Quote Originally Posted by Tiaexz View Post
Where is the flaw?

Democracy is a system fundamentally built upon compromise of peoples voices. Whilst sometimes there are arguments and one-side wins, it usually produces a system which reflects the wishes of those who vote/campaign/elect.

Therefore, if you do not take part, your wishes are not being reflected by your own choice, so complaining about it is pointless as it is your own fault your wishes are not being heard as you refuse to act.

So the way to be heard is to engage with the system and if the opinion is swayed too much in one direction, it is your duty to amend that with your voice.

This is different for those who do vote as they are actually engaging with the system, so when an MP is not representing them, they can give them the stick for not doing so. Voting is choosing to be heard.
You said:

If this view was a broad-consensus, then the system would change.
The argument is basically tautological: 'if things were better, then they would be better'. Add on the implicit 'it's your fault the world isn't perfect', and the head-up-buttitude becomes intolerable.

What do you think of this argument:

(The premise is that you getting rich is a good thing)

'Alright, everyone in the world ought to give me a penny. That way, I'll become rich for sure.'

...

'Hey, why don't you give me a penny, cheapskate? Don't you want me to get rich?'
The fact that you would be rich if everyone gave you money is totally irrelevant to any argument for giving you money. Any valid argument for giving you money could not rely on it.