even a real one. And those genocides are done to people outside the US. None of my arguments are about what is morally correct or not.
What I’m saying is that anarchy is not a stable system, it will eventually evolve into a stable one.
In fact, the US right now is a perfect example of what I’m saying. You guys voted an openly fascist imbecile twice to the top power. And the other branches of government gave him even more power. And still, he has only openly killed like <10 citizens out of 330 million. And you guys still have elections. Sure, democracy has eroded a lot. But it’s still technically a democracy.
If someone like trump obtained that amount of power in an anarchic society, he would’ve just killed every democrat in the country.
In a democracy (even if a shitty one), with a good chunk of the population backing him, he still does not have absolute power. More than 5 years in, he hasn’t yet managed to end democracy.
As it turns out rule by the people demands that the people are actually smart and kind to work well. You know, like rule by any other force.
How are those demands going to be enforced?
In most other political systems there is a central authority with a monopoly of violence that can enforce rules via violence.
If your political system only works if everyone acts in the interests of society over their own, then it’s not a political system. It’s a failure. Because there are plenty of selfish people, and you can’t change that.
If your political system relies on people with a monopoly on violence just deciding to be nice about it, what does that mean?
Then that means it’s shit.
In a democracy, governments derive their power from the legitimacy that the support of their voters give them. If someone in government decides to “not be nice about it”, then most likely the rest of the government would stop it. Remember, the government is made up of a LOT of people. If an entire political party goes nuts, then the opposition would get votes and reclaim the monopoly of violence.
“the rest of the government would stop it” HAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA LMAO
Sincerely, an American, a citizen of a country responsible for countless genocides and acts as of brutality and oppression, all under a republic, and is currently being taken over by fascists.
First of all, the US is a flawed democracy, not even a real one. And those genocides are done to people outside the US. None of my arguments are about what is morally correct or not.
What I’m saying is that anarchy is not a stable system, it will eventually evolve into a stable one.
In fact, the US right now is a perfect example of what I’m saying. You guys voted an openly fascist imbecile twice to the top power. And the other branches of government gave him even more power. And still, he has only openly killed like <10 citizens out of 330 million. And you guys still have elections. Sure, democracy has eroded a lot. But it’s still technically a democracy.
If someone like trump obtained that amount of power in an anarchic society, he would’ve just killed every democrat in the country.
In a democracy (even if a shitty one), with a good chunk of the population backing him, he still does not have absolute power. More than 5 years in, he hasn’t yet managed to end democracy.
Have you ever heard of something called an Indigenous American.
Ah now I understand why this has gone for so long. Your reading comprehension skills are non-existent.