Does democracy work?

The government should serve the interests of virtually all its citizens.

What needs to be understood is that even if this is true, this is not a problem but the SYMPTOM of a problem. One needs to understand HOW this situation came to be, and to look at all the facts. Take into account the repressive laws and regulations that have come into place that rob people's ability to survive under adverse conditions. Take into account the damaging effects of corporate welfare. Sure, in the USA there are extremes of rich and poor. In many other places around the world it is worse, sometimes much worse. If you look at most places around the world, you'll notice that wherever the opportunity is the greatest, there is the least amount of government intervention in people's lives. It is always easy to say that you can start a government program to take care of those less fortunate, but the money to fund a program must come from someplace. Furthermore, the bureaocracy created when such a program is implemented becomes bloated thus soaking up most of the costs.

That would probably be unfair to the minority in question.

**

If the constitution in question comes into conflict with individual's freedom, it is understandable. With the US constitution, I see little of this particularly with the Bill of Rights. There is more there than one might think. The problem is that once freedom is lossed, to regain it is extermely difficult! One only need to look to the former Soviet bloc as well as other totalitarian regimes today to understand this.

 

Democracy works, but Fascism works better.

 

On a scale of 1 to 100, for me Democracy, (as practiced at its best in the real world), scores a whole two.

But to pick up on the Winston Churchill quote, everything else scores 1.5 or less.

My biggest immediate issue with Democracy is representative democracy - the only real kind you get. You get to vote in the UK once every five years for your National representative, and they will never once ask your opinion on anything. Yet they will stand up in Parliament and vote contrary even to the will of the people on individual issues as witnessed by opinion polls, subsequent public action, etc. They will stand on that platform and have the gall to say the electorate voted them in to carry out all these promises. Well every political party gives me a whole host of policies, some of which I may not like or want at all, but I can't pick and choose which ones I'm saying yes to.

I just get to say yes to one candidate and all his parties policies, and no to the rest.

Now this is the strength and weakness of democracy as currently practiced. Politicians feel inpowered to make unpopular choices because it is the "right" thing to do for the country as a whole, rather than any one individual or community. But they are are just as likely to enshrine the injustices in society as any non-democratic state. IMO.

Even Plato accepted that true "Demos" - rule by the people was impractical. Even within the Greek city states, assemblies of all those entitle to vote grew too big, despite excluding woman and slaves. Democracy there was still the rule of the minority setting the agenda for the majority.

I'm using the UK as an example, because that's what I have direct experience of. I've seen nothing to suggest the US, (or any "democratically" - elected regime) is so very much different.

As to the issue of democratic governments not going to war with each other - well that's going to come down to your defination of democracy. Israel has gone to war, (and vice versa) several times with "democratic" states, (Jordan and the Lebanon have both had "elected" elements to their governments, - I believe even the Syrian presidency is subject to a popular vote - do you have to have a multi-party systems as a pre-condition for democracy). The long running dispute between India and Pakistan has continued during periods when both are representaive democracies. Does it have to be a hot war - there have been "trade wars" between democracies that has seen the odd shot fired in anger. (Britains "Cod War" with Iceland being a notorious example).

We're shortly expecting a general election to be announced here in the UK. I will follow the arguments and policies closely, balancing the pro & cons as far as possible. I will turn up to vote. Unless something major comes along, I will probably write "None of these" across my ballot paper. Technically this a spoilt vote - I just pray for the day that they make voting compulsory in this country and I can encourage millions of fellow voters to do the same. Only then might the immediate problems of representative democracy start to be addressed.

 

Thespeez

The question is does democracy work

So it is with interests that I read your views.

You begin with –

The government should serve the interests of virtually all its citizens.

But then there seems to be a libertarian argument that doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the question. I hope you don’t mind but I have used it as the basis of another thread so that we (and possibly others) can discuss the issues you raise more closely.

