NationStates Jolt Archive

Considering that 'democracy' as a concept is used so often in political and academic circles, I thought I would put forward three simple questions for debate. It has been praying on my mind a fair bit and I thought it might be nice to rant a while for my first posting on general.

Does democracy exist?

If not, is it potentially possible?

If it is, is it desirable?

I will start with my argument.

Does democracy exist? Is it possible?

I would argue no. The best way to answer this would be to put forward my definition of democracy which is the "rule of the people".

But the people do not rule.

People are bound eternally through connections to their mortal corporeality, other people or organisations and undoubtedly the environment they live in.

Aside from the constraints upon decision is the illusion that the world is predominantly democratic.

The people generally make the mistake of claiming that democracy is the right to vote or the right to express their political views; this is how they see the political process in their own countries; the system of "Representative Democracy"

"Representative democracy" is however not democracy, it is a contradiction. In my view, a country can either be democratic or it can be representative. The people can rule themselves, so far as they can within the limit of their existence or they can elect others to rule on their behalf.

So in a sense, democracy is the people ruling themselves. But let us not confuse this with the system of direct democracy and referendum. These systems of majority rule are not democracy either but in truth the rule of the 51 percent over the 49 percent. It is not democracy because one side is disenfranchised and does not rule while another side has all the power.

So what is democracy in the finality? What is the "rule of the people"? In all finality, in a seemingly contradictory sense, the "rule of the people" is the "rule of the individual". Democracy must have complete consensus so that no group nor individual may be disenfranchised; so that all the people are rulers. But in a group larger than one, there will always be dissent. There will always be the rule of the stronger over the weaker. In a sense, democracy is nothing more than anarchy with people ruling themselves.

Since it is established that it does not exist currently, could it exist in the future? Again I must answer no.

Humans despite their pathetic appeals that they trully desire freedom, nonetheless crave order and authority to varying extents. The vast majority of people do not wish to take full responsibility for their lives and instead seek to follow the path of another. It is natural in human nature for people to organise into hierarchical leadership systems with one above in charge and those below in support.

Even if all of society were to break down into anarchy; it would not be true. Their would still be authority and subservience, winners and losers, enfranchised and disenfranchised even if the unit of society were the simple family unit in place of the nation or country.

In all, hierarchy is natural rather than freedom. Anarchy and therefore democracy is an impossibility due our human nature.

Is it desirable?

And once again, I must answer no.

Aside from the point that democracy means anarchy, I would argue that democracy was a negative for another reason.

Many may misinterpret my views towards my freedoms as if I did not care if I lost them or if I believed that humanity should have absolutely no control over some their fate.

Do not get me wrong, I love that I have the ability to express my opinions, as strange as they may be to some. I love that we have a free press and that I can vote in elections. That I can choose my career and the to some extent the path I choose in life. I would never seek to take away these freedoms.

Instead I prefer to also take note that such things are often fleeting (you cannot eat a ballot slip nor sleep under a constitution) and that I am as much constrained by my life as I am a free individual within it, but I digress.

Should the people rule themselves? No. They should not. People do not know what they want or need, at least in government. The vast majority are perhaps ignorant of the true reality of life or of the key issues of the day. At least in the manner in which to make a trully informed decision.

This is why I favour a representative form of government. The people have a say in who gets into power and if it is unconvincing that the representation is representative of the people, then the people can vote them out. More often than not, those elected to power have a keen interest in the issues and effectively know how the country must be run. Do you, who are probably not a part of the deeper political process, know how the system works? In practice, at least?

In a sense, the larger business of government must be conducted by government and leadership and not by the ignorant and uninterested people. The people exist to counterbalance the state; to ensure that the state remains in line and that the government that controls the state remains representative.

People should not rule themselves, but they should maintain a certain level of control over those who do rule instead.

Real democracy is not only impossible. It must also be opposed.

No one's going to read this. It's too long.

"Democracy is the worst system of government except for all the others that have been tried."
Winston Churchhill

No one's going to read this. It's too long.

"Democracy is the worst system of government except for all the others that have been tried."
Winston Churchhill

Perhaps so. But I can hope.:D

Representative Democracy's fine as long as people realise that it's a means to an end, not an end in itself.

