They face it and learn next time

What if they do not learn?

Then they chose to act against their own interests for something, it'd mean that the majority and the minority is irrational

this is prevented from the platform anyways, it's not that we pull democracy out of thin air

the previous development pulled the theory, which could shape the constitution; example: putting that all exploitation is banned because it's a right and studying in the academia how it works

self-managed media, etc. this can't be done now

in bourgeois democracy the media is controlled by hierarchies and capitalists in their own interests, parties depend on funding (with an advantage to capitalists) and to change the whole system you need to face the external imperialism and opposition

so it's like a dictatorship

'Acting against their own interests' can be avoided with authority that is grounded in material reality, that is, when intellectual superiors have higher authority to the average

also, education serves capital with terms like totalitarianism and mainstream economics

that's assuming there are intellectual superiors

Are you saying that everyone has equal intellectual ability?

if educated, yes

a few books aren't so difficult

So if we both read the same book, we understand it with equal depth and insight?

Unless we are clones raised in mirror worlds, this is never true.

public education can make tests and there could be assemblies with consensus about it; but about interpretations, there could be factions

and I think that giving a minority the authority because other minority think that they're best is the wrong way

wouldn't it be easier to have an authority

it's an imposition

How many different interpretations of '2 + 2 = 4' are there?

what if

teachers had like democratic elections

so if they don't work they can't preach to their tenure

in the decimal system this is true

and it should be taught as science

although not in a binary one

Consensus is a logical fallacy, appeal to popularity.

It is only sigificant if based in science.

anarchists unions try to discuss in assemblies and get into a consensus, convince who doesn't agree with them

What a waste of time.

this could take more time yes

but after it we don't have to do again the law

change the government, etc.

because we already agreed and learned from it

in other cases, there could be supermajorities

Assuming you made the correct discussion, which you cannot know because you care more about consensus than authoritative truths.

and in irreconciliable cases factions

no

scientifical truths doesn't depend on democracy

this is built on the platform in a pre-revolutionary phase