The trouble with Democracy...

[Housepig]

Well, I've been thinking about this for a while, but I've never made a thread on it yet. Basicaly, I think democracy stinks. I imagine this is fairly controversial, so I will elaborate.

 

 

 

First of all, I want to ask a question: Can you honestly say that in your experience, the average person is intelligent, rational, and trustworthy with great power? I don't think so. The fact is that most people don't think about important issues, don't take much interest in the world, act irrationaly, and would doubtlessly leave the world in ruin if they were in charge.

 

 

 

So why do we allow ordinary people to choose our leaders for us? Not only will democracy result in a leader being chosen who reflects qualities liked by a largely ignorant, but it hampers decisions made for the greater good.

 

 

 

If a brilliant new politician, with plans which will benefit the human race, wants to implement those plans, he has to be voted in to power. To be voted in, he has to be popular. To be popular, he has to give the population what they want. But the population (of any country or state) does not want what's best for them. Perhaps he will give them alot of what they want to remain in power long enough to give them a little of what they need, but the minute he goes to far, he is voted out. Naturaly, therefore, the most sucessfull politicians are those for whom power is the only end. What a great system.

 

 

 

Democracy is like letting a spoilt child choose new parents if his current ones don't let him eat chocolate for breakfast.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What do you think?

[Zonorhc]

Democracy is a grossly inefficient system of government that allows the ignorant to hinder the development of society by putting people into power who really shouldn't be anywhere near it.

 

 

 

An benevolent dictatorship is the ideal form of government until such time that the majority of the population is sufficiently enlightened to not be a danger to itself when elections come around.

[Mr_Cheese]

Democracy is a grossly inefficient system of government that allows the ignorant to hinder the development of society by putting people into power who really shouldn't be anywhere near it.

 

 

 

An benevolent dictatorship is the ideal form of government until such time that the majority of the population is sufficiently enlightened to not be a danger to itself when elections come around.

 

 

 

Sure, a dictatorship would be nice but as housepig's siggy says "absolute power corrupts absolutely."

[DaN]

Because China has so much freedom :roll:

[mmmcannibalism]

all human systems over government are inherently flawed because humans are inherently flawed.

[l0l0lpur34]

I'm sure in your dictatorship you would be one of the "enlightended ones"? sure democracy isn't perfect but it's better than a dictatorship based upon the principle of "we know what's best for you"

[Zygimantas]

What makes you think you won't get a crappy leader in a dictatorship or any other government? Who you think is the right person to lead a country might not be the same for others... lets just say all politicians do equally bad :

[Zonorhc]

Sure, a dictatorship would be nice but as housepig's siggy says "absolute power corrupts absolutely."

 

What does that have to do with a benevolent dictatorship?

 

 

 

That saying is only vaguely valid because, to my knowledge, the world has never seen a benevolent dictatorship.

 

 

 

Because China has so much freedom :roll:

 

What does freedom have to do with democracy?

 

 

 

Even in Australia, we are having our civil rights slowly eroded to placate lobbyist groups. In America, the past eight years have seen freedoms curtailed to "protect" people from zee terrorists.

 

 

 

I can't even see the point you're trying to make. At this stage, the majority of the people who vote would be better off without so much freedom.

 

 

 

I'm sure in your dictatorship you would be one of the "enlightended ones"? sure democracy isn't perfect but it's better than a dictatorship based upon the principle of "we know what's best for you"

 

Explain how democracy is better, given that people put governments into power under the pretense that the largely ignorant voting population knows what is best for itself.

 

 

 

What makes you think you won't get a crappy leader in a dictatorship or any other government? Who you think is the right person to lead a country might not be the same for others... lets just say all politicians do equally bad :

 

Saying that having a benevolent dictatorship would be good is a far cry from saying that we should have dictators as soon as possible.

[Zygimantas]

What makes you think you won't get a crappy leader in a dictatorship or any other government? Who you think is the right person to lead a country might not be the same for others... lets just say all politicians do equally bad :

 

Saying that having a benevolent dictatorship would be good is a far cry from saying that we should have dictators as soon as possible.

great, but I'm just saying that there are no leaders or politicians that are "good".

[DaN]

 

Because China has so much freedom :roll:

 

What does freedom have to do with democracy?

 

 

 

 

Everything, we have freedoms here in Australia that people in China can only dream about.

 

 

 

 

 

You say yourself that freedom is being slowly eroded away, why do you think it takes so long?

[Barihawk]

Democracy does fail. That's why no government on Earth currently is one.

 

 

 

FYI: America and similar nations are Republics, not democracies. For exactly the very reasons you stated in your original post.

