NationStates Jolt Archive

It strikes me that the concept of democracy itself is fairly little debated. Most of us consider it to be a good thing, to varying degrees, but the general consensus seems to be that it's not to be debated. It appears many people assume you can't criticise aspects of democracy while still supporting it.

Anyway, I'd be very curious to hear people's thoughts on democracy, whatever they may be. If only to see whether it's possible to discuss the topic, its merits and its flaws.

It's still not perfect, in any nation.

Assuming you mean representative democracy, it's simply the most efficient system available for running a nation. All of the others have serious flaws that ultimately have doomed them to failure while democracy has survived; in the future it might be different, but right now democracy is the most efficient system we have.

Scientific innovation, economic growth, philosophical and cultural development, social welfare, and environmental protection are all better fostered and protected in democratic societies than in nonedmocratic ones.

The biggest problem with democracy can be summed up thusly:

http://sinequanon.spleenville.com/archives/images/bell%20curve.gif

Democracy, as it is used in the first world today, has a major flaw beyond the normal distribution problem.

Democracy assumes that the people will be able to choose what is best for them, the people. However, the current democratic systems do nothing whatsoever to ensure that the best option is available to be chosen. In fact it works against this, by conglomerating choices into pre-packaged groups. Rather like TV dinners. You can have the chicken, if you accept the corn. If you want the chicken with peas, tough, that is not an option.

This is a result of party politics, which in itself appears to be an innevitable consequence of representative democracy.

The biggest problem with democracy can be summed up thusly:
http://sinequanon.spleenville.com/archives/images/bell%20curve.gif

Or this:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/state_energy_program/update/images/petro_consum_sector.jpg

65% of it...not in plastics, power, shipping or agriculture...all of it burned in goddamn cars. But then again, that's all part of "adapt or die", so perhaps democracy will save those who adapt and destroy those who don't...it's a two headed coin.

I may sound like an authoritarian, aristocratic oligarch when I say this, but I'm starting to lean towards a test for voting rights. Idiots who have spent no time in their lives trying to understand what is going on in their communities, their countries and the world should get to vote, why?

And, yes, I understand the danger in such a system which is why I am not ready to say I completely support it, but the last six years has taught me the danger of allowing stupid people to vote and run for office and I'm not sure which is the greater danger.

Or this:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/state_energy_program/update/images/petro_consum_sector.jpg

65% of it...not in plastics, power, shipping or agriculture...all of it burned in goddamn cars. But then again, that's all part of "adapt or die", so perhaps democracy will save those who adapt and destroy those who don't...it's a two headed coin.
My curve actually wasn't an appeal to Peak Oil. It was a comment on the fact that most people are not geniouses and most people are not stupid. Most people are mediocre. That means we tend to get mediocre solutions to even the most daunting problems and that we tend to get mediocre people to represent us in a representative democracy.

I'd like a Confucian civil service type system.

Democracy is a useful tool for keeping the masses placated. It creates the fictions:
1) that the every-man has some say over the operation of the state
2) that the every-man is intelligent and responsible enough to be entrusted
with the running of the state
3) that the every-man has the potential to become a powerful figure, like
President or Prime Minister

Democracy is like lube...it makes the whole experience a little less painful, and maybe even a little enjoyable.

Democracy isn't perfect, but it's the best and most stable system we have. The only catch is that it relies on an informed, educated electorate and a free press to maximize its benefits. Modern democracy is too prone to corruption from partisan hackery and corporate interests.

I may sound like an authoritarian, aristocratic oligarch when I say this, but I'm starting to lean towards a test for voting rights. Idiots who have spent no time in their lives trying to understand what is going on in their communities, their countries and the world should get to vote, why?



TESTIFY!!! I've thought the same thing for a while. And I don't think it's elitist. We don't let people drive a frigging car without taking a test, yet they're allowed to choose my government just because they're old enough? It's ridiculous!

My curve actually wasn't an appeal to Peak Oil. It was a comment on the fact that most people are not geniouses and most people are not stupid. Most people are mediocre. That means we tend to get mediocre solutions to even the most daunting problems and that we tend to get mediocre people to represent us in a representative democracy.

Oops. :eek:

Democracy is the second most effective safeguard protecting liberty. The most effective is prosperity, but not everyone can have that - so democracy it is.

