Does democracy work?

And can anybody see the paradoxicality in this one?

 

Democracy can be the difficult because it does allow opposing views.

 

And if the majority believe something to be right, does that necessarily mean that it is right?

 

Legally or morally no, but democracy is based on majority rule.

 

As Winston Churchhill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government...except for every other form that's been tried."

Is paradoxicality a word? :H

 

80 percent of people are stupid, people get proportionatly stupid the larger their mob grows, democracy in it's purest form is terrible, the problem with any form that is not democracy though is that you get a power class who become stupid and selfish (as is their basic instinct) regardless the stupid people win, either that or the intelligent people become decadant and foolish (not stupid but damned close)

 

I think so...well, it is now.

Plato didn't believe in democracy. But then, his idea of a republic was something akin to dictatorship.

 

No not neccessarily. I guess it would depend on the issue.

My point was that since various views are allowed to be heard under a democracy there will be views that many will have problems with. Under America's free speech, Neo-Nazis for example have just as much right to free speech as anyone else and their brand of speech is not what many want to hear or read,so this is what makes democracy very challenging,dealing with views you don't like.

 

Well, what alternatives do we have?

 

I think democracy is, pretty much what we should be aiming for. It just seems very reasonable doesn't it. I just don't think things like nations work. 1 persons vote has never made a difference in a national election because the numbers are too big. I also think democracy should be used to decide resolutions to issues rather than which group of people resolves these issues.

 

Democracies are the best possible system we can have. Collective decision making IS NOT MOB RULE as long as there are safegaurds, esp. protection of minority (ideological and ethnic) rights and freedom of speech. As long as those two are held sacred, democracies are the only flexible systems of modern government.

 

Good point. And that's a groovy name, man. Do you live in a barrel, by any chance?

 

That's why we need to contemplate a little more on what excactly is democracy. It means power of the people. What kind of system then guarantees the power to be among the people? Democracy is not an obvious concept. History of democratic societies is still very short and it is not the time yet and not in a long time to make conclusions about whether democracy is possible. Democracy doesn't mean just one specific structure of society but it is used in many different ways. Society is a body which is changing all the time, it's a process. It's social evolution going on as we write these posts.

 

Hey, John! No. I haven't tried that barell thing. But yes my name I chose after this ancient hippie, Διογένης. κυνικός. My favourite.

 

A couple good things about liberal democracies:

1. They have (at least the potential) ability to root out corruption in the government. While some societies (India) seem more tolerant of corruption than others, the safeguard is in place.

2. No two democracies have ever, in all of history, gone to war with each other. The closest any ever came was democratic Finland giving nominal support to the Axis during WWII, because of their desire to prevent a Soviet takeover.


Most of the criticisms I hear about democracy (mob rule, inefficiency) are perfectly valid...but unless the critic offers a form of government that works BETTER, the only conclusion one can draw is that democracy works.

 

Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for lunch!!

In all truthfulness, what people fail to understand is that the United States is not a democracy but a republic bound by a constitution whose purpose is to protect the rights of the minorities and to limit the government's powers. What has happened since the implementation of the bill of rights though is that politicians have done their best to violate all of those ten amendments. What we must do is hold these individuals accountable.

www.save-a-patriot.org

 

But what is the alternative that works better? One lone wolf deciding what everyone will eat for lunch?

I agree, but holding them accountable wouldn't be (easily) possible in any form of government other than a democracy/republic.

You're right about the United States technically being a republic; however in the grand scheme of things those two government types are similar enough that I don't really have a problem lumping them together in most cases.

 

The alternative that works the best is to allow individuals to engage in whatever behavior they deem appropriate so long as their actions don't harm others. Our politicians need to adhere to the constitution and most especially the Bill of Rights! Contrary to popular belief, there is more to these documents than what many "literalists" will tell you. FTR, yes I do see your point in the second sentence. No, I would not want to live in a totalitarian state, either.

To my understanding, the definition of democracy involves the majority excercising control over the minority. It involves the majority having a direct say over what agenda will be set. By contrast, a republic is bound by a set state of rules as to what activities the govenment can and cannot engage in. Please understand that I'm coming from perhaps a literal perspective on these definitions.

 

**

What is a democratic government?

Is it just a means to ‘manage’ a society?

If so does in need a peoples input?

**

For example

Let us for the sake of argument that a hypothetical society has a full PR democracy.

So what is the purpose of that government?

Whose interests should the government serve?

Should it be the interests of the majority?

But let us think about the supposed distribution of wealth in say the US. It is said that about only 1% of families in the US own about around 39 percent of total net wealth, the top 10% of families owning something in the region of 72%, and the bottom 40% of the population owning less than 1%.

So what if say 51% of people voted for a radical distributive form of socialism?

Would it not be the duty of the government so elected, to carry such a programme?

**

What if the will of the people came into conflict with a written constitution or bill of rights?

Does the government’s mandate coming directly from the people have the right to change such documents?

If not why not?

**