If you must, then don't read my views.

Instead answer my questions and I may counter them thus explaining myself more concisely.

Dont thinkt it is deireable, either.

a representative democracy IS a democracy..
you're being too static in the definition of democracy that's written in the dictionary. of course people have to give up certain freedoms and some power, but that's the cost of living in a civilized, efficient world, and people CHOOSE to live in such a society.
democracy is desirable..the power really does ultimately lie in the people (notice the definition says "people," not individual "persons"). you have rights not because whoever's in the white house (or wherever you live) happens to be a nice guy, but because the people choose to keep those rights. in other words, george w. bush can't just take over america and turn the country into a dictatorship if he so desires. he's limited in his power to do that because the people choose their representatives in multiple branches of the government (get two things from what i just said..one, bush can't simply fill out the congress with those that would support his taking over the country, and two, that there are separate branches of the government that check the powers on the other branches and prevents absolute rule, even in the governing bodies).
what you did to the definition of democracy, if it were done to monarchy, you would basically have absolute monarchy, except the ruler would be able to do whatever he wanted. if it were done to oligarchy, that would be pretty disastrous as well..however, it couldn't exist in an oligarchy because of the reason you pointed out for democracy: there would be dissent and the members of the government will not have "rule." but they do..they just can't do whatever they want.
so YES democracy exists, and YES, it is possible (okay, we could argue that it were not, but then which form of government would be possible under all the unyielding restrictions you put upon it?)..and ultimately, it is desirable.

Does democracy exist? Is it possible?
Direct democracy is only workable for small nations or city-states. Having a representative democracy, especially a constitutional one, always incorporates the potential for a "voter revolt," such as has happened several times in American history. There are sometimes situations where the majority of the people decide to "throw the bums out," for ignoring the majority opinion on one or a constellation of issues.

Politicans ignore the influence of an aroused citizenry at their peril.

a representative democracy IS a democracy..
you're being too static in the definition of democracy that's written in the dictionary. of course people have to give up certain freedoms and some power, but that's the cost of living in a civilized, efficient world, and people CHOOSE to live in such a society.
democracy is desirable..the power really does ultimately lie in the people (notice the definition says "people," not individual "persons"). you have rights not because whoever's in the white house (or wherever you live) happens to be a nice guy, but because the people choose to keep those rights. in other words, george w. bush can't just take over america and turn the country into a dictatorship if he so desires. he's limited in his power to do that because the people choose their representatives in multiple branches of the government (get two things from what i just said..one, bush can't simply fill out the congress with those that would support his taking over the country, and two, that there are separate branches of the government that check the powers on the other branches and prevents absolute rule, even in the governing bodies).
what you did to the definition of democracy, if it were done to monarchy, you would basically have absolute monarchy, except the ruler would be able to do whatever he wanted. if it were done to oligarchy, that would be pretty disastrous as well..however, it couldn't exist in an oligarchy because of the reason you pointed out for democracy: there would be dissent and the members of the government will not have "rule." but they do..they just can't do whatever they want.
so YES democracy exists, and YES, it is possible (okay, we could argue that it were not, but then which form of government would be possible under all the unyielding restrictions you put upon it?)..and ultimately, it is desirable.

But the collective institution you just described is a Republic. Not a democracy.
And a republic is desirable for at least the majority of people are kept happy and that the rulers rule on the behalf of the people. I was advocating such a system. I did not in anyway describe the winners and losers, the enfranchised and disenfranchised, the powerful and the powerless, the leadership and the support as a negative; only that it was undemocratic.

However, the control of the government by the people is limited. The people cannot decide when an election is called so as to throw out the leadership. This is a constitutional matter. Do the people rule here? I wager there were many a time in the US when the majority would have liked to through out the leadership when they wanted to and the same is certainly true over here in Britain.

And a separation of powers is not democracy, only the dilution of government power. It affords no extra control to people, it only protects the people from the excess of government and I too advocate this.

