What is a properly functioning democracy?

Lol! I do agree with you here; I do think conversation and cooperation is good. You can keep trying, and I will keep listening to you.

But we don't have to agree on everything to agree somethings wrong. Liberals don't have to be scared of the Libertarian philosophy, because many of us believe the warfare spending is a greater threat than welfare. I certainly don't think the government should cut off Human needs resources in this country right away, when most in that position are victims of the system, as Ron Paul stated. I may seem hard headed sometimes, but I identify sooo many problem in government, that I believe corruption has become law.

I'm from NY, and used to believe I was Liberal because of all the Communist Propaganda in my philosophy class. However, when I heard the Libertarian message it made alot more sense to me; the more power we give government (for whatever reason,) is more power which can be used against us.

My government also considers people like me "terrorists" for merely speaking my mind, and believing in the founding principles of this nation.



This is a clear threat to regular American Subjects, who dare to disobey "Big Brother." If you know your Rights, you're a "terrorist" according to our beloved federal government.

 

When we create an organization it behaves like an organism and job one of an organism is self preservation. There is an idea that our systems are the best that we can come up with to this point and if not, well we have no other choice. So good intentioned people try to get into government to make a difference. But different is not what the organism wants to be wanting only to preserve and extend it's influence so there is no room for independent innovative contributors to the process. The political machine either turns on them to spit them out or dissolves their intent until they forget why they came.

We could do something like develop job and duty descriptions for government positions we think are essential and let people apply for positions to be chosen from some algorithm that matches qualification to requirement. The interested impassioned or so inclined would then be competing among themselves and not for the affections of the sentimental.

As to secrecy, it is the progeny of that lottery for privilege.

Turn government into a technical functionary of the people, then there is no need or reward for secrecy.

 

You're letting your bias cloud your sight, Karen, and only further highlighting what I was talking about. Its them. Its always them who are to blame. "Them" being whomever you find yourself at odds with. Sad. The Republicans don't bear sole blame for the mess we find ourselves in at all.

"Do you in"? You think I am a Republican? Have you read nothing I have posted? Who said anything about taking the vote away "from large blocks of Democrats"? I certainly didn't.

No, I want the people who cannot be trusted to stop voting. I want people who actually have a real stake in this country succeeding holding the vote; people that have demonstrated the ability to think beyond their own, immediate needs. So I am a bully now? Sigh, here we go....

 

Who are the people that cannot be trusted? Have you taken names, do you have a comprehensive list? What is your criteria for demonstrating the ability to think beyond their immediate concerns? Further who does not have a vital stake in their country via their prescient concerns? I see what you say you want but you have no way of getting there. Not to be unkind but that makes you a wanna be not a bully.

I agree with government of the people by the people but not for the people because government doesn't know what people are for. In this world we exist for and with each other.
The essence of all civility is precisely equal to your relationship to the person standing next to you and good leadership brings people up, it doesn't write them off.

 

Many news sources.

I was talking about political leaders on the far right.

 

Then why specifically address me in regards to points I never made?

 

We are all to some degree prisoners of our experiences. I was born a few years after the establishment of the National Health Service in Britain and the Welfare State. That was a hugely progressive achievement for the working classes,spearheaded by Socialism. We knew what poverty was & my recent ancestors had had it a lot worse.

Had we not had that peaceful revolution there would be no consumer society in Britain today,capital also benefited hugely from those reforms.

My point is,again,about participation. Strong Unions won us decent wages & rights at work. Our Labour Party,unashamedly socialist then, built high standard housing & schools & Universities. Active participation in Democracy by ordinary people,not professional polititians,blazed a trail that made us all freer,not dependent in any way. When the Labour Party won an election it WAS OUR Government,blood ,sweat & tears put it there!

We had experienced the small Government you favour,it was cruel ,ignorant & cared only for the rich , the ruling classes & imperialism. Worker power,people power changed all that (I have to admit that the effects of two World Wars helped too) it was hard won,not given.

Violent revolution rarily works & seems to me inherently reactionary. Active participation of the electorate in THEIR Democracy is the only feasible & moral course to take,in my opinion.