It is our sacred duty to spread democracy to the third-world heathens of the middle east. Thank God we have our noble and responsible Republican President to be our champion in this endeavor. Meanwhile, you can help here at home by voting Republican, driving your SUV everywhere, and badmouthing lib-ruhl hippie scum. Jesus loves me! :)

As so often in my life, I look to Churchill for a pithy quote and advice:

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

Sir Winston Churchill

''Democracy is everyone having the right to have rights but not having them.''
Me

TESTIFY!!! I've thought the same thing for a while. And I don't think it's elitist. We don't let people drive a frigging car without taking a test, yet they're allowed to choose my government just because they're old enough? It's ridiculous!

Also, those perfectly capable of that responsibility are kept back because they are too young.;)

Now, the traditional headbangers:
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Also, those perfectly capable of that responsibility are kept back because they are too young.;)

Now, the traditional headbangers:
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
A gang headbang.

So no one objects to having to have corn with their chicken then.

A gang headbang.
There are children here.

So no one objects to having to have corn with their chicken then.
Actually, if you follow my train of thought, it was pretty much saying the same thing in a different way.

There are children here.
Out of respect for them, I won't make the joke that your comment invites.

Hmm well I reckon it's alright, but a benevolent dictatorship will always be better, and in my opinion, democracy should never be forced upon a country, as that's a bit hypocritical.

Let people switch up to democracy if that's what they want, it's not exactly for everyone.

All right; there are thoughts pretty much similar to mine here.

Democracy, as it is used in the first world today, has a major flaw beyond the normal distribution problem.

Democracy assumes that the people will be able to choose what is best for them, the people. However, the current democratic systems do nothing whatsoever to ensure that the best option is available to be chosen. In fact it works against this, by conglomerating choices into pre-packaged groups. Rather like TV dinners. You can have the chicken, if you accept the corn. If you want the chicken with peas, tough, that is not an option.

This is a result of party politics, which in itself appears to be an innevitable consequence of representative democracy.

Indeed. And I don't think that flaw can be addressed in a large society, except by breaking down society into autonomous communes with direct democracy, which mankind on the whole obviously isn't ready for yet...

There's also the problem, as has been pointed out, that a large proportion of voters are uneducated, ignorant and seemingly allergic to rational thinking, not to mention emotional and prejudiced. (And, I would add, selfish.) Not exactly a sound basis for a sovereign electorate.

My problem is with people who gush about how wonderful democracy is even in practice. It isn't; it's fundamentally flawed. But it's the best we've got, so we have to hold on to it.

Democracy is a wonderful idea, but for it to work properly voters should be informed and intelligent enough to make a meaningful decision. In the meantime, as Churchill said and Skinny quoted, it's the least bad political system available...

In a representative democracy, you chose politicians who say that they are the best for a system that was created on the basis that politicians work for their own self-interest and need checks-and-balances. Paradoxical, isn't it?

Let people advance up to democracy if that's what they want, it's not exactly for everyone.

How about rephrasing that to - Let the people move over to democracy if that's what they want.

The way you phrased it implied that there was something inherently better about democracy than other forms of government.

Out of respect for them, I won't make the joke that your comment invites.
Sorry. :(

Democracy is beautiful.

Democracy is beautiful.
And it has a nice ass.

And it has a nice ass.
That's why we vote Democrat, because of the party's beautiful mascot.

:cool:

In a representative democracy, you chose politicians who say that they are the best for a system that was created on the basis that politicians work for their own self-interest and need checks-and-balances. Paradoxical, isn't it?
Yes, we call that a republic. As in "and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands".

Democracy is more of an ideal. Or was. Of majority rule. In a real democracy, special interest groups wouldn't really play much part. What special interest groups actually represent a majority? PETA? The Christian Coalition? The Democratic Party today actually generally represents the lone man. The minority. Why call yourself a democrat? Just because every man has a voice doesn't mean every man is going to get heard.

Democracy is beautiful.

Would you care to develop that assertion, taking into account the points other people have made in this thread?

As has been said, the biggest flaw of democracy is idiots who vote or get voted for.

He in the UK Tony Blair got re-elected, despite defying the UN and invading Iraq, costing dozens of British Lives, despite screwing up the Health Service, despite letting imigration spiral out of control, despite allowing dangerous criminals to be released on the grounds of "human rights".

We cannot execute murdererers
We cannot simply shoot Paedophiles
We cannot punish crime in the way it should be punished
Many people fear to walk on the streets at night for fear of being jumped by "CHAVS"

And this is all down to the free and fair democractic system that we have in Britain.