You then go on to say that a democratically elected government should be restricted in what it can do (in this instance the distribution of wealth) you see this as being ‘unfair to the minority in question’. But this is my point what is democracy and should it be allowed to act even when those actions upset a minority? What if the majority sees not acting as being ‘unfair’ to them?

I’m unsure of your answer to my question about the constitution, as your comments don’t seem to fit it.

I asked –

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?

I’m unsure what you mean by loss of freedom and the Soviet union?

 

You may use my comments in any way that you feel will help communicate a certain point.

If the government serves a certain segment of the population and leaves a significant percentage of its citizens disenfranchised, then government is doing a disservice to that segment of the population.

Now, the point that I was trying to make with an economic situation like the one that you mentioned, is that when you are dealing with a social dilemma, you must deal with the root cause of the problem and not the symptoms. If you address symptoms without addressing the root cause of the problem, the problem will still lurk and when the symptoms resurface, you'll likely have an even bigger situation to deal with. You need to answer WHY there is economic disparity, WHY there is lack of affordable health care, WHY there is crime, and the list goes on. For example, when a hardship exists in a given society and the government intervenes and passes a law or program to try to end the hardship, sure, maybe for a short time the program might help, but eventually what happens is that the law or program will eventually stop working and government will once again try to pass another program or law. This process is often repeated whenever social hardship occurs, which makes me believe that government programs are not the answer. What we probably need to do is to perhaps take a look at what laws are on the books and which laws are impeding the economic health of a society and not look for short term answers.

I believe that if most of the poor were able to provide for their economic well being, they would do it. For example, if there wasn't so much red tape when it came to forming a business, maybe perhaps there wouldn't be as much economic hardship. I don't think all welfare recipients are looking for a handout. I remember speaking with a lady who lived in the projects in Baltimore a number of years ago who at one time tried to start a snow-cone business and needed to go through a great deal of red tape and then decided that it wasn't worth it. Another example of this type of abuse have been those who have tried to start businesses such as hair-braiding. Again, many if not most of these attempts and upstarts have been thwarted because of government regulation of some sort.

In addition, corporations should be able to survive on their own and NOT lobby government to protect their statuses. This is another factor which contributes to economic uncertainties, but that's another matter.

If you're able to educate the populace as to what the problems are and don't look for short term answers, you're a lot less likely give them an incentive to resort to advocating statist measures.

FTR, I realize that it seems that I've gone off on a tangent, but I feel that before one addresses a question, s/he should understand the how when and why of a situation before addressing a question. I hope you'll understand.

With wealth distribution, I think that there is less of an incentive to do this if even the working class can provide for their needs. You could even create economic hardship for certain people that you might think you're helping by having them either layed off from work or not being able to start businesses.

One other arguement that I've heard is that a rich man's heaven is a poor man's hell. I don't think this always has to be the case.

Democracy as I see it is defined as a majority rule over the populace by whatever means necessary. If the majority feels that their rights are being violated, again the question that needs to be asked is 'how' and what the solution may or may not be.

If the constitution comes into conflict with the rights of individuals' freedom, then what needs to happen is that the problem in question needs to be looked over and if possible, changed. It's important that all avenues to ensure that the people will have freedom are preserved after such action results. If you have a political entity, you must be able to set a solid foundation on which that governmental body will be based upon. Otherwise, you'll have chaos.

Once freedom is lossed, it is difficult to get it back! For roughly forty-five years or so in Eastern Europe, the citizens there suffered under one extreme or another of totalitarianism. In the former Soviet Union, it was at about seventy years! There was NO freedom of the press, NO freedom of speech, NO political dissent, the government controlled EVERY aspect of people's lives including what jobs they could hold, Where they could travel, where they could live and how their children could be educated. Because of housing shortage, many times several families had to share an apartment or a house. Any and all forms of dissidence had to go underground or they would be punished severly (how about several decades in a gulag in Siberia, comrade?). The list goes on. The countries in Eastern Europe (and elsewhere) which have prospered the most are those which have embraced freedom the most. Despite my disdain for many policies over the years of the American Government, In many places it is much worse.

