Is Democracy the Right Choice for all? Documentary Report

[Praxius]

I dunno, the only information provided was a democracy, the report shows poloticians trying to make their rounds to be voted for, so I would suggest it would be a similar democracy as Canada's, US's, UK's, etc.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Praxius I dunno, the only information provided was a democracy, the report shows poloticians trying to make their rounds to be voted for, so I would suggest it would be a similar democracy as Canada's, US's, UK's, etc.

I'm sure the same is true for Canada, the UK, etc. but the United States is not a democracy!

[Praxius]

Not exactly, no.... hopefully they're not going for your system

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Praxius Not exactly, no.... hopefully they're not going for your system

You have a problem with a very limited federal government that is bound by the rule of law?

[Praxius]

Quote by: Chancellor You have a problem with a very limited federal government that is bound by the rule of law?

They are? Funny, Doesn't seem that way But I suppose it depends on what you determine/interp as "Law" Since that varies from country to country.

in my personal opinion, the republic in question doesn't seem limited nor bound to the rule of law..... maybe the citizens are, but not those in power.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Praxius And if you don't vote or input your views into the system, you also can't complain when things don't go your way.... but I feel it'd bring a lot more accuracy to what the overall country wants/needs as well as the direction to take the country, rather then voting in one person who will "Cut us the best Deal" and do what they feel we want.

If you do vote and input your views into a democracy, you can't complain. You've already agreed, through the simple act of voting, that you will abide by the decisions of the majority. If they choose to enslave you and serve your children as appetizers at the feast of Cthulu, they can do so.

Makes just as much sense as your contention, and possibly a lot more.

Keith

[grandpa]

Quote by: Alive Since we are discussing different government systems, I am assuming that we agree that we want government. Government is a requirement for democracy or any of its alternatives.

I agree that every organization--even an informal one--can't help but having governing tendencies, but there is a difference between tendencies toward self-government and being governed.

Even though I really am not a big fan of the guy, Thomas Jefferson actually put it quite well:
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education."

The alternative principle of "Representative Democracy" (or any form of authority) operates under the false idea that governing elites are necessarily more "enlightened" than the masses.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger If you do vote and input your views into a democracy, you can't complain. You've already agreed, through the simple act of voting, that you will abide by the decisions of the majority.

Of course, this assumes that a vote on such and such a day means one cannot effectively change his/her mind later. I don't agree with that.

Grandpa h.

[Alive]

Quote by: grandpa I agree that every organization--even an informal one--can't help but having governing tendencies, but there is a difference between tendencies toward self-government and being governed. Even though I really am not a big fan of the guy, Thomas Jefferson actually put it quite well: "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education."

The problem with the "education" argument is that education works both ways. Good and bad ideas can both be taught to people, and most lack the ability to judge well between them. Look, Americans are more educated than ever, and what did you get? Eight years of Bush!

The alternative principle of "Representative Democracy" (or any form of authority) operates under the false idea that governing elites are necessarily more "enlightened" than the masses.

I think the governing elites are forced to disenlighten themselves to appeal to the masses--that's the whole problem! We should work to ensure that the most enlightened becomes the governing elites. That way we'll have a sensible system rather than the complete mess we have now.

[mark3748]

Direct democracy isn't a very good thing, it means that the majority has complete rule over the minority. A popular analogy is two wolves and a sheep voting over what to have for dinner.

A constitutionally-limited democratic republic is a much better option, although not perfect. There really are no perfect forms of government.

To answer the OP, the country is currently a monarchy, what the king says, goes. If he says he wants a democracy, the subjects really have no choice. If they really want to keep the monarchy, all they would have to do is vote for it. No, democracy isn't best for everyone, nothing is best for everyone.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: mark3748 Direct democracy isn't a very good thing, it means that the majority has complete rule over the minority. A popular analogy is two wolves and a sheep voting over what to have for dinner.

Or, gang rape.

If the vote is 10 to 1, in a democracy, there is no victim.

Keith

[grandpa]

Quote by: Alive The problem with the "education" argument is that education works both ways. Good and bad ideas can both be taught to people, and most lack the ability to judge well between them.

Education efforts work both ways all the time, true. But you are incorrect to suggest that governing elites become unenlightened to appeal to the masses, or that we should ever trust such people to be enlightened or to enlighten us.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: mark3748 Direct democracy isn't a very good thing, it means that the majority has complete rule over the minority. A popular analogy is two wolves and a sheep voting over what to have for dinner.

I'm not saying predatory behavior cannot happen in every society, but I do question why you assume "Representative Democracy" is less predatory, less conniving.

You also assume direct democracy means majority rule, which is not the intention at all. The intention is self-management by all interested parties, which needn't be at all predatory. If it's not about self-government, it is hardly what I would consider "direct."

