Hi Mr. Ed,

That's funny, I thought the country was already being run by a bunch of adolescents. Actually, I think the voting age should be put up to 25 or even 30, just for a while, and then carefully brought back down, in step with the reduction in GetUP! donations, to 21.

That should alienate pretty much everybody on OLO :)

Cheers,

Joe

One part brain, one part brain-fart.
That's how I'd sum this up.

The reason there is no real democracy is because there is no real balance of power.
If they make the rules for us, we should make the rules for them.
If they make their own rules, that's not democracy.

"You can in fact argue that when there are massive demonstrations in the United States opposing a recently elected president, people are protesting against a dictatorship of hobbits and hooligans."

Whining about Trump; that is actually democracy at work that you're complaining about, and I'd submit you dont have a clue what's really going on in regards to Trump and democracy.

"In fact, there is no reason why only citizens above 18 years of age should be allowed vote."
First you complain about uninformed voters, then you supporting them make up your mind.

"Pope Francis supported a “Yes” in the Colombian referendum. Since he is protected by dogma, he must be right."
Only a moron would listen to that globalist shill.

"Interestingly, we previously generally accepted that democracy is by nature redistributive, and therefore protects the lower class against the excesses of any ruling minority."

Why would we accept that; or is that what academics told us?
Why would we need to read an article from academics, to simply acknowledge that most high level members of government come from a University background which is usually 'left' in nature.
Is the sky blue?

"Therefore, we can only claim the triumph of democracy if we acknowledge the problems of any of the alternatives."

You must have a pea sized brain.
First you acknowledge it's pitfalls, now you're claiming its triumph.
If you want to judge democracy by it's merits, then look at the pro's and con's of democracy.

As in democracy allows a nation to be stripped of it's wealth by corporations.
Tell me one self-respecting dictator that would allow all his nations assets sold off.

Ironic, I never went to University.

All the self respecting dictators I ever heard of were just to busy stripping their nation's wealth for any multinational to get a look in, whereas we here in our so called democracy, are all but giving it away, with the only visible result the rich getting a tad richer and the gap between the haves and have nots just getting wider?

And could so much different, with everybody getting a larger slice from a larger pie, except the ever avaricious insatiable multinationals!
Alan B.

Hi AC,

"Therefore, we can only claim the triumph of democracy if we acknowledge the problems of any of the alternatives."

"You must have a pea sized brain.
"First you acknowledge it's pitfalls, now you're claiming its triumph.
If you want to judge democracy by it's merits, then look at the pro's and con's of democracy."

That's right, democracy is an imperfect system, and it will always be like that. There will never be perfect system, a Utopia, unless you count those self-proclaimed as such, such as fascism and socialism. All Utopias lead quickly to fascism, no matter what they're called.

The craving by many people for a 'strong leader', an 'autocrat', a dictator, is very worrying.

You remark: "Ironic, I never went to University."

No ! I don' believe it.

Joe