@9H84VDL6mos6MO
I think so. It is hard for people to make decisions on their own, especially if they are not informed in those topics. Having knowledgeable representatives keeps our democracy from failing.
@9H7TWM76mos6MO
No, it always allows for one person to do whats best for them which is usually not best for everyone else.
@9H6SBN5 6mos6MO
Often, a majority is benefited by the people in power, but the majority is oppressed much harder.
@9H8NX77Republican6mos6MO
No, because when you have power, you always want more of it.
@9H5R9X66mos6MO
No, sovereignty belongs to the people. Any authority should be accountable to the people.
@9H7C49PRepublican6mos6MO
No power breeds the greed for more power. If we spread the power to as many hands as possible and decentralize it, it will be less likely to be abused.
@9H8L7K66mos6MO
There is a majority in every group but authoritarianism may still favor the majority because of how strict it is.
@9H66KVQ6mos6MO
Never. Power should always be in the hands of the people, not a select few.
@9H6NY8F6mos6MO
No because it leads to corruption and a certain group would speak for the whole, not allowing the entire population to prosper or their needs be considered
Not in the long run it doesn't; we are no longer a civilization that needs to be told what to do to be able to survive; it with almost always lead to corruption and human rights being violated.
@9H656DF6mos6MO
The power should be in the hands of the many, ie the voters. Unfortunately, it is now in the hands of the elected, who don't seem to represent anyone but themselves.
@9H6LR7K6mos6MO
It theoretically could, but in practice it never happens.
Yes it does the opinion a few people make can make the rest of us see different.
@9H665M76mos6MO
No I do not think that Authoritarianism does not put power in the hands of the majority, because it is the practice of making decisions for others. Everyone has different opinions so one person making a choice for everyone would lead to less power and control.
@Name-IrrelevantConstitution 6mos6MO
No. Power corrupts. Every government in history has proven this. Even if you get one benevolent dictator, what safeguard is there against a malevolent dictator taking the throne in the future?
@9H6JC466mos6MO
It is difficult to make decisions with everybody involved, so it is helpful to have delegates to speak. We are too large of a country to have a pure democracy. However, we need to find the appropriate balance where the most voices are heard while progress is still happening.
@9H5RKNK6mos6MO
Depends on their influence, and what they are contributing.
@9H8XTHG6mos6MO
I feel like too much freedom would cause many conflicts and issues for louder groups would get more say.
@9H6BTH66mos6MO
Yes. A strong central power is more efficient and powerful in a literal sense. Ideally this power is used for good, and the people profit. The average person is retarded and cant think for **** .
@9H63KQ56mos6MO
No because either way it increases a danger of possible authoritarian change within the system.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...