Does democracy work?

Actually, it doesn't do that at all. You really have to read the whole thing to get the gist of it. It really is an example of a true anarchist society, with individuals doing as they please. The author explains how this can work so that people can get along. There is no government of any kind, really.

I would like to try to explain it but I would have a difficult time of doing so and doing it properly, which is why I recommend reading the story. It would be impossible to do so without the interactions between the two main characters, and the discussions they have.

I did a "file save as" thing and put it on my computer so that I could read it at my leisure. It is free to read, so I don't think there is any problem with doing that, so long as it is not used for anything else.

 

The problem with governments is that those in power almost never consent to be governed by the same rules and standards by which they govern others.

Italy comes/came close to a working anarchy in that they continue to exist as a country (if only by habit) with nobody sure who was charge. In the '80s even the average Italian seemed to agree with this.

In this country most anarchists seem to be 'organized' leftists. I became involved with one of the founders of the anarchist collective/bookstore in the Haight and all was fine untill I admited to being right of center and that as an anarchist collective they were sorely unbalanced and left leaning. OMG!!!

 

the true democracy that was in ancient Athens worked, curren't doesn't and shouldn't be called democracy in the first place

 

Socrates would probably disagree with you. The problem with any democracy is that the majority rules, so the majority can take away the rights of others.

 

Yet this is the idea of democracy, that majority decides about everything.

 

Yes, and why it is so dangerous. It's like the old joke about two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner. Majority rules, so guess who's for dinner.

 

Which is why the U.S.A. was founded as a Constitutional Republic and NOT a Democracy.

Read the Constitution, with intent to understand it rather than reinterpret it, and maybe then you will understand better how government should work in accordance with consent by both the people and the States, with the sovereignty of each individual paramount.

Just reading Article I, Section 4, "Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year" should imply a limited involvement between the people and the States, intensified by the 10th Amendment. The Constitution of the United States of America sets forth a form of government which begins with the people, as does the Constitution of each individual State, and not with the Federal government.

When powers are allowed to be created from the top by those the people have Democratically elected, they gradually redefine the government to fit their own agenda, simply on the basis of having won an election.

 

The American Constitution ranks among the greatest declarations in the world-an inspiring read but it conflicts with Democracy (a complex system itself) and any common sense form of governance I can think of. Constitutions do that which is why most advanced Democracies use them as guides. Yours was written centuries ago and while it is a fine declartion of intent and should never be forgotten.
Americans hang onto this quaint frontier concept of the individual as pioneer and the state as a hindrence whereas in Europe we have tried to make the state our'own'(we're working on it). We,largely,don't see the state as intrusive. We are bewilderd at Americans seeing state sponsored healthcare as creaping socialism. So what-it works-mostly.
A shining beacon though the USA Constitution is,for us all,Americas greatness is in the now and in the potential of its peoples. Maybe there should be a great moritorium in America,a deliberate review of its awesome journey and a sincere look to an even greater future. Bluntly,meaning no offence,America should consider if its Constitution is,now,the real hindrence.

 

First of all the U.S.A. is not a Democracy, but a Constitutional Republic, currently comprised of 50 individual States. In creating the U.S. Constitution, sovereignty of the individual, was a primary objective and should always remain so. The intent was to permit the people to be the source of power allowed each level of government, local, State, and Federal, with the democratic process used as the means of selecting those who the people would allow to wield the powers given to the level of government in which they were elected to serve. The greatest power was intended to be in the hands of the people who would self govern themselves, and with the consent of a majority creating and/or empowering their local government where it was felt a function could be done more efficiently and effectively by a single source. The same with State government, which people and local governments consented to give powers to their State government which could not be done as efficiently and effectively at the local level. States, along with the consent of the people followed suit giving powers to the Federal government, keeping in mind that powers that existed at each level of government were consented to by the people. This is how the Constitution was intended to be applied, keeping the people as the source of power of all government.

Beginning in 1913, we can see where things began to fall apart, with the creation of the Federal reserve banking system, and the 16th and 17th amendments, which flipped government from being bottom up, beginning with the people then to local, State, and Federal, and into one being top down, Federal, State, local, and finally the people whose voices are heard primarily, and often ONLY in the democratic process of selecting who will rule beginning at the Federal level, working its way down through the State, local and finally the people.

The U.S. Constitution, may indeed be a hindrance to implementing government more closely related to Socialism, which I believe was intentional and for good reason and recognition by at least some of the founders who fought hard to achieve something that could unite a diverse population who like all humans value their individual freedom greatly.

