NationStates Jolt Archive

In modern life, it is natural for most humans to delegate responsibility. One can, if he really wants to, be his own doctor, lawyer, businessman, reporter, and banker. Indeed, in the nineties, with the proliferation of websites, that was tried by all too many. But these websites have since died out, and the remaining ones are the delegates themselves. Humans have returned to the ways of delegating authority to others. They call the shots in the end, but they usually don’t make day-to-day decisions. Take the stock market, for example. Shareholders own a company, but they give control over to a CEO and his board. If any of them perform badly, shareholders can punish them, but otherwise, they leave the company to the board’s control. This system has worked extremely good in the past few decades, where knowledge, money, and power have become more democratic, but not everyone can use these.
There is one field, however, that delegation isn’t happening. In fact, it is quite the opposite: ordinary people are usurping more controls. That field is the government. I just finished Fareed Zakaria’s book, The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad. I’ve found that I agree with most of its premises, that many governments around the world are dysfunctional simply because they are far too open. The opening of governments was a response to the oligarchies of yore, and with good reason. No one wants to return to the days of Millard Fillmore, Warren Harding, or J.P. Morgan: mostly selfish and incompetent people that got their jobs because they were members of an elite, mostly white Anglo-Saxon Protestant (or as Zakaria playfully calls them, WASPs). But the answer to the problems, more democracy, has gone overboard.
The biggest example in the US government is subcommittees and committees of Congress, which must approve of legislation before it can be debated on the floor. Decades ago, the committee met behind closed doors. While votes were recorded, the position of each individual congressman wasn’t. Now doors are open, and votes are public. However, the public is made up of lobbyists, who compete with each other to try and influence Congress. This is why many Americans complain that Washington doesn’t care about the little guy: they do, but they often can’t, because of the façade of lobbyists.
Here’s an example of the arcane, and often-contradictory legislation they want Congress to keep. In the fifties, mohair was an important fabric to make uniforms, so Congress subsidized it. In later decades, synthetic fibers filled the role, but by then, the goat shepherds and the weavers formed lobbies to keep these subsidies. To this day, Congress still subsidizes mohair, despite efforts to drop the legislation.
It has gone out of control. I support subsidized agriculture, but was shocked to learn that Congress now pays farmers to grow crops, and then destroy them. I don’t mind deficits, but these lobbies are the only reason why they never shrink. It seemed like the old order had some points.
Europe has had a similar problem over the past few years, but now, most European countries have been able to balance budgets, and keep their foreign policies in check. If any of these reforms angers people, the governments have an excuse: the EU made me do it. However, these governments are doing these reforms themselves, and the EU, which Zakaria noted has only about 1% of the employees of the French government, is doing little. However, because of their secretive nature, it has, ironically, made them very effective. It also helps make the WTO effective, like it or not.
There were many more examples provided in the book, but I think you get the point, if you endured with the above paragraphs. Direct democracy of government may sound good at first, but it can often go overboard, and while it destroys one oligarchial order, it creates another. In poll after poll, many Americans say that in the government, they most trust the Supreme Court, the military, and the Federal Reserve. These agencies have one thing in common: they are unelected officials, yet they are delegated authority from a democratically elected Congress and White House. They are insulated from public pressures, and they lead in their fields, not follow. War, for example, cannot be waged by weekly referenda. It is time that we all return to the old ways of delegating authority. After all, the world is a far more democratic place now than fifty years ago, even in the West. It’s very unlikely that a single elite will again hijack these branches.

Hey fascist, I think it's time for a flame war. Your élitism is sickening. It's easy to support government power when you're reaping the benefits. I will never let your fascism succeed.

Ah yes, the good old days, when black people were considered subhuman, women weren't allowed to vote, and genocide was common. Those sound like fun, don't they?

Hey fascist, I think it's time for a flame war. Your élitism is sickening. It's easy to support government power when you're reaping the benefits. I will never let your fascism succeed.

Ah yes, the good old days, when black people were considered subhuman, women weren't allowed to vote, and genocide was common. Those sound like fun, don't they?
Women and blacks not voting is exactly what I'm against. I just simply want the government to operate for the reason they were elected, and not be hounded by lobbyists all the time. It's one thing for a person or group to share their views with a legislator about an issue. It's entirely different when there are extremely self-absorbed people always breathing down your neck. That, Fareed Zakaria and I feel, is why democracy can be so inefficient, and paradoxically, why people are less involved in politics.

Letila:Aren't you also reaping the benefits of our capitalist society? You're in college or high school now, right? My bet is you grow up to be a yuppie

One thing we must all come to terms with is that no government will be perfect. However, our democrapitalism (democracy capitalism combined, and sounding really funny) is the best one so far. Socialism isn't doing well, as the euro continues to inflate. Monarchy is all but dead and where it is still breeding, it is being exterminated by wars like Iraq (not that I'm saying that's the only reason we went). Control by religion is seen as another form of fascism, as in Iran. So what I'm basically saying is that as long as man is imperfect, our government shall be also.

Heh heh. Democrapitalist. I'm so clever.

An interesting concept, but perhaps the greatest aid to the popuclace to rid themselves from these overgrown interest groups is not less freedom; as you suggest here, but more oversight by the citizens?

If one actually takes part in government, they can dissolve such useless drains on the budget. Why throw up your hands and declare a new ceasar to take care of it for you?

First off, the U.S. is a Representitive Democracy or a Republic. Delegation of authority is the primarly function of a Republic, and the only distinction between it and true or pure Democracy. To say that the government is not a delegation is to ignore its very nature. Think about the upcoming election, what is it, if not the nation coming together and deciding to whom to delegate authority?

Secondly, there is great power in "the masses." Far greater than people have thought in the past. Many people believe that a few well informed experts are better capable of making a proper and correct decision (assuming there is a "right" answer to a given question or problem), but recent research has shown that in nearly every situation groups are better able to correctly solve problems. A recent book, The Wisdom of Crowds by James Suroweiki details a number of examples of this principle and asserts that by turning over more authority to large, diverse, independent crowds better decisions can be made. Suroweiki goes as far as saying that large corporations should turn over decision making power to shareholders or employees more often than leaving it in the hands of a select few. Because the goals of government are somewhat abstract and no "right" answer can be clearly discerned the issue is complicated, but the principle can still be applied. If nothing else allowing large groups to determine governmental actions shows what that particular group feels to be the "right" solution to a given problem. There are actually more issues to be resolved, such as the lack of independence in many voters and the existence of trend leaders. Essentially the same problems and difference that exist between modern Capitalism and ideal Capitalism.

