Democracy: Past, present and... future?

[Masiah]

What do you think about democracy? Does it make any sense, or not at all? Has it ever existed? Does it exist? Should it exist in the future? What faults would you find in a society based in an absolute democracy, and what benefits? Let the debate begin.

 

[chenlimin]

Do I have the right to talk about it?no one is talking....whatever
I think that Democracy exist or not is about how you defined it as wiki does "Democracy is a system of government by which political sovereignty is retained by the people and exercised directly by citizens" I think that "exercised directly " is not likely to happen as government is there for a reason (as most people need government to look after them). Therefor Democracy is not likely to have existed

 

[Aeroblyctos]

Democracy always changes things slowly.

 

[Instant Ramen]

Democracy fails when the majority of the population is a bunch of idiots.

 

[Ghost765]

Communism would work if i was the leader

 

[Aeroblyctos]

Democracy fails when the majority of the population is a bunch of idiots.

And that happens in every single country. Luckily, most of them won't even vote.

Communism would work if i was the leader

 

[DrazharLn]

Most so called Democracies are republics [USA ::cough::]. Switzerland is a democracy, they vote on near enough everything. That is not to say that the swiss are perfect, far from it. For a start, they treat immigrant workers terribly.

As Churchill said: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others" But he was a Conservative [Centre-right], so what did he know?

I may return to have more speaks with you, my dedicated reader, but now I must sleep.

 

[Captain Griffen]

Rule by an enlightened and benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government.

~ JURY FOR WORLD LEADERSHIP ~

 

[DrazharLn]

Rule by an enlightened and benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government.

~ JURY FOR WORLD LEADERSHIP ~

Like Ankh-Morpork.

 

[Ghost765]

Equality for all, Communism.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Ideally, an oligarchy would be perfect. The masses tend to be hopeless idiots. Don't question that statement. I remember high-school, and dear GOD do I have experience with people in general being idiots. Oligarchies have several large problems, however:

1. The elites do not necessarily produce more elites, and the masses are capable of producing elites.
2. Given the first problem, who deserves to be elites? How will the choosing process work, how will it be established before there are elites?
3. The elites are by definition a different social group than the masses, and by extension out of touch with the masses. What the elites perceive as good for the masses is going to be slightly if not greatly different from what actually is good for the masses, and what the elites perceive as wanted by the masses is almost guaranteed to be anything but.

Not in any order of severity, as they each pose different problems.

Communism would work if i was the leader

By definition, all true communistic societies have pure democratic governments, and therefore no leader. You're thinking of a dictatorship, unless you're making a joke.

 

[Ghost765]

i dont think ogliarchy's are perfect, since the occasional power hungry person will come along, act like hes cool with sharing pwoer, than assassinate the other oligarchs.
well, i think the elites should be people that have proven themselves to the community.
like: military prowess

 

[Hakeem]

Democracy fails when the majority of the population is a bunch of idiots.

Not to mention the numerous others way to corrupt a democracy.

Communism would work if i was the leader

Swell. Now convince everybody that this is so.

As Churchill said: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others"

Cough, cough, anarchy FTW, cough cough.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

People would catch on after at most three deaths that people weren't dying by accident, and there would be enough elites that three would be insignificant, though tragic. Anyways, all of your post fits into my second problem anyways. Also, that sort of choosing method would restrict elites to certain jurisdictions, which would have its own benefits and downfalls.

 

[DrazharLn]

I read a really good trilogy in which one nation was ruled by an oligarchy... I can't remember the name of it though. Something Spring, Summer and Winter. Based over a thousand years or so with two intelligent species.

*Swerves back to democracy from oligarchy*

Firstly, define democracy. Is a system where you elect one person out of a choice of two every four years democracy? Especially when the supposed leader of world democracy [at least according to itself] fixes the vote [Dubya].

Perhaps the Demarchists of Reynolds' Revelation Space series had the right idea.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Firstly, define democracy. Is a system where you elect one person out of a choice of two every four years democracy? Especially when the supposed leader of world democracy [at least according to itself] fixes the vote [Dubya].

The vote is not "fixed", and that is a republic anyways. True democracy is when every citizen votes, or has the opportunity to vote, on every issue. True democracy is horribly slow and inefficient, especially when the general public is generally idiots.

