• Is Democracy really the best way to go?
    49 replies, posted
I was thinking about this a bit earlier, and I would like to propose a scenario based on that. Let's say that there are two nations out there. One nation has a despotic political system, while the other has a representative democratic system. The despotic nation does not hold any kind of vote for government officials, or at least there are no elections offered to the general public. The democratic nation has elections presented to the public on a regular basis, every few years or so. Yeah, at this point you would probably be thinking that democracy would be the better system, and I'm a fool for proposing a despotic system. However, what if I were to say that the governing body of the despotic nation stood for things such as a high quality of life, a fair and just society, civil liberties and no influence of corruption anywhere within the governing body, while the democratic nation was plagued with a lower quality of life, a society that unfairly treats certain demographics, had restrictions on personal freedoms and was full of corruption. Which nation would be better? Would the democratic nation still be the best of the two to choose from? Would democracy really be worth it?
That's an extreme example. There haven't been many (if any) despotic systems that would actually stand for those ideals. But it's not [I]all bad[/I]. For example, Hitler's Germany created many jobs and was generally a very stable place to live in (as long as you were an approved citizen).
If the people in charge had each persons best interests at heart it would work, but at the moment it's all about the money. We would need some kind of robotic leaders that don't value money. :tinfoil:
A benevolent dictatorship would be better than a democracy, but would be extremely difficult to implement. Power corrupts, thanks to human shortcomings, and having the ruling class turned around every few years alleviates that. However, in a democracy, politicians who are only in power for a few years may not bother with long term policies which extend beyond their term, or will fob off long term goals in favour of short ones which keep their ratings high. I have wondered before now, if something like a technocracy would be better. Having essentially a single party, made up of the best people in various industries, ie. engineers, doctors, teachers, union officials, economists etc. who are regularly voted in and out by the general public, and who can only serve a single consecutive term. Obviously that idea's riddled with problems, but I'm only human. I think until we're ruled by Earth Central we have to make do with what we've got.
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” - Winston Churchill
Democracy is overrated, everybody relates it to their 'freedom' and 'right to vote'. If it was true democracy then we would have more choice when it comes to voting, we wouldn't have to vote in the same pompous assholes year after year. I'm all in favour of communism, no rich - no poor, everything shared. It would do away with the horrible class system and people would value each other much more, there would be no greed or materialism.
[QUOTE=FearsomeMudcrab;32872483]Democracy is overrated, everybody relates it to their 'freedom' and 'right to vote'. If it was true democracy then we would have more choice when it comes to voting, we wouldn't have to vote in the same pompous assholes year after year. I'm all in favour of communism, no rich - no poor, everything shared. It would do away with the horrible class system and people would value each other much more, there would be no greed or materialism.[/QUOTE] Communism hasn't worked large-scale so far. You'd need a nation full of like-minded individuals and that is impossible.
I don't think a human - no matter how benevolent and altruistic his intentions - is capable of understanding mine or anyone else's notion of the good life. [editline]20th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Zezibesh;32872660]Communism hasn't worked large-scale so far. You'd need a nation full of like-minded individuals and that is impossible.[/QUOTE] No it doesn't, why does everyone think this? All communism needs to work is a fair way of portioning incentives. If effort truly did equate to service to mankind which in turn equated to fair reward, this would essentially be communism. It would also be a true free market. Yes - I see communism and free market anarchism as the same thing.
It would be better to vote for the head or the group in charge of the section of government or the policy rather than a party of people who are all supposed to believe the same thing. Both parties have policies people like and hate, why don't we just have each one evaluated by independent professionals on the subject? Then we only vote for the ones that will work. We should also have each politician psychologically evaluated and if they are not suitable for the department they don't get the job. Governments should not be able to implement any policies without public approval.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_absolutism[/url] The idea is not a new one. In fact, I would agree that, in some ways, having a benevolent dictator is more efficient than having a democracy. However, there is no guarantee that the dictator who puts themselves in power, or the monarch who is born to the throne, will be a competent well wishing leader.
