Thread: Is democracy good?

Face it there are a lot stupid people in the world. How about we try something diffrent maybe collective anarchisim. I'm an objectivist(sort of) but we always vote for people who are idiots. How about we create a new society based on technology and innovation.

Originally Posted by Joe246

Face it there are a lot stupid people in the world. How about we try something diffrent maybe collective anarchisim. I'm an objectivist(sort of) but we always vote for people who are idiots. How about we create a new society based on technology and innovation.

Why would we try something different, democracy has consistently proven itself to be the fairest and most successful form of government. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a society based on "technology and innovation," but if you mean a Randian supersociety, like that in The Fountainhead, that's just morally questionable fantasy.

Even if democracy were to consistently lead to bad leadership, it is the only functional form of government that is actually compatible with legal equality, and that is not something I am willing to give up, just so I can be lead by a "benevolent" dictator who will free me of that troublesome burden of having to actually be involved in the political process.

First, we're not a direct democracy, so I see a bit of flaw in your central premise.
Second, I presume you've been reading a lot of Ayn Rand?


Me personally, I'd much rather live in a meritocracy. The challenge with that is merit itself is often subjective. Bugger.

Direct democracy isn't logistically viable. The unfortunate consequence of representative democracy is that certain individuals, *cough* corporations *cough*, get a greater deal of influence on political decisions. Certainly things could be done to make that less of a problem, but it's still better than the expensive clusterfuck a direct democracy is.

Nor do I think popular opinion is always right, John Stuart Mill correctly warned against the dangers of tyranny of the majority in On Liberty. Democracy needs to be checked by unalterable constitutional guarantees of freedom enforced by a judicial branch that is ideally above political partisanship. Unfortunately, it doesn't work out so perfectly in practice as it does on paper.

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

Originally Posted by Joe246

Face it there are a lot stupid people in the world. How about we try something diffrent maybe collective anarchisim. I'm an objectivist(sort of) but we always vote for people who are idiots. How about we create a new society based on technology and innovation.

Why would we try something different, democracy has consistently proven itself to be the fairest and most successful form of government. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a society based on "technology and innovation," but if you mean a Randian supersociety, like that in The Fountainhead, that's just morally questionable fantasy.

Even if democracy were to consistently lead to bad leadership, it is the only functional form of government that is actually compatible with legal equality, and that is not something I am willing to give up, just so I can be lead by a "benevolent" dictator who will free me of that troublesome burden of having to actually be involved in the political process.

I'm talking about a technocracy. I'm talking about a society where cooperation and freedom are the princples not the military or the masses. America is destroying itself by putting pr men like bush and Obama in office

"a society where cooperation and freedom are the principles" so... communism? as much as i wish it did work(i'm quite liberal) something like that just doesn't work. and besides that, who decides what we're cooperating to do? or what freedoms we have the right to? and who runs the military, because although it would be nice to not have one, if you don't have a military then someone will think they're better than you and take your land.

you can have a society based on the principles of freedom and cooperation, but the government is meant to organize the people, so who better to decide how it works than the people?

now of course we do make mistakes in who we select for our representatives. americans elected bush, and then obama. personally i think obama was a step up policy wise but he isn't exactly competent. but they're not that bad. if a representative strays too far from what the people really want, they're often assasinated and someone else takes over.

Originally Posted by Joe246

Is democracy good?

Are you putting this to a vote?

Originally Posted by Joe246

I'm talking about a technocracy. I'm talking about a society where cooperation and freedom are the princples not the military or the masses. America is destroying itself by putting pr men like bush and Obama in office

Can you explain in what way America is destroying itself with Bush and Obama?

It sounds like you're advocating more of a change of values than a change in the system of government.

I'm talking about a technocracy. I'm talking about a society where cooperation and freedom are the principles not the military or the masses. America is destroying itself by putting pr men like bush and Obama in office

Noun: technocracy tek'nó-kru-see

A form of government in which scientists and technical experts are in control
"technocracy was described as that society in which those who govern justify themselves by appeal to technical experts who justify themselves by appeal to scientific forms of knowledge"

http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=technocracy

Joe, as has been mentioned the US is NOT a Democracy "the masses", rather a Representative Republic of States. Whatever State you live in, is all you or any other person in that State can today control in a Nation of 50 such States. Frankly each Administration has technical experts and science oriented folks (NASA) involved in the daily activity and the Administration of an Elected Government are politicians.