[Mr_Cheese]

Sure, a dictatorship would be nice but as housepig's siggy says "absolute power corrupts absolutely."

 

What does that have to do with a benevolent dictatorship?

 

 

 

 

Sorry, I didn't read the "benevolent" part. A quick google search leads me to believe that a benevolent dictator is one who stays in power as long as it's what the people want?

 

 

 

But wouldn't that dictator then do everything in his/her power to stay in power? thus making the government sort of a democracy anyway? (unless I have the wrong meaning of course)

[Lenticular_J]

I don't think there's ever been any such thing as a true democracy anyways, has there?

 

 

 

I bet in a thousand years, all the people will look back at our petty communisms and democracies and think, "Our glorbsnaxi are much better!"

[Housepig]

What makes you think you won't get a crappy leader in a dictatorship or any other government? Who you think is the right person to lead a country might not be the same for others... lets just say all politicians do equally bad :

 

 

 

If the dictator is chosen by a council of the 'best' people selected from a population, they'll most likely make a better choice than the people would. I described an idea for this sort of system in the "If you ruled your country..." thread.

 

 

 

Sure, a dictatorship would be nice but as housepig's siggy says "absolute power corrupts absolutely."

 

 

 

Yeah, that's the main problem with dictatorship. The dictator would have to be temporary (corruption takes time, I would imagine), and a one-person dictatorship would be unwise, as the dictator would have no one to point out flaws in their plans.

[1_man_army]

What makes you think you won't get a crappy leader in a dictatorship or any other government? Who you think is the right person to lead a country might not be the same for others... lets just say all politicians do equally bad :

 

 

 

If the dictator is chosen by a council of the 'best' people selected from a population, they'll most likely make a better choice than the people would. I described an idea for this sort of system in the "If you ruled your country..." thread.

 

 

 

The problem is that often the best policies are the least popular, if a ruler always went with the best policies it would lead to civil unrest. Your system would also create the a feeling of elitism amongst the general population that would cause further agitation as it would create a great social divide between those who have a say and everyone else. Every system of government needs to avoid agitating their people too much otherwise they will eventually fall.

[Housepig]

I don't know if I made this clear, but in 'my system', the government would be selected from the whole population. I would also have a free press--if the government was acting for the best, what would it need to surpress?--to allow people to feel that they had some say in the matter. I don't believe any other dictatorships did this, as they were all corrupt to a certain extent and couldn't allow freedom of speach.

 

 

 

I think that a dictatorship that explained its actions and allowed criticism would be trusted and respected more by the general public than our democratic governments; the fact is that people don't respect them becuase they know, deep down, that they are acting only to mantain power and popularity.

 

 

 

Democracy does fail. That's why no government on Earth currently is one.

 

 

 

FYI: America and similar nations are Republics, not democracies. For exactly the very reasons you stated in your original post.

 

 

 

From Wikipedia: "Even though there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy', there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes. The first principle is that all members of the society (citizens) have equal access to power and the second that all members (citizens) enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties."

 

 

 

I think most western countries would fit under that definition.

[Lateralus]

When you say 'beneficial to the human race', what do you mean? Will this reduce freedoms and liberties in favour of utilitarian benefits?

 

 

 

Individual sovereignty is more valuable than the outcome, in my opinion.

[Wisp]

In america, the general populace's votes do not decide the president. The electoral college's votes do. While they generally follow what the people vote for, they do have the ability to choose a different president than the one the majority of americans voted for.

 

To quote Churchill, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others". (that might be paraphrasing, I don't remember the exact quote.)

[Housepig]

When you say 'beneficial to the human race', what do you mean? Will this reduce freedoms and liberties in favour of utilitarian benefits?

 

 

 

Yes. Freedom (or indeed anything) has no value in and of itself. Every action undertaken by mankind is to achieve happiness (albeit often unsecusfully), and I believe that the purpose of government is to felicitate that goal.

 

 

 

Of course, people are rarely happy without some degree of freedom, so I don't believe people should be slaves to a benelovent leader. Rather, slaves to a benelovent leader who creates the illusion of freedom...

 

 

 

In america, the general populace's votes do not decide the president. The electoral college's votes do. While they generally follow what the people vote for, they do have the ability to choose a different president than the one the majority of americans voted for.

 

To quote Churchill, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others". (that might be paraphrasing, I don't remember the exact quote.)

 

 

 

Well, I don't see how that changes things. The electors, in practice, have to vote for whomever the public likes to mantain their positions, so it's still mob rule.