I'm not saying that total authoritarianism is the right way, but the weak minded foolishness of British Democracy has made me wonder if North Korea have got a point:P

As has been said, the biggest flaw of democracy is idiots who vote or get voted for.

He in the UK Tony Blair got re-elected, despite defying the UN and invading Iraq, costing dozens of British Lives, despite screwing up the Health Service, despite letting imigration spiral out of control, despite allowing dangerous criminals to be released on the grounds of "human rights".

We cannot execute murdererers
We cannot simply shoot Paedophiles
We cannot punish crime in the way it should be punished
Many people fear to walk on the streets at night for fear of being jumped by "CHAVS"

And this is all down to the free and fair democractic system that we have in Britain.

I'm not saying that total authoritarianism is the right way, but the weak minded foolishness of British Democracy has made me wonder if North Korea have got a point:P

Do you by any chance read the Daily Mail? You sound like one of their regulars who writes in to complain about stuff.

How about rephrasing that to - Let the people move over to democracy if that's what they want.

The way you phrased it implied that there was something inherently better about democracy than other forms of government.
Good point - sorted.

Oh yeah and Tilean Free States - shame we can't shoot whiners who complain about things that their only connection to is the right-wing media's opinion, or you'd be right up there on my list.

In a representative democracy, you chose politicians who say that they are the best for a system that was created on the basis that politicians work for their own self-interest and need checks-and-balances. Paradoxical, isn't it?

Yes, we call that a republic. As in "and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands".

Democracy is more of an ideal. Or was. Of majority rule. In a real democracy, special interest groups wouldn't really play much part. What special interest groups actually represent a majority? PETA? The Christian Coalition? The Democratic Party today actually generally represents the lone man. The minority. Why call yourself a democrat? Just because every man has a voice doesn't mean every man is going to get heard.

Same goes for the Democratic Ideal, now that I think of it.

Democracy propagates the myth of equality, the rule by the mediocre over the exceptional and the value of peer pressure over individual responsibility.

It serves none save the rich and marginally charismatic, achieves nothing save stagnation and stupidity and ultimately only demonstrates the raw naivety of the human race.

Humans are sufficiently rational only to identify short term solutions and in keeping with this politicians rush to flood the democratic marketplace. An elected politician arrives in power as an amateur ruler in debt to rich sponsors/parties, his only desire to continue his misrule by plying the mob with lies of lower taxes and greater prosperity. Despite lacking knowledge, training or ability in the art of leadership he can call upon his backers to paint him in the colours of the saints and spin his wild meanderings into the illusion of competent policy. The great masses of men and women scoop it up like silage in a trough. If he fails in his rule, his fall from grace is a fall to a grand pension, expensive talk shows and lucrative book deals. If his term ends naturally, he can foist all his errors on his successors without a blink of conscience.

Much as it pains me to disagree with Churchill, I think I'll go with Plato on this one.

It serves none save the rich and marginally charismatic, achieves nothing save stagnation and stupidity and ultimately only demonstrates the raw naivety of the human race.

Oligarchial and autocratic systems are many times more corrupt than democratic ones and are much more favorable to the rich, at the expense of those below them. At least democratic societies foster technological and economic growth and have means to address corruption, something nonexistent in autocracy.

People are dumb.

I'm generally opposed to democracy.

Oligarchial and autocratic systems are many times more corrupt than democratic ones and are much more favorable to the rich, at the expense of those below them. At least democratic societies foster technological and economic growth and have means to address corruption, something nonexistent in autocracy.
Especially because they are subject to the same law of gravitation to the mean. You may have a monarch with brains,

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/images/202_george_bush_sr.jpg

but there's no guarentee his son will be.

http://www.worldpress.org/images/0701bush.jpg

*Note: This does not mean that I agree with the policies of Bush sr., just that he wasn't stupid like his son. He did, afterall, stop short of Bagdad.

Especially because they are subject to the same law of gravitation to the mean. You may have a monarch with brains,

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/images/202_george_bush_sr.jpg

but there's no guarentee his son will be.
http://www.worldpress.org/images/0701bush.jpg

True; it also doesn't help that royal families tend to produce a large number of rather unstable rulers after prolonged periods of institutionalized inbreeding...

Also, where does Jeb fit on the curve? (God forbid he win in 2008):

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/03/31/images/jebbush-300.jpg

*Note: This does not mean that I agree with the policies of Bush sr., just that he wasn't stupid like his son. He did, afterall, stop short of Bagdad.

