Idol of democracy.

[Sinner]

I have very hard time to see what is good about democracy? The system refered to as democracy is one of the least efficient and most expensive. It is based on deception and manipulation of public opinion. Yet, many posters here have almost religious ( no doubt due to absence of genuine faith) admiration of democracy.

I have following problems with democracy:
1. Majority is always wrong.
2. The way people vote is controlled by mass media.
3. Elected leaders are relieved of responsibility ( they represent majority, don't they?)
4. Politicians spend about 5% of their time doing the job and 95% of their time trying to be re-elected.
5. Democracy breeds bureaucratism. Which requires increased taxes, which slows down economic development.
6. Elected leaders have no real incentive to improve life of citizens or country's wellbeing.
7. To get elected a person has to be a complete scum.

[tinybear]

Democracy is overrated. All we need is a system of government with checks and balances so that power is not concentrated on one person or body of persons, an independent judiciary, sound non-corrupt law enforcement agencies and there you have it: a nicely run government. :)

[I'm Frank!]

try a government based on the need to keep our planet alive...lol

LOL mother nature, or God, or whoever you want is singing...

"one way, or another, im gonna get ya, get ya, get ya, get ya one way, or......

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: tinybear Democracy is overrated. All we need is a system of government with checks and balances so that power is not concentrated on one person or body of persons, an independent judiciary, sound non-corrupt law enforcement agencies and there you have it: a nicely run government. :)

I get it, you're talking about the U.S.! You tricky thing, you.

OK, I'm sold. Tell me where this place really is and I'm there! Europe? Sounth America?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: I'm Frank! try a government based on the need to keep our planet alive...lol LOL mother nature, or God, or whoever you want is singing... "one way, or another, im gonna get ya, get ya, get ya, get ya one way, or......

The problem is that, a long time ago when we started doing all the things that are causing harm to the planet we didn't KNOW we were hurting anything. I sincerely doubt anyone woke up one day a hundred or so years ago and said, "Hmm, what a great day to louse up the environment."

But the deed is done and although we may have done it differently if we knew then what we know now, our lifestyles are welded to the industries and processes that cause this harm. And let's face it, for most of the population, our lifestyle is all we have and we're not about to mess THAT up!

Nice thought though.

[SteveA]

I saw a show on television where a group of people were going around the world to same towns and "planting the seeds of democracy". They'd go into areas and try to get the people there to start voting on public endeavors by creating a public park and trying to get people in the town to vote on things.

I thought it was interesting that they had a (war?) map showing areas in the world with an overlay of how "democratic" the area was and they'd head to areas that weren't voting on enough things and try to get more of it going. I remember the person teaching democracy in the example saying that it was based on 50% +1.

I bet California is well inside their victory zone.

Democracy can be a great tool to coordinate people (I think something as simple as supermajority requirements would make it better) but government should be based upon rights and justice, not might makes right (a.k.a democracy).

The Incas or Aztecs (I'm not certain which) used to perform human sacrifice. I'm certain it was all democratic. They sacrificed virgins, we sacrifice our prosperous and wealthy. (I'm not saying none of them are guilty of anything but that simply being properous/wealthy alone doesn't justify punishment). I think I'd add many average law abiding citizens to the sacrificed list because in many ways criminals have advantages in the system.

[Sinner]

Democracy is overrated.

Indeed.

All we need is a system of government with checks and balances so that power is not concentrated on one person or body of persons, an independent judiciary, sound non-corrupt law enforcement agencies

Disagree. Concentration of power in hands of one person is the most efficient system of government. It cannot be an elected politician. I personally much prefer absolute monarchy. Look around, governments that charge no tax are almost all monarchies. And the more "democracy" there is, the higher is the tax rate.

[Boetie]

Sinner posts Concentration of power in hands of one person is the most efficient system of government

The above is stupid. The above is what the legislative branch did. The reason the founding fathers gave the legislative branch the power to declare war was because a debate will result before war is declared. If you give only one man the power, then there is no debate. The legislative branch stomped on the wisdom of the founding fathers by giving Bush Jr the authority. Because Bush Jr was given the authority it opened the door to a valid view that this war in Iraq is purely Machiavellian. What this means is that there doesn't have to be a reason for going to war other than the fact that going to war makes the prince popular, which is what happened in Bush Jr's case. In fact war was the only reason Bush Jr even became re-elected. So as it stands no one and I mean no one has disproved that this war wasn't started on the Machiavellian principle. This is why your concentration of power into the hand of one person is patently idiotic.

