The trouble with Democracy...

[mario_sunny]

Democracy is only sucessful in wars.

 

 

 

Prove me wrong. :)

[RpgGamer]

Democracy is only sucessful in wars.

 

 

 

Prove me wrong. :)

 

 

 

The American Civil War.

[mario_sunny]

Democracy is only sucessful in wars.

 

 

 

Prove me wrong. :)

 

 

 

The American Civil War.

 

 

 

I was thinking that too... but the good side won didn't it? :)

[assassin_696]

The democracy we see in most developed nations is a compromise, which is true of nearly all other forms of implemented government. You're right, humans aren't rational and consequently politics is a very messy business. So I think it's silly to sit in armchairs and think about what the best theoretical government would be. I think if we take what you said seriously then you can't think that there is a "better" form of politics to democracy (i.e. benevolent dictatorships etc.) because ultimately we're completely fallible and even the most educated will screw it up. I think it makes more sense to accept that democracy is the best compromise and work with it in a pragmatic sort of way, and make it the best possible compromise we can.

[Lenticular_J]

Because high IQ doesn't mean you're smart. I have a feeling the average IQ here in Off-Topic would be considered pretty high, but most of us would look like morons if we tried to rule a government.

[DaN]

Because high IQ doesn't mean you're smart. I have a feeling the average IQ here in Off-Topic would be considered pretty high, but most of us would look like morons if we tried to rule a government.

 

 

 

That's true.

 

 

 

IQ and education are totally diffrent.

 

 

 

 

 

You can get stupid people who are well educated (see politician :P ) and you could have the next Newton leaving school early to go work in McDonalds.

[ThurinEthir]

Because high IQ doesn't mean you're smart. I have a feeling the average IQ here in Off-Topic would be considered pretty high, but most of us would look like morons if we tried to rule a government.

 

 

 

That's true.

 

 

 

IQ and education are totally diffrent.

 

 

 

 

 

You can get stupid people who are well educated (see politician :P ) and you could have the next Newton leaving school early to go work in McDonalds.

 

What about a giant intellectual competition? With problem solving, riddles, politcal stuff, etc.?

 

A civil service system such as the one used in Sui, Tang and Song China wouldn't actually be too bad. Having a bit of democratic influence to it would be nice too.

[Giordano]

It's not a matter of intelligence, its a matter of kindness. As a government, you're supposed to take care of it's people. A nice person would care about the country about it and not fall victim to corruptness.

 

 

 

A nice poor person or a greedy rich bastard. Take your pick.

[Lenticular_J]

Well, they both have their downfalls. What does the nice poor person do when the two or three good corporations, that actually help people (like GE) need help from the government?

[acenator]

I can't remember who said it (or if it's an actual quote of someone famous), but I've heard the saying that "democracies only work until the people find out they can vote themselves money."

 

 

 

Personally, I say republics (what most 'democracies' really are) are the best bet. At least this way we don't have to worry about a corrupt dictator or the like. Not to mention that communism has been shown to not work when applied to reality and that capitalism has been shown to be better than socialism (if you disagree, just ask yourself why the U.S. is the most powerful nation in the world and why China has been implementing more and more capitalistic values in its economy lately).

 

 

 

As for one thing that can be done to help (at least in those areas with limited/no electronic voting machines), we could always throw out any ballat not filled out exactly as instructed (if you can't fill in a little circle right, you shouldn't be voting).

[Zonorhc]

Not to mention that communism has been shown to not work when applied to reality and that capitalism has been shown to be better than socialism (if you disagree, just ask yourself why the U.S. is the most powerful nation in the world and why China has been implementing more and more capitalistic values in its economy lately).

 

Ask yourself why socialist Scandinavia has vastly higher standards of living than the United States.

 

 

 

Democracy is only sucessful in wars.

 

 

 

Prove me wrong. :)

 

Democracy is even less effective in wartime because popular opinion and endless bureaucracy will inevitably withhold from the armed forces the resources they need to achieve decisive victory.

[l0l0lpur34]

socialist Scandinavia

 

It is?

 

has vastly higher standards of living than the United States.

 

 

It does?

 

 

 

I see where you're going - just admit you want a communist/socialist dictatorship where a group of self-appointed bureaucrats control everyone's lives. (And using democratic countries to try and justify it, it seems...)

[Robert_de_Sable]

Democracy is only sucessful in wars.

