The trouble with Democracy...

[mmmcannibalism]

the problem is not the policy, its not the system, its the people. We could devote a million of the smartest people in the world to studying government for a million years and the system they devised would still be broken by the masses.

 

 

 

A capitalist society with light limits should work perfectly, as should a socialist, as should a communist society. Unfortunatly, we get populations that demand changes to the current system and instead of stopping at what they needed to do they over do everything and make it just as bad as it started.

 

 

 

And of course there is the classic ignorant voter/citizen; my personal favorites are the girl who said marilon manson would be a better president then obama, and the girl who said obama was the antichrist "because a lot of people said he was".

[l0l0lpur34]

.but how and who defines which ones of us are capable to vote or not? That's the problem.

 

Exactly, any restriction on voting is a slippery slope, despite any possible "advantages"

[Housepig]

A slippery slope to what? No voting at all would be most advantageous. Letting some people vote while others can't is a bad idea; meritocracy would produce the best candidates for government.

[l0l0lpur34]

A slippery slope to what? No voting at all would be most advantageous. Letting some people vote while others can't is a bad idea; meritocracy would produce the best candidates for government.

 

a slippery slope towards autocracy.

[i_love_burritos]

benevolent dictatorship

 

 

 

I lol'd at that.

 

 

 

Numbers in the battle of ideas is an arbitrary concept, not fit for the purpose for which it was intended. Personally I think a socialistic system is best leaves space for corruption - however my fault again for assuming the system is intrinsically corrupt.

 

 

 

Socrates reborn. Then again he did believe in the republic.

 

 

 

EDIT: IMO democracy is still going on, for the fact that we are simply put, complacent and LAZY.

[user1991]

Democracy is bad because humans are generally idiots.

 

 

 

Full on democracy is just unfeasible in countries with large populations. You can't have a vote on everything. Burkean representation, which is employed in every "democratic" system, nullifies the whole concept of democracy in the first place. Sure, we have a say as to who gets in power, but when it comes down to it, we don't really have that much to do with any specifics of it. Most people are idiots and are easily swayed by rhetoric and spin and consensus pressure.

 

 

 

But on the other hand, resorting to dictatorship is worse because 1) the ends don't justify the means - freedom is freedom, 2) you can't guarantee they will be "benevolent" (again, in whose opinion? The judgment of whether something is "benevolent" or "malevolent" is entirely subjective if not democratically based), and 3) the corrupt human condition and the inevitable stupidity of the human race means that even if you had a benevolent dictator, there would have to be an endless amount of them consecutively otherwise we would either just undo everything they did or someone malevolent would take their place.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, the sad truth is that we will forever be plagued by corrupt authorities, populations of ignorant morons who don't really care about anything outside of their little bubble, and bureaucratic politicians who are out for their own, spinning their way into power. Unless we either evolve or the average intelligence increases miraculously, these problems are here to stay.

 

 

 

Get used to it, be happy with what you have, and try to make the most of it.

[Housepig]

A slippery slope to what? No voting at all would be most advantageous. Letting some people vote while others can't is a bad idea; meritocracy would produce the best candidates for government.

 

a slippery slope towards autocracy.

 

 

 

But is autocracy categorically bad?

 

 

 

Democracy is bad because humans are generally idiots.

 

 

 

Full on democracy is just unfeasible in countries with large populations. You can't have a vote on everything. Burkean representation, which is employed in every "democratic" system, nullifies the whole concept of democracy in the first place. Sure, we have a say as to who gets in power, but when it comes down to it, we don't really have that much to do with any specifics of it. Most people are idiots and are easily swayed by rhetoric and spin and consensus pressure.