[SteveA]

Quote by: Sinner Disagree. Concentration of power in hands of one person is the most efficient system of government. It cannot be an elected politician. I personally much prefer absolute monarchy. Look around, governments that charge no tax are almost all monarchies. And the more "democracy" there is, the higher is the tax rate.

I don't the specific form of government is as important as the simple ability for people to have choices available. We had 50 relatively independent states and they should have remained relatively politically isolated. If we had 500 independent monarchies in the U.S. that people were relatively free to select from, unless somehow they all colluded (as through a federal government), it would be easy for most anyone to a few places in the U.S. to live under a good government. Either way, the important part is to not have only a few people pulling all the strings. Decentralize.

[Athena]

Quote by: Sinner I have very hard time to see what is good about democracy? The system refered to as democracy is one of the least efficient and most expensive. It is based on deception and manipulation of public opinion. Yet, many posters here have almost religious ( no doubt due to absence of genuine faith) admiration of democracy. I have following problems with democracy: 1. Majority is always wrong. 2. The way people vote is controlled by mass media. 3. Elected leaders are relieved of responsibility ( they represent majority, don't they?) 4. Politicians spend about 5% of their time doing the job and 95% of their time trying to be re-elected. 5. Democracy breeds bureaucratism. Which requires increased taxes, which slows down economic development. 6. Elected leaders have no real incentive to improve life of citizens or country's wellbeing. 7. To get elected a person has to be a complete scum.

People in places like Iraq and Aghanistan endure hardship, such as walking long distances through mountains, and the risk of being killed, to vote. Perhaps your dissatisfaction with democracy, is not knowing anything different?

It is nice to read many people treat democracy as a religion, as I am the only one I know who does this, and thank you for noticing. Others many be in favor of democracy, they sure aren't saying much about it. I have repeatedly to get everyone to drop discussion of religion in favor of discussion of democracy and it hasn't happened through my effort.

You have our Republican form of government confused with democracy. That is what you criticized, the Republican form of government. Now you made some good criticism, but they are based on a misunderstanding of democracy. Surely, others will pop up and tell you the US is not a democracy but a republic. That is because democracy is an ideology based on philosophy, and it is not a form of government.

All countries are a degree autocratic and a degree democratic. Do you know the meaning of these terms? How about despot? We are having a problem in the US, but that is because we do not understand democracy.

[Athena]

Quote by: Boetie The above is stupid. The above is what the legislative branch did. The reason the founding fathers gave the legislative branch the power to declare war was because a debate will result before war is declared. If you give only one man the power, then there is no debate. The legislative branch stomped on the wisdom of the founding fathers by giving Bush Jr the authority. Because Bush Jr was given the authority it opened the door to a valid view that this war in Iraq is purely Machiavellian. What this means is that there doesn't have to be a reason for going to war other than the fact that going to war makes the prince popular, which is what happened in Bush Jr's case. In fact war was the only reason Bush Jr even became re-elected. So as it stands no one and I mean no one has disproved that this war wasn't started on the Machiavellian principle. This is why your concentration of power into the hand of one person is patently idiotic.

Your term Machiavellian principle is perfect. Although many of us don't know that term, we do agree with what you said. Also your point is very well made!
Eisenhower argued strongly that the US is not a military agressor, and yes, when congress held the power to declare, it was a deliberate intent to slow down the process so we wouldn't react emotionally. However, sadly there was almost no debate and congress was reacting emotionally. War protesters were largely ignored. Now our nation is in greater danger than ever, because now a pre emptive strike on us is justified. Bush and his men changed the rules and I hope we can undo the damage, but this means examining public education and our culture.

[Boetie]

The problem of democracy is the problem of authority. I was born, as all of you were, in a country where everything has been already set up.
Of course many might say change the system, except there is one problem, which is the majority will always over rule you. The majority is no different than a despot, which changes the problem to one of autonomy vs authority. Authority being the majority.
Autonomy vs the despot. There is your dillema

[Athena]

Quote by: Scribbler1 The problem is that, a long time ago when we started doing all the things that are causing harm to the planet we didn't KNOW we were hurting anything. I sincerely doubt anyone woke up one day a hundred or so years ago and said, "Hmm, what a great day to louse up the environment." But the deed is done and although we may have done it differently if we knew then what we know now, our lifestyles are welded to the industries and processes that cause this harm. And let's face it, for most of the population, our lifestyle is all we have and we're not about to mess THAT up! Nice thought though.

