Molotov wrote:All other things being equal, then, the individual who lives in a democratic society has more welfare than the individual in a tyranny. If say, Man A was starving in Freedomland and Man B starving in Tyrannia, Man A at least has the opportunity through exercising his choice as to who governs to improve his lot, whereas Man B has nothing.
edit: Nice avatar btw Opakidabar, from the opening scene in Tropico?
The problem however arises when you question how much choice Man A actually has in who governs. To stand for election you will have to join one of the major political parties, gain the support of many members and climb up it to a position in which the party will stand you for election, to do this you will have to homogenise your views to that of the party and of its members, when the competing parties, on a broad scale, are already occupying similar positions everyone that hopes to stand for election will essentially end up in the same similar position. Then even if someone takes a more radical point and gets elected by the vast majority of his constituency they is sitting in a parliament of hundreds so Man A may have voted for them as he agree with how they will govern yet they will undoubtedly be silenced by everyone else they sit with. Is he really having a say over who governs him? And what if he doesn't want to be governed, he did not choose the political system that exists, he did not choose the idea of representative democracy or of the state. Additionally what if this is a heavily privatised state with anti union laws etc, Man A is probably starving because he cannot get a job or cannot afford to pay for food, he can vote all he wants but he cannot change the power held by capital and he will still be starving. So theoretically yes he does have more welfare then Man B but in reality perhaps not so.