 

Thank you ,Individual, for that explanation,its certainly food for thought. In the UK our Democracy has become stagnant,too 'top down' and reliant upon a crowded complex burocratic system of paid civil servants & elected officials to supposedly ensure the 'bottom-up'element. The Blair/Brown Government recognised some of the problems & put forward the idea of Regional Assemblies-on similar lines to your Federal States-though Wales & Scotland are more devolved ,the smaller regions of UK rejected RAs as likely to only add more burocracy!
Ultimately,I cannot see any other solution than devolution of power from the center to the local level in either of our Countries given that there is a willingness by the people to fully participate in making it work. People in the UK ,as I suspect in the US,have become distanced,even perhaps cynical,of the political process.
A large part of,dare I say,'our' problem is the professionalisation of modern politics-celebrity,mass media,Lobbyists and the 'Political Class' as well as an increasingly centralised burocratic process far removed from us.
I think that I should add that having said what I have regarding your Constitution the same should apply to the old tenets of Socialism-including the ideas of Marx! We are in the 21st Century now,it should be within our reach to improve on the lessons of the past and carry them forward with new ideas of our own.

 

On that, I agree 100%.

 

I think it's a pretty good idea. There are definitely some flaws in our government, but it could be much worse, much worse. No one can ever be Utopian, doesn't mean to not strive, but if you think about it in that perspective, it's not so bad.

That's just what I think.

 

It may well be a bit too soon to tell........practice, practice, practice.......

 

nope, because perfect does not exist.

 

I think it has the potential to work. Seemed much more representative/ fair in past decades. The 50s for example.( not discussing civil rights for blacks--another story). Not many systems of government work for the majority of their citizens when a small percentage of people have almost total sway in the doings of it. Anyone that can't see that this is now the state the US is in--isn't looking. Or is looking and doesn't see the immorality of some having billions, while others starve ---in the same country.

There is a faction in this country that --for example--want to end ANYTHING that helps people in ANY way. And all those people that need help don't deserve it because---well, just because. That faction is and has been very successful because they now own the government lock, stock and suck-ass working class dummies who have been convinced to vote against their own interests. Distortion of a brilliant idea is the norm now.

 

because...if they did deserve it they would be a major agri-biz, corporation, or above all a poor suffering BANK!

 

That's what happened when Rome fell... it was also the beginning of the dark ages. Whether or not you think they were truly dark is one thing, but rest assured progress slowed to a crawl and you were more likely to work gruelling hours in the fields and die of disease, famine, etc. Knowledge disappeared completely as well, and the church decided which scientific advancements would make it through to the coming centuries. Since we don't have a church, I would bet the corporations would seize control of all science and education.

Except the trend hasn't been at all towards centralization... the government is weaker than it has been for a very long time, which is why it's so easy for the corporations to hold it hostage.

The same thing happened under feudalism-- the king was largely symbolic as the lords ran their fiefs however they saw fit. Neo-feudalism is where Obama has very little true power, and always acts in the interests of the corporations and banks that control the economy.

Here's a video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROQdJ0-uUbw

But really, as terrible as it sounds, I would much rather have a stable system dominated by money-focused corporations than an unstable one dominated by warlords unregulated by anything or anyone.

 

Nothing "works" really...It's a general adhocracy.For most of us "lucky" people in the "so called"..."civilised" world things generally tick along okay most of the time.Of course we all have to take our chances,in this organised chaos,because we have to live.

 

Does "government work"

I suppose it works better than some other types of government. The USA is not actually a true democracy tho, but rather a democratic republic.

 

democracy depends on people working it. economic oligarchy, otherwise known as capitalism, is NOT democracy. as is readily observable it stiffles democracy. it has a strong incentive to do so. though neither can it ever be stiffled completely.

a truly democratic form of government has yet to be implimented anywhere. largely because many people would rather cling to familiar ideological fanatacisms then attempt to do so.

i suppose it depends on what you mean by democracy too, as in one sense of the word, it is an ideology. but its not a complete ideology. its more the idea behind ideology. the sometimes intention and sometimes illusion claimed by most if not all ideologies of all forms.

something close enough to it, CAN work, and always has, at the very very local level.
the way to make this work at a broader then local level, is to have a kind of inverted pyramid of many levels, and i know it sounds counter intuitive, but it has to be this kind of inverted pyramid, where the most important level is the most local, and each broader level exists to serve and coordinate the more local ones.

also this concept of representative democracy can never be the real deal. democracy exists only where everyone has a voice directly in the issues that concern them themselves, not just choosing someone they hope, will reflect their own interests and concerns.

democracy does not automatically result in freedom either. one of the more useful thing those broader and more centralized levels can do, is to insure the freedom of individuals to relocate to where the local consensus more closely resembles their own perspective.