> When the government has access to unlimited labour and military via robots, why do they need citizens anymore?

Wait a minute, didn’t you just assume Western countries are not democracies?

I’ve noticed how fashionable it is in the US in particular, to distrust the government — not just this government, but on principle. This idea that a government never acts on behalf of the people, unless forced to. I wouldn’t disagree to be honest. But then we need to follow this up to its logical conclusion: governance by elected officials is not democratic.

Then we need to decide if we actually want democracy or not. Personally, I’d like this decision to be… err… you know, it would be nice if everyone had a say?

▲

9rx 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> governance by elected officials is not democratic.

Correct. In a (representative) democracy, one does not elect officials. They elect representatives. The representative is not an authority like an official is. They are merely messengers who take the constituent direction established at the local level and travel with that message to deliver it in a country/state/etc.'s central gathering place.

> Then we need to decide if we actually want democracy or not.

We (meaning most people) do not. Democracy is a lot of work. An incredible amount of work. It requires active participation on a near-daily basis. Most people would rather do things like go to their job to put food on the table or spend time with their hobbies or other pleasure activities. Which is why most people seek — by your own admission — officials to lord over them instead.

> Personally, I’d like this decision to be… err… you know, it would be nice if everyone had a say?

It is nice when you are independently wealthy and no longer have to worry about things like giving up an enormous amount of your day to keep a roof over your head. But most people are not so fortunate, so they do not find it fair that, for all realistic purposes, only some people get to participate in democracy to their own advantage. Hence why democracies devolve into a system of officials instead, with most people believing it offers a better balance for all involved, albeit at the cost of losing say.

	▲	jpkw 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Maybe something like a publicly traded company, Citizens can vote directly on individual bills, or choose a proxy to vote on their behalf (and change that choice at any point that desire).
	▲	bloppe 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		But in your example, it sounds like representative democracy is a choice freely taken. If people actually want representatives to worry about the details of policy for them, then that is real democracy, because the alternative is a form of government that the people don't actually want.

▲

kvirani 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I’ve noticed how fashionable it is in the US in particular, to distrust the government

No that's actually a sign of a third-world country. It's definitely shifting towards that in the US but is not as bad as Pakistan, for example. Yet.

▲

delichon 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Democracy is a less a form of government than a form of containment of government. And it leaks like all of the others. The form of government itself is a hungry serpent.

▲

bluerooibos 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> governance by elected officials is not democratic.

I'd agree that this is the case.

When billionaires, or the ruling class, own the media, and when you have media and capital lobbying influencing everything in government, who is actually in control of people being elected?

A great example is what happened when Jeremy Corbyn (socialist) did well in the UK elections. The media absolutely crucified him and made sure he didn't become the next PM. That's not a democracy.

It's a real hell of a mess we're in and I'm not sure how we go about changing it.