Democracy: Pros and Cons anyone?

just me

just me

Well-known member
MBTI
infj
Anyone wish to share any thoughts on democracy?
pulled_in_two_directions_md_wm.jpg


"A nation divided against itself will surely fall." Bible

I think now may be a great time to share any insight on democracy, as we see many parts of the world striving for it. I personally do not care for it, as I see our nation going back and forth this way and that. Others may not see it that way. There are many positive things regarding democracy, but there are also negatives. Each "side" taking turns at the wheel going in different directions seems to leave the other side with what they see as obstacles to overcome before they can implement their views on things. It is difficult to make true progress when people see things so differently, though maybe not impossible.

I also feel majority rule does not always lead in the right direction. I feel the rule of a King to be the best rule, but the ruling family must be wise and care about their people. "Muzzle not the ox that treadeth the winepress." Bible

I also feel people need a leader to follow, whether with or without democracy, that they wish to follow.

Please share your views and try to add anything you may think would help with democracy, or why you think differently. I have shown part of my hand.
 
I think there are different forms of democracy

For example in switzerland people take regular votes on things, therefore the people on the street actually have a lot of democratic power

In my country, Britain, we make a lot of noise about democracy but in reality we are not very democratic at all.

We vote roughly every 5 years for a party which then pretty much does what it likes. It doesn't matter if it fulfills it's manifesto that it put to the people....in fact it never does!

Someone said to me recently...and you'd have to check this, but i wouldn't be surprised if it was true, that the government is a registered corporation in company house in London and that the reason it dissolves every4-5 years is so that it doesn't have to open its books to people.

The voting system itself is pretty flawed. We don't have proportional representation which means that the people's vote is not represented proprtionately in the outcome.

The country is divided up into voting constituencies and this is done through the science of demographics in such a way that we basically have a two party system in which one of two parties will always get into power.

The capitalist class fund the two parties, and make up their members so basically what we have is a country run by the capitalist class which proclaims to the world that it is a shining beacon of democracy. Yet when the people do speak, such as when millions protested against the war in iraq, the government doesn't listen

The current cabinet (the approx.20 top ministers in government) has i think 13 people from the same elitist school: Eton. They are all millionaires and their investments are tied up in the financial sector which gives them vested interests in the banking sector. Many are also on the boards of major corporations and are share holders in major corporations...yet more conflicts of interest. So they are not really representative of the British public!

We had an MP's expense scandal recently where it was found that the immoral exploitation of expense accounts was widespread amongst the MP's and they agreed to publish the documents which showed who had taken what money

They did publish this in the capitalist press but all the information was blacked out...or as they put it 'redacted' but to the rest of us mere mortals means they covered it up and won't show us.....no transparency and no accountability

The current government is mostly funded by the financial sector and before it got into power it got round rules limiting funding from companies abroad by getting funders to give money to UK businesses who then gave the money to the party. These UK business had more money on their books than profits they'd made! The government has just changed laws to free banks from having to pay tax, despite the banks almost sinking the economy and having to be bailed out with public money.

The capitalists love to say that capitalsim is about 'survival of the fittest' when it suits them, but when their banks failed they made us bail them out! Hypocrites!

It's all rotten to the core. Not very democratic at all
 
Last edited:
The problem with democracy is that selection is made according to popularity.


This means that the quality of an elected leadership is dependent upon the average quality of the electing population. So a democratic society will seldom advance in culture under the influence of its elected leaders. If you want your country to advance an aristocracy would be better - that is leadership by the cream of the crop.
 
The US isn't a democracy, It's a republic. Thus most american politicians send most of their time trying to get reelected rather than focusing on the issues the people want to solve. There will always be a conflict of interest in any society though, just because a party doesn't have a voice in a situation doesn't mean that they feel any better about it and it leads to things like uprisings and revolutions, a majority vote should quell those types of things because it means that there can't be an uprising because more people are for something than against it. Of course this philosophy isn't realistic in the united states since certain demographics vote more than others, however it would work with a compulsory voting system.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
The problem with democracy is that selection is made according to popularity.