I guess that's all for now, more to come I'm sure.

Also, hello Nicollo, how goes it?

Secondly, there is great power in "the masses." Far greater than people have thought in the past. Many people believe that a few well informed experts are better capable of making a proper and correct decision (assuming there is a "right" answer to a given question or problem), but recent research has shown that in nearly every situation groups are better able to correctly solve problems. A recent book, The Wisdom of Crowds by James Suroweiki details a number of examples of this principle and asserts that by turning over more authority to large, diverse, independent crowds better decisions can be made. Suroweiki goes as far as saying that large corporations should turn over decision making power to shareholders or employees more often than leaving it in the hands of a select few. Because the goals of government are somewhat abstract and no "right" answer can be clearly discerned the issue is complicated, but the principle can still be applied. If nothing else allowing large groups to determine governmental actions shows what that particular group feels to be the "right" solution to a given problem. There are actually more issues to be resolved, such as the lack of independence in many voters and the existence of trend leaders. Essentially the same problems and difference that exist between modern Capitalism and ideal Capitalism.

Also, hello Nicollo, how goes it?

Goes pretty well actually; New house, New cable modem (sure beats the ol' 56k), and a new summer cold to help me with my reading (when else can you spend two days in bed reading between coughs?). How about you?

Your post intrigues me, but tell me, how does Suroweiki resolve the problems with Groupthink or the inverse problem of group apathy? The recent experience with the entire intellegince community taking a hit for thinking along the same lines demonstrates that one does not need a "tyranny of the majority" for a group to stop thinking for itself.

Part of the blame for the congressional funding of these useless groups lies in a general apathy or aversion towards congressional budgets, how would you apply this theory you presented to solving that problem?

In modern life, it is natural for most humans to delegate responsibility. One can, if he really wants to, be his own doctor, lawyer, businessman, reporter, and banker. Indeed, in the nineties, with the proliferation of websites, that was tried by all too many. But these websites have since died out, and the remaining ones are the delegates themselves. Humans have returned to the ways of delegating authority to others. They call the shots in the end, but they usually don’t make day-to-day decisions. Take the stock market, for example. Shareholders own a company, but they give control over to a CEO and his board. If any of them perform badly, shareholders can punish them, but otherwise, they leave the company to the board’s control. This system has worked extremely good in the past few decades, where knowledge, money, and power have become more democratic, but not everyone can use these.
There is one field, however, that delegation isn’t happening. In fact, it is quite the opposite: ordinary people are usurping more controls. That field is the government. I just finished Fareed Zakaria’s book, The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad. I’ve found that I agree with most of its premises, that many governments around the world are dysfunctional simply because they are far too open. The opening of governments was a response to the oligarchies of yore, and with good reason. No one wants to return to the days of Millard Fillmore, Warren Harding, or J.P. Morgan: mostly selfish and incompetent people that got their jobs because they were members of an elite, mostly white Anglo-Saxon Protestant (or as Zakaria playfully calls them, WASPs). But the answer to the problems, more democracy, has gone overboard.
The biggest example in the US government is subcommittees and committees of Congress, which must approve of legislation before it can be debated on the floor. Decades ago, the committee met behind closed doors. While votes were recorded, the position of each individual congressman wasn’t. Now doors are open, and votes are public. However, the public is made up of lobbyists, who compete with each other to try and influence Congress. This is why many Americans complain that Washington doesn’t care about the little guy: they do, but they often can’t, because of the façade of lobbyists.
Here’s an example of the arcane, and often-contradictory legislation they want Congress to keep. In the fifties, mohair was an important fabric to make uniforms, so Congress subsidized it. In later decades, synthetic fibers filled the role, but by then, the goat shepherds and the weavers formed lobbies to keep these subsidies. To this day, Congress still subsidizes mohair, despite efforts to drop the legislation.
It has gone out of control. I support subsidized agriculture, but was shocked to learn that Congress now pays farmers to grow crops, and then destroy them. I don’t mind deficits, but these lobbies are the only reason why they never shrink. It seemed like the old order had some points.
Europe has had a similar problem over the past few years, but now, most European countries have been able to balance budgets, and keep their foreign policies in check. If any of these reforms angers people, the governments have an excuse: the EU made me do it. However, these governments are doing these reforms themselves, and the EU, which Zakaria noted has only about 1% of the employees of the French government, is doing little. However, because of their secretive nature, it has, ironically, made them very effective. It also helps make the WTO effective, like it or not.
There were many more examples provided in the book, but I think you get the point, if you endured with the above paragraphs. Direct democracy of government may sound good at first, but it can often go overboard, and while it destroys one oligarchial order, it creates another. In poll after poll, many Americans say that in the government, they most trust the Supreme Court, the military, and the Federal Reserve. These agencies have one thing in common: they are unelected officials, yet they are delegated authority from a democratically elected Congress and White House. They are insulated from public pressures, and they lead in their fields, not follow. War, for example, cannot be waged by weekly referenda. It is time that we all return to the old ways of delegating authority. After all, the world is a far more democratic place now than fifty years ago, even in the West. It’s very unlikely that a single elite will again hijack these branches.

*head explodes from trying to read extremely long post*
*doesn't care about argument at hand and leaves thead before people can flame him*

I typed up a resposne for you Nicollo, but it got lost because I got logged out. I'll type it up again, but not just now.

*rUNS SCREAMING*

I couldnt be bothered to read that, but im sure it was good!

First off, the U.S. is a Representitive Democracy or a Republic. Delegation of authority is the primarly function of a Republic, and the only distinction between it and true or pure Democracy. To say that the government is not a delegation is to ignore its very nature. Think about the upcoming election, what is it, if not the nation coming together and deciding to whom to delegate authority?