And he didn't have that horrid Texas accent...

Oligarchial and autocratic systems are many times more corrupt than democratic ones and are much more favorable to the rich, at the expense of those below them. At least democratic societies foster technological and economic growth and have means to address corruption, something nonexistent in autocracy.


I wouldn't define an oligarchy or an autocracy as 'corrupt systems'. Corruption is turning against a system for individual self-serving ends, while a true autocratic or oligarchical system makes no bones about its 'unfairness'. The government of Tsarist Russia was without doubt riddled with corruption, but the Tsars were unapologetic about their total rule. My greatest hatred of democracy is it's capacity for hypocrisy and to hide the true nature of the system from a credulous populace.

If indeed a corrupt system exists, I would call it democracy, this fools-gold program for manipulation being at least theoretically based entirely upon the stubborn animal selfishness of the individual man or woman.

Democratic societies foster technology? Japan in the 19th century was barely a democracy to the casual eye, let alone the scholar. Yet under the impetus of it's oligarchs it surged into the first world. The same for Russia shortly before the revolution - while not yet at the level of the other grand powers, the Tsar had decreed massive programs for construction and industrialisation. The trans-siberian railway is a wonderful example of such state launched autocratic endeavours. Germany shortly after unification was certainly no democracy and yet again it leapt forward because the Kaiser and nobility required wealth to pacify the populace and weapons to defend their rule.

The most obvious counter-argument is of course that it is no longer the 19th century and such governments are no longer 'appropriate'. I would argue that that 'appropriateness' has been decided unilaterally by the only remaining super-powers after the Second World War in order to eliminate the likelihood of other states arising to threaten the established status-quo. Democracy inhibits advancement and is the perfect export to the enslaved third world. Americas new war to spread democracy is another Opium war with democracy being pushed on unwilling states to guarantee the rich merchants their markets and their government lackeys a fictional veneer of moral superiority. Voters roll up!

People are dumb.
Hurrah for facts that are self-evident!

Especially because they are subject to the same law of gravitation to the mean. You may have a monarch with brains, but there's no guarentee his son will be.
.


Monarchy and aristocracy arose as an attempt to breed better men. Unfortunately people are impatient and seldom give a good idea time to settle in. The space between half-tamed wolf and hyper intelligent border collie are a couple of thousand years - rush the process and yes, inbreeding is a problem.

But the virtues of a true monarchy (as non-existent as a true democracy, I'll grant, but aren't all ideals as ephemeral?) lie not in the blood, but in the training and the nature of a dynasty. A Prince is trained from birth to serve the state/people; He is more a slave than any subject on the streets. However, he is raised under constant pressure to excel, to prove himself a worthy leader and win the respect of the people he must one day rule. Is it not an old saying that those who seek power are those for whom it is least appropriate?

Elected politicians need not look any further than their final term and their policies often reflect that. A king or queen serves their entire effective life. It is very, very rare for a monarch to retire. Therefore their policies benefit from a longer view. Longer indeed, if one considers that they must pass their nation into their childrens hands; A ruined country must be dealt with by your children.

A king must pay far more attention to the people than any politician. In a democracy, who can be blamed? The vox populi has spoken and no-one his really culpable. The truly incompetent (those who excel beyond the rest of their fellows in these unenviable virtues) are merely retired. Poor Kings get beheaded, their children unthroned and their place in history tarnished forever more. Who has a greater incentive to succeed?

I wouldn't define an oligarchy or an autocracy as 'corrupt systems'. Corruption is turning against a system for individual self-serving ends, while a true autocratic or oligarchical system makes no bones about its 'unfairness'. The government of Tsarist Russia was without doubt riddled with corruption, but the Tsars were unapologetic about their total rule. My greatest hatred of democracy is it's capacity for hypocrisy and to hide the true nature of the system from a credulous populace.

But the nature of oligarchy trends towards corruption and the institution of widespread inequality, often in contradiction to the trend in a more open society. The more democratic societies had much higher living standards and were much more technologically advanced and did so faster than the more repressive societies. While democracy may by very hypocritical and self-serving at times, the environment it fosters is able to function much more efficiently than oligarchical systems; it is that efficiency that gives it the edge over them.


If indeed a corrupt system exists, I would call it democracy, this fools-gold program for manipulation being at least theoretically based entirely upon the stubborn animal selfishness of the individual man or woman.