As for Bush/Obama and their elections, what would you say is your own political affiliation or if you had rather, who was your favorite President from you Study of American History or in you life? Personally, I think your giving too much power to the President, not realizing in some manner Congress and the US Judicial System are also Government, never a single person.

I agree the Bush Administration in the last year or so and the first 18 Months of Obama's have been terrible, economically speaking in neither case can this be attributed in total, to either of those individuals...

I must agree, democracy does have flaws, I will give you, many flaws. But let's look back at history. Almost every type of government other than a democracy has failed. Unhappy citizens, corrupt leaders, unfair conditions, all have lead to revolution. Let me quote John Acton, ""Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."" History has always led to this! A supersociety would not work. How would you get all the leaders of the world, to simply give up their power? Bargain with them to give all of said officials positions of power in the reformed world? It would accomplish nothing. If you ask me, a democracy is the best form of government. It makes sure - more than another form of government - That everybody gets what they need. A constitutional monarchy may be the best, in the case of a democracy, like Britain, having a monarch as a unifying symbol. It increases national morale, rather than the US - where one man has all the power.

A system where everyone voluntarily chooses to follow the rules would have to be composed of perfect people. But overcoming the problem of imperfect people is the fundamental goal of system design. Taking that goal out and/or assuming success at that goal before you begin to design your system is just as silly as taking the concern for fuel capacity out of the design of the space shuttle.

A 5 year old child could probably concoct a way to get to the moon if you had unlimited fuel, and it didn't weigh anything. So also is my view of anarchy systems.

Originally Posted by inow

First, we're not a direct democracy, so I see a bit of flaw in your central premise.
Second, I presume you've been reading a lot of Ayn Rand?


Me personally, I'd much rather live in a meritocracy. The challenge with that is merit itself is often subjective. Bugger.

Yeah. It gives way to nepotism really quickly, because the current group of reigning competent people always find some way to convince themselves that their own children are at the top of the heap.

Democracy is good for any of the country it's give you freedom to ask or to comment on any issue.Make you feel a fresh air live a life as you want no one tell you what to do and what to not.

Even the word democracy has quite a lot different explanations.
Don't ask, just try.
Personally I won't accept anarchisim, just because there can't be a so wise and nice person as the leader.

We should have a system where we should ask if we need to use demo for this...

... oh yea, that is democracy?

We elect people in a democracy for what they represent, their ideas or called them memes if you are a bit snobish.

Democracy is, in the best case, the dictature of one set of dominating ideas on other set of ideas.
It's a dictature. Nothing else.

Because it does not represent the complete set of a population. Elections are always focused on a restrictive set of ideas.

In order for a country to have true representative, they should be picked randomly in the population, we will then have a true representation of the more complete set of ideas of the population.

well besides the personal remark where you said that calling an idea a meme was snobbish, it was at least a logical post.

i understand your reasoning, in a republic(which is actually what you've described, a democracy doesn't need to involve representatives) the largest group usually(twice in American history has this not been the case) wins the elections and thus their ideas are represented by the government.

however beyond that your ideas demonstrate a lack of understanding of political systems. the minority group's rights are well respected in modern democracies. when the majority of representatives want to pass a law that doesn't mean it goes through. the republicans in particular make very effective use of the filibuster to prevent many social and economic reform bills from going through that most Americans support.

the best thing about democracy is what you look down on it for. in a democracy the largest group almost always has their ideas represented in the government. monarchy, dictatorships(even that of the proletariat), and other systems put the power in the hands of the party with the most military power. in democracy power is in the hands of the party with the most public support.

if we picked our representatives at random, the ideas with the most people supporting them would get picked more often than those with the least, but if there was a 60% majority on one side and a 40% minority on the opposite side of an issue then forty percent of the time the majority of people would hate their government. occasionally a hyper-conservative creationist would come to power and the vast majority of people would simply revolt against the laws this person passed.

do you see where there are issues with random selection?

Thanks Saul for your insight.
Forgive me for the semi-trolling snobbish qualification of the memes. Dawkins developped it to a point where it stopped to be an analogy to become a real theory.

First of all, how can there be representation of minorities with only 2 parties ? The US system is not really good to illustrate democracy. Let us rather use Switzerland.