Secondly, there is great power in "the masses." Far greater than people have thought in the past. Many people believe that a few well informed experts are better capable of making a proper and correct decision (assuming there is a "right" answer to a given question or problem), but recent research has shown that in nearly every situation groups are better able to correctly solve problems. A recent book, The Wisdom of Crowds by James Suroweiki details a number of examples of this principle and asserts that by turning over more authority to large, diverse, independent crowds better decisions can be made. Suroweiki goes as far as saying that large corporations should turn over decision making power to shareholders or employees more often than leaving it in the hands of a select few. Because the goals of government are somewhat abstract and no "right" answer can be clearly discerned the issue is complicated, but the principle can still be applied. If nothing else allowing large groups to determine governmental actions shows what that particular group feels to be the "right" solution to a given problem. There are actually more issues to be resolved, such as the lack of independence in many voters and the existence of trend leaders. Essentially the same problems and difference that exist between modern Capitalism and ideal Capitalism.

I guess that's all for now, more to come I'm sure.

Also, hello Nicollo, how goes it?

If the group collective has a better ability to solve an issue and get the "right" answer then it is a good job that a democracy is built upon some form of parliament or senate.

Both points are good ones when examined individually but it seems that you may have missed the point.

An election is the appointment of a representative to a position of influence and power in order to defend and advance the electorates rights. This is the masses exercising their power and choosing a person to whom they can delegate issues.

This electee will then represent his or her constituents in a form of government which will engage in debate and hear the opinions and experiences of the individual to ascertain the voice of the majority and to answer the questions posed. Is this not the group collective that you speak of?

It was once said that "your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement, and he betrays instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

If the group collective has a better ability to solve an issue and get the "right" answer then it is a good job that a democracy is built upon some form of parliament or senate.

Both points are good ones when examined individually but it seems that you may have missed the point.

An election is the appointment of a representative to a position of influence and power in order to defend and advance the electorates rights. This is the masses exercising their power and choosing a person to whom they can delegate issues.

This electee will then represent his or her constituents in a form of government which will engage in debate and hear the opinions and experiences of the individual to ascertain the voice of the majority and to answer the questions posed. Is this not the group collective that you speak of?

It was once said that "your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement, and he betrays instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

Certainly an election can be viewed as a group making a decision about who is best suited to govern, but an argument could be made that by adding a middle man, if you will, the message of the people is diluted and therefor loses some of its efficacy.

Congresses are effective at creating agreement and allowing for the formation of plans of action, but they are not good representitives of this theory in practice. Each member of a group should have as little influence on each other member as possible so as to provide for maximum independence of decision making. Ideally, each person gives an answer and knows no one else's answer. Then an "average" is taken from all the answers and that course is followed. When working with math problems averaging the answers is a relatively simple process, while when working with foreign policy decision averaging is nearly impossible, except in an abstract way (more isolationist or less, for instance).

By taking the elected officials and putting them in a room and having them debate an issue you destroy the power of the crowds decision. It would be more effective in terms of the Wisdom of Crowds if each official walked in and voted immediately without discussing the issue with any of the other electees. By putting the final decision power in the hands of the elected person you remove the power from the hands of the citizen who voted for that person and thus destroy the effectiveness of the collective decision making.

That quote is valid in the old conception of the average person, and especially of "mobs" which is that they are stupid, especially in groups. This new conception disagrees with that assertation and says that the average individual might not get the correct answer to a given problem, but that by averaging the answers of many different people one can achieve an answer more accurate than even the most accurate and knowledgable of individuals. By asserting his individual judgment onto a situation a representitive negates the collective wisdom of those who elected him. It seems counterintuitive because we are used to thinking of crowds as dangerous mobs before intelligent collectives, but we must throw out that prejudice and begin to look at crowds in a new way. The use of large, diverse, independent, groups to solve problems and make decisions is going to become and important part of, particularly business, life whether we move with it or not.

Hey fascist, I think it's time for a flame war. Your élitism is sickening. It's easy to support government power when you're reaping the benefits. I will never let your fascism succeed.



Nothing like a good bit of anti-fascism!



I'm gonna tell all you fascists, you may be suprised,
people all over this world are gettin' organised,
you're bound to lose. You fascists bound to lose.


Race hatred cannot stop us this one thing I know
Your poll tax and Jim Crow and greed have got to go
You're bound to lose, you fascists bound to lose


People of every colour marching side by side
Marching 'cross these fields where a million fascists died
You're bound to lose, you fascists bound to lose

I'm going into this battle and take my union gun
We'll end this world of slavery before this battle's won
You're bound to lose, you fascists bound to lose

-Woodie Guthrie

(or as Zakaria playfully calls them, WASPs).
First off, I have seen the term "WASPs" before. So I was slightly humored to find you saying that as it was a funny thing, where to me, it is a common thing.

Europe has had a similar problem over the past few years, but now, most European countries have been able to balance budgets, and keep their foreign policies in check. If any of these reforms angers people, the governments have an excuse: the EU made me do it. However, these governments are doing these reforms themselves, and the EU, which Zakaria noted has only about 1% of the employees of the French government, is doing little. However, because of their secretive nature, it has, ironically, made them very effective.
I actually talked to someone in Europe about this last night. (for background information, I am an American visiting Europe. I will be going back in 4 day and have been here for 24 days). I can say that you are indeed incorrect in saying this, assuming my German friend is correct. He said that 50-60% of the legislation passed by the German parliament has to be passed because it is forced upon them by the EU. He also said that this is something that a lot of Europeans do not know. Frankly, I believe him over you and your book.

It is time that we all return to the old ways of delegating authority. After all, the world is a far more democratic place now than fifty years ago, even in the West. It’s very unlikely that a single elite will again hijack these branches.
But here is where you are flawed, majorly. If we return to the old ways that would make it easier for elitists to "hijack" these branches, as you said that it was very unlikely. But if we return to the old ways it will become more and more likely, as time goes on under these old ways of authority.

