PDA

View Full Version : Democracy



Captain Obvious
08-05-2016, 09:40 PM
Is it a success, or not?

Vote

Poll is public

Common
08-05-2016, 09:41 PM
Stfu faygit

Peter1469
08-06-2016, 12:53 AM
Democracy is the tyranny of the majority. Bad idea.

Green Arrow
08-06-2016, 02:07 AM
No system is perfect. It's about the best we can do.

Ethereal
08-06-2016, 03:47 AM
Democracy is the tyranny of the majority. Bad idea.

If you interpret the etymology in the most straightforward way, it doesn't really mean that.

"Rule of the people" is different than "rule of the majority".

Many would argue that majoritarian rule is not consistent with genuine democracy.

After all, the basis for democracy is self-government, so if a group of people strip away that right from other people, democracy ceases to apply.

And that is why I always say that democracy and decentralization go hand-in-hand. Because large-scale "democracy" is structurally biased towards authoritarianism.

Ethereal
08-06-2016, 03:50 AM
No system is perfect. It's about the best we can do.

Well I'm always curious as to who is supposed to rule if not "the people". Would it be the aliens, perhaps? Or maybe the cows? They seem pretty wise and serene.

So when someone says "democracy doesn't work", they're basically saying "people don't work", and if that's true, then there is no hope for any form of government to succeed since groups of "people" are always the ones responsible for establishing and maintaining governments.

Ethereal
08-06-2016, 03:56 AM
Is it a success, or not?

Vote

Poll is public

Small scale democracy is a smashing success.

Human beings evolved into the dominant species on the planet while living under democratic, egalitarian governments.

The German tribes who conquered Rome and rose to become the dominant culture in the world did so as a confederation of small-scale democracies.

Early Americans defeated the British empire and obtained independence in much the same way, as a loose confederation of small-scale democracies.

When "democracy" becomes problematic is as it scales up to very large areas and/or populations. The larger a group of people is, the less likely it is to find broad commonalities among the group, which creates the potential for conflict and factionalism.

Peter1469
08-06-2016, 05:48 AM
Well I'm always curious as to who is supposed to rule if not "the people". Would it be the aliens, perhaps? Or maybe the cows? They seem pretty wise and serene.

So when someone says "democracy doesn't work", they're basically saying "people don't work", and if that's true, then there is no hope for any form of government to succeed since groups of "people" are always the ones responsible for establishing and maintaining governments.

Many people are too busy with their job, family, life to worry about the day to day issues with politics. That is why I favor a representative democracy over a traditional democracy.

Ethereal
08-06-2016, 05:54 AM
Many people are too busy with their job, family, life to worry about the day to day issues with politics. That is why I favor a representative democracy over a traditional democracy.

Right, but it's still made and run by people. If people are the reason a government cannot work, then all government is doomed from the start. And that's why the founders emphasized virtue and enlightenment so much, because people with such qualities are the ultimate check on tyranny.

stjames1_53
08-06-2016, 06:18 AM
Small scale democracy is a smashing success.

Human beings evolved into the dominant species on the planet while living under democratic, egalitarian governments.

The German tribes who conquered Rome and rose to become the dominant culture in the world did so as a confederation of small-scale democracies.

Early Americans defeated the British empire and obtained independence in much the same way, as a loose confederation of small-scale democracies.

When "democracy" becomes problematic is as it scales up to very large areas and/or populations. The larger a group of people is, the less likely it is to find broad commonalities among the group, which creates the potential for conflict and factionalism.

in the beginning, they were call republics, with a democratic process for elections...........the whole, or the collective, were referred to as a Republic. Not a democracy. Lincoln changed all of that
Franklin's words are lost..."A republic, madam, if you can hang on to it" ..........I guess we didn't

Peter1469
08-06-2016, 06:27 AM
As seen with posters here, I don't believe in universal suffrage. Why should idiots dilute the vote?

FindersKeepers
08-06-2016, 06:35 AM
As seen with posters here, I don't believe in universal suffrage. Why should idiots dilute the vote?