I realize I have again gone off on a tangent. If I haven't answered something to your satisfaction, let me know. It's just that when one tries to deal with a social dilemma, we need to look for the solution which will benefit society as a whole the best and not look for short sighted answers.

 

thespeez

Please go to the “Symptom of a problem” thread at - http://hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79833 which I started so we could discuss some of the issues raised.

Cheers

Balbus

 

Yeah, I think your point is that democracy should be fairer, yeah? But the people who are in charge are, of course, at least some of the 10% who own the majority of the wealth aren't they. Maybe MP or senator or whatever should be a voluntary job? I think we should get rid of money entirely - then democracy might work better.

I'm english but I still acknowledge the use of such a thing as a constitution. It makes clear what all the complex law is supposed to be upholding. I don't see how law can be there to protect the common person if the common person doesn't understand it. Having said this I think the constitution should always be up-to-date therefore changeable by the government of the time upon a referrendum perhaps.

 

the real q uestion I think is -- does democracy exist.

The answer is nope.

America is a republic, a democracy would hold each citizens opinions with equal power. everything would be voted on...
which would be interesting to see, but hasnt existed yet.

 

In order for democracy to work, the public needs to be educated. Educated, not indoctrinated. So, lets look at the question again. Does democracy work? Well, do we have the proper level of education? No, we have propoganda and indoctrination. Sure, everything we need to know to make an informed decision is out there, but the skills to disseminate this information are not provided to the general public. Which is why we have media, and media is generally controlled by corporate interests and does a poor job of informing the public. So no, to the extent that education fails, democracy fails.
is democracy the best we can do? that's another thread.

 

Like every current political ideology, it has its pros and cons. There has never truly be a purely democratic government, just like there hasn't been a pure socialist or communist one. But in terms of a capitalist democratic society:

Pros: In its purest form, it most fits the nature of humanity. It also promotes creation, expansion, innovation, etc.

Cons: It tends towards monopoly, manifests prostitution, corruption, and corporations inevitably supercede government and thus become intertwined.

IMO the cons out weight the pros, but then again it does for just about every ideology imaginable, because of the "humanity factor".

 

Democracy have ruin this fine country . as you can see all the jobs are going over china. and we built more crap everyday . My Fuhrer try to save America, Im afraid is way too late.

 

Democracy is nothing more than tyranny of the majority, people forcing actions on each other at gunpoint. It is nothing more than oppression of the minority view, plain and simple.
Democracy is a bad thing, which is why our founders never intended that America be one. We started out as a Constitutional Republic, which is something different.

 

That depends of your interpretation of "democracy." In my view there is yet to be a truly democratic nation. "Democracy" today is just a word that disguises the true intent of capitalism wherein an elite upper class of financial and corporate overlords rule the world in a manner no different from the ways by which fascism or communism would.
There is no real difference bewteen "socialist" or "democratic" forms of governemnt ~ in both the majority are ruled by an elite minority, and in both those who come to power do so by cunning, guile, manipulation, and money/bribery, and NEVER by honesty, integrity, foresight, or decency.
And in that vein I believe that George Orwell provided the perfect metaphorical description of how politics work in his book "Animal Farm."

 

in a true democracy, we would have to vote on EVERYTHING. hat's alot of fucking voting, maybe too much.
i'm honestly not sure if it'd work or not...don't think it's ever been tried in a true form.

 

nope.

 

Democracy is a form of government. Whether it becomes oppressive is not a quesion of what form the government takes, but what power the government has over people.

 

Good point, brother.

 

In a true democracy, senators represent the people, not the corporations that finance the senator's party.
If a "true" democracy ever came about, wouldn't you like a real say in where the world is heading, how to apportion resources, research, and wealth, and how human life can be enriched without personal or planetary suffering? Is that worth a whole lotta voting for? Bloody Oath it is!!! Vote, dammit!

 

democracy works.

 

Welll, my then, that settles it.