In modern life, it is natural for most humans to delegate responsibility. One can, if he really wants to, be his own doctor, lawyer, businessman, reporter, and banker. Indeed, in the nineties, with the proliferation of websites, that was tried by all too many. But these websites have since died out, and the remaining ones are the delegates themselves. Humans have returned to the ways of delegating authority to others. They call the shots in the end, but they usually don’t make day-to-day decisions. Take the stock market, for example. Shareholders own a company, but they give control over to a CEO and his board. If any of them perform badly, shareholders can punish them, but otherwise, they leave the company to the board’s control. This system has worked extremely good in the past few decades, where knowledge, money, and power have become more democratic, but not everyone can use these.
There is one field, however, that delegation isn’t happening. In fact, it is quite the opposite: ordinary people are usurping more controls. That field is the government. I just finished Fareed Zakaria’s book, The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad. I’ve found that I agree with most of its premises, that many governments around the world are dysfunctional simply because they are far too open. The opening of governments was a response to the oligarchies of yore, and with good reason. No one wants to return to the days of Millard Fillmore, Warren Harding, or J.P. Morgan: mostly selfish and incompetent people that got their jobs because they were members of an elite, mostly white Anglo-Saxon Protestant (or as Zakaria playfully calls them, WASPs). But the answer to the problems, more democracy, has gone overboard.
The biggest example in the US government is subcommittees and committees of Congress, which must approve of legislation before it can be debated on the floor. Decades ago, the committee met behind closed doors. While votes were recorded, the position of each individual congressman wasn’t. Now doors are open, and votes are public. However, the public is made up of lobbyists, who compete with each other to try and influence Congress. This is why many Americans complain that Washington doesn’t care about the little guy: they do, but they often can’t, because of the façade of lobbyists.
Here’s an example of the arcane, and often-contradictory legislation they want Congress to keep. In the fifties, mohair was an important fabric to make uniforms, so Congress subsidized it. In later decades, synthetic fibers filled the role, but by then, the goat shepherds and the weavers formed lobbies to keep these subsidies. To this day, Congress still subsidizes mohair, despite efforts to drop the legislation.
It has gone out of control. I support subsidized agriculture, but was shocked to learn that Congress now pays farmers to grow crops, and then destroy them. I don’t mind deficits, but these lobbies are the only reason why they never shrink. It seemed like the old order had some points.
Europe has had a similar problem over the past few years, but now, most European countries have been able to balance budgets, and keep their foreign policies in check. If any of these reforms angers people, the governments have an excuse: the EU made me do it. However, these governments are doing these reforms themselves, and the EU, which Zakaria noted has only about 1% of the employees of the French government, is doing little. However, because of their secretive nature, it has, ironically, made them very effective. It also helps make the WTO effective, like it or not.
There were many more examples provided in the book, but I think you get the point, if you endured with the above paragraphs. Direct democracy of government may sound good at first, but it can often go overboard, and while it destroys one oligarchial order, it creates another. In poll after poll, many Americans say that in the government, they most trust the Supreme Court, the military, and the Federal Reserve. These agencies have one thing in common: they are unelected officials, yet they are delegated authority from a democratically elected Congress and White House. They are insulated from public pressures, and they lead in their fields, not follow. War, for example, cannot be waged by weekly referenda. It is time that we all return to the old ways of delegating authority. After all, the world is a far more democratic place now than fifty years ago, even in the West. It’s very unlikely that a single elite will again hijack these branches.

The Founding Fathers called democracy the worst form of government. That's why they gave us a republic. Read the Federalist Papers for more details.

Goes pretty well actually; New house, New cable modem (sure beats the ol' 56k), and a new summer cold to help me with my reading (when else can you spend two days in bed reading between coughs?). How about you?

Your post intrigues me, but tell me, how does Suroweiki resolve the problems with Groupthink or the inverse problem of group apathy? The recent experience with the entire intellegince community taking a hit for thinking along the same lines demonstrates that one does not need a "tyranny of the majority" for a group to stop thinking for itself.

Part of the blame for the congressional funding of these useless groups lies in a general apathy or aversion towards congressional budgets, how would you apply this theory you presented to solving that problem?

I'm doing alright, same house, same ol' 56k, but still pretty good.

Groupthink is an issue of both diversity and independence of the members of a group. For a group to be an effective decision maker its members must be independent of one another, that is the opinions of one member must not affect the opinions of other memebrs, and it must be diverse, that is the members must come from a diverse background with many different fields of understanding. In politics, for instance, there are powerful thought leaders represented by the major political parties. These leaders draw supporters who, rather than applying their understanding and intuition in an independent manner, duplicate the platform of ideas presented by the party. In this way a group as large as the voting population is reduced to a very small number of positions. In the context of group decision making, political parties, or social ideological groups can be viewed simply as different ideas. A tyrannical majority is merely the most common ideology asserting its power. The problem of members of the intelligence community thinking alike and therefor falling victim to the same mistakes is an issue of diversity. Because so many intelligence analysts are trained in the same way and share information the diversity of the overall group of analysts is very low. Each analyst is essentially just a copy of every other analyst with minor differences, whereas ideally they would all be very different from each other.

I'm sad to admit that I have not yet had the chance to actually read through the whole book because my reading list is a few tens of thousands of pages right now, but from what I got from seeing the author on CSpan a large, diverse, and independent group could be formed to address the problem.

The Founding Fathers called democracy the worst form of government. That's why they gave us a republic. Read the Federalist Papers for more details.

The Founding Fathers, as I have mentioned earlier, had a general distrust of common people, especially when taken as groups. The common conception has been that the average person is generally ignorant and that if you combine the opinions of many ignorant people you will generate another ignorant opinion. Recent research has shown that combining the opinions of many seemingly ignorant people can create an opinion wiser than the wisest individual. If this research is to be taken as any indication of the value of Democracy against the value of Republic we can say that the Founding Fathers made a poor choice based on a mistaken conception of the nature of crowds.

The Founding Fathers, as I have mentioned earlier, had a general distrust of common <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=people&v=56">people</a>, especially when taken as groups. The common conception has been that the average person is generally ignorant and that if you combine the opinions of many ignorant <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=people&v=56">people</a> you will generate another ignorant opinion. Recent research has shown that combining the opinions of many seemingly ignorant <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=people&v=56">people</a> can create an opinion wiser than the wisest individual. If this research is to be taken as any indication of the value of Democracy against the value of Republic we can say that the Founding Fathers made a poor choice based on a mistaken conception of the nature of crowds.

I think your founding fathers made a good choice. Crowds can be manipulated very easily. Just think how people behave in a sport stadium. Think about the big parades of communists or the nazis.
"Do you want total war" was the question Goebbels ask the people in the stadion of Berlin and the stood up and were crying "yes, yes, yes".