When I am stating minority, I do not mean minority parties. I mean minority ideas. I agree with you, random governement could really bring morons (about the creationist guy, I think you already got a bunch of them, even quite recently in the US). I just wanted to start this debate by this. Democracy is not a true representation of the "dimos". It is a partial representation of it. A lot of good ideas are left on the side because they are not 'fashionable'.
If we take an analogy with statistics, a democracy is proceeding with a sampling of examples on a limited number of parameters. A random picking is more multidimensionnal and thus allows a more faithful representation of the 'dimos'.

Second, far from me the idea that democracy is bad. It's the best among the worst. Democracy is a bit like a scientific theory in the Popper sense of it. A democracy can be 'verified' (counter power up to a point) and there is faslficable (not sure it exists in english). Democracy is not perfect. This is why it's the best in absence of real people representation.

Direct democracy only functions with relatively small populations. California is a good example of the problem with referendums, where they are often not representative of what people actually want but of wedge politics that vocal minorities vote for in higher proportion than the general population. Referendums are largely unnecessary and costly.

The American system has some very good qualities, namely the separation of powers and constitutional rights, which are pretty much staples of all liberal democracies these days. The problem they have is that they do not have an entirely pluralistic electoral system, which inevitably pushes politics into two large parties. There are occasional exceptions to that, like in Canada, where regional parties have developed that can compete against the larger parties, especially at provincial levels. I'm always surprised that 3rd parties can't even win elections at state level in the US.

I'm a supporter of proportional representation, but the problem with proportional voting is that it takes away the potential to choose a direct candidate. When Joe Smith wins an election, at least people voted for Joe Smith rather than a vague party ideology.

At least, representative democracy is still much better than centralized democracy, like what is practiced over in good old China, where only party members get to vote and the candidates are chosen from an approved party list.

Well, democracy seems to be all right.
It does sucks, and 99% of people are total retards, but if someone is good enough to warrant a leadership position (c.f. Napoleon), they can always make a coup. This makes it a de facto Meritocracy system : you are worthy if you can beat the system (before someones goes all "and what of Hitler" about it, the feeling of butthurt amongst 30's Germans is quite extraordinary, so it's not gonna happen again).

I've heard that no two democracies have ever made war on each other. If this is true, I'd have to say that's one big plus for having more representative governments in this world. Can you imagine a world where the military budget is not the largest part of what we pay taxes for?

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

The American system has some very good qualities, namely the separation of powers and constitutional rights, which are pretty much staples of all liberal democracies these days. The problem they have is that they do not have an entirely pluralistic electoral system, which inevitably pushes politics into two large parties. There are occasional exceptions to that, like in Canada, where regional parties have developed that can compete against the larger parties, especially at provincial levels. I'm always surprised that 3rd parties can't even win elections at state level in the US.

I'm a supporter of proportional representation, but the problem with proportional voting is that it takes away the potential to choose a direct candidate. When Joe Smith wins an election, at least people voted for Joe Smith rather than a vague party ideology.

At least, representative democracy is still much better than centralized democracy, like what is practiced over in good old China, where only party members get to vote and the candidates are chosen from an approved party list.

Yeah, I wish we'd go that way here in the USA. Trouble is that most Americans don't like to have to do a lot of math in order to understand voting outcomes, so a proportional system runs into a "too complicated and I don't understand it" barrier. Most people I talk with are lucky if they can even understand how the electoral college works for presidents (where votes get weighted by state/region, rather than a straight up popular vote).

... One of many reasons why education is so essential to the success of a democracy. If people could understand it, I'm sure they'd love it, because third parties are getting to be very popular, despite being almost impossible to elect.

For me it's yes. Hahahaha...you guess it I'm a democrat party!

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

Direct democracy only functions with relatively small populations. California is a good example of the problem with referendums, where they are often not representative of what people actually want but of wedge politics that vocal minorities vote for in higher proportion than the general population. Referendums are largely unnecessary and costly.

I agree with your conclusion but not really with your reasons. I think direct democracy doesn't work because the average citizen doesn't have the time to actually research in view of the total government perspective to understand the hard issues that come up. No one wants more taxes for example, but representatives have paid staffs to research and provide background and make recommendations based on the that representative's general ideology--you can't do that with sound bites.