Some very exciting things are happening. Complete, huge shopping malls are being built to be freindly to the environment. We have been successful in cleaning up rivers and lakes. Where we still have forest, replanting them has proven very successful. But something is wrong with our culture and media. This is another subject, important to the understanding of democracy.

[Athena]

Quote by: Sinner Indeed. Disagree. Concentration of power in hands of one person is the most efficient system of government. It cannot be an elected politician. I personally much prefer absolute monarchy. Look around, governments that charge no tax are almost all monarchies. And the more "democracy" there is, the higher is the tax rate.

The first president of the US did not receive a salary. The US government has been corrupted, as is so of most civilizations when they reach 200 years. The first formal democracy, Athens lasted only 200 years and the US democracy is repeating its history.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Sinner I have very hard time to see what is good about democracy? The system refered to as democracy is one of the least efficient and most expensive. It is based on deception and manipulation of public opinion. Yet, many posters here have almost religious ( no doubt due to absence of genuine faith) admiration of democracy. I have following problems with democracy: 1. Majority is always wrong. 2. The way people vote is controlled by mass media. 3. Elected leaders are relieved of responsibility ( they represent majority, don't they?) 4. Politicians spend about 5% of their time doing the job and 95% of their time trying to be re-elected. 5. Democracy breeds bureaucratism. Which requires increased taxes, which slows down economic development. 6. Elected leaders have no real incentive to improve life of citizens or country's wellbeing. 7. To get elected a person has to be a complete scum.

1. The majority is not "always" wrong. But when it is, it is the collective decision that screws everyone over. So the majority would be to blame for that problems that hit them, which is a far better situation than one person's wrong decisions affecting everyone.
2. The way people vote is not controlled by the mass media. It plays a large part in informing, and in doing so affects voting patterns, but there are obviously other factors to consider. Class, religion, race, unions, gender and cultural differences all play a part, and combined their effects are more potent than that of the mass media.
3. Elected leaders are responsible precisely because of democracy. If they fail in their duties, they are relieved of power. In an autocracy, like the absolute monarchies you favour, the leaders are free from responsibility because they are only in power because of "God", or more accurately, their armies.
4. If you dislike the pattern of politicians spending all of their time trying to be re-elected, vote for someone who doesn't. That's the beauty of democracy. If you don't like it, you have the potential to change it, unlike under an autocracy,
5. Autocracies also breed bureaucracy. Think of the ancient Egypt, Persian Empire, the French Empire, Greater Russia, Rome, China for most of it's history. And they also had *gasp* taxation.
6. Unelected leaders have no real incentive to make peoples lives better, because they face no comebacks for failures to do so. Elected leaders however can lose their position if they fail to improve the lives of their citizens.
7. To elect scum, the people have to be morons, in which case why should I have sympathy? But under autocracy, if you do get scum, which you will, you can't get rid of it without a war. I'm not opposed to violence in order to get the government I deserve, but I'll take a ballot box over it anyday.

[northtexan]

Quote by: Boetie The above is stupid. The above is what the legislative branch did. The reason the founding fathers gave the legislative branch the power to declare war was because a debate will result before war is declared. If you give only one man the power, then there is no debate. The legislative branch stomped on the wisdom of the founding fathers by giving Bush Jr the authority. Because Bush Jr was given the authority it opened the door to a valid view that this war in Iraq is purely Machiavellian. What this means is that there doesn't have to be a reason for going to war other than the fact that going to war makes the prince popular, which is what happened in Bush Jr's case. In fact war was the only reason Bush Jr even became re-elected. So as it stands no one and I mean no one has disproved that this war wasn't started on the Machiavellian principle. This is why your concentration of power into the hand of one person is patently idiotic.

At least there's some sense on this board. The real laugh is that when power was in the hands of kings, they kept creating advisory bodies to help them make decisions. This was very pronounced in England, where one body after another was created. The issue was that an advisory body created to advise the king would sooner or later start to limit what he could do, so a strong king would break out of their control and create a new circle of advisors to help him out; and sooner or later, that body would hem in either the original king or a descendent. Of course, the all-powerfulness of kings was generally a myth, because the king had to act through layers of nobles, who were all seeking their own ends. So organizations of nobles would also be added to the governance structure. And out of all of this, English rights and later English democracy emerged. And where democracy did get born, it was because people fought for it -- not generally for everyone, but at least for themselves, and it later got generalized.