 

 

 

But on the other hand, resorting to dictatorship is worse because 1) the ends don't justify the means - freedom is freedom, 2) you can't guarantee they will be "benevolent" (again, in whose opinion? The judgment of whether something is "benevolent" or "malevolent" is entirely subjective if not democratically based), and 3) the corrupt human condition and the inevitable stupidity of the human race means that even if you had a benevolent dictator, there would have to be an endless amount of them consecutively otherwise we would either just undo everything they did or someone malevolent would take their place.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, the sad truth is that we will forever be plagued by corrupt authorities, populations of ignorant morons who don't really care about anything outside of their little bubble, and bureaucratic politicians who are out for their own, spinning their way into power. Unless we either evolve or the average intelligence increases miraculously, these problems are here to stay.

 

 

 

Get used to it, be happy with what you have, and try to make the most of it.

 

 

 

Absolutely right. But I still think some systems produce a better result than others--and a well-moderated, limited dictatorship, I feel, would produce better results than democracy.

[user1991]

A slippery slope to what? No voting at all would be most advantageous. Letting some people vote while others can't is a bad idea; meritocracy would produce the best candidates for government.

 

a slippery slope towards autocracy.

 

 

 

But is autocracy categorically bad?

 

 

 

Democracy is bad because humans are generally idiots.

 

 

 

Full on democracy is just unfeasible in countries with large populations. You can't have a vote on everything. Burkean representation, which is employed in every "democratic" system, nullifies the whole concept of democracy in the first place. Sure, we have a say as to who gets in power, but when it comes down to it, we don't really have that much to do with any specifics of it. Most people are idiots and are easily swayed by rhetoric and spin and consensus pressure.

 

 

 

But on the other hand, resorting to dictatorship is worse because 1) the ends don't justify the means - freedom is freedom, 2) you can't guarantee they will be "benevolent" (again, in whose opinion? The judgment of whether something is "benevolent" or "malevolent" is entirely subjective if not democratically based), and 3) the corrupt human condition and the inevitable stupidity of the human race means that even if you had a benevolent dictator, there would have to be an endless amount of them consecutively otherwise we would either just undo everything they did or someone malevolent would take their place.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, the sad truth is that we will forever be plagued by corrupt authorities, populations of ignorant morons who don't really care about anything outside of their little bubble, and bureaucratic politicians who are out for their own, spinning their way into power. Unless we either evolve or the average intelligence increases miraculously, these problems are here to stay.

 

 

 

Get used to it, be happy with what you have, and try to make the most of it.

 

 

 

Absolutely right. But I still think some systems produce a better result than others--and a well-moderated, limited dictatorship, I feel, would produce better results than democracy.

 

 

 

Better for who exactly?

 

 

 

I don't want to sound like I'm making slippery slope arguments, but people cannot be trusted with so much power. At some point during the chain of dictators, there would be someone who would abuse their power for their own gain. It is inevitable.

 

 

 

The majority of people are morons, so it may seem weird that I'm defending democracy. It's just, pragmatically speaking, a "well-moderated, limited dictatorship" isn't possible. Too many people would abuse their power for their own gain. I think that a democratic system is better than this, because people keep each other in check. The people watch the state, the state watches the people, the people watch each other, territory is lost and territory is gained. Of course, this sounds terrible. and it is. The sad reality is, those amongst us that are truly capable of introspection are vastly outnumbered by people who are simply stupid. I don't want to sound like an elitist, but I would be dishonest if I claimed that while I'm out in town or when I'm just interacting with others, most people don't seem quite stupid. They do, that's just how it is. I know that "intelligence" is measured by a series of variables, a lot of which aren't quantifiable, but if we take IQ as at least a general indicator of somebody's capacity for creativity, knowledge, self questioning, complexity of thought etc, when we consider that the average IQ is roughly 100, we can conclude that the majority of people aren't very intelligent.