Read John Locke, and Thomas Paine then democracy will make sense or rather democracy in the form of a republic

Stupid, smart, or whatever, adult humans have the right to rule themselves, and that right should not be violated. If we are going to have restrictions on individual freedom - laws - their only legitimate justification can be the collective freedom of the society to prohibit destructive behaviors.

Direct democracy, being the most democratic form of democracy, is the best form. If, through its mechanisms, the people themselves choose to have a parliament of delegates to deal with large-scale issues more efficiently and effectively than small, self-managed communes can, and if such a parliament can always be eliminated if the people choose, then that parliament also is legitimate.

No other form of governance is justified.

Yeah, true democracy is sort of stupid. It is the oligarchical aspects to our current system that allow it to work. Republics work and republics work relatively well. I actually sort of enjoyed reading this and found it sort of interesting. Direct democracy fails because people are too stupid to effectively choose their leaders or policy.

By the way, there are no human rights, those were a concept that was decided upon by some philosophers back in the enlightenment. We cannot prove that humans are necessarily deserving or undeserving of rights and therefore due to a lack of knowledge we should govern life in the manner that ends up serving the goals of individuals and of the nation most effectively. No government is justified and anarchy isn't justified either, they just exist and the only justification can be their effectiveness in guiding the region they control to power in the long term and in the short term.

a representative democracy IS a democracy..
you're being too static in the definition of democracy that's written in the dictionary. of course people have to give up certain freedoms and some power, but that's the cost of living in a civilized, efficient world, and people CHOOSE to live in such a society.
democracy is desirable..the power really does ultimately lie in the people (notice the definition says "people," not individual "persons"). you have rights not because whoever's in the white house (or wherever you live) happens to be a nice guy, but because the people choose to keep those rights. in other words, george w. bush can't just take over america and turn the country into a dictatorship if he so desires. he's limited in his power to do that because the people choose their representatives in multiple branches of the government (get two things from what i just said..one, bush can't simply fill out the congress with those that would support his taking over the country, and two, that there are separate branches of the government that check the powers on the other branches and prevents absolute rule, even in the governing bodies).
what you did to the definition of democracy, if it were done to monarchy, you would basically have absolute monarchy, except the ruler would be able to do whatever he wanted. if it were done to oligarchy, that would be pretty disastrous as well..however, it couldn't exist in an oligarchy because of the reason you pointed out for democracy: there would be dissent and the members of the government will not have "rule." but they do..they just can't do whatever they want.
so YES democracy exists, and YES, it is possible (okay, we could argue that it were not, but then which form of government would be possible under all the unyielding restrictions you put upon it?)..and ultimately, it is desirable.

elections are rigged. electronic voting systems yeild results significantly different from those of exit polls, and all descrepency's in the last election favored bush; furthermore in a few districts, bush votes outnumbed registered voters. And some committe appointed to study the last election said the electrionic voting systems did not meet FEC requirement, as they were too easy to rig and left no paper trail.

and, no one in congress or courts wants to do shit about it.... uhm... would now be a good time to shift the topic to gun control?



as for democracy, I don't like democracy, all it is the majorty ruling over the individual, just as other goverment forms are the state ruling over the individual.

Yeah, true democracy is sort of stupid. It is the oligarchical aspects to our current system that allow it to work.

If anything, the "oligarchical aspects of our current current system" are the ones that cause problems.

Direct democracy fails because people are too stupid to effectively choose their leaders or policy.

So why are some people, arbitrarily chosen, somehow so much better at effectively choosing policy?

By the way, there are no human rights, those were a concept that was decided upon by some philosophers back in the enlightenment. We cannot prove that humans are necessarily deserving or undeserving of rights and therefore due to a lack of knowledge we should govern life in the manner that ends up serving the goals of individuals and of the nation most effectively.

It is true that we cannot prove that human rights exist. I hold them to exist on faith.

What particular "goals" should individuals and the nation have? How do you ensure that those goals are met by the government you envision?

direct democracy is the only form that I would support, but it is simply too hard to enforce in such a large society

This is why more people need to be Communist. :)

I agree with John Locke: Freedom is on a spectrum ranging from state of nature to slavery. People choose to give up certain freedoms in return for the protection and stability offered them by the government. However, I also agree with the Declaration of Independence (which, if I'm not mistaken, stole the idea from Locke) that when a government becomes too corrupt, the people have not only the right but the responsibility to change or overthrow it.