 

[Ghost765]

"idiots" is a point of view.
now, i dont think democracy would work much later if the Earth was brought under a single flag, there would be too many votes to tally.
instead, something like a parliament would be choice for a Unity Earth government

 

[Arvedui]

"idiots" is a point of view.
now, i dont think democracy would work much later if the Earth was brought under a single flag, there would be too many votes to tally.
instead, something like a parliament would be choice for a Unity Earth government

Idiots is not a point of view.

Thank god that will never happen. Everyone being under the same "flag" would be absolutely retarded and ineffective.

Democracy is a good idea. Republics tend to be better, but easier to corrupt.

I swear, if anyone brings up Communism (coughDrazharcough) or Anarchy (coughHakeemcough) again, I'll flame the living shit out of you. Fair warning.

Also, Ghost, I suggest you learn history, or politics even, before forming misinformed opinions about anything.

 

[brad.dude03]

Communism would work if i was the leader

Wrong again. Communism can never work, and even if it could, what's the point?

 

[Ghost765]

cant we all just take a small joke ?
idiots is a point of view. i can call/think of you as an idiot, but in your point of view, you arent an idiot.

 

[Arvedui]

Serious thread is serious.

Actually it's not a point of view. Some would say that an IQ test is a good judge.

Anyway, that's not the point; Democracy is.

The fact that the general populous of any given nation is not educated on how to run a nation is the reason why most "Democracies" are really Republics. The educated few run the country.

Democracy is a good idea if the nation is educated.

 

[Ash]

The problem is that as soon as you elect someone, they're bound to do something wrong. Usually, that 'doing something wrong' is either doing nothing at all, or doing something.

Communism doesn't work -- although China would say otherwise -- however, they can hardly be called that now, really -- and Socialism, in general, is not much more than idealistic nonsense. The problem is that regardless of what anybody says, there is always at least one predominant figure that gets more then the others.

All in all it's a catch 22 situation. On the one hand you've got Democracy, idealistic at best, flawed at worst, and on the other you've got Socialism, also idealistic at best and flawed at worst.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

I always wanted to see how it would work out if a government made an IQ test and a Political Proficiency test to decide who can vote and who can't, and only those who are above average could vote for a candidate. It's a pretty interesting concept. Not necessarily fool-proof, but I'd love to see how things would flow.

 

[Instant Ramen]

Expect a lot fewer voters, then.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Expect a lot fewer voters, then.

I was actually thinking of a top percentage as the voting population.

 

[DrazharLn]

That's not a good idea. None of those tests truly reflects intelligence. Like Tom Edison firing everyone who failed to pass his test. Tis not a good idea.

Besides, aren't we tested enough anyways?

 

[Teh_Ephy]

cant we all just take a small joke ?
idiots is a point of view. i can call/think of you as an idiot, but in your point of view, you arent an idiot.

Idiot is not a point of view. You want an example of someone that is objectively an idiot? Some kid in my freshman earth science class was asking me if I smoked. I said no, he says why not. I say I'm allergic to tobacco, the retard asks why I don't smoke weed. Some people are just completely void of any and all intellectual usefulness.

Democracy is a good idea if the nation is educated.

It would be a better idea, but true democracies are horribly slow and inefficient.

Besides, aren't we tested enough anyways?

The problem isn't that we're tested too much, but that the tests are only as efficient as a panel can make them.

 

[Masiah]

Democracy (not the one in Athens, mind that) gives the right to everyone to express their opinion, no matter what politic movement you support, so sadly yes, idiocy can be a point of view if there is enough voters that support it, even though this fact is idiotic itself. For example, the EU admision rules include the one stating "The candidate nation has to be able to defend equality between men and women", when in England, senior member of the union, there is a political movement with a logo "A woman's place is in the kitchen" and it was legal because it had people voting for it and supporting it publicly, no matter that it contradicts the EU policy and it's ethicly incorrect. There goes democracy.
About the IQ tests to limit the people with the right to vote won't work because those individuals who do so aren't at all stupid... I mean, it won't make much difference.

 

[Arvedui]

Democracy (not the one in Athens, mind that) gives the right to everyone to express their opinion, no matter what politic movement you support, so sadly yes, idiocy can be a point of view if there is enough voters that support it, even though this fact is idiotic itself. For example, the EU admision rules include the one stating "The candidate nation has to be able to defend equality between men and women", when in England, senior member of the union, there is a political movement with a logo "A woman's place is in the kitchen" and it was legal because it had people voting for it and supporting it publicly, no matter that it contradicts the EU policy and it's ethicly incorrect. There goes democracy.

The EU is not a democracy. England is barely a democracy.