 

 

 

So naturally, from the get go, democracy isn't going to be all that fabulous. Others noticed this, and because of both this and various other reasons, most of which are to due with problems of the feasibility of a voting system in a country of millions, we have representative systems. We vote in an official on certain grounds, and we simply hope that they will do as they say. So, here we have a system in which we, the people, vote in a person on the basis of things they say they will do, then when they get in power, they are free to do as they wish as a "representative of the people." We keep them under moderation and decide who gets into power, but what they do is up to them and the rest of the representatives respectively. Yet even in this system, we have corruption, abuse of power. Even in a system in which there are courts in which these people will have to answer to the people who voted them in, with possible consequences that include lengthy prison sentences, we still have these problems. And why? Because we're humans.

 

 

 

Let's take this to the next step. A "well moderated, limited dictatorship." So in this proposed system, those in charge do as they wish. The "moderated" and "limited" imply some sort of restraint on the part of those in charge, but we can see from modern society as well as societies in the past, people can't get enough power. The abuse in this system would be absolutely ridiculous.

 

 

 

So technically, whilst a dictatorship of benevolent geniuses may be better for a lot of us, this isn't possible. It is pointless to even talk of it because it could never happen. With the current state of humanity, and the way most people are, certain systems aren't possible. Marxism, anarchism, totalitarianism etc aren't possible, without something going wrong and messing it all up.

 

 

 

The only thing we can do to try and better our species to the point where we can actually have working anarchist systems and other things that actually make sense, is to educate. Unless there is some sort of transhumanism that happens in the future that makes everyone benevolent (again by what standard?) and intelligent enough to understand the workings of political/economic systems, we can only hope to educate.

[Housepig]

 

 

 

Democracy is bad because humans are generally idiots.

 

 

 

Full on democracy is just unfeasible in countries with large populations. You can't have a vote on everything. Burkean representation, which is employed in every "democratic" system, nullifies the whole concept of democracy in the first place. Sure, we have a say as to who gets in power, but when it comes down to it, we don't really have that much to do with any specifics of it. Most people are idiots and are easily swayed by rhetoric and spin and consensus pressure.

 

 

 

But on the other hand, resorting to dictatorship is worse because 1) the ends don't justify the means - freedom is freedom, 2) you can't guarantee they will be "benevolent" (again, in whose opinion? The judgment of whether something is "benevolent" or "malevolent" is entirely subjective if not democratically based), and 3) the corrupt human condition and the inevitable stupidity of the human race means that even if you had a benevolent dictator, there would have to be an endless amount of them consecutively otherwise we would either just undo everything they did or someone malevolent would take their place.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, the sad truth is that we will forever be plagued by corrupt authorities, populations of ignorant morons who don't really care about anything outside of their little bubble, and bureaucratic politicians who are out for their own, spinning their way into power. Unless we either evolve or the average intelligence increases miraculously, these problems are here to stay.

 

 

 

Get used to it, be happy with what you have, and try to make the most of it.

 

 

 

Absolutely right. But I still think some systems produce a better result than others--and a well-moderated, limited dictatorship, I feel, would produce better results than democracy.

 

 

 

Better for who exactly?

 

 

 

I don't want to sound like I'm making slippery slope arguments, but people cannot be trusted with so much power. At some point during the chain of dictators, there would be someone who would abuse their power for their own gain. It is inevitable.

 

 

 

Yes, but with the right system, those people would be caught. I'm not thinking of a Stalinist style dictatorship where people routinely dissapear or can be shot for criticising the government; I mean a system whereby leaders are chosen by an elite council who where themselves chosen, and where people are allowed to criticise and have their ability to do so protected by constitution. No incorrupt government needs to practice extreme dictatorship anyway, as a more moderate dictatorship with freedom of speach would lead to greater trust between the people and the government. Public inquiries could still be held in an ideal system; it's just the voting aspect I'm against.

