What is a properly functioning democracy?

Not at all I think your example sufficient. Although if you had the capacity to honor the thoughts of others you would be more democratically inclined. Right now Obama is trying to garner favorable world opinion for punitive military strikes. Voting is not the only means of gauging the level of agreement. You insist democracy function in a certain way and then insist that it doesn't work. Certainly not the way you conceive it.

 

So what do you suggest? A referendum for EVERY decision? Howbout transporting 60 million people(in the case of the UK)to one massive room,but of course they'd have to live there too.

Like it or not,unless you've a better idea, theres gona be a political class because most of us havent the time (working,bringing up familys,ect) to be around for all that discussion & process. I don't accept that they should necessarily be seen as priviliged either,a true democracy should not allow that.though I concede it happens. If that becomes the case its up to you & me to change it,democratically.

I hear all the whinging about autocratic Government,alienated voters, the excesses of the powerful & priviliged,the Corporate/military/government complex,done my share of it myself ! Point is if we don't participate we can hardly blame the powerful for continuing to take the piss. We allowed them to become so,we allow them to continue !

 

Nail on the head :2thumbsup:

 

not thoughts when put into text

I have no obligation to honor spin, propaganda, doublethink, oxymorons or sophism.

 

Well if we are talking about a "functioning democracy" YES?

 

Hmmmmm, a tad unrealistic methinks,but you know that anyway,so whats your real point ? Like have you a better idea ?

 

well if that is the case then a "democracy", is unrealistic.

So if that is the general consensus then maybe we should be talking the language of what constitutes functional parliaments, or a republic instead.

 

^^^Err....you're losing me mate,not into word games,not sure this is going anywhere.

 

this is the problem I have with political discussions.

a democracy, that is a properly functioning democracy, requires "full participation" of its constituent members, on all issues concerning government, while a republic on the other hand is hiring attorneys to re-present you and stand in "for" you in your absence with the power to make decisions FOR you.

I believe there is no argument to be drawn contradicting that distinction.

As it stands elections of those attorneys are democratic, (you get to choose your one issue ruler) whom you and everyone else on both sides presume to be "your" voice in the republic.

Nothing in practice could be farther from the truth.

They are elected on certain issues that they spin, not any requirement to follow the will of the people.

We have neither a functioning democracy nor a functioning republic.

 

Well here it comes, Drum roll please...

Wrong. There is an argument and belief never argues with the truth only other beliefs.

Political discussions don't have to follow your rules and in fact you spend our time trying to enforce them through frustrated rhetoric. i think this discussion has transcended by some margin your flailing around. We don't want to keep revisiting your prejudicial view. Working definitions are best, puns not so much.

Moving forward there really are not that many decisions to be made in a democracy that is humming along. Certainly there is little reason to have full time lawmakers. What the hell would they be trying to regulate?

Anything to adddd zzap?

 

If I'm reading you correctly, a properly functioning democracy is essentially what the founders tried to provide us. A Federal Republic, made up of State Republics, where the people at local levels of government within each State democratically agree to the rules under which they feel necessary to empower and fund government locally, as well as the State or Federal level, and democratically electing those who they feel are most capable of representing them in each of the higher levels of government.

 

Thanks Zzap. Getting your drift now,I hope.In the UK we have a similar problem,private individuals & corporations buying access & influence via MPs. The Right would argue that the Unions use their influence via the Labour Party. There are a number of rules & commitees that regulate & monitor lobbying very closely but some get past the net.

I don't know about the States but in the UK a Partys position,Left or Right on the spectrum is one ,general,indicator as to the likely position it may take on a given issue. Annual Party Conferences,televised & widely anaylised in the press, give another on going account of policy positioning over time. In the run up to elections Partys publish Manifestoes making pledges of their intended courses of action on known issues over their period in office ,should they win.

In recent decades,in the UK,in my opinion,each of the above,voluntary,attempts at transparency/accountability have become more 'vague'. Conferences are stage managed,PR & spin filter presentation & content,manifestoes once put out are as often as not ignored when the Party achieves power. We were dragged into the Iraq War thanks to lies & Tony Blairs 'conscience',democracy played no part in it !

I have to say that having a referendum on every political decision is impractical. Democracy can function properly however. Our debate is really about integrity in politics,simple closely adhered to principles of sincere representation,genuine transparency / accountablity and effective enforcement.