That are the facts.
The conclusion is not to say that we shouldn´t listen to the people. But the conclusion is to say NO to direct-democracy and yes to indirect or representative democracy, which you would in the US call Republic. That means that the representatives - in the house of representatives and in the senate and of course the president make the decisions and not the "crowd".

the founding fathers were wrong, our great success shows that universal sufferage was a very good idea. but then, thomas jefferson was against abolishing slavery because he feared that the freed slaves would rise up against their white oppressors and genocide would result. there were just some things they didnt know about human behavior.

universal sufferage has obviously been a very good thing for us. our great success with representative democracy cant be matched by any country without it. maybe its just due to the illusion of control. when everyone who has the desire to vote, gets to vote, in a free and open process, everyone feels that things are being run as best they can.

the problem with having elite groups run things (which of course they do in reality) is that they tend to get corrupt. even though its not a government agency, enron springs to my mind. the shocking things they said and did when they were unregulated, unseen, unstoppable show how badly things can go.

consider alan greenspan, the head of the US federal reserve. he has had incredible power over the last.....10 years? (it seems like forever) he has done a very good job for the US economy, a job that the elected officials never could have done given that they are under pressure from both the public and private lobbyists. he is a great example of what an authoritarian can do when he has the public interest at heart.

BUT

alan greenspan can be removed at any time for good or bad reasons. if he is shown to be corrupt, if he gets too old, if financial theory changes, he is GONE. he is, in the end, at the mercy of the very system that insulates him from political pressure.

elite groups who are not accountable to the public can very quickly become corrupt and even ruin the country they are running. do i really need to make a list? nah y'all can come up with a list as quickly as i can.

*I* dont need to run US financial policy, i am very happy to delegate that job. but i DO want the person who does the job to be accountable and removable.

since the elite groups work for the citizens of the democratic countries they live in, they need to be accountable to them. and it needs to be up to the citizens of the particular countries just how much and how little they want to delegate at any time.

i didnt read mr zakarias book but i can see that i utterly disagree with him. lack of control, openness, freedom and responsibility in government is a bad idea and not the way any country should go.

The reason we have a Republic is specifically so that the majority cannot railroad the rights of the minority. That is stated in the Federalist Papers as well. However, I agree that our politicians today are blinded by their own power, coupled with the swarms of lobbyists and a few other things as well. It might be interesting for some of you to know that the very first admendment that was proposed to the constitution (by the Congressmen of course) dealt with how much a senator/representative would be paid. The bill of rights was only a secondary concern to them. Granted, the bill of rights passed before the aforementioned legislation, but is it any wonder we have trouble in a nation where our representatives are more concerned with how much they make than how their people are treated? Thomas Jefferson spent most of his life working in our government for the people. He also died penniless, destitute, and in so much debt that his family had to resort to selling off all his property just to manage. Politicians know that self-sacrifice doesn't pay.
Also, I might add that with our government in the shape it is now, it has become common for a vocal minority to ramrod the rights of the majority. You may think I'm crazy, feel free, but I foresee a future in which we are once again controlled by a small group of people, who use existing legislation and the current state of affairs in this country to steer the ship of state wherever they wish it to go. Considering its current success, the NAACP could very well become that organization. Now, I'm not racist, but I am pretty cynical. However, if anyone has ever read "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" and then exchanged the word USA for Roman Empire, you would be shocked at the similarities. In my opinion, all this talk about the government is irrelevant, because, if history DOES repeat itself, our country will collapse within 50 years, maybe a little more. Before I die, I will probably see the country I love be destroyed from within. Even worse, with the world economy as dependant as it is on American markets and American money, we will probably see an economic depression of astronomic proportions. So hold on to your butts people, this country is goin for one wild ride.

First off, I have seen the term "WASPs" before. So I was slightly humored to find you saying that as it was a funny thing, where to me, it is a common thing.


I actually talked to someone in Europe about this last night. (for background information, I am an American visiting Europe. I will be going back in 4 day and have been here for 24 days). I can say that you are indeed incorrect in saying this, assuming my German friend is correct. He said that 50-60% of the legislation passed by the German parliament has to be passed because it is forced upon them by the EU. He also said that this is something that a lot of Europeans do not know. Frankly, I believe him over you and your book.


But here is where you are flawed, majorly. If we return to the old ways that would make it easier for elitists to "hijack" these branches, as you said that it was very unlikely. But if we return to the old ways it will become more and more likely, as time goes on under these old ways of authority.
First off, let me make this point clear: I'm not suggesting any end to any republic. But a pure democracy, as America is in danger of slipping into, is little more than legitamized anarchy. What we need are not hand-picked representatives, or less suffrage, or any crap like that. We need more delegation, or rather, let politicians do their job.
The rule of the masses, which has happened since we've opened every singal committee hearing to the public, has left an indifferant public, well, indifferant still. The new driving force in politics is, as has been pointed out, lobbyists. They are hounding politicians to death, each trying to have their own way. There's nothing wrong with this, except the fact that every single bill, every single appointee, even rules for Congress, are put under an intense microscope, and lobbyists use their wealth, power, and persuasion to make any action favor them before it can even be concieved. These lobbyists have, in a sense, replaced the old elite with the new, and while it has many advantages over the old system, politicians now swear their loyalty to the corporate lobby, or the union lobby, or whatever it is.
This leaves me convinced that Washington needs to have a period of renewal. There is no escaping an elite, because, like it or not, it is impossible to even get a thousand people to make all their own decisions required to run any state. Imagine 300 million people running an advanced nation like the US. We'd be wiped from the face of the earth. But I can gurantee you that if we revert to a more insulated government, the WASPs won't come back, nor anyone as stuffy as they were. After all, they still need to be elected.
To satisfy both you and me, I propose a government that's not too elitist, but can insulate itself from outside pressures. Everything from tax policy, to healthcare, to education, must have a committee made of people appointed by the president, and approved by Congress. They propose legislation that Congress can accept or reject, but not amend. These sessions would, of course, be public, but not in the committees. Also, appoint them for terms longer than the president's, like the director of the CIA. That way, these committees wouldn't be so disrupted by a sudden change of politics. I hope this strenuosly long post, btw, helped clear my position a bit.

Consider these definitions of democracy:

Samuel Adams: "Democracy never lasts long It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself." He insisted, "There was never a democracy that ‘did not commit suicide.’"