I've heard that no two democracies have ever made war on each other

It's not "Lebanon vs Israel" and the most recent "Pakistan versus India" are two that comes to mind. Ancient Greece had many such conflicts as well.
It does seem to dramatically reduce the chances though because the electorate can fire the party nudging them towards destruction, while totalitarian regimes often go to war even against their own economic interest.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

I've heard that no two democracies have ever made war on each other

It's not "Lebanon vs Israel" and the most recent "Pakistan versus India" are two that comes to mind. Ancient Greece had many such conflicts as well.
It does seem to dramatically reduce the chances though because the electorate can fire the party nudging them towards destruction, while totalitarian regimes often go to war even against their own economic interest.

Okay, I stand corrected and better informed now.

I have spent my life researching political systems and have come to the conclusion that democracy is one of the worst systems of political theory currently existing today. It rules by simple fallacy; that whatever the majority says should be put into action. It does not take into account when they are wrong or mistaken and is not backed by meritocracy or any other system of intelligent rule.

I live in a monarchy and believe that my current system works as well as I could ever hope. I would hate to live in a democracy myself, the thought of having to live as such makes me rather upset.

Dr. Asriel Liu,
Just in case I have missed it, which Monarchy do you live in ? It would be nice to compare the Democracy that I live in, here in the UK, against the Monarchy that you reside in.

OK Dr. Asriel Liu,
I have recieved your PM.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."
— Alexis de Tocqueville

"there are a lot stupid people in the world"
Thats mostly a function of education, mis-information and environement. The first time an encyclopedia was published in France it apparently caused a big controversy, many aristocrats were opposed to allow the common people they were exploiting from getting pertinent information lest they realize they were getting screwed and that justifications for inequality and abuse of priviledges were crap. Education and Media does not adequately inform the population, people are trained to perform tasks and are distracted and mislead by the media (Or the religious/political authorites).

What you call Democracy is almost a sham to hide a plutocracy(but much better than an over totalitarian regime). If you are from the US you get to vote for preselected puppets that represents leading interest groups and the interests of a web of competing factions of the elite. In 2004, people had a choice between two candidates (presidential debates controled and rigged in secret agreements between the 2 parties), that is between a silver spoon aritocrat that went to Yale and was part of the Skull and Bones secret society OR a silver spoon aristocrat that went to Yale and was part of the Skull and Bones secret society, great choice. There's great pagentry but how much change did Obama really bring, (except for the ability to make two sentences without f up), he kept the bailout bantwagon that Bush had started, kept both wars, kept Gates, kept the same clowns that presided over the economic crisis. In 2006 many people voted for candidates opposed to the war in Iraq, nothing changed. Most agencies are hostages of the industries they are supposed to regulate for the people's interest.

"How about we create a new society based on technology and innovation."
Fine but how do you prevent corruption, patronage and bureaucracy? How do you prevent inequality that can be leveraged to increase inequality? How do you balance the various preferences in the population?

I think we need to move to a society that is more democratic and idealy more social democratic(offset plutocrats) and offers a range of transparent public services for all, and from there evolve towards something better instead of goingbackwards to something like a neofeudal banana republic.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

"there are a lot stupid people in the world"
Thats mostly a function of education, mis-information and environement. The first time an encyclopedia was published in France it apparently caused a big controversy, many aristocrats were opposed to allow the common people they were exploiting from getting pertinent information lest they realize they were getting screwed and that justifications for inequality and abuse of priviledges were crap. Education and Media does not adequately inform the population, people are trained to perform tasks and are distracted and mislead by the media (Or the religious/political authorites).

What you call Democracy is almost a sham to hide a plutocracy(but much better than an over totalitarian regime). If you are from the US you get to vote for preselected puppets that represents leading interest groups and the interests of a web of competing factions of the elite. In 2004, people had a choice between two candidates (presidential debates controled and rigged in secret agreements between the 2 parties), that is between a silver spoon aritocrat that went to Yale and was part of the Skull and Bones secret society OR a silver spoon aristocrat that went to Yale and was part of the Skull and Bones secret society, great choice. There's great pagentry but how much change did Obama really bring, (except for the ability to make two sentences without f up), he kept the bailout bantwagon that Bush had started, kept both wars, kept Gates, kept the same clowns that presided over the economic crisis. In 2006 many people voted for candidates opposed to the war in Iraq, nothing changed. Most agencies are hostages of the industries they are supposed to regulate for the people's interest.