One of the problems with "pure" democracy is Tyranny of the Majority. IOW, 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what's for dinner.

as for democracy, I don't like democracy, all it is the majorty ruling over the individual, just as other goverment forms are the state ruling over the individual.
Meh, I think all systems are those with power overruling those without and I think that there is no system possible that will differ from this. Power is what makes the world go round, not love or any other force..... well, maybe physics.

ofcoarse it all comes down to power, because it all comes down to the ego/self/phyco. what an individual feels will advantage one's self or one's childern the most is what that individual will with little or no varience will gravitate towards. I feel that vast majority of people, myself included, will advantage more from cooperating in a peer-peer atmosphere then they/I advantage from working as an underling in a authority-subordinate atmosphere. I figure about 1-15% of the population of any given country/global total advantage from the current system as opposed to a mutal-aid cooperative.

If anything, the "oligarchical aspects of our current current system" are the ones that cause problems.

So why are some people, arbitrarily chosen, somehow so much better at effectively choosing policy?

It is true that we cannot prove that human rights exist. I hold them to exist on faith.

What particular "goals" should individuals and the nation have? How do you ensure that those goals are met by the government you envision?
The oligarchical aspects of our current system do cause problems of corruption and stuff but they also make sure that our system does not go off on a radical course. The oligarchical aspects keep the system stable rather than allowing it to go crazy Nazi or crazy commie or anything of that nature. Without these oligarchical tendencies our nation would probably not last as long as it has due to radical movements pushing the nation to some foolish policy that hurts everyone.

These people are not arbitrarily chosen. They are chosen because they have power. Power is what allows them to get the support of the structures that be and of the people. They are better to some extent because they are more stable, even Bush, who might be considered an extremist, did not lead us on some Jew killing frenzy or anything stupid and for the most part things he has not really affected the life of the average American very much. Fringe groups have more power in unrestrained democracy and that is why democracy is dangerous, it can become mobocracy more easily.

Bah, I don't take any faith in human rights, only in that it is typically better for a system to allow people people some freedom and use rewards to get them to do something like is used in the capitalistic system. This is not some moral imperative as much as it is a belief in that people do not work as well when coerced as they do when they see the carrot.

The goal for the nation is power to assure that it and its citizens can get the best. The assurance for this goal is simple, power benefits everyone. I have yet to hear of any person besides a foolish idealist who would reject power. I have rarely ever hear of any person that does not want a bit more power (money = power and the majority of people want money that is why they play the lotto).

a representative democracy IS a democracy..
you're being too static in the definition of democracy that's written in the dictionary. of course people have to give up certain freedoms and some power, but that's the cost of living in a civilized, efficient world, and people CHOOSE to live in such a society.
democracy is desirable..the power really does ultimately lie in the people (notice the definition says "people," not individual "persons"). you have rights not because whoever's in the white house (or wherever you live) happens to be a nice guy, but because the people choose to keep those rights. in other words, george w. bush can't just take over america and turn the country into a dictatorship if he so desires. he's limited in his power to do that because the people choose their representatives in multiple branches of the government (get two things from what i just said..one, bush can't simply fill out the congress with those that would support his taking over the country, and two, that there are separate branches of the government that check the powers on the other branches and prevents absolute rule, even in the governing bodies).
what you did to the definition of democracy, if it were done to monarchy, you would basically have absolute monarchy, except the ruler would be able to do whatever he wanted. if it were done to oligarchy, that would be pretty disastrous as well..however, it couldn't exist in an oligarchy because of the reason you pointed out for democracy: there would be dissent and the members of the government will not have "rule." but they do..they just can't do whatever they want.
so YES democracy exists, and YES, it is possible (okay, we could argue that it were not, but then which form of government would be possible under all the unyielding restrictions you put upon it?)..and ultimately, it is desirable.

Firstly, paragraphing is generally considered integral to the English language.

