The trouble with Democracy...

[Kenshinjapan]

I 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?

 

 

 

That's called congress, just not yearly, and that still doesn't work out because the people don't agree.

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

I love how you didn't answer the question and just insulted him =D> .

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Except immigrants aren't allowed to run for president and the rich still dominate the country. You're a fool if you believe any country really lives with true democracy.

[l0l0lpur34]

 

I love how you didn't answer the question and just insulted him =D> .

 

 

my point was that although democracy isn't a pefect, or even good really, system, dictatorship is much worse - I don't really agree with the idea that 51% of people should tell the other 49% how to run their lives, but 1% telling the other 99% how to run their lives is even worse. i said he is probably a communist because most pro-dictatorship people seem to be.

[Kenshinjapan]

He never claimed to be for dictatorship, he was just proving that democracy really isn't any better in an ideal situation.

[RichieMcD]

I don't like the idea of a one person dictatorship. The Romans had a rather intelligent idea, they had 2 "consuls" (pretty much the smartest equivalent to what we're discussing). A consul being the equivalent to Presidents, Prime Ministers etc. If something was to be passed, they would both have to agree and if a idea could lead to corruption or be damaging to the state the consul who didn't propose it can veto it.

 

 

 

Of course, there is always the chance of corruption whether it's 1 leader or 100 leaders. The simple fact is, we can only create the system which limits corruption as much as possible while being the most beneficial to the state in question.

 

 

 

So far, Democracy has still been the most effective of systems. I like the public having the ability to eventually rid of those who put the state at harm or were corrupt.

[Kenshinjapan]

 

 

 

Of course, there is always the chance of corruption whether it's 1 leader or 100 leaders. The simple fact is, we can only create the system which limits corruption as much as possible while being the most beneficial to the state in question.

 

 

 

 

In that context, it sounds as if a dictatorship would be the best choice. All or nothing sounds better to me than a 100% chance of some form of corruption in a government filled with many people with power.

[Bufoman]

Ahh, so congress not agreeing on everything is bad? I believe the slower the legislative process is, the slower the noose of tyranny is tightened around our collective necks. Eventually, we are liable to end up with little to no freedom. We already have Thought Crime if you can believe it- it's called Intent. A guy thinks about robbing a bank, decides not too, and tells his psychiatrist. Next thing he knows, he's sitting in prison for intent to rob a bank. And no, I am not making this up, it actually happened, in this country no less.

 

 

 

EDIT: Well, I can't seem to find the article, so I won't be making this claim so strongly, as I will undoubtedly be asked to provide a link. I do remember hearing about it though.

[MisterGreen]

The only reason that many people are ignorant because that's exactly what the government wants them to be like. With citizens like that, they're easy to control and create the illusion that the people have power, but in reality the government can easily sway public opinion in their favor because of stupidity and government officials can gain tons of power and get re-elected a million times because they censor and inhibit people from doing things under the guise of "It's to protect you from terrorists!" or some other crap.

 

 

 

The best solution would to limit the powers of government even further, and then educate the people better and work on discipline and family relationships. I see kids corrupted by so many different things today it isn't funny. Sex, Drugs, rebellion against parents, etc.

 

 

 

No, this type of set-up wouldn't work if the government suddenly lost tons of power, but if the people were better educated first it would be. People wouldn't make stupid decisions if they knew better. I guarantee you that crime rates would go down if people actually used their heads.

 

 

 

Power to the People!

 

 

 

"That government is best which governs least."

 

-- Thomas Paine

[baron8000]

Democracy is flawed, but it the best system we currently have, I see no realistic alternative without downsides much worse than ignorance.

[mmmcannibalism]

Democracy is flawed, but it the best system we currently have, I see no realistic alternative without downsides much worse than ignorance.

 

 

 

Very sadly, that is entirely accurate.

[Lenticular_J]

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...

 

Whoa. Going all Big Brother on my [wagon].

 

 

 

I don't understand how people can think that would be better than what we have now - which isn't the best, but it's better ...

 

 

 

Maybe people get all fluffed up and think they're the ones that will be these benevolent dictators instead of the slaves? (Not directed at you, a lot of people think that) If the entire human race was ruled by a benevolent dictator and no others, one person would get the benefits of a so-called perfect world. Man, that would really be lame. How exactly are we supposed to evolve and grow?

[mmmcannibalism]

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...