"How about we create a new society based on technology and innovation."
Fine but how do you prevent corruption, patronage and bureaucracy? How do you prevent inequality that can be leveraged to increase inequality? How do you balance the various preferences in the population?

I think we need to move to a society that is more democratic and idealy more social democratic(offset plutocrats) and offers a range of transparent public services for all, and from there evolve towards something better instead of goingbackwards to something like a neofeudal banana republic.

Very passionate, I like that and I really don't disagree with anything you said. But that doesn't get us from point A to point B. Every now and then I like to rant also, as do many of this forums users from time to time. It does feel good, but doesn't help much.

Democracy is good, you can vote on the candidate you want to lead the country. But Democracy can also be a bit ''bad''.

Example: If someone rob a bank and than get caught and the people vote to execute the robber - than the robber will be executed because the people have the majority, and if that are people who vote to not execute him and if they are more and them who want to execute him, then the people who want to execute him have the minority, and the robber survives.

I have nothing against Democracy because i live in a democratic country.

Originally Posted by Spaceman

Democracy is good, you can vote on the candidate you want to lead the country.

Not necessarily in the U.S., you get to vote for one of two or more candidates that were selected by their party. Quite frequently the voters won't like any choice, so they fall back and vote for the party of their choice rather than the man. Each party runs on a platform of issues that they hope will attract the most voters.

Example: If someone rob a bank and than get caught and the people vote to execute the robber - than the robber will be executed because the people have the majority, and if that are people who vote to not execute him and if they are more and them who want to execute him, then the people who want to execute him have the minority, and the robber survives.

This looks like you are using a jury as a democratic example. I would have to say that's not a very good example. Juries work within a framework of law, and are set up to hear evidence and then render a verdict of guilty or not guilty and in most cases the judge decides the penalty, which is usually already been described for that particular verdict. Usually the judge has a very limited range of choices he can make for any verdict. Unless a death happened as a result of the robbery, there would be virtually no chance of an execution taking place, and if a death did happen, it's still not a slam dunk that the guilty party will face execution.

I have nothing against Democracy because i live in a democratic country.

That's an interesting thing for you to say. Which democratic country do you live in?

Originally Posted by Lance Wenban

Not necessarily in the U.S., you get to vote for one of two or more candidates that were selected by their party.

I hate to tell you how things work in your own country Lance, but that is technically incorrect. You are able to vote for electors in your state who then form part of the electoral college who then elect the President and Vice-President. You do not have direct voting power. The de facto process is pretty much as if you did, but in detail you don't.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Lance Wenban

Not necessarily in the U.S., you get to vote for one of two or more candidates that were selected by their party.

I hate to tell you how things work in your own country Lance, but that is technically incorrect. You are able to vote for electors in your state who then form part of the electoral college who then elect the President and Vice-President. You do not have direct voting power. The de facto process is pretty much as if you did, but in detail you don't.

Technically you are correct, but when you go into the voting booth and open your ballot it has the names of the presidential candidates for which you will select one.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Lance Wenban

Not necessarily in the U.S., you get to vote for one of two or more candidates that were selected by their party.

I hate to tell you how things work in your own country Lance, but that is technically incorrect. You are able to vote for electors in your state who then form part of the electoral college who then elect the President and Vice-President. You do not have direct voting power. The de facto process is pretty much as if you did, but in detail you don't.

The electoral college applies to presidential elections. There's a lot more to the government than the President. All other representatives are elected by popular vote. And, while one of the major party's candidates usually wins, write-in candidates sometimes win. That just happened in the Alaska senatorial race.

Not necessarily in the U.S., you get to vote for one of two or more candidates that were selected by their party. Quite frequently the voters won't like any choice, so they fall back and vote for the party of their choice rather than the man. Each party runs on a platform of issues that they hope will attract the most voters.

That's an interesting thing for you to say. Which democratic country do you live in?

I do not live in the U.S, i live in Sweden and we have a different system than U.S

"But that doesn't get us from point A to point B."

Yes (its also not time consuming)

Imo the venus project has many ideas that are quite interesting and worth thinking about, though these ideas(some of which I disagree with) are applicable when a society is at B stage. Getting there is a challenge.