Secondly, representative democracy is not, by its definition, democracy, since its etymology implies the rule of the people (demos for the inerudite), akin to that system employed in post- Periclean Athens. The very failure of Athens in the Peloppenesian war, due to the moronocracy established in "pure" democracy, and the accoridng demagoguery, is implicit of quite how desirable true democracy is.

Democracy is not the same thing as "consensus-rule" or anarchism.

Democracy will always be a tyranny of the masses, to some extent, whether it is a representative democracy (or republic), or direct democracy. The best defence against this tyrany, is a constitution (or equivalent).

Why is it so many people automatically assume that only a few are fit to govern? - If most people are too stupid, self-serving or whatever, to participate directly in the decision process, who then, makes sure these people aren't our rulers?

It stands to reason that if most people are unfit to rule, then primarily the unfit will rule in a representative - or direct - democracy.

ofcoarse it all comes down to power, because it all comes down to the ego/self/phyco. what an individual feels will advantage one's self or one's childern the most is what that individual will with little or no varience will gravitate towards. I feel that vast majority of people, myself included, will advantage more from cooperating in a peer-peer atmosphere then they/I advantage from working as an underling in a authority-subordinate atmosphere. I figure about 1-15% of the population of any given country/global total advantage from the current system as opposed to a mutal-aid cooperative.
You are right, people want respect, that is why they want to be treated as a peer. I never denied that people want that. The only thing is that the desire for power will usually mean that short sighted authoritarianism will hopefully be weeded out because it does not increase efficiency and the authoritarian can often be replaced by leaders who are more effective and who are more capable of getting their power and keeping it (not wasting it through draconian policies and the like).

Why is it so many people automatically assume that only a few are fit to govern? - If most people are too stupid, self-serving or whatever, to participate directly in the decision process, who then, makes sure these people aren't our rulers?

It stands to reason that if most people are unfit to rule, then primarily the unfit will rule in a representative - or direct - democracy.
Not really, the top people tend to be selected by powerful individuals and then in a representative democracy are forced to appeal to the masses. In other words, they are submitted to 2 tests. Their ability to appeal to powerful people and prove that they are fit to rule by supporting their interests and then their appeal to the people who want their own interests supported. The need for support from the people minimizes ability to corrupt, and the need for support from the powerful forces the leader towards some level of conservatism and to make policies that are seen to be to the benefit of the nation. Powerful people want good rulers that will keep the status quo, the people want charismatic rulers that will not screw them over, satisfying both of these is what keeps the system working.

True democracy cannot exist on a large scale (such as a nation states). Representative democracy is not acctualy democracy, and I oppose it. Real democracy can only work on small scales, like a city-state. Whether or not this would be good....

True democracy cannot exist on a large scale (such as a nation states). Representative democracy is not acctualy democracy, and I oppose it. Real democracy can only work on small scales, like a city-state. Whether or not this would be good....

Representative democracy should not be opposed. It should be merely called by a more accurate classification such as a republic or a representative system. In the end, I support such a system.

Representative democracy as terminology is a contradiction.

Does democracy exist? Is it possible?

I would argue no. The best way to answer this would be to put forward my definition of democracy which is the "rule of the people".

But the people do not rule.That's a bit simplistic, democracy is rule of the people over the affairs of the people. There's nothing within the concept of democracy which requires that the people have power over tornadoes.

So in a sense, democracy is the people ruling themselves. But let us not confuse this with the system of direct democracy and referendum. These systems of majority rule are not democracy either but in truth the rule of the 51 percent over the 49 percent. It is not democracy because one side is disenfranchised and does not rule while another side has all the power.On a particular issue, yes, but you don't take into account that the majority will be different on each issue, thus giving the minority a chance to become the majority when the next issue comes along.


Is it desirable?Yes.

[QUOTE=Progress Rising]Should the people rule themselves? No. They should not. People do not know what they want or need, at least in government. The vast majority are perhaps ignorant of the true reality of life or of the key issues of the day. At least in the manner in which to make a trully informed decision.