 

 

 

Prove me wrong. :)

 

Democracy is at its lowest level of success during wartime. Because democracy allows for the wishes of the general population; there is often major unrest during times of war.

[acenator]

Not to mention that communism has been shown to not work when applied to reality and that capitalism has been shown to be better than socialism (if you disagree, just ask yourself why the U.S. is the most powerful nation in the world and why China has been implementing more and more capitalistic values in its economy lately).

 

Ask yourself why socialist Scandinavia has vastly higher standards of living than the United States.

 

First of all, since when has Scandanavia been a country? Secondly:

 

Sweden has achieved an enviable standard of living under a mixed system of high-tech capitalism and extensive welfare benefits.

The Norwegian economy is a prosperous bastion of welfare capitalism, featuring a combination of free market activity and government intervention.

Finland has a highly industrialized, largely free-market economy with per capita output roughly that of the UK, France, Germany, and Italy.

The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world.

 

Notice the use of the words "capitalism" and "free market." Sure, Sweden also has "extensive welfare benefits," but what 1st world country doesn't have a welfare system? And Norway also has "government intervetion," but so does the U.S.

 

 

 

Thirdly, the U.S. has a higher GDP per capita than any of those three nations that make up Scandinavia (also according to the CIA World Factbook). Sure, if you measure standard of living by the Human Development Index, then the U.S. falls behind, but that doesn't remove the fact that the U.S. economy is the "most technologically powerful economy in the world." Not to mention that the U.S. really isn't that far behind in the HDI ratings (In 2006 (I couldn't find anything more recent),Norway's was .968, Sweden's was .958, Finland's was .954, and the United Sates' was .950).

[Will H]

 

Democracy is only sucessful in wars.

 

 

 

Prove me wrong. :)

 

Democracy is even less effective in wartime because popular opinion and endless bureaucracy will inevitably withhold from the armed forces the resources they need to achieve decisive victory.

 

It's not about 'decisive victory', there is no 'decisive victory' in war, it always ends in a compromise. It's about defending yourself, and any political structure would make defence a priority because it's in our nature, rational or not, and governments would act accordingly.

[mmmcannibalism]

 

Democracy is only sucessful in wars.

 

 

 

Prove me wrong. :)

 

Democracy is even less effective in wartime because popular opinion and endless bureaucracy will inevitably withhold from the armed forces the resources they need to achieve decisive victory.

 

It's not about 'decisive victory', there is no 'decisive victory' in war, it always ends in a compromise. It's about defending yourself, and any political structure would make defence a priority because it's in our nature, rational or not, and governments would act accordingly.

 

 

 

how the war ends is different from how it was "won"

 

 

 

ww2 for instance, the allied victory was extremely decisive

[Bufoman]

Yes, where as World War 1 was dragged on until an armistice was signed. Democracy does not have much to do with the outcome of a war. Wars come down to Technology, Resources, Doctrine, Will, and Manpower. I'm sure there is some other things I have forgot to add, such as objectives, and logistics. If invaded or attacked, any nation's people who feel their way of life is endangered will fight for victory. The tragedy here is when wars are pointless, or the men who fight and die in them do not share in the rewards.

[RpgGamer]

Democracy is only sucessful in wars.

 

 

 

Prove me wrong. :)

 

 

 

The American Civil War.

 

 

 

I was thinking that too... but the good side won didn't it? :)

 

There was no "good" side really. Yes most people see the North as the good side due to their lack of creedism/racism but in all reality, the South had every right. The South fought for honor, and the protection of their guarenteed rights for which were won through suscesion(sp?) from Britain. The North wanted unity more than anything else, the anti-racism was just a pleasant side effect. I suggest reading the book "The Killer Angels". (Good war book that explains very deeply the forgotten sides of the Civil War)

[mmmcannibalism]

Democracy is only sucessful in wars.

 

 

 

Prove me wrong. :)

 

 

 

The American Civil War.

 

 

 

I was thinking that too... but the good side won didn't it? :)

 

There was no "good" side really. Yes most people see the North as the good side due to their lack of creedism/racism but in all reality, the South had every right. The South fought for honor, and the protection of their guarenteed rights for which were won through suscesion(sp?) from Britain. The North wanted unity more than anything else, the anti-racism was just a pleasant side effect. I suggest reading the book "The Killer Angels". (Good war book that explains very deeply the forgotten sides of the Civil War)

 

 

 

I would lightly disagree; not that the states rights reason for the war is innacurate(right of south is subjective I side with maintaining union personally), but more importantly the fact that slavery was causing every other issue to come up. The movement towards a more radically antislavery north and a south losing political power built up the conflict. IMO, the south was largely acting like a spoiled child; when they began to lose political power they would threaten seccession and try nullification to get their way(other then the civil war), specifically the nullification of the "Tariff of Abominations".