Alexander Hamilton: "It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity." Earlier, at the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton said: "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."

James Madison: "... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they are violent in their deaths."

Fisher Ames: "a government by the passions of the multitude, or, no less correctly, according to the vices and ambitions of their leaders." On another occasion, he called democracy one of "the intermediate stages towards … tyranny." He also said: "Democracy, in its best state, is but the politics of Bedlam; while kept chained, its thoughts are frantic, but when it breaks loose, it kills the keeper, fires the building, and perishes." And in his essay The Mire of Democracy, he wrote that the Founders: "intended our government should be a republic, which differs more widely from a democracy than a democracy from a despotism."

First off, the U.S. is a Representitive Democracy or a Republic. Delegation of authority is the primarly function of a Republic, and the only distinction between it and true or pure Democracy. To say that the government is not a delegation is to ignore its very nature. Think about the upcoming election, what is it, if not the nation coming together and deciding to whom to delegate authority?

Secondly, there is great power in "the masses." Far greater than people have thought in the past. Many people believe that a few well informed experts are better capable of making a proper and correct decision (assuming there is a "right" answer to a given question or problem), but recent research has shown that in nearly every situation groups are better able to correctly solve problems. A recent book, The Wisdom of Crowds by James Suroweiki details a number of examples of this principle and asserts that by turning over more authority to large, diverse, independent crowds better decisions can be made. Suroweiki goes as far as saying that large corporations should turn over decision making power to shareholders or employees more often than leaving it in the hands of a select few. Because the goals of government are somewhat abstract and no "right" answer can be clearly discerned the issue is complicated, but the principle can still be applied. If nothing else allowing large groups to determine governmental actions shows what that particular group feels to be the "right" solution to a given problem. There are actually more issues to be resolved, such as the lack of independence in many voters and the existence of trend leaders. Essentially the same problems and difference that exist between modern Capitalism and ideal Capitalism.

I guess that's all for now, more to come I'm sure.

Also, hello Nicollo, how goes it?
How old is he? Intellectuals of a generation ago seemed giddy at the prospect of democracy, and rightfully so. It was assumed that, as in Europe and America, democracy meant liberty. That was not the case in the sixties, when elections were held in Africa. The winners became strongmen, promising the people the moon. When they got into office, not only didn't they deliver, but they usurped authority from the rest of the government, and became brutal dictators. A similar trend has recently occured in Soviet Central Asia.
After WWII in East Asia, however, strongmen just waltzed in and took power. They tried modernizing their economy, and in the past two decades, amazing strides toward democracy have been taken. I'm not as silly to believe that dictators are naturally good. Most dictators are extremely stupid and self-serving. However, it goes to show that sometimes, a small group of people can make more complicated decisions than millions working together.

The U.S. War Department training manual No. 2000-25, published on November 30, 1928, defined democracy as:

A government of the masses.

Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of 'direct' expression.

Results in mobocracy.

Attitude toward property is communistic - negating property rights.

Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation

or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.

Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."

It went on to state: "Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They 'made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic.' "

The reason we have a Republic is specifically so that the majority cannot railroad the rights of the minority. That is stated in the Federalist Papers as well. However, I agree that our politicians today are blinded by their own power, coupled with the swarms of lobbyists and a few other things as well. It might be interesting for some of you to know that the very first admendment that was proposed to the constitution (by the Congressmen of course) dealt with how much a senator/representative would be paid. The bill of rights was only a secondary concern to them. Granted, the bill of rights passed before the aforementioned legislation, but is it any wonder we have trouble in a nation where our representatives are more concerned with how much they make than how their people are treated? Thomas Jefferson spent most of his life working in our government for the people. He also died penniless, destitute, and in so much debt that his family had to resort to selling off all his property just to manage. Politicians know that self-sacrifice doesn't pay.
Also, I might add that with our government in the shape it is now, it has become common for a vocal minority to ramrod the rights of the majority. You may think I'm crazy, feel free, but I foresee a future in which we are once again controlled by a small group of people, who use existing legislation and the current state of affairs in this country to steer the ship of state wherever they wish it to go. Considering its current success, the NAACP could very well become that organization. Now, I'm not racist, but I am pretty cynical. However, if anyone has ever read "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" and then exchanged the word USA for Roman Empire, you would be shocked at the similarities. In my opinion, all this talk about the government is irrelevant, because, if history DOES repeat itself, our country will collapse within 50 years, maybe a little more. Before I die, I will probably see the country I love be destroyed from within. Even worse, with the world economy as dependant as it is on American markets and American money, we will probably see an economic depression of astronomic proportions. So hold on to your butts people, this country is goin for one wild ride.
True. If our politics become even more populist, we'll find ourselves in the same position as the Weimar Republic. Hitler used that Republic to his advantage, and that subsequently was the foundation of Nazi Germany.

More quotes:

John Marshall: "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."

James Russell Lowell: "Democracy gives every man the right to be his own oppressor."

Ralph Waldo Emerson: "Democracy becomes a government of bullies tempered by editors."

Thomas Babington Macauly: "I have long been convinced, that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty or civilization, or both."

Lord Acton: "The one prevailing evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections."


The Duke of Northumberland: "The adoption of Democracy as a form of Government by all European nations is fatal to good Government, to liberty, to law and order, to respect for authority, and to religion, and must eventually produce a state of chaos from which a new world tyranny will arise."

Alexander Fraser Tytler: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

G.K. Chesterton: "You can never have a revolution in order to establish a democracy. You must have a democracy in order to have a revolution."

The problem of members of the intelligence community thinking alike and therefor falling victim to the same mistakes is an issue of diversity. Because so many intelligence analysts are trained in the same way and share information the diversity of the overall group of analysts is very low. Each analyst is essentially just a copy of every other analyst with minor differences, whereas ideally they would all be very different from each other.

I'm sad to admit that I have not yet had the chance to actually read through the whole book because my reading list is a few tens of thousands of pages right now, but from what I got from seeing the author on CSpan a large, diverse, and independent group could be formed to address the problem.

