this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2023
-25 points (30.2% liked)
Conservative
300 readers
71 users here now
We are a community dedicated to discussion surrounding the political right.
People of all political views are welcome here, but we expect a high level of discussion from everyone.
Rules:
-Good Faith participation only.
-Stay on topic.
-Follow instance rules.
-Absolutely no homophobia, transphobia or misgendering anyone.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nobody says we must maintain some "pure" system. For an already existing example, passing a constitutional amendment is far, far more difficult than regular legislation. Is that undemocratic? By the most "pure" definition, yes. It's far from just letting everything be decided by 50+1 popular vote. Or hell, even the fact that we have representatives we elect instead of using direct democracy for everything.
Limiting democracy doesn't mean just installing a dictator or something. It can be as simple as placing some issues beyond the reach of majoritatian whims. I never see any of the people crying about democracy upset that their free speech isn't under question of majoritatian will.
Have you even read the comment I'm replying to?