 

 

 

edit--thats not to say the north was the "good" side; but as it became more of a slavery war the north's ideology became "better"

[Lenticular_J]

A lot of the reason for secession threats was the North's not wanting to help the South. The North was becoming wealthy and industrialized, while in the South there was a handful of the wealthiest farmers (also the politicians) who had massive cotton plantations, while all the people who'd end up soldiers barely got by. At some points before the War, the South was just as likely to secede from itself.

[RpgGamer]

A lot of the reason for secession threats was the North's not wanting to help the South. The North was becoming wealthy and industrialized, while in the South there was a handful of the wealthiest farmers (also the politicians) who had massive cotton plantations, while all the people who'd end up soldiers barely got by. At some points before the War, the South was just as likely to secede from itself.

 

 

 

Also true, and I see mmmCanibalism's point to. There were definatly some strong reasons for the South to want to keep their slaves (those huge plantations were hard to take care of) as well as political reasons (like the 3/5 vote rule). Perosonally I think the North won for two reasons: It had anti-racist support AND it was much better prepared for war, what with all that good industrialization. Truly, Union was for the best interests of the Northern states, but the national laws mostly benefitted the Northh, while pushing the South further in a hole. This was the reason for sessesion. The South was fed up with getting the short end of the stick and took matters into their own hands. Yes alot of these laws were created for a reason, but belittling the South was an unforseen consequence of the otherwise good laws. The South got beat up, and submitted to the Union. As the Nation grew we all kind of learned to work together (which was the idea of the Union). Although lately, Texas has been acting up, but that's a whole different story. As a united nation, the US is much stronger both militarily and economically. PLus the lack of slavery is a good thing. But it's all in perception.

[ArmadylArcher]

I think that there should be a test to evaluate people to see if they are mentally fit to vote. Being 18 + just isn't enough...what about mentally challenged, psychotic people or people with little care for the direction of the country and vote just because? I've met people that vote for the guy they hate...just to be different. Hello? This isn't a game.

 

 

 

Look at what George Bush did to america; he's the reason for the recession...and 45 % of america voted against him for the reason that they were probably the more educated side to see how poorly experienced and ready he was to be president.

 

 

 

An oligarchy would be my choice of a government framework...but how and who defines which ones of us are capable to vote or not? That's the problem.

[RpgGamer]

I think that there should be a test to evaluate people to see if they are mentally fit to vote. Being 18 + just isn't enough...what about mentally challenged, psychotic people or people with little care for the direction of the country and vote just because? I've met people that vote for the guy they hate...just to be different. Hello? This isn't a game.

 

 

 

Look at what George Bush did to america; he's the reason for the recession...and 45 % of america voted against him for the reason that they were probably the more educated side to see how poorly experienced and ready he was to be president.

 

 

 

An oligarchy would be my choice of a government framework...but how and who defines which ones of us are capable to vote or not? That's the problem.

 

 

 

If you look at his re-election poll results and compare them to the areas to which voted him back in...it's shoking. There's a picture of it somewhere on the internet, feel free to google it yourself. The top 10 ranked most intelligent states voted against Bush. The 10 worst ranked intelligent states voted for him. It's a truly demonstrative picture. I agree, an IQ should be administered before the right to vote is given.

[meol]

Not really. It's just some made up figure some used to diss Republicans.

 

 

 

If people are too easily dissuaded by fancy talking and false promises, the answer is not barring them from voting or setting IQ limits. Instead, political education and grass roots movements should be improved and encouraged, so there is more participation and activism.

 

 

 

Limiting political participation like that will only worsen the problem because it'll mostly exclude the poor, who usually can't afford better education levels.

[Robert_de_Sable]

Not to mention that communism has been shown to not work when applied to reality and that capitalism has been shown to be better than socialism (if you disagree, just ask yourself why the U.S. is the most powerful nation in the world and why China has been implementing more and more capitalistic values in its economy lately).

 

Ask yourself why socialist Scandinavia has vastly higher standards of living than the United States.

 

You answered your own question. It's a socialist government. You don't see any hugely wealthy people there, do you?