This is why I favour a representative form of government. The people have a say in who gets into power and if it is unconvincing that the representation is representative of the people, then the people can vote them out. More often than not, those elected to power have a keen interest in the issues and effectively know how the country must be run. Do you, who are probably not a part of the deeper political process, know how the system works? In practice, at least?If the people are ignorant, then they will be ignorant when it comes to decide who's more knowledgeable; it requires knowledge to know who has it. So if the people are morons who make bad decisions, then they will make bad decisions when it comes to choosing leaders.

Not really, the top people tend to be selected by powerful individuals and then in a representative democracy are forced to appeal to the masses. In other words, they are submitted to 2 tests. Their ability to appeal to powerful people and prove that they are fit to rule by supporting their interests and then their appeal to the people who want their own interests supported. The need for support from the people minimizes ability to corrupt, and the need for support from the powerful forces the leader towards some level of conservatism and to make policies that are seen to be to the benefit of the nation. Powerful people want good rulers that will keep the status quo, the people want charismatic rulers that will not screw them over, satisfying both of these is what keeps the system working.If there is an imbalance of power, then it is not democracy.

If there is an imbalance of power, then it is not democracy.
The imbalance of power is the natural state of human affairs. There is no way to keep imbalance from happening simply due to differing human propensities towards power(the intelligent and the charming acquire power with great ease in any system). Therefore because there is always going to be an imbalance of power, democracy is impossible. Representative democracy is not really democracy but a republic and that is why it works.

Democracy cannot be fully legitimized. No system of governance besides peaceful anarchy Thoreau-style, can be legitimized.

Demcracy has the wonderful benefit over other systems, in that it has varying levels of legitimacy, based on its size and scope. Think back to calculus (it has been 6-7 years since I last did any calculus, some of you may figure that out) with limits.

Democracy behaves much like a limit; I have drawn up a graph to show what I am talking about:

http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/1970/democracy8ot.png

The red line represents the legitimacy of democracy. As a democracy gets larger in size it loses legitimacy, but never loses it all, as it still controls public entities and services. As it loses size it gains legitimacy, but never becomes fully legitimate, as only complete self rule has full legitimacy.

Now that I am done pulling that out of my ass, what do you think?

The imbalance of power is the natural state of human affairs. There is no way to keep imbalance from happening simply due to differing human propensities towards power(the intelligent and the charming acquire power with great ease in any system). Therefore because there is always going to be an imbalance of power, democracy is impossible. Representative democracy is not really democracy but a republic and that is why it works.Not at all. You're confusing somebody who usually has good ideas being listened to with having power. Does your doctor have power over you when he recommends a treatment option to you?

The red line represents the legitimacy of democracy. As a democracy gets larger in size it loses legitimacy, but never loses it all, as it still controls public entities and services. As it loses size it gains legitimacy, but never becomes fully legitimate, as only complete self rule has full legitimacy.I don't have a problem with this statement in essence, but it should be pointed out that complete self-rule is impossible unless you are completely alone...anytime multiple people get together, self-rule is abridged.

Direct democracy leads to ochlocracy/mob rule. Even representative democracy is bad, because it leads to tyranny by majority, and lets the ignorant masses (most of whom are idiots) decide the fate of your nation/city/state/whatever.

alright, small democracy's tend to be more representive and have broader participation and support. the twp. to my south has higher voter turnouts for twp. issues and elections then it does for presidential elections... but even if you have many small democracy's, they still need some manner inwhich to interact with eachother.

I don't have a problem with this statement in essence, but it should be pointed out that complete self-rule is impossible unless you are completely alone...anytime multiple people get together, self-rule is abridged.

self-rule is determined by the will of the individual in question.


...the ignorant masses (most of whom are idiots)

as personifed by your unnessicary redundency in speech.

Not at all. You're confusing somebody who usually has good ideas being listened to with having power. Does your doctor have power over you when he recommends a treatment option to you?
Actually he does, my doctor has expertise(or I believe he does) so therefore I listen to him and he must have some level of charisma in order to make me want to listen to him and believe him(but the belief in his ability is enough). I would not go to my doctor if he went to clown college and was a socially retarded hunchback with a face so ugly it could shatter glass. If my doctor lacked power then he would not be so highly paid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(sociology)
In there it does mention ascribed power, expertise power, and persuasive power as forms/sources of power.