Well, I've always been of the assumption that most groups formed with the specific purpose of addressing a problem will more likely be successful than a large body designed to watch and address all problems everywhere. That, I think was the problem here; the Iraq intel report seems to indicate that Iraq was on the "back burner" in the CIA until suddenly they were called upon to be experts on it. I truly suspect the CIA overall thought Iraq was over and done with until the pre-war run up on intel.

That's why the administration turned to that party of exiles with their exceedingly dubious intel, because they were specialists in the subject. The CIA was pretty lousy on Iraq, so they put their faith in these exiles; we see here that the result is pretty poor. Their intel was shoddy, their leadership ineffective at times, counterproductive on others.

I guess the CIA shrugged and allowed such groupthink to pervade the minds of its analysts; the exiles were providing data on Iraq, they didn't have anything solid of their own, why not just let the "experts" have their way? Pity it turned out the way it did.

Good to hear you're keeping busy, anything else interesting in your reading list?

The discussion remains me of the teachings of the greece philosopher Platon.
He made important teachings about forms of government.
He compared democracy (the rule of all people), aristocracy (the rule of a few), monarchy (the rule of one) with each other.
All those forms have positive sides but are in danger to turn to a very negative extreme.
For democracy this extreme is anarchy (chaos, disorder), for aristocracy it is oligarchy (the rule of a corrupt elite who only thinks of itself and plunders the country) and for monarchy it is tyranny (the dictatorship of one person who tyrannises the rest).
Because of this negative sides Platon suggested a form of government which uses the positive sides of all those three forms of government to outweigh the negative extremes. So he suggested a combination of democracy, aristocracy and monarchy to create a balance of power to avoid that any of the negative extremes do occur.
The country of today which is closest to his ideal is Britain. One monarch, symbolizing the unity of the country, keeping it and representing it, a house of lord (with aristocratic representatives) and a House of Commons (which belong to the political class and are therefore part of the elite (aristocracy doesn´t need to be understood as a thing of birth - Platon defines it as the rule of the few. That can be a few people who are especially qualified - in that sense any representative democracy has this elite element or aristocratic element in it) for an elected "aristocracy".
The election itself and the referendums (for example about the EU constituition) represent the democratic element in it.

The western countries without a monarchic head of state lack the monarchic part of Platons theory. But otherwise they have in a way a combination of a democratic and aristocratic (elitist) form of government. No nation has a pure democracy (direct democracy). Even Switzerland which has a lot of referendums is a representative democracy (Republic).

Good to hear you're keeping busy, anything else interesting in your reading list?

Because I'm not feeling up to answering any serious or probing questions just now I'll answer the more light-hearted part of the post.

I'm trying to brush up on my "modern classics." I'm reading Salmon Rushdie and William S. Burroughs right now as well as some trash reading like Battle Royale which is one of the strangest books ever, being about a class of 9th graders forced to fight each other to the death. Also I'm 100 or so pages into Don Quixote and having trouble coming back around to it, even though it's a really easy read despite being called "the final product of the human mind" by Dostoyevski and being awarded the "best book ever" prize by the Nobel institute. I've got some Robert Anton Wilson non-fiction books on psychology which are pretty interesting and a book I bought because I liked another book I read by the same author, though I couldn't get as into this new one. I've got another book that sort of goes with The Wisdom of Crowds called The Tipping Point which I bought because Amazon recommended it when I was buying The Wisdom of Crowds and it sounded interesting. And on top of all those books that I am actively reading in one way or another I've got a big stack of other books that I haven't touched recently as well as some books I'd like to read again (Schrodinger's Cat by Robert Anton Wilson, my person choice for "best book ever").

Because I'm not feeling up to answering any serious or probing questions just now I'll answer the more light-hearted part of the post.

I'm feeling like a bit of a goofball myself lately. My posts range from the serious policy discussions I come here for to my post in "is zero a number" which is anything but. A healthy mix.

A good list. I remember seeing clips from the japanese movie based on "battle royale" which was absofreakinlutely hilarious. I'm reading something similar, in more a "lord of the flies" vien though, "The buttlerfly revolution"; looks interesting, haven't gotten into the meat of it yet though.

I've moved further into my reading of "The story of the Stone/Dream of the Red Chamber" as well; I'd be done but the freakin' library said there was a hold on the 5th volume of the book. Waiting for its eventual return, I decided to go back to reading "The Journey West" which is also a massive, multi-volume masterpiece. (When I finish both those two, I'll have read 4 of the 5 "Great 120 chapter Novels" of china)....Now, if I can just find the 5th.

After a friend read it and wanted to compare notes with me, I realized I read "A book of five Rings" really early on in my acedmic career, and thus grasped very little of its inner meanings. Thus I've been revising quite heavily between it and Art of War. This has diverted me from another project, Machievelli's The art of War, which I had been meaning to finish for quite some time now. Dang thing is bone dry though, hard to read just because a translator got lazy.

When I get some spare time, which I doubt will be soon. I've been meaning to read some George Bernard Shaw, I've long admired what I've seen from him, but haven't had the opportunity till now to buy some of his work.

The discussion remains me of the teachings of the greece philosopher Platon.
He made important teachings about forms of government.
He compared democracy (the rule of all people), aristocracy (the rule of a few), monarchy (the rule of one) with each other.
All those forms have positive sides but are in danger to turn to a very negative extreme.
For democracy this extreme is anarchy (chaos, disorder), for aristocracy it is oligarchy (the rule of a corrupt elite who only thinks of itself and plunders the country) and for monarchy it is tyranny (the dictatorship of one person who tyrannises the rest).
Because of this negative sides Platon suggested a form of government which uses the positive sides of all those three forms of government to outweigh the negative extremes. So he suggested a combination of democracy, aristocracy and monarchy to create a balance of power to avoid that any of the negative extremes do occur.
The country of today which is closest to his ideal is Britain. One monarch, symbolizing the unity of the country, keeping it and representing it, a house of lord (with aristocratic representatives) and a House of Commons (which belong to the political class and are therefore part of the elite (aristocracy doesn´t need to be understood as a thing of birth - Platon defines it as the rule of the few. That can be a few people who are especially qualified - in that sense any representative democracy has this elite element or aristocratic element in it) for an elected "aristocracy".
The election itself and the referendums (for example about the EU constituition) represent the democratic element in it.