It's not the best way because people who have no idea about politics vote, and their vote is as important as a vote of someone who actually understands what's up. It would be good if only the people who are well informed would vote.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;32876665]It's not the best way because people who have no idea about politics vote, and their vote is as important as a vote of someone who actually understands what's up. It would be good if only the people who are well informed would vote.[/QUOTE] Why rob people of their rights to vote just because they aren't informed enough? Instead you should teach uneducated the values of politics and et cetera
Hmm I was going to post my idea of a good government, but I can't put into words concisely. I'm thinking something like a meritocracy, where the leaders only deal with a certain part of the country, but they actually have the power to do things with the part of the country they control. When I say part of the country, I don't mean territory, I mean like a science leader, an ambassador leader, a population welfare leader, and then some kind of over all leader who makes sure those guys don't step out of like (but it doesn't go any further than that).
[QUOTE=Mooe94;32876715]Why rob people of their rights to vote just because they aren't informed enough? Instead you should teach uneducated the values of politics and et cetera[/QUOTE]Because it's not really a choice if you can only see the cover of the boxes. And what the fuck, we're just gonna teach everyone, everything about politics and they will listen. Dude, shitload of people still doesn't believe in evolution. If they wanted to be informed they would.
Democracy isn't fair, and it definitely doesn't give everyone a voice. It is the opinion of the majority that prevails, aka the minority might as well not have said anything. It happens to work currently because the majority aren't evil bastards, but if they were things would be different.
Democracy is a bad way of rules, but among the existing - the best.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;32876827]Because it's not really a choice if you can only see the cover of the boxes. And what the fuck, we're just gonna teach everyone, everything about politics and they will listen. Dude, shitload of people still doesn't believe in evolution. If they wanted to be informed they would.[/QUOTE] Just seems to be the wrong way of going, just taking away their right because they were raised in a particular way I'm not saying that I think politically uninterested people should vote, but that just taking away that right has serious repercussions
The issue with democracy is that it requires people to be willing to keep themselves informed on issues of governance. Sadly, in many Western countries, this is not the case; we claim to want freedom and democratic choice, yet we would rather transfer the burden of that choice to a select few we elect to do so, often via what amounts to little more than a popularity contest. Even when those elected turn out to not hold our best interests at heart, we still prefer to let them run the country as they will, rather than take the responsibility of making choices ourselves. It could be argued that it is this general apathy that is the reason why we don't have true democracy in the West; indeed, it could be said that we don't deserve it.
[QUOTE=FearsomeMudcrab;32872483]Democracy is overrated, everybody relates it to their 'freedom' and 'right to vote'. If it was true democracy then we would have more choice when it comes to voting, we wouldn't have to vote in the same pompous assholes year after year. I'm all in favour of communism, no rich - no poor, everything shared. It would do away with the horrible class system and people would value each other much more, there would be no greed or materialism.[/QUOTE] many forms of communism are democratic homeskillet [editline]20th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Robbobin;32872733]No it doesn't, why does everyone think this? All communism needs to work is a fair way of portioning incentives. If effort truly did equate to service to mankind which in turn equated to fair reward, this would essentially be communism. It would also be a true free market. Yes - I see communism and free market anarchism as the same thing.[/QUOTE] Because regurgitating "socialism/communism fails because human nature/greed" is easier than knowing what you're talking about.
Kind of like other people have said of all the existing ones, democracy seems to work the best but it has many flaws. The only better one's I've heard people come up with would be nearly impossible to establish.