Power is a natural result of human interactions. Why does my doctor get more pay than my grocer? Why do I get scholarships when my friends don't? Why does my friend get more favors than I do? How come Warren Buffett's investments do better than mine? All of those are signs of the expressions of other people's power and these people use their power for their own advancement.

I don't have a problem with this statement in essence, but it should be pointed out that complete self-rule is impossible unless you are completely alone...anytime multiple people get together, self-rule is abridged.

I don't completely agree or completely disagree. It all depends on how you define self-rule.

Direct democracy leads to ochlocracy/mob rule. Even representative democracy is bad, because it leads to tyranny by majority, and lets the ignorant masses (most of whom are idiots) decide the fate of your nation/city/state/whatever.

It is extremely hypocritical to eliminate self-rule because of a myopic society.

Democracy is can be used to great effect when it is as localized as possible.

as personifed by your unnessicary redundency in speech.

Exactly!

It is extremely hypocritical to eliminate self-rule because of a myopic society.

Democracy is can be used to great effect when it is as localized as possible.

People are too stupid for democracy.

True democracy = bad
Representative democracy/republics = good

The difference is that true democracies allow for the individual stupid masses to have too much power while republics allow the masses to have the power to fight some of the corruption, however, the elected official still has to suck up to the powers that be to some extent. That is why the US is a representative democracy. We realized that true democracy was bad but that some level of self-governance was good.

People are too stupid for democracy.

Then people are too stupid for any government.

Then people are too stupid for any government.
People really are.... we just try to make things work anyway. :)

Direct democracy leads to ochlocracy/mob rule. Even representative democracy is bad, because it leads to tyranny by majority,Even if this is the case, it is still better than minority rule and tyranny by minority.

Actually he does, my doctor has expertise(or I believe he does) so therefore I listen to him and he must have some level of charisma in order to make me want to listen to him and believe him(but the belief in his ability is enough). True, but I said power over you. You're free to not take his advice and go to another doctor, what's he going to do to you if you don't?

self-rule is determined by the will of the individual in question.I suppose it depends on your definition of self-rule.

I don't completely agree or completely disagree. It all depends on how you define self-rule.I was viewing self-rule as the freedom to do whatever you want. When people come to live together, they have to compromise on what their behavior is; they can't do just anything they want. So I would agree with you that Thoreau-style anarchy maximizes self-rule, but that's because Thoreau lived alone on Walden Pond.

Taken from Dictionary.Com;

de·moc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
1 Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2 A political or social unit that has such a government.
3 The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4 Majority rule.
5 The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

So enough with the silly semantic games already.

The direct translation from the greek works out as 'people rule', which even in representative democracies is taking place. In democracies, society agrees to govern themselves by agreeing by a set of rules, which includes choosing some among us to govern society, and abiding by their decisions. Most modern democracies also have some form of constitution, which spells out the limits that a majority can impose upon a minority. (Such as, 2 wolf can't eat a sheep just because they outvote him.) Ultimately, the governing body gains their mandate from the electorate. Thus, the people rule.

In a monarchy, for example, the monarch may have the final say in all decisions, but it's highly likely that the monarch has advisors or a council that manages the daily needs of governance. They get their mandate, from the monarch in this case. Doesn't mean that the monarch doesn't rule.

Democracies are highly desirable. They provide a non-violent means of conflict resolution among it's citizens, and allow citizens the ability to influence the course of governance for their own benefit. Not every one is fit to govern, but everyone has a right to decide what is in their best interests, even if that means by choosing someone to do that job for you.

Switzerland comes close to being a direct democracy, and it works like clockwork. It's a nation of 7.5 million people. No reason why their government style couldn't be applied to larger nations, since it brings democracy down to the cantonal (i.e. state) level.

In regards to an earlier post; Athens didn't lose the Peloponesian war because of government style. They lost because of superior Spartan tactics, and Esprits de Corp. After all, democracies endure to this day, and the Spartan system died with the spartans. (They were afraid of no man in battle, but slept with one eye open because they were terrified of their slave class.)