In getting from A(current society, with its abuses, wars, famine, poverty, etc) to B(better democracy), heres some of the points I would like to see considered by policies, methods, systems, projects;

We need to negate, dilute, disolve;

A- Oligarchy/Leveraging power/concentration wealth
B- Hierarchy/Bureaucracy/Dependance
C- Secrecy/Propaganda/Censorship
D- Corruption/Patronage/Conflicts of Interest

Increase

A- Democracy/Equality/Anti-Trust/Free services(reduce dependance on and influence of wealth)
B- Democratic mechanisms/Collaboration/Voluntary/Participation/temporary offices/part time
C- Transparency/Freedom of Speech/
D- Anti-Corruption measures, Reduce the need for money, Iron clad whistleblower protection

These are interrelated to various degrees. I dont have time to explore specifics at this time

I see direct democracy, coops, open source development, and mass participation projects as great developments and possible seeds or tools to improve our society.

Imo its better to have small governments that are allowed to develop systems without being attacked(Ajax) or destabilized by states and organized crime. If this can be acheived there may be a variety of systems that can provide ideas to others and offer people with different preferences an option. A huge country like the US that contains opposite views that clash may prevent each from having a shot, which is why I like autonomous regional democracies(not ideal but better than a huge federated mess). Supra-state(federated) cooperation should be voluntary and optional(federal govs tend to grab powers and then impose on regional states)

I see direct democracy as a pretty good way to elect people, but a really bad way to vote on specific issues.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

I see direct democracy as a pretty good way to elect people, but a really bad way to vote on specific issues.

Why?

It disregards the rights and the privileges of the minority. If direct democracy were the way forward, ALL minorities would remain essentially without power.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

The electoral college applies to presidential elections. There's a lot more to the government than the President. All other representatives are elected by popular vote. And, while one of the major party's candidates usually wins, write-in candidates sometimes win. That just happened in the Alaska senatorial race.

I fully agree with your observations Harold, but I felt implicit in Lance's remarks was a definitive reference to Presidential elections. This was very much based on context, rather than substance. Perhaps Lance can confirm if this was the way he was thinking.

Anyway, I just wanted to show off my knowledge of the US political system. :wink:

Originally Posted by inow

It disregards the rights and the privileges of the minority. If direct democracy were the way forward, ALL minorities would remain essentially without power.

Only with regard to any specific vote. Each time the issue changes so will the majority and minority numbers, and isn't that what democracy is about. If there are many minority groups, they would need to learn to ban together for their common good when needed.

It should be possible to test various ideas of government without subjecting people to the failures. Trouble is people with power aren't necessarily interested in the welfare of the masses and without their support how would good ideas ever get implemented?

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

I fully agree with your observations Harold, but I felt implicit in Lance's remarks was a definitive reference to Presidential elections. This was very much based on context, rather than substance. Perhaps Lance can confirm if this was the way he was thinking.

Anyway, I just wanted to show off my knowledge of the US political system. :wink:

Yes I was.

Originally Posted by Lance Wenban

Originally Posted by inow

It disregards the rights and the privileges of the minority. If direct democracy were the way forward, ALL minorities would remain essentially without power.

Only with regard to any specific vote.

Aren't each and every one of them "specific votes?"

It disregards the rights and the privileges of the minority.

since when is a minority entitled to more rights and privileges than the majority? (except in an elitist monarchy or something where the minority rules over the majority)

can you give me examples so I can better understand

I guess its not;

No Vote on returning troops from Iraq, indeed we should not have the majority's will of ending the war it would disregard the warprorfiteering privileges of the minority (Halliburton shareholders, Carlyle group, etc)

Better ignore the majority's will to end bailouts for a few bankrupt zombie banks, the multimillions bonus for CEOs are privileges that should be insulated from the tyrany of the taxpaying majority.

Majority should not have GMO labeling, it cuts into Monsanto's privileges?

Torture should be left to the few torture professionals, and not jeopardized by the general public which doesnt understand the artistic value of the rhythms of drowning gurgles and gasping for air with occasional human cries of agony

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by Lance Wenban

Originally Posted by inow

It disregards the rights and the privileges of the minority. If direct democracy were the way forward, ALL minorities would remain essentially without power.

Only with regard to any specific vote.

Aren't each and every one of them "specific votes?"

