Oh well, I'm sure it will all work out fine as long as we think positive.
It feels like whatever -ism you want to organize society under, you have to have checks and balances, in order to prevent things like grift causing 900k apartments...
Indeed a "proper" democracy seems to be a lot more resilient against corruption, although I wonder if it's more to do with the society's cohesiveness, e.g. in Scandinavia. Then again the crazies like to call Scandinavia "a socialist hell hole", so maybe even socialism can be done right if you have the right society...
It is almost guaranteed to be misleading, but it isn't incorrect. I'm very comfortable increasing the complexity, but few people are, and I've yet to meet someone who doesn't call foul very early in the process, even if you forewarn them.
> It is almost guaranteed to be misleading, but it isn't incorrect.
What is "it" here?
> I'm very comfortable increasing the complexity
Of what? I'm guessing the complexity of the conversation?
> I've yet to meet someone who doesn't call foul very early in the process
I'm wary of asking for "try me" and ending up doing this, and wary that this warning means whatever it is people called foul about is something you're getting wrong but insist you're right on, without ever reflecting about others' opinions/their foul call.
How about that for meta...
Ah you're the original "maybe we need to redefine a lot of words" commenter. Sigh, I think your mistake is believing what it says on the tin/the dictionary definition, on things like "we are ruled by democracy [or communism, pick your poison]"
In a monarchy, long term interests win out over short term interests because they're dynastic and stay within a family. There is a natural incentive for long term thinking that comes with a monarchy.
This problem is not democracy itself, but the incrementalism that occurs in democratic systems. At least in representative democracies, every few years another person is elected to carve out provisions to benefit their special interests. In theory, this would be the constituents. But in practice, after the politicians realize voters are unorganized, uninformed, and as self-interested as everyone else, the politician also focus on themselves (and you would too). Compound that over hundreds of years and it's should be clear as day why democratic governments inevitably grind to halt, become ineffective, collapse, and are recreated from a clean slate.
You do raise the issue of how to structure government to encourage more long-term, or rational, planning. I don't think that short-term thinking is inherent to democracy any more than a two-party duopoly is inherent to democracy. As with the US and UK duopoly, short-term, self-interested government policies may be due to election incentives or the frameworks in which elections take place.
This isn't contested in political philosophy circles, just amongst people with a romanticized understanding of a very specific form of representative democracy they happen to live within.
For example, short term interests have preempted long-term interests with regards to climate change. But, even if the government passed a law on climate change, at what point in the future should the law be ignored or changed. Is it one year, ten years, or one hundred years? Further, what about all of the laws from the past you've dismissed as antiquated or arcane? It's intellectually dishonest to argue those laws weren't passed without any long-term thinking just because they don't comport with society now.
*[citation needed]I’m not claiming democracy is any better - humans are notoriously bad at long-term thinking unfortunately.