Democracy isnt really that valuable as an end in itself; at best its probably a secondary goal for a liberal state. Its mainly useful as a check on corruption and as a way to select policy that will satisfy the most people as long as the issues under debate arent rights that should be excluded from the political process, and rather edified by an elite group of smart people. When there is disagreement over what those rights are and how they should be edified, democracy fails because you cant agree on the policys foundations. Venezuela seems to be in disagreement about how much of wealth distribution should be democratically administered and how much should be edified. A large portion of society thinks that the Chavez regime, warts and all, will ensure their economic rights. Why should the poor support democracy if there is a chance that a majority will persistently dick them over? I dont think thats as offensive a question as many reflexively do. To quote Eddie Murphy, what have you done for me lately? anonymus
Posted on: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 06:24:48 +0000