 

There is no way to work within the American system without money. Protestors are beat, pepper sprayed and, shot with tear gas canisters. Our government will not allow for peaceful cooperation. Plus, I don't want to live in a society based off the whim of this corporate Military/Prison-industrial complex. It's totally illegitimate and we will have no peace under this tyranny.

 

Though I know you don't want sympathy for what its worth I can see the real frustration of your position & other posters who feel the same way. In a sense I (we) had it easier. We'd been through an exhausting , massively costly war against fascism during which the fight for freedom & Democracy was very real. The nation came through that with a hieghtend sense of unity & a determination that things would be made to change!

Socialism may be highly suspect to Americans but to the people of Britain,then,it was a method,a means to a much desired end. A way of achieving a balenced & fair society,which,all in all I believe it did.

The task you face is much more complex & in so many ways. Also,if I may say so, so is your ideology,at least so it seems to me. Theres a reason that I don't argue so much for socialism here but instead focus on democracy. Socialisms an alien idea to many,carries negative meanings,people switch off.

Democracy,however, is simple,at least as an ideal. To get a fair shot at having your ideas heard,I'd say, you have to achieve democracy which means a state in which people are prepared to listen,hear you out. Theres no need for democracy to be seen as a threat to your Constitution. The two should be seen as complementary. I believe they are mutually dependent anyway.

Its a 'Chicken & Egg' scenario mate,and a long haul before you & others get to be heard.

 

But the problem imo is, even the Democracy is the Majority vote, and it's used to force it's will on their minority. I want to see drug laws gone, stupid bans on sodas gone and, def "stop and frisk" laws which are now in NY and Detroit. This two party system is infringing the Constitution big time. The NDAA, CISPA, HR347, the federal reserve and, much more, is totally contrary to our Constitution.

 

Democracy is not the dictatorship of the majority,or it shouldnt be.Democracy is an on-going debate between the peoples that make it up. Its,at its essence, about debate & listening. Its about the engagement of the people & their active participation. If you are not happy about an issue you get up & say so,you campaign.If no ones listening then screw what the polititans tell you,theres something wrong that needs fixed.

 

Democracy is not a system although we have developed a system based on democratic ideals. We don't need to vote to settle on democratic ideals, we only need agreement.

 

Basically, the OP question requires answering two discreet questions neither of which have a universally definable correct answer but only opinions which can differ greatly and then combining the two opinions into a single one.

1. How is "properly functioning" being defined?
2. How is "democracy" being defined?

And finally, what effect does the definition of one have upon the other? What is the probability of acquiring an answer which is both universally acceptable and correct, or even one of the two?

Questions such as that asked by the OP are not answerable by arriving at a correct answer, but only by arriving at a most acceptable answer, which does not necessarily mean one which has been accepted by a democratic majority, but more so one which can be employed with the least resistance.

 

Yeah lets get the op's definition for each and every word, because the English language just too subjective apparently...

Don't all the political discussions here end in squabbling over definitions, or indy and balbus arguing over who didn't read what of the others posts or who didn't answer who's question? yeah pretty much :smoking:

 

Individual. Those of us that wish to promote the idea of Democracy are not trying to sell you a dodgy used car or a Trojan Horse. Democracy,as I'd say most folk understand it,is impartial,neither left nor right.

Democracy is a human invention. Regardless how well meaning we are I doubt that perfection is achievable. Therefore , same goes for its definitions. Point is,unless you have a 'reasonabley' functioning democracy (like neither you nor I have now) your ideas eg to see a Constitutional Republic in some way actualised,won't happen. Why? Because a real democracy improves the chances of your being heard,of you being able to join with others to campaign & at least maybe negotiate.

 

Voting is the only method we have to gauge agreement.

 

And because we invented matches there is no damned way that flame throwers can be real.
I have found the answers yes and no to be somewhat indicative but then there is the case of people changing their minds over time. Voting is the way we choose among advertised prospects. We come to agreeable terms in life through our daily behavior. Agreement is pleasant association. Poling is probably more accurate. Of course the pollsters are asking what they, (the pollsters) want to know, so there is always the phenomena of shit in shit out.

Don't decide our future quite yet, keep talking.

 

This one, having not yet met it's end has the promise to be different, I promise.

 

Yet no one appears capable of providing an all encompassing method of government answer to the OP question in defining a 'properly functioning democracy'.

 

That is because democratic process is consensus building.