I'd suggest its a problem of 'Drift' in the UK but much more so ,I guess,in the USA (though we're getting there too). The 'Workers' (our representatives) have got themselves,over time, a nice little number going! The jobs well payed,lots of perks, a few 'fiddles'. They've taken upon themselves a 'professional status',got a pet Media , spin & PR machine going. The Bosses (us) have become lulled,stupified. Enough of us are doing quite nicely-just enough-to not wish to bother ourselves asking too many questions or making demands. Blinded by their science,spin, lazy & mostly quite comfortable,theres enough of 'us' to ensure the boat isnt rocked too much.

Good 'OL human nature mate. Factor X ! What screws up every great political 'ism' or' 'ocracy'. Maybe we need a (non violent) Western Spring.

 

the kool thing about the uk is that the history is there all laid out on the table if one knows what to look for, unlike the us which is essentially using the same forum of law et al but are victims of syntax terrorism by the people sworn to "protect". (that old insurance racket again)

The more people understand what is going on the more they hide in the shadows and with the courts as the gate keepers build a very effective wall between the people and the government.

In its most distilled form, and b4 the norman invasion, people decided to set up a way to protect themselves and their way of life from being over run by invading armies.

The large allodial land owners would pledge a certain amount of the profits from their lands to pay to the management company that provided that protection, that being the king who is the head of well everything in its origin, but later head of state same as the president here with one eception, that the king being a sovereign monarch has the power even today to dispose of the government, through law though fit would be ineffective and meaningless, but thats another story for another day.

These large allodial owners "land lords" signed contracts with the head of state, "king" and never gave up their allodial rights in the property. Any tenant in-fee [all property in the US, UK, NZ,AU etc etc is an enfeoffment in-fee] (simple) and is required to pay as a tax what was originally military services now after the norman conquest has evolved into whatever they want to charge you for under the word "services" as a protected sovereign monopoly.



the same distinction is made in america, though its one of those things that get brushed under the carpet and go untalked about and sidestepped as much as possible because if people knew the truth that they in fact are really living in a feudal society in america rather than the pseudo freed (from) liberty and all that shit they feed mushrooms the slaves would most likely revolt.

In fact if you scrutinize the the "pledge of allegiance" it sets up and is an unconscionable contract.

That said the more that is found out by the people at large the more the institutions that are benefiting from this go underground and the more spinsters you see on the net protecting them.

The original intent was to form and pay for military service to prevent a national overtake by foreign government, (protect property rights in land and person etc) which today, has degenerated by the corruption its ability to turn a profit and organizational structure now "dictates" by its self proclaimed sovereign authority (in america) how long your grass must be and what you can grow on what people believe to be "their" property, but its not. in-fee title is nothing more than purchasing the usufructory right to be within stated boundaries of the title, the state be it england or any other common law country has alodial ownership, you rent.

Which brings us right back the point that the talking heads of this board refuse to address and that is a system of invoices which is the appropriate manner to deal with "services", or is otherwise a complete contradiction of contract law in every legal system that I know of.

As soon as the word "sovereign" is placed into the picture you now have a situation with an entity with rights that pale ours the (presumed) creators, presumably us.

In america and now becoming more so in all the common law colonies at large, they will tell us that it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, but our government courts know best and its really a bradley tank. Next......

What was once an "opt in/out service" is now "services provided at the end of a barrel of a gun" under the power of taxation. america, the monarchys et al top shelf dirty lil legal secret

incidentally it appears that was a good post

 

Thats an interesting,intreging post Zzap. Relates to the psychology behind the development of power & control in politics. So,we live a Matrix-like existence,the scripts of our lives pre determined within limits of a fixed hierachy. So convinced are we of our freedom,we never question its validity but then how could we imagine whats beyond the fakery we've taken to be 'real' ?

Okay smartass (lol) before I take the Red Pill I wana know whats gona happen. Whats your politics Zzap ? What is it you advocate ?

 

Ok what we seem to have got is those that favour some form of democracy because they can’t think of anything better and those that oppose democracy but don’t seem to have any better ideas.

To me the former at least seems to be trying to achieve something while the latter seems like a dead end.

*
One brought up Robert A. Heinlein as a guide he was a pulp sic-fi writer and I found his works very entertaining when I was a kid, but I grew up, and found his simplistic approach a bit, well simplistic, in many ways he was a proto right wing libertarian ([FONT=&quot]The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress)[/FONT] but in others not, I mean at one time he seemed to favour some type of world government (Space Cadet). In Starship Trooper the only people that could vote were " discharged veterans" of usually military service (so it would appeal to Sig who’s ex-military) and Heinlein attacks the democracies of his day claiming (from the future) that they collapsed because "people had been led to believe that they could simply vote for whatever they wanted... and get it, without toil, without sweat, without tears”

I think Indie is still in favour of a plutocratic system where wealth has greater say.