Yes they are, and that's my point. Each and every person has a different mix of wants and needs, which might sometime place him or her in the majority or the minoity with every vote. There's always going to be a majority and a minority, that doesn't mean you will be on one one side or the other every time, and that goes for all of us.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

I see direct democracy as a pretty good way to elect people, but a really bad way to vote on specific issues.

Why?

Unless the issue is very simple, almost superficial in simplicity, the vast majority of voters aren't going have the time to research and make educated decisions. Issue votes all too often become gut calls based on sound bite wars from out of state financed advertising. Representatives have staffs to research and context if the call is a tough one, or a best of two bad choices like raising taxes or cutting a service that most voters don't.

Originally Posted by inow

It disregards the rights and the privileges of the minority. If direct democracy were the way forward, ALL minorities would remain essentially without power.

That's why it only works with a bill of rights combined with rule of law.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

It disregards the rights and the privileges of the minority.

since when is a minority entitled to more rights and privileges than the majority? (except in an elitist monarchy or something where the minority rules over the majority)

can you give me examples so I can better understand

Pick any law that has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. That would be a case where the majority was in favor of a law (presumably, since their elected representatives passed it) but it was determined to violate the rights of a minority. How about Mapp v. Ohio (1961). It was ruled that evidence obtained in a warrantless search cannot be used in court.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."
— Alexis de Tocqueville

One would expect this to be a real danger associated with liberal democratic political systems. On the other hand I intensely dislike any form of totalitarianism and it is difficult to see a real alternative apart from what we call democracy.
I know it is not the most original act to defend democracy by paraphrasing the remark attributed to Winston Churchill but I'll go ahead anyway.
Churchill said that democracy was the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried. I still think that is a pretty good defence of Western political systems.

How about Mapp v. Ohio (1961). It was ruled that evidence obtained in a warrantless search cannot be used in court.

So you both think that a majority of people would want warrant-less search evidence to be used (without other mechanisms to avoid warrant-less searches) and that it should be ignored by an anointed though-love ruling minority? ok thats a view. I think its worst to have a though-loving administration encourage a little torture, warrant-less wiretap and disregarding habeas corpus and pursuing a war when if the majority are against it than the potential undesirable things that the majority would approve.


Although I would not want to live in a direct democracy back in Witchhunting Middleages(or holy book quoting region in the present), I would do in a small european progressive secular society, imo the abuses that occur against the will of the majority outweigh by Far the potential abuses that a majority would sanction.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

[Direct democracy] disregards the rights and the privileges of the minority.

since when is a minority entitled to more rights and privileges than the majority? (except in an elitist monarchy or something where the minority rules over the majority)

can you give me examples so I can better understand

I guess its not;

Where did you see me suggesting anything about MORE rights and privileges? Please read again. The concept is that direct democracy is an obstacle to equality, as the "might makes right" aspect which comes from it allows a tyranny of the majority, wherein the rights and privileges of the minority are often disregarded.

Remember that direct democracy leads to a tyranny of the majority, which is one reason why our founders chose to make us a constitutional republic wherein certain rights and privileges are guaranteed due merely to citizenship alone. Lynx_Fox also gave a good response in that most issues which are not superficially simple will require a degree of study and understanding which the majority of voters will lack.

Nobody here (at least not me) was talking about MORE rights and privileges, which renders most of the rest of your rant rather moot.

Is democracy good?

It is a 'GREAT' thing

Originally Posted by Harold14370

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."
— Alexis de Tocqueville

I've read Tocqueville, and this doesn't really sound like him. The guy practically creamed himself over American style democracy.

I tried to find the source but couldn't locate any attribution to Tocqueville.

Originally Posted by Halliday

Churchill said that democracy was the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried. I still think that is a pretty good defence of Western political systems.

I think that's a bad defence of the system. If it's the worst form except for the others you have tried then why not find something new? Surely only an unlearned man stay with something that is "the worst" because he is not intelligent enough to create something better (or to try something that's not been tried before).

Originally Posted by Dr. Asriel Liu

If it's the worst form except for the others you have tried then why not find something new?

Go ahead....like what? We'll call it "Liutocracy." Now what is that again?

I live under a monarchy slash meritocracy and I find it to be most admirable. Crime is not a problem, nor is corruption, and the people are served very well. I am happy; especially with our education system (I did not have to pay to get my doctorate). I also admire the Han dynasty of Imperial China.