The western countries without a monarchic head of state lack the monarchic part of Platons theory. But otherwise they have in a way a combination of a democratic and aristocratic (elitist) form of government. No nation has a pure democracy (direct democracy). Even Switzerland which has a lot of referendums is a representative democracy (Republic).
I see the presidents of many countries being like a monarch figure. They are often regarded in many nations as the representitive of the entire population, and in any country, they have the most power of any individual (even though it isn't absolute).
And even though Switzerland, btw, is regarded as the most democratic nation, there is an entity that is far more democratic, but it is a state. That is California. It's politics are currently a mess. 80% of the budget isn't controled by the government, but rather by the people directly. They vote through a series of referenda that increase social spending while lowering taxes. Some, like Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger, have used the referenda system to their advantage, but otherwise, it's a total mess. The education system is failing, immigration control from the state is dysfunctional, and the legislature can rarely agree on how to use what little they have. My hope is that, like New York State, they'll hold a constitutional convention in the future, and get rid of this foolishness. But many say that Californian democracy is the way of the future, and if it is, we're all in deep doodoo.
BTW, isn't the Greek philosopher Plato?

BTW, isn't the Greek philosopher Plato?

depends on what language youre speaking, eh?

BTW, isn't the Greek philosopher Plato?
English isn´t my native tongue. So I don´t know. In my language it is Platon.




I see the presidents of many countries being like a monarch figure. They are often regarded in many nations as the representitive of the entire population, and in any country, they have the most power of any individual (even though it isn't absolute).
And even though Switzerland, btw, is regarded as the most democratic nation, there is an entity that is far more democratic, but it is a state. That is California. It's politics are currently a mess. 80% of the budget isn't controled by the government, but rather by the people directly. They vote through a series of referenda that increase social spending while lowering taxes. Some, like Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger, have used the referenda system to their advantage, but otherwise, it's a total mess. The education system is failing, immigration control from the state is dysfunctional, and the legislature can rarely agree on how to use what little they have. My hope is that, like New York State, they'll hold a constitutional convention in the future, and get rid of this foolishness. But many say that Californian democracy is the way of the future, and if it is, we're all in deep doodoo.


That´s interesting. I´m not so aware about the politics within the US states. I think Switzerland has some regulations for a referendum. If the proposal costs money they need to say where to get it from. If Californian laws don´t require at least that they must be called really stupid. It is clear: if you ask people everywhere in the world they want low taxes and high social security provided by the state. You can´t have it both ways. That´s the reality.
By the way: Border controll is a state issue in the US????? That is really a thing for the central government in my view. I´m very much for a federal state (I know: the word is used differently in the US. In Europe it means to be in favour of strong local and state goverments and to have everything decided on the national level). After all it is the border of the US and Mexico. California is not an independent state. It is part of the US.

Regarding your argument that presidents can be seen or even are seen as a monarchic figure, you are right.
But I actually like a monarch on this position. For many nations it represents a long tradition of national unity. In my country however the royals have failed and therefore were kicked out in 1918. I´m not in favour of calling them back. But the position of president today is like that one of a representative monarch. Our president has to stand above the parties and should not meddle around in every day politics.

That`s of course different from the president in the US, where he is the head of government and has to meddle around in every day politics. You have actually a system of a presidental democracy and not a system of a so-called parlamentarian democracy (like in Britain, Germany, e.g.)
France has actually a semi-presidential system. It lays in between a parlamentarian democracy and a presidential democracy.

The name republic by the way is commonly used for countries with an elected head of state. That is all it says actually.
Britain isn´t a republic for that reason.
Regarding our form of representative democracy Churchill made a very wise comment: "Democracy is the worst form of government, however we don´t know any better one."

Want to know, in a nutshell, why democracy is a horrible idea?

Simple. Gang rape.

I'm serious. Gang rape is a perfect example of why democracy is bad. The will of the majority prevails, whether it is right or wrong.

Proper government is limited not by whatever side of the bed 51% of the population gets up on in the morning, but by a prior set of restrictions from which no deviation is allowed--enforced by a well-armed, ever-vigilant population (this is why the US has degenerated from a republic into a democracy over the past 130 years). And, to constitute a PROPER government, not any old set of restrictions will suffice--those restrictions themselves must be proper. But that's for another thread.

English isn´t my native tongue. So I don´t know. In my language it is Platon.




That´s interesting. I´m not so aware about the politics within the US states. I think Switzerland has some regulations for a referendum. If the proposal costs money they need to say where to get it from. If Californian laws don´t require at least that they must be called really stupid. It is clear: if you ask people everywhere in the world they want low taxes and high social security provided by the state. You can´t have it both ways. That´s the reality.
By the way: Border controll is a state issue in the US????? That is really a thing for the central government in my view. I´m very much for a federal state (I know: the word is used differently in the US. In Europe it means to be in favour of strong local and state goverments and to have everything decided on the national level). After all it is the border of the US and Mexico. California is not an independent state. It is part of the US.

Regarding your argument that presidents can be seen or even are seen as a monarchic figure, you are right.
But I actually like a monarch on this position. For many nations it represents a long tradition of national unity. In my country however the royals have failed and therefore were kicked out in 1918. I´m not in favour of calling them back. But the position of president today is like that one of a representative monarch. Our president has to stand above the parties and should not meddle around in every day politics.

That`s of course different from the president in the US, where he is the head of government and has to meddle around in every day politics. You have actually a system of a presidental democracy and not a system of a so-called parlamentarian democracy (like in Britain, Germany, e.g.)
France has actually a semi-presidential system. It lays in between a parlamentarian democracy and a presidential democracy.

The name republic by the way is commonly used for countries with an elected head of state. That is all it says actually.
Britain isn´t a republic for that reason.
Regarding our form of representative democracy Churchill made a very wise comment: "Democracy is the worst form of government, however we don´t know any better one."
I pretty much agree with what you've said, but let me clarify myself on border control. It is a federal issue, mostly. However, the government can't do that much once an illegal is well in the US. That's because there's little to no presence of any federal law enforcement agent in most areas. That's when it becomes the responsibility of local police. However, many Californian law enforcement agencies don't deport known aliens, even if they are
arrested for another crime. It reflects the political sentiment in Sacremento, about 400 miles from the border.

democracy and anarchy are probably the two easiest systems to pervert and turn into a dictatorship... nothing works unless it's moderated...