Also, to use that example is kinda lame. There are crazy people in every nation. I'm sure there's a political party in the US like that, but it doesn't get anywhere because it's obviously ridiculous.

Also, "there goes democracy" is not true. In a real democracy those people's voice would be heard because everyone has an equal voice. They have the right to believe what they believe and vote for it. So it is democracy to allow those people to vote, no matter how wrong(right) they are.

About the IQ tests to limit the people with the right to vote won't work because those individuals who do so aren't at all stupid... I mean, it won't make much difference.

I didn't quite get that. Are you saying that people who do vote aren't stupid? That's just not true. It would make a tremendous difference. The average IQ is around 100. So if you took people only with like 115 for an IQ, you would be cutting a lot of people out of the equation. Albeit it's not a "real" democracy anymore, not everyone has a say, but the most educated/intelligent do.

 

[Landy]

Democracy is absolutely past.. overrated past -.-
Communism is the thing that can save the world ^.^

P.S. Don't even try to flame lol.

 

[Arvedui]

I'll let brad take care of that comment.

 

[brad.dude03]

Democracy is absolutely past.. overrated past -.-
Communism is the thing that can save the world ^.^

P.S. Don't even try to flame lol.

COMMUNISM SI TAH FUTURURURR1111!111!111!!1!1

HAIL STALIN AND LENINI THEY WILL DELIVER US TO UTOPIA111!11!


Give me a break.

 

[Masiah]

Please don't spam and don't go offtopic. Communism isn't the topic of this thread, it's democracy.

 

[brad.dude03]

I'm the moderator? You think I don't know what rules I'm breaking to make a point? Furthermore, do you think that I, in the knowledge that I'm breaking the rules, really give a shit? THINK BEFORE POSTING.

I'm making a point. This thread can go wherever it wishes as faras I'm concerned. The primary opposite of Democracy is Communism. Communism CAN and WILL come up in this discussion because it is what some believe to be the next best alternative to Democracy itself.

 

[Mechanical Man]

I'm making a point. This thread can go wherever it wishes as faras I'm concerned. The primary opposite of Democracy is Communism. Communism CAN and WILL come up in this discussion because it is what some believe to be the next best alternative to Democracy itself.

-.- The opposite of Democracy is Totalitarianism... Communism is opposite to Capitalism.

 

[brad.dude03]

Yes, but since Communism essentially opposes all of the freedoms allowed and valued by Democracy, I can see it as an opposite. It is also a form of Totalanarianism/Fascism because one corrupt leader is left in charge of everything, elections are faked, etc.

 

[Ash]

That depends on your view, if you were right of the iron curtain would you think the same thing?

History is written by the winners, Capitalism triumphed over Communism during the cold war, afterwards we shown all the bad things in communism. Just as the allies did with the axies during WW2.

 

[Masiah]

Completely agree with Ash.

[offtopic] Actually I posted that precisely because you are a moderator and I just wanted to kid around, but your statement:

Furthermore, do you think that I, in the knowledge that I'm breaking the rules, really give a shit?

Gives me little confidence in moderators. You, as moderator, should respect the rules more than anyone and not use your powers to ignore them. [/offtopic]

 

[brad.dude03]

I've thuroughly explored Communism, Ash. I've read the Communist Maniphesto, studied Russian History, etc. Then, one day, I came to a realization. Before, I had always thought Communism took flak for never being able to work properly. Then, I realized, even if it did work properly, it would be horrible! I love my individual freedom. Freedom to do what I want. Communism severely restricts this by making me a slave to the Man. Instead of the Corporate machine (Whichy, if I had the aimbition, I could control), I would work for the Communist Machine, which I have no control over whatsoever. I do not want to spend all of my life slaving away for everyone else. And THAT is why I dislike Communism. I still love Soviet-era symbolism, and I don't hate Communism just because Capitalism won out (Capitalism has it's problems too), but I dislike it for my own reasons, which I have just stated.

 

[Ash]

Oh. I thought you were making the statement based on Gulags and things of the like, which I shouldn't of really considering I know you to be better than that

 

[annoying]

You want my opinion about democracy? More like demo-crazy. People in general can not be trusted to know what is best for them. I would think that it would be best if I was in charge, but I honestly do not think that everyone else agrees with me. Democracy would be the second-best, since enough people are smart enough (I hope) to affect things in the right direction.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

People know what they want, they do not know what is good for them. People want what is good for them on a frequent enough basis that the fallacy that democracy is a good idea is very widespread.