I am sure there are many other systems out there as well that have yet to be tried. Many minds have thought of creating a new or preferable system of government, but none have ever been tried because most governments today refuse to abolish their democratic society. But until you try something new you will never be able to see if it works.

Originally Posted by Dr. Asriel Liu

I live under a monarchy slash meritocracy and I find it to be most admirable.

Singapore? If so it's rather unique example that arguably isn't representative of a large, diverse, and enduring nation or a model that would fit all.

And so you know assuming your well qualified, select a wanted field, and perform will Ph.D.s often are a free ride.

Singapore is not a monarchy it's a republic, and the level of true meritocracy there is something open for debate.

I don't know of any major institutions in Canada or the US where a PhD. student would not receive funding for her/his education.

Originally Posted by Dr. Asriel Liu

I live under a monarchy slash meritocracy and I find it to be most admirable. Crime is not a problem, nor is corruption, and the people are served very well. I am happy; especially with our education system (I did not have to pay to get my doctorate). I also admire the Han dynasty of Imperial China.

I am sure there are many other systems out there as well that have yet to be tried. Many minds have thought of creating a new or preferable system of government, but none have ever been tried because most governments today refuse to abolish their democratic society. But until you try something new you will never be able to see if it works.

Monarchy's have been tried and found wanting.

The entire notion of a meritocracy operates off of the biases of whoever is in power maintaining the status quo by declaring whatever they approve of as merit.

The Han dynasty is a good example of this, because merit of bureaucrats was in large part determined by their knowledge of Confucian philosophy rather than some sort of objective display of managerial talents.

I should have phrased it better. Our education is completely free, I did not need funding as it did not cost anything to study.

Originally Posted by Dr. Asriel Liu

I should have phrased it better. Our education is completely free, I did not need funding as it did not cost anything to study.

Someone paid for it, I doubt anyone from the professors to the custodial staff were working for free.

Besides, my education was primarily paid for by the government for merely being a resident of my dear socialist province. I don't see how this has anything to do with democracy.

The professors (including myself) do work for free. I'll explain in more detail in another place, since we are going off-topic. My original point was towards the pleasant things I experience in my society that are not common in democratic nations.

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

Besides, my education was primarily paid for by the government for merely being a resident of my dear socialist province. I don't see how this has anything to do with democracy.

My graduate education didn't cost me a thing either.

Originally Posted by Dr. Asriel Liu

Originally Posted by Halliday

Churchill said that democracy was the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried. I still think that is a pretty good defence of Western political systems.

I think that's a bad defence of the system. If it's the worst form except for the others you have tried then why not find something new? Surely only an unlearned man stay with something that is "the worst" because he is not intelligent enough to create something better (or to try something that's not been tried before).

Clearly when Churchill used the word "worst" he was really arguing that democracy was not perfect and did have some disadvantages compared to other political systems.
The reason a fair number of states have persevered with a liberal democratic political system is because this is still seen as the most humane and civilised system, yet developed, and not because political thinkers have not tried "to create something better".

Originally Posted by Halliday

The reason a fair number of states have persevered with a liberal democratic political system is because this is still seen as the most humane and civilised system, yet developed, and not because political thinkers have not tried "to create something better".

I see nothing humane or civilized about a society built up of majority rule. I can't seem to see any honor in such a thing. Why would you say it is humane and civilized?

Originally Posted by Dr. Asriel Liu

Originally Posted by Halliday

The reason a fair number of states have persevered with a liberal democratic political system is because this is still seen as the most humane and civilised system, yet developed, and not because political thinkers have not tried "to create something better".

I see nothing humane or civilised about a society built up of majority rule. I can't seem to see any honor in such a thing. Why would you say it is humane and civilised?

I believe that the liberal democratic political system, in place in Western countries and in other states, is superior to any other system. This model is far more than "a society built up of majority rule". Perhaps you can give an example of a society with a better system.
I have no idea what you mean by "honor in such a thing".
There may be societies where a different, but specific model, works fairly well, but this model will rarely be relevant to other states and societies.
In my view the choice is generally between liberal democracy and mild to harsh versions of totalitarianism.

Honor is too broad a term. The question is honor to what? For example, honor to family above that of the law or nation often completely cripples societies because it leads to gross corruption and nepotism.