[repomies691]

> Compared to ruling by force, yes, democracy is inherently good for the people

I don't understand why people here see democratic system as a replacement for ruling by a force. Democratic countries also rule by force in the end. Democratic countries also need polices, guns, armies, prisons, tax inspectors, prosecutors etc. Those same institutions are also the tools for dictatorships, they are just governed in a different way.

(I also think democracy is good, but however in the end both democracies and dictatorships rely on violence to be effective. I think that's quite basic lesson on how society works.)

[CPLX]

The relevant word isn’t “force” it’s “consent”.

All forms of government to some extent or another have to maintain a monopoly on legal violence and use force.

The distinction with democracy is that the government secures and maintains the consent of those being governed.

[cheschire]

There are plenty of people who don't consent on a daily basis. The actions range from peaceful protests to traitorous acts. How does a democracy deal with them? Force.

[matheusmoreira]

There is no consent. There is not even a choice.

Even in anarchy, humans form groups because it's better than being alone. Every group has rules. Members can choose to follow them and enjoy the benefits or leave the group and lose the benefits.

Governments don't follow this logic. Nobody consciously decides that they want to be governed, they just happen to be born on a particular territory. Most people can't just reject the laws and leave, and those that can are really just choosing between other governments. They can't simply create another country with their own laws and invite people over.

The social contract isn't really a contract, it's an imposition.

[magoghm]

I was born in a Democracy. Democracy was forced upon me. I never gave my consent.

Note: I'm not talking about whether Democracy is good or bad, just about my "consent".

edit: fixed typo

[ryandrake]

It's less rule by consent and more rule by mob. Just because 50.5% of people vote for something I disagree with, doesn't mean I suddenly consent to it being law. I still don't have a choice and must unconsentually comply, otherwise "men with monopoly on legal violence" come and kill me or take me to prison. The only other choices are 1. convince the 1% (literally millions) of people to change their mind and get that vote to 49.5%, or 2. find a different place to live.

[HBKXNCUO]

How is that consent measured?

[thrower123]

That's the theory. However, just see what happens in most democracies if you, or a larger group of people, try to revoke your consent to be governed.

The jackboots come down just as hard.

[merpnderp]

Dictatorships rely solely on force. Democracies mostly rely on a common agreement to follow a social contract. There’s not nearly enough police in the US to quell a rebellion of the people if they lost faith in Democracy.

[V-2]

> Dictatorships rely solely on force.

Not necessarily. Some dictatorships do enjoy genuine support. (Obviously they make it easier for themselves it by controlling the media etc.)

> There’s not nearly enough police in the US to quell a rebellion of the people if they lost faith in Democracy.

By the same token it's also possible to topple a dictatorship. At some point even your security forces will say "no". A good example would be the failure of "Plan X" in East Germany, when Stasi agents boycotted the orders, since they realized the cause was lost anyway.

[jiveturkey]

Isn't it true though, there's not nearly enough police in any country to quell a rebellion of the people? This is how dictators get overthrown.

[sputr]

> I don't understand why people here see democratic system as a replacement for ruling by a force.

I would hazard a guess that a lot of us, that see it this way, are from culture backgrounds that still have historical recollection of "not democracy".

The definition of state is it's monopolisation of violence. But the difference is if it uses violence to keep the specific section of the ruling elite in power ... or just to keep the state (i.e. the entirety of the ruling elite) in power.