 

 

 

The majority of people are morons, so it may seem weird that I'm defending democracy. It's just, pragmatically speaking, a "well-moderated, limited dictatorship" isn't possible. Too many people would abuse their power for their own gain. I think that a democratic system is better than this, because people keep each other in check. The people watch the state, the state watches the people, the people watch each other, territory is lost and territory is gained. Of course, this sounds terrible. and it is. The sad reality is, those amongst us that are truly capable of introspection are vastly outnumbered by people who are simply stupid. I don't want to sound like an elitist, but I would be dishonest if I claimed that while I'm out in town or when I'm just interacting with others, most people don't seem quite stupid. They do, that's just how it is. I know that "intelligence" is measured by a series of variables, a lot of which aren't quantifiable, but if we take IQ as at least a general indicator of somebody's capacity for creativity, knowledge, self questioning, complexity of thought etc, when we consider that the average IQ is roughly 100, we can conclude that the majority of people aren't very intelligent.

 

 

 

So naturally, from the get go, democracy isn't going to be all that fabulous. Others noticed this, and because of both this and various other reasons, most of which are to due with problems of the feasibility of a voting system in a country of millions, we have representative systems. We vote in an official on certain grounds, and we simply hope that they will do as they say. So, here we have a system in which we, the people, vote in a person on the basis of things they say they will do, then when they get in power, they are free to do as they wish as a "representative of the people." We keep them under moderation and decide who gets into power, but what they do is up to them and the rest of the representatives respectively. Yet even in this system, we have corruption, abuse of power. Even in a system in which there are courts in which these people will have to answer to the people who voted them in, with possible consequences that include lengthy prison sentences, we still have these problems. And why? Because we're humans.

 

 

 

Of course, but a dictatorship doesn't have to be extreme authoritarian. I don't see why a system with a dictator who could be held to inquiry and cannot violate a set constitution couldn't be implemented. Corruption would probably be lessened, in fact, as those with the oppurtunity to become corrupt would have been chosen by an intelligent, rational body.

 

 

 

 

 

Let's take this to the next step. A "well moderated, limited dictatorship." So in this proposed system, those in charge do as they wish. The "moderated" and "limited" imply some sort of restraint on the part of those in charge, but we can see from modern society as well as societies in the past, people can't get enough power. The abuse in this system would be absolutely ridiculous.

 

 

 

Potentialy, yes. But I imagine that in a system where the leaders chose each other and are moderated by a constitution, corruption would run in spirals. Only corrupt people would vote for other corrupt people, and one corrupt politician in a hundred honest ones isn't going to be able to do much damage without being caught.

 

 

 

 

 

So technically, whilst a dictatorship of benevolent geniuses may be better for a lot of us, this isn't possible. It is pointless to even talk of it because it could never happen. With the current state of humanity, and the way most people are, certain systems aren't possible. Marxism, anarchism, totalitarianism etc aren't possible, without something going wrong and messing it all up.

 

 

 

I accept that it's vastly unlikely, but it could happen. If just one or two totaly honest leaders chose the first council, the council would be bound to be as honest as feasably possible. And as long as corruption never reaches the level when it becomes corrupted, corrupt leaders would remain isolated and would be able have little impact. It could go wrong at so many points, but I mantain that it could be done.

 

 

 

 

 

The only thing we can do to try and better our species to the point where we can actually have working anarchist systems and other things that actually make sense, is to educate. Unless there is some sort of transhumanism that happens in the future that makes everyone benevolent (again by what standard?) and intelligent enough to understand the workings of political/economic systems, we can only hope to educate.

 

 

 

The standards I'm thinking of are utilitarian ones. How else can you rationaly judge the desirability of an action?

 

 

 

Aside from that, yes, I more or less agree. I still think that a dictatorship would be best, but your idea is the best low-risk alternative. The consequences of a dictatorial government becoming corrupt would be terrible.

[mmmcannibalism]

The problem with your theory on a dictatorship is that just because you say you will protect free speech doesnt mean it will be protected. Sure your council idea is very reasonable, but there is no reason the entire counsel wouldnt become corrupt if we didnt have elections of them and we would still have a dictator who would be able to do whatever he wanted.

[Housepig]

Yes, but democracy is more likely to produce a corrupt leader. A well-meaning leader is less likely to elected than a corrupt one because his ideas may conflict with what the public wants.