I agree fully.

Why should those who don't even know the basics about the candidates or their platforms be allowed to vote?

stjames1_53
08-06-2016, 06:56 AM
I agree fully.

Why should those who don't even know the basics about the candidates or their platforms be allowed to vote?

I still say only those who own their property should be the only ones to vote............since most laws passed affect them directly.
and kids who live at home after 19 should not be allowed to vote, they have no viable experience to decide

Peter1469
08-06-2016, 07:00 AM
I still say only those who own their property should be the only ones to vote............since most laws passed affect them directly.
and kids who live at home after 19 should not be allowed to vote, they have no viable experience to decide

The dim, people on the dole, and felons - at the least should not have the right to vote.

Jets
08-06-2016, 07:44 AM
It works, but "works" tends to be defined whether the majority shares ones stance on an issue. It's fantastic when it matches ones own politics but at times gets hammered when it falls under the "how can that many people be so stupid" POV.

Subdermal
08-06-2016, 08:07 AM
You cannot run a country via pure Democracy. It would descend into chaos quickly, as the majority bullies the minority into compliance with their wishes.

It is why we built for ourselves a Representative Republic - if we can keep it (quote attributed).

In the long term attempt to tear down the Constitution emanating from the left, the Cronyists and the Establishment, we edge closer to Democracy, which - dependent upon the ignorance of the masses, and their addiction to bread and cheese - increasingly resembles a Dictatorship.

Democracy has serious problems, which is why it's really only a theoretical system of governance, and used to describe - only generally - countries which have voting and a recognition of civil rights.

In actual practice, it can only be an element of another form of government.

Peter1469
08-06-2016, 09:28 AM
You cannot run a country via pure Democracy. It would descend into chaos quickly, as the majority bullies the minority into compliance with their wishes.

It is why we built for ourselves a Representative Republic - if we can keep it (quote attributed).

In the long term attempt to tear down the Constitution emanating from the left, the Cronyists and the Establishment, we edge closer to Democracy, which - dependent upon the ignorance of the masses, and their addiction to bread and cheese - increasingly resembles a Dictatorship.

Democracy has serious problems, which is why it's really only a theoretical system of governance, and used to describe - only generally - countries which have voting and a recognition of civil rights.

In actual practice, it can only be an element of another form of government.


Right, the masses would raid the public treasury. Most people are incapable of leadership. Our vote standards should acknowledge that.

Green Arrow
08-06-2016, 10:05 AM
in the beginning, they were call republics, with a democratic process for elections...........the whole, or the collective, were referred to as a Republic. Not a democracy. Lincoln changed all of that
Franklin's words are lost..."A republic, madam, if you can hang on to it" ..........I guess we didn't

A republic is a form of democracy.

Chris
08-06-2016, 10:53 AM
If you interpret the etymology in the most straightforward way, it doesn't really mean that.

"Rule of the people" is different than "rule of the majority".

Many would argue that majoritarian rule is not consistent with genuine democracy.

After all, the basis for democracy is self-government, so if a group of people strip away that right from other people, democracy ceases to apply.

And that is why I always say that democracy and decentralization go hand-in-hand. Because large-scale "democracy" is structurally biased towards authoritarianism.


Democracy as self-government is fine, as a form of government a failure.

It's the same with government. Government in the form of the natural social order is fine, as a separate authority monopolizing force, not.

Chris
08-06-2016, 10:58 AM
You cannot run a country via pure Democracy. It would descend into chaos quickly, as the majority bullies the minority into compliance with their wishes.

It is why we built for ourselves a Representative Republic - if we can keep it (quote attributed).

In the long term attempt to tear down the Constitution emanating from the left, the Cronyists and the Establishment, we edge closer to Democracy, which - dependent upon the ignorance of the masses, and their addiction to bread and cheese - increasingly resembles a Dictatorship.

Democracy has serious problems, which is why it's really only a theoretical system of governance, and used to describe - only generally - countries which have voting and a recognition of civil rights.

In actual practice, it can only be an element of another form of government.



Size matters.