This means that the quality of an elected leadership is dependent upon the average quality of the electing population. So a democratic society will seldom advance in culture under the influence of its elected leaders. If you want your country to advance an aristocracy would be better - that is leadership by the cream of the crop.
Click to expand...

[MENTION=862]Flavus Aquila[/MENTION]; Okay! You get laugh of the day!!
 
Sali said:
The US isn't a democracy, It's a republic. Thus most american politicians send most of their time trying to get reelected rather than focusing on the issues the people want to solve. There will always be a conflict of interest in any society though, just because a party doesn't have a voice in a situation doesn't mean that they feel any better about it and it leads to things like uprisings and revolutions, a majority vote should quell those types of things because it means that there can't be an uprising because more people are for something than against it. Of course this philosophy isn't realistic in the united states since certain demographics vote more than others, however it would work with a compulsory voting system.
Click to expand...

I think a democracy cannot not be a republic.

You either have a republic, or a monarchy. After that, you have various forms of republic, such as aristocracy, democracy, etc.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
I think a democracy cannot not be a republic.

You either have a republic, or a monarchy. After that, you have various forms of republic, such as aristocracy, democracy, etc.
Click to expand...

The US is a democratic republic in that it votes in it's representatives in a democratic vote.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
The problem with democracy is that selection is made according to popularity.


This means that the quality of an elected leadership is dependent upon the average quality of the electing population. So a democratic society will seldom advance in culture under the influence of its elected leaders. If you want your country to advance an aristocracy would be better - that is leadership by the cream of the crop.
Click to expand...

I agree with part of this but not the other

A democracy can only be as good as its electorate. One of the travestys of our western democracys is that the electorate is not very well informed.

They rely on the media and the education system which deliberately falls short because it is owned and run by the capitalist class who do not want to see the people empowered with understanding

So if you want a country to advance....and by advance i mean the quality of life of the people in it rise, then why not tip the power the other way?

If you tip it towards a powerful, small elite such as an aristocracy then they will use that power to enrich themselves and exploit the many.

So why not give power to the people? If the people decide and exercise power from the bottom up then they will not opt to exploit themsleves. They wouldn't opt to exploit the capitalist class either because the capitalist class wouldn't exist as they would be absorbed into the people after money, which is the instrument of power which empowers them, is got rid of!

Make everyone equal by giving them collective ownership of the means of production and then allow them to allocate their delegates to carry forward their mandate. If they fail in their task they are instantly revocable.

Allow workers to make decisions by consensus democracy in workers councils.
 
When I see all the stupid things going on today in U.S. politics from both sides of the aisle, not to mention the pundits who slavishly hew to one rigid ideology or another, I can't help but feel like an elitist, which, even if true, makes me feel uncomfortable. It's the simplistic inability of politicians and citizens to deal with the complexity of economics, society, and culture that's particularly scary. Everyone feels entitled to an opinion but few know enough facts and think critically to debate the issues legitimately. For example, in the US, discretionary spending is about one fifth of the budget. Four fifths of the budget is comprised of social security, medicare, medicaid, interest on the debt and defense spending. Any idiot should be able to see that entitlements must be cut if there is any hope of lowering or eliminating the deficit. Yet, currently, the only proposal is to cut $61 million from discretionary spending. A large part of these spending cuts, such as infrastructure, education, and scientific research, is like "eating the seed corn." How do those who are so fond of calling the U.S. "exceptional" intend to keep it "exceptional?" The U.S. is a democratic republic, yet it has allowed itself to come to this. The stupid are leading the dumb.
 
