alt Hacker News> I'm sure the people who would have their right to vote stripped from them would consider that malicious, and they would be correct.
I don't agree with him but you're incorrect here. To play devil's advocate, if his policy idea resulted in better outcomes for them, e.g. better material conditions, then they may end up preferring not having a right to vote and consider him a good person.
> That's not democracy.
Democracy isn't necessarily the same thing as direct democracy, or "everyone votes." The Ancient Greeks didn't practice democracy this way. In any case, democracy isn't a virtue in itself. If one system is democratic according to your standards but the vast majority of its citizens live in squalor while another system is not democratic according to your standards but the vast majority of its citizens live in prosperity, which system is better?
Replies
Historical precedent (both recent and not) shows that concentrating wealth and then giving those wealthy few an inordinate amount of political power does not end well for those disenfranchised by this system.
It is not reasonable to give the benefit of the doubt on the basis of Lutke and his ilk maybe being benevolent dictators if given largely unfettered access to the levers of power.
I think most people will agree that empowering the edgelord Shopify CEO is not going to improve most people's outcomes. All you need to do is read his tweets to see that he should have less power (much less), not more.