And the other idea doesn’t seem to be a political structure as such but accountancy, a pay as you go scheme that would cut out much need for government bodies (is that correct Z?). Again this would seem to be another plutocratic system were ability to pay would dictate the level of power you would have within the system.

 

A lot of the history of political though has been taken up with the idea of the balancing of differing interests, the interests of liberty and protection from harm, the interests of the individual and that of the community, the interests of majorities and minorities and in monetary based systems the interests of wealth and those of the rest.

Over the years humans have theorised, debated and practiced, we’ve developed checks and balances, written laws and constitutions.

What we have achieved is modern democracy as Winston Churchill commented “the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”

There are many forms and types of ‘democracy’ (rule by the people) from direct involvement by the people to the people appointing representatives through some kind of process.

Now it can never be perfect but in my view in a properly functioning democracy some form of balance should be achievable, it might seesaw and wobble a little, but in general terms it would be about balance.

But systems that are about investing certain groups with increased power are not going to even try at balanced they will be about the promotion of the powerful groups interests.

Try – free market = plutocracy tyranny
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353336&f=36

 

well no, there are not many "forms" of democracy. There is only one form of democracy and other forms are, well, something else.

I happen to like a more appropriate realistic quote from him:

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

In which I agree.

If you are absent to give your vote and have a representative in your place speaking and or voting for you then it is no longer democracy, it is republic. Its just the way words work, can have it both ways at the same time.

Now you can have different means of implementing the something as long as it keeps it within its "substantial" definition.

By that, if each constituent lodges a vote with the representative on every issue the representative votes accordingly then that is in fact a democractic-republic with a representative who would essentially vote on behalf of the constituents based on votes received from them.

Of course then who needs the representative anyway in that case?

Now it would be grammatically legal to say we have a democratic election and that is where the democracy part of this government ends and after that it shifts to republic, but then unfortunately even a republic requires a record of the constituents it serves unless they all summon their guru and read the peoples minds.

So again its grammatically legal to say we have a republic in that we have our attorneys representing us in the government court and like democracy that is where that ends since they have no obligation to vote in accord with the will of the people they presumable serve.

Hence we have a democracy and a republic that is so narrowly "niched" that it is completely dysfunctional to the extent that neither function in their presumed intent in substance.

In other words they are both literally and completely bullshit on their face.

Now before I get into anything alternative and there are plenty, how about a quick one for shits and giggles...... How can a democracy be functional on any level when by design 51% can stomp on the rights of 49%? Riddle me that! LOL

well yeh and no.
Its all pay as you go regardless of which system you choose, however it would in fact not cut out government per se, but change the face of it to something more sustaianable, and yes accountability creates sustainability.

No in fact it would pretty much eliminate the plutocacy problem and prevent it from ever growing into another octopus of enslavement that is has become.

All that said who is up for tackling this in substance?

 

Zzap

I don't get this 'Grammatically legal' or your interest in 'literal' definitions. The opening question is 'What is a properly functioning democracy', not what is a perfectly functioning one-can you see the literal difference?

I very much doubt if there has ever been a perfectly functioning Democracy,at a national Government level ,just as there has probably never been a perfectly functioning human being. Their both contradictions in terms!

Being a product of human nature,you're gona grow very old waiting for the perfect Republic or Democracy. I think that a main aim of this thread is to analyse whats wrong with our democracies,ect,& look for practical ways to improve representation.

 

The OP question, "What is a properly functioning democracy?", is a meaningless question having no correct answer. The real question should be "What is a properly functioning society?", recognizing as fact that humans do NOT comprise a single society, but many societies with the function of government regardless of form, to maintain peace not only within the society it is held responsible for but also among the governments of other societies that each society interacts with.

A perfectly functioning democracy would be one in which 100% of the people agree. Can we really agree on level of agreement by the governed which defines democracy to be functioning 'properly' regardless of the issue?

 

Such a question would take too long for me to answer...but I guess I'm with Plato on this. If I remember correctly he was critic with Democracy for being only slightly better than Dictatorship (the next in his ranking).

Of course he was too naive when imaging things like a King -concerned with the pursuit of wisdom instead of a lover of power and wealth-, before to any democracy of uneducated people. I mean, as if this could work remaining static without control nor feedback from citizens.

Anyway, I stick to my first statement and generally speaking I find that most of his points still apply.