A pluralism of small states could well self govern democratically. Because they're small, you can individually or in small groups vote with your feet such that a majority would never dictate to a minority.

Madison in one of the Federalist Papers however argued that a larger democracy, or republic, would prevent factions from emerging as majorities. He didn't envision a duopoly of political parties.

Hal Jordan
08-06-2016, 11:00 AM
Size matters.

A pluralism of small states could well self govern democratically. Because they're small, you can individually or in small groups vote with your feet such that a majority would never dictate to a minority.

Madison in one of the Federalist Papers however argued that a larger democracy, or republic, would prevent factions from emerging as majorities. He didn't envision a duopoly of political parties.

Washington, on the other hand, did see it coming. He tried to warn us.

Crepitus
08-06-2016, 11:01 AM
As seen with posters here, I don't believe in universal suffrage. Why should idiots dilute the vote?
FREEDOM!! FREEDOM!! FREEDOM!!

But don't let them vote.


LMFAO

Peter1469
08-06-2016, 11:01 AM
A republic is a form of democracy.

Yes. Where everyone does not get to vote on everything. Good idea. Most people are dim.

Peter1469
08-06-2016, 11:06 AM
FREEDOM!! FREEDOM!! FREEDOM!!

But don't let them vote.


LMFAO

Don't let the dim vote.

If you need help with the words give me a shout out.

Chris
08-06-2016, 11:08 AM
Don't let the dim vote.

If you need help with the words give me a shout out.


That, as a form of group selection, could have interesting evolutionary consequences.

Crepitus
08-06-2016, 11:14 AM
Don't let the dim vote.

If you need help with the words give me a shout out.
How does that change my point in any way, shape, or form?

Voting is the most basic right we have, why are you conservatives so determined to take it away from people? Is it just because you keep losing elections?

Side note, would you be OK with taking the guns away from these same people you don't want voting?

Another side note, Kansas (my home state) would take a big step to the left if you restricted voting rights to people on the basis of IQ or something similar so you should be careful what you wish for.

stjames1_53
08-06-2016, 02:11 PM
A republic is a form of democracy.


Notice that in a Democracy, the sovereignty is in the whole body of the free citizens. The sovereignty is not divided to smaller units such as individual citizens. To solve a problem, only the whole body politic is authorized to act. Also, being citizens, individuals have duties and obligations to the government. The government's only obligations to the citizens are those legislatively pre-defined for it by the whole body politic.
In a Republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether one or many. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives as he chooses to solve a problem. Further, the people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government being hired by the people, is obliged to its owner, the people.

Actually, the United States is a mixture of the two systems of government (Republican under Common Law, and democratic under statutory law). The People enjoy their God-given natural rights in the Republic. In a democracy, the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as civil rights).

https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm

still think they are both the same?

Subdermal
08-06-2016, 02:31 PM
Size matters.

A pluralism of small states could well self govern democratically.

No, it cannot. No matter the proportion, the majority would dominate the minority.


Because they're small, you can individually or in small groups vote with your feet such that a majority would never dictate to a minority.

And after the feet have moved, then what? War between the different places? Different topics split based upon different votes. The former minority is now the majority.

It's unworkable.


Madison in one of the Federalist Papers however argued that a larger democracy, or republic, would prevent factions from emerging as majorities. He didn't envision a duopoly of political parties.

Duopolies are a different topic.

Chris
08-06-2016, 02:36 PM
No, it cannot. No matter the proportion, the majority would dominate the minority.



And after the feet have moved, then what? War between the different places? Different topics split based upon different votes. The former minority is now the majority.

It's unworkable.



Duopolies are a different topic.


Small states allow for voting by feet. One would assume there'd also be voting by dollars. When all the liberty loving people are gone, how would a dictator survive? Who would be dictated?

War would be too costly with small states. Why would liberty loving people go to war against failing dictators? No value. How would dictators pay for theirs? No people.

The Xl
08-06-2016, 02:40 PM
Voting is a right. A government has no legal or moral say over an individual who has not been afforded the right to vote.