 

Whoa. Going all Big Brother on my [wagon].

 

 

 

I don't understand how people can think that would be better than what we have now - which isn't the best, but it's better ...

 

 

 

Maybe people get all fluffed up and think they're the ones that will be these benevolent dictators instead of the slaves? (Not directed at you, a lot of people think that) If the entire human race was ruled by a benevolent dictator and no others, one person would get the benefits of a so-called perfect world. Man, that would really be lame. How exactly are we supposed to evolve and grow?

 

 

 

I guess it depends on your outlook

 

 

 

would removing freedom be good enough if it meant ending all suffering?

 

 

 

if you think so then we would end up a la "Brave New World", if not then we continue what we are doing now for better or worse.

[Zonorhc]

If the entire human race was ruled by a benevolent dictator and no others, one person would get the benefits of a so-called perfect world. Man, that would really be lame. How exactly are we supposed to evolve and grow?

 

I don't understand this logic.

 

 

 

How can a world ruled by a benevolent dictator not allow all people to reap its benefits?

[killerbeer0]

Society needs to be run by sentient, rule-bound computers like in The Culture.

[warri0r45]

I think you raise a valid objection to democracy, but I'd rather have it than not.

[aquariusman]

I really think the title should be "The trouble with People...", mainly because every fault associated with governments can be traced back to humans. That said, I'd say that democracy is the lesser of evils, mainly because it always allows for a transition to another one.

[mmmcannibalism]

I really think the title should be "The trouble with People...", mainly because every fault associated with governments can be traced back to humans. That said, I'd say that democracy is the lesser of evils, mainly because it always allows for a transition to another one.

 

 

 

what he said

 

 

 

its a shame really

 

 

 

communism should work, socialism should work, capitialism should work, but people mess them all up.

[Housepig]

 

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.

 

 

 

Except immigrants aren't allowed to run for president and the rich still dominate the country. You're a fool if you believe any country really lives with true democracy.

 

 

 

True democracy? Maybe not, but that's not the point I'm making. That's just the affect of social status, which exists in any society exept true Communism.

 

 

 

The only reason that many people are ignorant because that's exactly what the government wants them to be like. With citizens like that, they're easy to control and create the illusion that the people have power, but in reality the government can easily sway public opinion in their favor because of stupidity and government officials can gain tons of power and get re-elected a million times because they censor and inhibit people from doing things under the guise of "It's to protect you from terrorists!" or some other crap.

 

 

 

The best solution would to limit the powers of government even further, and then educate the people better and work on discipline and family relationships. I see kids corrupted by so many different things today it isn't funny. Sex, Drugs, rebellion against parents, etc.

 

 

 

No, this type of set-up wouldn't work if the government suddenly lost tons of power, but if the people were better educated first it would be. People wouldn't make stupid decisions if they knew better. I guarantee you that crime rates would go down if people actually used their heads.

 

 

 

 

Good point. A sensible, thoughtful populace would be capable of governing themselves...but you still have the problem of bad motives, no matter how wise the populace may be. If a wise population voted in a party with good ideas to improve the country, that's all very well--on the surface. What if that party cared only for power, not for actualy acomplishing anything? It would only be a matter of time before the people wanted something less beneficial, and then your pretty much back to square one; people are always going to make poor decisions because of emotion and personal beliefs.

 

 

 

It may sound sinister, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that our leaders have got to the stage of seeking power purely for the hell of it. There were certainly some genuine politicians earlier in the 20th century, but today's seem just to believe in whatever happens to be popular.

 

 

 

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...

 

Whoa. Going all Big Brother on my [wagon].

 

 

 

I don't understand how people can think that would be better than what we have now - which isn't the best, but it's better ...

 

 

 

Maybe people get all fluffed up and think they're the ones that will be these benevolent dictators instead of the slaves? (Not directed at you, a lot of people think that) If the entire human race was ruled by a benevolent dictator and no others, one person would get the benefits of a so-called perfect world. Man, that would really be lame. How exactly are we supposed to evolve and grow?

 

 

 

Well, people would have to be chosen--and a having permanent dictator would be foolish in the extreme. I didn't mean to go all Big Brother (or indeed anything) on your arse, but perhaps that was a poor explanation. I meant that I belive people should have a free press and freedom of speach, but that they should have to accept that ultimately, if the government choses to do something they object to, they have to accept it.

