←back to thread

Bhutan, after prioritizing happiness, now faces an existential crisis

(www.cbsnews.com)
271 points nradov | 1 comments | 18 Nov 24 13:53 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
andai ◴[18 Nov 24 14:34 UTC] No.42172596[source]▶
King thinks democracy is a great idea. Everyone rejects it. King institutes it anyway.

Wait a second...

replies(3): >>42172684 #>>42172769 #>>42172854 #
jollofricepeas ◴[18 Nov 24 14:43 UTC] No.42172684[source]▶
The people could vote the same person or party in representing the interests of the king and his family. Dictators can be democratically elected.

The real question is how do you protect people from themselves?

replies(4): >>42172842 #>>42172919 #>>42173118 #>>42173564 #
lucianbr ◴[18 Nov 24 15:19 UTC] No.42173118[source]▶
What's the difference between "protect people from themselves" and "take away people's freedom and decide for them anything important"?

IMHO, freedom must contain the freedom to choose "bad", or make mistakes. "Bad" is in quotes because it's only certain to be bad from the perspective of the person considering the problem, you or me in this case. Maybe the people will be well served by "bad" decisions, able to learn from them, or be happy in ignorance, or who knows what else.

I think it's parallel to giving children autonomy. The more you protect them, the more you prevent their growth as a person.

replies(1): >>42177365 #
1. int_19h ◴[18 Nov 24 21:37 UTC] No.42177365{3}[source]▶
Unlike with children, though, "people" is not a singular entity. While the sets of those voting for some platform and the set of those harmed by its policies often intersect, they rarely overlap entirely.

In general, the biggest problem with any kind of democracy is preventing it from dissolving into a cycle of people voting to, basically, oppress and/or rob their outgroup neighbors for their own benefit (with outgroups themselves created or redefined over time to provide for new targets).