My conclusions: having it all in the hands of one person is the WORST possible solution, nor is it viable for the long term. It's not just the Stalins, the King Georges, and the Neros, it's also the weak leaders, the Dubyas. Having a wider body is better, but portions of society will fight for representation of their own perspectives, and those perspectives deserve to be represented, so generalization is good. Ultimately, democracy may be fought for, and then I will help fight for it. Unfortunately, the inheritors of democracy CAN tend to become couch potatoes mesmerized by their respective media (and electronic media are but the latest). All I conclude is that democracy that has been fought for and bought at great human price is the best way to govern.

And we must NEVER give into the elite snobs who denigrate democracy not for the weaknesses it has shown but in fear of its strengths, its ability to put limits on their own depridations. As bad as American democracy is, it must be fought for and protected from the scum who, on this board and elsewhere, denigrate it, ask us to abandon it, and praise the corrupt monsters in the current administration who are doing their best to destroy it.

[northtexan]

Quote by: Boetie The problem of democracy is the problem of authority. I was born, as all of you were, in a country where everything has been already set up. Of course many might say change the system, except there is one problem, which is the majority will always over rule you. The majority is no different than a despot, which changes the problem to one of autonomy vs authority. Authority being the majority. Autonomy vs the despot. There is your dillema

Better that dilemma than despotism.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: tinybear Democracy is overrated. All we need is a system of government with checks and balances so that power is not concentrated on one person or body of persons, an independent judiciary, sound non-corrupt law enforcement agencies and there you have it: a nicely run government. :)

What you fail to realize is that power is concentrated in the government itself.

- Rob

[SteveA]

Quote by: Athena People in places like Iraq and Aghanistan endure hardship, such as walking long distances through mountains, and the risk of being killed, to vote. Perhaps your dissatisfaction with democracy, is not knowing anything different? ... We are having a problem in the US, but that is because we do not understand democracy.

I'm certain we'd all agree that walking long distances to vote, in itself, isn't a good thing.

What's are the good ideas typically associated with democracy? - The ability for "people" to self-govern, typically associated with freedom and liberty because it's hard to imagine someone wanting to enslave themself.

So the real value of democracy is only in the envisioned ideal of someone being able to self-govern themself and avoid outside oppression.

Why not skip the long walks and just go straight for the self-governing?

I know disputes will result and people will need to "deal" with these by some form of conflict resolution like voting, but notice that the ideal isn't to vote. The ideal is to avoid needing to vote or fight or otherwise result on force and oppression to rule over people.

I'd agree voting isn't too bad an idea to resolve conflicts, though the typical 50% +1 view doesn't consider a lot. We use juries to resolve things in the U.S. and I think that's not a bad system as outside views in the conflict tend to be more impartial and fair.

But whether it's courts or democracy that's used to resolve disputes, the ideal is to have a system/culture/government etc. that doesn't create additional conflicts than are necessary in the first place. That's why the Constitution and the Bill of Rights has been so valuable in creating a peaceful and prosperous country - because they reject and limit largescale democracy in favor of simple rules that limit conflict in the first place.

It's the needless application of democratic ideas that causes problems. Voting isn't much different than wars - the winning side even uses guns to rule. We just skip slaughtering the minority under democracy but it's in no way a system that promotes a culture of peace or prosperity.

So yes, wars happen on occasion but we shouldn't rely on virtual ones to create a peaceful nation.

From my view, I see libertarians in this virtual war as people who don't want to rule over other people or have people rule over them. They just want a place to have their homes and live peacefully. I don't believe such views are utopian. Some conflicts are unavoidable but assuming every aspect of our lives is free game for everyone to vote on, including our lives to wars and property to government etc. is a diseased view that will eat itself away from the inside out. We've voted ourself an intrusive, powerful and destructive tyrannt not much different than the others and he's "the People". I voted for something different ... does that mean I'm still part of "the People"?

[Sonart]

Quote by: Sinner I have very hard time to see what is good about democracy?

Yep, democracy is really awful. As Winston Churchill said, "...democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

You have something better in mind, Sinner?

.