We don't really have democracy here in America.
Look at Wisconsin, the governor wants to put laws in effect that screw the working people in the public sector.
The working people are what make up this country..
He's not representing the working people. He's representing government interests.
The people who actually contribute to making this country what it is instead of living like a parasite from it--do not have a voice.
Republicans are going to push people to revolt if they keep pressing them like this.
 
it take fooooooreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeever to get shit done
its the best system we have right now. esp. for ensuring responsible government

once democratization becomes the norm, their will be political evolutions that will emerge.
lest we forget, liberalization is a self-expanding franchise.
in the eloquent words of my beloved prime minister, "the toothpaste can't be put back in the tube on this one."
 
Neuropedia said:
it take fooooooreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeever to get shit done
its the best system we have right now. esp. for ensuring responsible government

once democratization becomes the norm, their will be political evolutions that will emerge.
lest we forget, liberalization is a self-expanding franchise.
in the eloquent words of my beloved prime minister, "the toothpaste can't be put back in the tube on this one."
Click to expand...

No but you can change your brand
 
I object to the idea that democracy isn't the best way to rule a country.

I've spent a lot of time in Switzerland and I find it to be the best place I've ever been in. the people have a lot of power over what happens in the country, and I feel that this is how it should be. However I do believe this isn't the right way for a country with poor education standards. But the Swiss education is very good, their social services excellent and their civil rights are the best in the world.

And to some extent, I do believe the majority should have its way, as long as their decisions do not actively set out to hurt a minority group.
 
Neuropedia said:
being a poorly selected metaphor to begin with
I don't think it's implications could be stretched any further
Click to expand...

I'm sure we could squeeze more out of it ;)
 
Ok, I'll admit right of the bat that I have a sparse, armchair kind of understanding with regard to political philosophy. I'll just say that I think that democracy has the potential to be a great form of government, only that it tends to bog down the larger the population gets. Also, I think that the people lose out when the productivity of the government is lost in a tug-of-war between polarized political parties.
 
quote"Also, I think that the people lose out when the productivity of the government is lost in a tug-of-war between polarized political parties." unquote

Sloe Djinn, I'd say your armchair offers insight and understanding.

One of my major problems with it is just that; four to eight years this way, then four to eight years that way, then vice versa. When the government is a major world power, the entire world can lose out.

I must go look for a picture....
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JJ4aoCP7w8&feature=related"]YouTube - Specian's Phun machines: Newton's cradle[/ame]

left hammering away against the right with us in the middle
 
Last edited:
muir said:
I agree with part of this but not the other

A democracy can only be as good as its electorate. One of the travestys of our western democracys is that the electorate is not very well informed.

They rely on the media and the education system which deliberately falls short because it is owned and run by the capitalist class who do not want to see the people empowered with understanding

So if you want a country to advance....and by advance i mean the quality of life of the people in it rise, then why not tip the power the other way?

If you tip it towards a powerful, small elite such as an aristocracy then they will use that power to enrich themselves and exploit the many.

So why not give power to the people? If the people decide and exercise power from the bottom up then they will not opt to exploit themsleves. They wouldn't opt to exploit the capitalist class either because the capitalist class wouldn't exist as they would be absorbed into the people after money, which is the instrument of power which empowers them, is got rid of!

Make everyone equal by giving them collective ownership of the means of production and then allow them to allocate their delegates to carry forward their mandate. If they fail in their task they are instantly revocable.

Allow workers to make decisions by consensus democracy in workers councils.
Click to expand...

If you give power to the bottom half of society, all you get is institutionalised envy and jealousy, where no one is allowed to have more, or better - in the end EVERYONE has very little - and what little they have is substandard.

As for an Aristocratic elite, if their personal power/governance extends only over a particular state/territory it would be entirely in their interest to ensure that their population flourished. In the rare cases where a tyranny emerges, assassination of the aristocrat seems to have been the usual solution (opening the position to their legitimate successor).
 
It doesn't make one a dissident if one posts their feelings. Anyone want to share their thoughts how to make a ruling entity better in the world?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top