Isn't the alternative to government being slow government being fast? It's just that it can be fast by disregarding democracy, which is bad.

You actually have a slow government and are complaining about it. You have not experienced any alternative to slow government.

▲

derektank 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It can be fast by disregarding consensus, which is different from democracy. The power of democratically elected executives is that they are, unless otherwise bound by rule or regulation, free to execute very quickly, but they will (generally) align those actions with the will of the majority of the public if they want to be re-elected. Elected legislators are a bit different but the same principle more or less applies; by trading consensus for majority acceptance, you can move faster. This is largely what distinguishes anarchists from lower case D democrats.

▲

tpolm an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Somehow places like Singapore figured it out and it works well for them

	▲	nylonstrung 43 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		As a defacto single party state, Singapore is definitely in the category of "disregarding democracy" like the above poster said "What a country needs to develop is discipline more than democracy" - Lee Kwan Yue

▲

Eji1700 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They essentially aren't describing a government. It's just a community, and yes, communities tend to suck because once you get over about 10 people you've got enough voices represented that no one anywhere can agree on anything. A majority rule just means you've got 10 people livid and 10 people maybe happy, and you can't even do that in these cases because you lack what a government has, which is authority.

As they pointed out it's hard to get anyone to do their fair share, and unlike a government which can just MAKE you, they have no such option.

▲

mx7zysuj4xew 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Government is community

▲

Eji1700 an hour ago | parent [-]

Eh not really? Sounds nice, but the most important part of government is authority. If i tell my neighbor I will lock him in a room unless they pay their taxes, i'm a fucking lunatic. It is 100% within the governments right however to do so.

You don't have to have the monopoly on violence to be the government, but it's often a defining feature, and where their authority stems from. A bunch of people together is just a community, and has no legal or other form or authority. If one of them decides to start stealing from the others, the appropriate retribution is mostly going to depend on who caught them.

At that point you're closer to libertarian/anarchy which, technically, is a form of government, but often defined by its lack of one. You arguably have small governments all over the world where that's how it works, but there's pretty clean lines when discussing these things.

Hell technically it's not a government unless it's running a state which is where a lot of this stems from.

	▲	bumby an hour ago \| parent [-]
		So your saying authority is usually necessary to make large groups run well