I don't think a better system then democracy has been thought of, accountability is important to get rid of corruption.
democracy is providing the stability humanity needs to advance itself technologically
It's very, very hard to think up a new system of government that works off paper due to all the social and economic variables. When dealing in absolutes: -A Democracy where there is no governmental transparency is not a true democracy. -A Communist nation will thrive when the people are united strongly. -A Benevolent Dictatorship must be supported by it's people and the dictator must be incredibly good at ruling the country else it will eventually fail. Democracy is certainly isn't the only way and is definitely not worth it when the 'democratic' government hides secrets from it's people for monetary gain. [editline]20th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Magistrate;32878673]democracy is providing the stability humanity needs to advance itself technologically[/QUOTE] A true democracy would help science move along but representative democracy, as we can see in the USA, can hinder it due to exisiting technological firms putting stakes in certain bills barring newer technologies from being funded or given grants.
[QUOTE=PunchedInFac;32878737] -A Benevolent Dictatorship must be supported by it's people and the dictator must be incredibly good at ruling the country else it will eventually fail.[/QUOTE] That's great except it never fucking happens. The people who want power most are probably the ones that will get it, and those people don't really care about you or your family; The main thing they care about is your vote.
What about a dictatorship where the dictator is not above the law, and people can vote to overturn him? The next dictator would be selected by a council.
[editline]20th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;32880333]What about a dictatorship where the dictator is not above the law, and people can vote to overturn him? The next dictator would be selected by a council.[/QUOTE] A few problems: The "vote to overturn him" thing might backfire and turn into mob rule, or a few corrupt people may control the voting through propaganda, blackmail, etc. Also, it's not really a dictatorship if the dictator isn't above the law.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32878444]Because regurgitating "socialism/communism fails because human nature/greed" is easier than knowing what you're talking about.[/QUOTE] Well it IS pretty true. However I wouldn't say it's necessarily greed so much as it is a strong concept of ownership. In a perfect communist state if I had a car parked in my driveway someone could just walk up and take it when they want to go somewhere because it's not actually mine - it's everyone's!. But I mean I obviously needed the car to get home from somewhere, so chances are I'll need it again, so it'd be kind of annoying if somebody took it. And... what if I NEED the car later on in the day (someone I know is in hospital and I need to go see them ASAP for example)? How can I give the car to someone else knowing that I myself won't need it more than him later on? Human's need things to call their own, it's just the way we operate. We need some solid, guaranteed, unchanging constants in our life - total communism doesn't allow that, though. I think elements of communism could be integrated into other forms of government well (much like how modern day democracies have socialistic elements to them), but I don't think it'd ever work on its own.
[QUOTE=sltungle;32881597]Well it IS pretty true. However I wouldn't say it's necessarily greed so much as it is a strong concept of ownership. In a perfect communist state if I had a car parked in my driveway someone could just walk up and take it when they want to go somewhere because it's not actually mine - it's everyone's!. But I mean I obviously needed the car to get home from somewhere, so chances are I'll need it again, so it'd be kind of annoying if somebody took it. And... what if I NEED the car later on in the day (someone I know is in hospital and I need to go see them ASAP for example)? How can I give the car to someone else knowing that I myself won't need it more than him later on? Human's need things to call their own, it's just the way we operate. We need some solid, guaranteed, unchanging constants in our life - total communism doesn't allow that, though. I think elements of communism could be integrated into other forms of government well (much like how modern day democracies have socialistic elements to them), but I don't think it'd ever work on its own.[/QUOTE] No, this is caused by a misunderstanding of the basic tenets of communism. Communism does away with private ownership of the means of production, NOT private ownership of any property.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32881626]No, this is caused by a misunderstanding of the basic tenets of communism. Communism does away with private ownership of the means of production, NOT private ownership of any property.[/QUOTE] Ah. I had always had it explained to me basically as, "everyone owns everything," (or, alternatively, "nobody owns anything").
[QUOTE=sltungle;32881672]Ah. I had always had it explained to me basically as, "everyone owns everything," (or, alternatively, "nobody owns anything").[/QUOTE] Yeah, that seems to be the popular conception and it's very misleading.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.