Grandpa h.

[Osborn F Enready]

Democracy is not right for all, nor is ANYTHING right for all.

Who in the hell thinks they have the credibility to speak for "all"?!?

Should they even be respected?

Individuals are individuals by nature, and no matter how hard collectivists hope and pray, we will still be individuals tomorrow.

Democracy with respect and restraint from infringing on individual rights is a decent thing.

Democracy in its true form, is one of the most vile and despicable things known to man. (who gets voted off the island this week????)

[Alive]

Quote by: grandpa Education efforts work both ways all the time, true. But you are incorrect to suggest that governing elites become unenlightened to appeal to the masses, or that we should ever trust such people to be enlightened or to enlighten us. Grandpa h.

Isn't making the education argument the same as saying that you want some people to enlighten others?

We've had this discussion before. If you agree that leaders are necessary, why not get the best ones?

[Praxius]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger If you do vote and input your views into a democracy, you can't complain. You've already agreed, through the simple act of voting, that you will abide by the decisions of the majority. If they choose to enslave you and serve your children as appetizers at the feast of Cthulu, they can do so. Makes just as much sense as your contention, and possibly a lot more. Keith

I disagree on the fact that most of the tools voted into power, even by my own vote, never end up doing what they promised in the first place, so the whole democratic system and the notion to suck up what comes my way is void imo.

If I refuse to vote, then the common response is "Well you didn't vote so you have no say" ~ And at the same time you just said "If I voted, then I have no say because I voted them in."

Seems a little screwed up if you ask me.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Praxius They are? Funny, Doesn't seem that way But I suppose it depends on what you determine/interp as "Law" Since that varies from country to country.

I was referring to the form of government the American founding fathers established under the Constitution.

in my personal opinion, the republic in question doesn't seem limited nor bound to the rule of law..... maybe the citizens are, but not those in power.

That's because the federal government has been usurping more and more power, contrary to the Constitution, and most Americans have been too stupid or too lazy to do anything about it.

[mark3748]

Quote by: grandpa I'm not saying predatory behavior cannot happen in every society, but I do question why you assume "Representative Democracy" is less predatory, less conniving.

That's why I said constitutionally-limited, if you have the rights of citizens clearly laid out and respected, there is a far less chance of the predatory and conniving behavior. That is the way it was intended in the US. Does it work? More or less, unfortunately those in power generally refuse to work within the boundaries that were originally set forth, and we end up losing our freedoms, sometimes slowly, sometimes not.

Quote by: grandpa You also assume direct democracy means majority rule, which is not the intention at all. The intention is self-management by all interested parties, which needn't be at all predatory. If it's not about self-government, it is hardly what I would consider "direct."

It's never the intention, but that is how it works. In theory, communism is the absolute perfect government, but in practice, it couldn't be worse.

A representative democracy that allows true self government, allowing absolute personal freedom, is about as close to perfect as you can get. The only legitimate function of such a government is to protect the freedoms of the people. As long as you're not causing physical harm to anyone else, you should be able to do anything you want

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Praxius I disagree on the fact that most of the tools voted into power, even by my own vote, never end up doing what they promised in the first place, so the whole democratic system and the notion to suck up what comes my way is void imo. If I refuse to vote, then the common response is "Well you didn't vote so you have no say" ~ And at the same time you just said "If I voted, then I have no say because I voted them in." Seems a little screwed up if you ask me.

Perhaps the whole concept of "leaders" might be a "little screwed up".

If you vote for someone who you know is not bound to follow their promises, and that, historically, such people voted into power tend not to follow their promises, how can you claim a right to complain about what they did? You selected them knowing that such a situation is likely?

And, if you lose the election and the person you voted for loses, doesn't that still mean you endorse the person you voted against? You would expect your opponents to follow the rule of the person you voted FOR, if that person would win. Wouldn't it be appropriate for you to be expected to do the same if the other person wins?

How does your voting give you a claim to complain about what those elected do? You agreed to follow the decision of the electorate by voting in the first place, didn't you?

Keith

Having said that, I still vote, but I never vote for "mainstream" candidates. And, I never expect voting to grant me any priveleges in terms of "complaining" and can respect the argument made above that I may be losing a certain justification for my complaints about what happens. However, unless there is a reasonable chance of success at armed revolution, the best hope we have at this point is voting. The soap box or the ballot box or the ammo box. It will take a lot more than me to select the last option.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Alive Isn't making the education argument the same as saying that you want some people to enlighten others? We've had this discussion before.

certainly, I'd like people to enlighten each other, but I wouldn't say the way to enlightenment is through authority.

Grandpa h.