[Will H]

The only reason that many people are ignorant because that's exactly what the government wants them to be like. With citizens like that, they're easy to control and create the illusion that the people have power, but in reality the government can easily sway public opinion in their favor because of stupidity and government officials can gain tons of power and get re-elected a million times because they censor and inhibit people from doing things under the guise of "It's to protect you from terrorists!" or some other crap.

 

 

 

The best solution would to limit the powers of government even further, and then educate the people better and work on discipline and family relationships. I see kids corrupted by so many different things today it isn't funny. Sex, Drugs, rebellion against parents, etc.

 

 

 

No, this type of set-up wouldn't work if the government suddenly lost tons of power, but if the people were better educated first it would be. People wouldn't make stupid decisions if they knew better. I guarantee you that crime rates would go down if people actually used their heads.

 

 

 

Power to the People!

 

 

 

"That government is best which governs least."

 

-- Thomas Paine

 

A nice thing about capitalism is that the government is forced to compete with independent schools. Luckily for us, they do not have absolute control because there is always going to be the better option if the government is unwilling to invest in rational education. I realise that this is not the best possible situation, but it's a convenient little mechanism which draws power away from the government the more they try to take it.

[l0l0lpur34]

Well, people would have to be chosen--and a having permanent dictator would be foolish in the extreme. I didn't mean to go all Big Brother (or indeed anything) on your arse, but perhaps that was a poor explanation. I meant that I belive people should have a free press and freedom of speach, but that they should have to accept that ultimately, if the government choses to do something they object to, they have to accept it.

 

Spoken like a true wannabe communist (or otherwise) dictator.

[RichieMcD]

 

 

 

Of course, there is always the chance of corruption whether it's 1 leader or 100 leaders. The simple fact is, we can only create the system which limits corruption as much as possible while being the most beneficial to the state in question.

 

 

 

 

In that context, it sounds as if a dictatorship would be the best choice. All or nothing sounds better to me than a 100% chance of some form of corruption in a government filled with many people with power.

 

 

 

I'd say the complete opposite, I'd much prefer having many leaders who can be voted in by the state than one person who has whole power.

 

 

 

Hitler and Stalin both came across as amazing leaders at first, they were to of the most evil and corrupt men in history. Anyone can come across as good and uncorrupt, anyone can also be corrupted by having absolute power.

[Housepig]

Well, people would have to be chosen--and a having permanent dictator would be foolish in the extreme. I didn't mean to go all Big Brother (or indeed anything) on your arse, but perhaps that was a poor explanation. I meant that I belive people should have a free press and freedom of speach, but that they should have to accept that ultimately, if the government choses to do something they object to, they have to accept it.

 

Spoken like a true wannabe communist (or otherwise) dictator.

 

 

 

I never said I should be a dictator; that's just my view on freedom. I'm sure there are many, many people who would do a much better job than me.

[DaN]

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.)

 

 

 

 

 

Churchill also said,

 

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

[mmmcannibalism]

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.

 

 

 

However, I dont believe there has been an actual elector changing votes from his district for practically ever; if they did this at will it wouldnt be a democracy though so really they are just symbolic.

[Bufoman]

Since we are talking about the Electoral College system, I would just like to point out that Al Gore did win the popular vote.

 

 

 

I must say there is something really wrong with a system that Say's we are all equal, yet gives some people more say and control in who leads us than others. We really need to get rid of the Electoral College, it's old and outdated, and prone to abuse.

[RpgGamer]

Democracy is flawed. No doubt. but honestly? what other choices do we have?

 

 

 

Totalitarianism? Who can trust one person in charge of everything? Absolute power corrupts absolutly

 

 

 

Socialism? Even the government can be corrupt, someone somewhere will be getting heavily screwed. And at the cost of general freedom

 

 

 

Communism? Although fair in the large scale, there is no way in hell a surgeon should be paid as muc has the guy mopping floors at your local McDonalds. For being all about equality, it isn't in

 

the least bit fair.

 

 

 

Republic? Too slow. The senate takes forever, and the system itself will run like maple syrup down a glacier. Nothing will be accomplished.

 

 

 

Anarchism? No rules does not rule. Without government, Anarchism will cause exactly what it sounds like - anarchy.

 

 

 

There is no form of governement that can possily be just, equal, fair, effective and morally correct all at once. It's more of a lesser of two evils kind of thing.