Originally Posted by
Letters
This is the issue I have with NQ's philosophy. He says I don't understand freedom. I do understand it, I just don't think it's possible in the context of a society.
If you're going to have a society then there's a contract with comes with that - you give up certain freedoms but you get certain benefits.
As soon as you have a society then you need to agree the rules of that society, and given that you are unlikely to reach consensus you need some way of defining what those are.
When society gets sufficiently large and complex you can't have a vote on every single issue, so you inevitably end up with some kind of representative government - or a dictatorship, benevolent or otherwise.
It seems pretty inevitable to me.
It's an imperfect solution, but it's probably the best you're going to get. I do think our version of it with FPTP is particularly bad though. We end up with governments which the majority of people didn't vote for and there is little or no accountability. Johnson literally broke the laws he defined, and there's bugger all we can do about it.