[Bufoman]

Well, perhaps some sort of meritocracy would work. I would suggest an executive branch consisting of 12 or so leaders equal in power. Each year, the senior most member's term ends, and he cannot be re-elected. This way, he is determined to leave his legacy before his term ends, and do right by the nation. Elections are held yearly for a new member of this council, so that fresh blood is always flowing in. You would always have senior leadership in such a system, 11 years worth if you went with a 12 person council, and reducing one year per less senior council member. So, the new guy wouldn't be alone in leading the nation, and the responsibility's and privileged of executive power is divided between 12 competent people who are respected for their previous deeds that led to this climatic point in their political career.

 

 

 

I believe such a system could work, if properly created, and governed by a constitution that protected the rights of that nations citizens, as well as clearly defined the powers of this council. That said, I also favor a constitutional monarch as an executive leader, with some sort of elected senate or Parliament. Not like in england though, in this set up, the Sovereign really would be in charge, and take an active day to day role as leader of his/her nation- a duty that they had prepared for since the coming of age within the Royal Family. Such a monarch would only have one legal source of income- a 3 percent income tax placed upon all citizens in return for the Sovereign's just, and wise leadership. As a result, this monarch would naturally seek to make his/her people prosperous, as it increases their own revenue.

 

 

 

Now, this income tax idea could also be used with the before mentioned council, as a strong incentive to rule well, with the interests of the people foremost in their minds.

[Will H]

That's not so much an argument against democracy, it's more of an argument for focusing more on educating people. After all, if people actually knew what was actually best for them, and would vote accordingly, the democratic system would be better and more appropriate.

[Housepig]

I suppose that would work in theory, but people are always going to be ignorant. Poor upbringings, social class, wealth and lifestyle, personal beliefs, ulterior motives, and genetics mean that a population will never be a rational, informed, well-meaning unit. And how would this idea of educating people to know what they need work in a democratic society? It would be seen as political manipulation; all the parties in a democracy would have something to say about what's best.

 

 

 

I mean, it would just turn into the current government teaching propaganda in schools. And the chances that that government would be a good one are very slim indeed.

[l0l0lpur34]

I'm sure in your dictatorship you would be one of the "enlightended ones"? sure democracy isn't perfect but it's better than a dictatorship based upon the principle of "we know what's best for you"

 

Explain how democracy is better, given that people put governments into power under the pretense that the largely ignorant voting population knows what is best for itself.

 

 

explain how dictatorship is better, given that it's based on the idea that a few elites know best what people want. let me guess, you are a communist?

[Will H]

I suppose that would work in theory, but people are always going to be ignorant. Poor upbringings, social class, wealth and lifestyle, personal beliefs, ulterior motives, and genetics mean that a population will never be a rational, informed, well-meaning unit. And how would this idea of educating people to know what they need work in a democratic society? It would be seen as political manipulation; all the parties in a democracy would have something to say about what's best.

 

 

 

I mean, it would just turn into the current government teaching propaganda in schools. And the chances that that government would be a good one are very slim indeed.

 

Good education not really about telling people what to think (although I am aware that this still happens, for example, Climate Change ), that's a very poor way of doing it and is the equivalent of political manipulation, I agree. No, I'm talking about the education that teaches people to make their own minds up in an informed and rational manner, which is far more difficult to teach but infinitely more useful. Irrationality is the real problem with democracy, but it is certainly possible to stamp a lot of it out. From my observations, nearly everyone who goes through the education system finishes far from their maximum potential, they are certainly not lost causes. Let's get reasonably close to this potential before deciding that it's not going to work.

 

 

 

Anyway, deciding what is best for us is always going to be an open question in any political structure. Nobody knows in absolute certainty what is best for us, and no amount of power, propaganda and covering up of mistakes will deny that.

[Bufoman]

I agree, we could certainly use some more "Make up your own mind" philosophy in education. Now, as stated, I believe executive power should either be held by a monarch who was trained from a young age to wield it, or by an elected council. I do not think we are doing too well here in America with the executive being a president; it's too much responsibility for one politician- too much power, and too many chances for one man to damn us all. For that matter, I don't believe political parties are in the best interests of my nation either, and I would like to see them abolished. But at least with a rule by council system, it would be more difficult to have both the legislative and executive branch controlled by one political party, as we have now. I doubt the government will ever consider changing the executive branch from one man to many, but it seems like the best thing for us to do, or at least to me. Every presidential election, there is a huge divide in my country between people who voted for the Republican, or the Democratic candidate. When one wins, half the population is happy, and the other quite upset. Wouldn't it be better to have yearly elections, and a large body of people sharing the power now invested in the office of the President?