However, that selfishness also fosters growth and advancement; however, pursuits that are not strictly competitive or are even altruistic in nature can function much more safely and to much greater benefit in a democratic society where competition itself helps to suppress the desires of leaders and the people to manipulate themselves and others for national gain.

Democratic societies foster technology? Japan in the 19th century was barely a democracy to the casual eye, let alone the scholar. Yet under the impetus of it's oligarchs it surged into the first world. The same for Russia shortly before the revolution - while not yet at the level of the other grand powers, the Tsar had decreed massive programs for construction and industrialisation. The trans-siberian railway is a wonderful example of such state launched autocratic endeavours. Germany shortly after unification was certainly no democracy and yet again it leapt forward because the Kaiser and nobility required wealth to pacify the populace and weapons to defend their rule.

Japan powered its industrial revolution with the help of British and American technology, machinery, and technical expertise. Their industrial base was well developed, but was primarily built with external technology rather than domestic innovation; America and Britain, the freer societies of the time, were the ones who provided the technology and expertise because they dominated it. Japan did not emerge as a technological innovator until after the Second World War, when the autocratic regime was deposed and a democratic one instilled.

Russia's industrialization was fairly dramatic, but it still lagged the West due to the repression of the Czars; were they a freer society during preceding centuries they definitely would have industrialized earlier and to a greater extent and would have averted revolution due to the nonexistence of feudalism and the removal of a repressive and corrupt monarchy.

Germany's industrial and technological innovation were a remarkable and almost unrivaled leap forward, but at the same time that growth was aided by the Zollverein movement and the relative youth of the German Empire; there simply wasn't the time to create the problems of corruption and incompetence that dominated older autocratic societies like Russia or pre-revolutionary France. However, the destructive wars spawned by that government should not be ignored; ultimately, it was the economic advantages of the freer nations, namely the US, France and Britain that resulted in German defeat. Austria-Hungary was not as fortunate as Germany due to its fractionalized and unstable mix of cultures, whose integration was stopped by the presence of a foreign ruling family rather than a multiethnic government.

The most obvious counter-argument is of course that it is no longer the 19th century and such governments are no longer 'appropriate'. I would argue that that 'appropriateness' has been decided unilaterally by the only remaining super-powers after the Second World War in order to eliminate the likelihood of other states arising to threaten the established status-quo. Democracy inhibits advancement and is the perfect export to the enslaved third world. Americas new war to spread democracy is another Opium war with democracy being pushed on unwilling states to guarantee the rich merchants their markets and their government lackeys a fictional veneer of moral superiority. Voters roll up!

Appropriateness and moral judgement aren't valid arguments in any way, because morality is ultimately subjective. However, democratic socieities are more efficient than autocratic ones giving them the edge in economic, social, technological, and political advancement.

Autocratic societies can launch such wars as easily as democratic ones; however, there would be no way to get the people out of office peacefully and there would be no way to regulate how long they ruled...it would combine the worst of democracy with repression and that is highly undesirable. Also, the global economic situation does not lend well to autocracy; globalization and growth in technology require free discourse, investment, and research, and an autocratic society could not reliably provide that.

As so often in my life, I look to Churchill for a pithy quote and advice:

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

Sir Winston Churchill

But you forgot:

"The biggest argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter."

Heh. It amuses me to no end that the people that decry democracy because people are stupid and refuse to vote for the long term smart thing are the same people who'll spend hours debating in NS general about what the long term smart thing is without them or their opponent ever giving ground.

But the nature of oligarchy trends towards corruption and the institution of widespread inequality, often in contradiction to the trend in a more open society. The more democratic societies had much higher living standards and were much more technologically advanced and did so faster than the more repressive societies. While democracy may by very hypocritical and self-serving at times, the environment it fosters is able to function much more efficiently than oligarchical systems; it is that efficiency that gives it the edge over them.

Inequality is widespread in any society - The gap between rich and poor in both Britain and America is expanding. Democracies also promote social immobility - with the people holding so much power there is no incentive for one to succeed. Theoretically your power is as great at the bottom as at the top. The poor can vote themselves welfare and the rich can vote themselves tax breaks.

Efficiency is another subjective analysis - how do you measure it? Speed of governmental reaction? Democracies respond slowly to problems as they have far too many people who need consulting and they are no less prone to bureaucratic slowdown than any other system. Perhaps I misunderstand; If my cough medicine wasn't nondrowsy I'd be tripping balls right now. As it is I'm somewhat slow.



However, that selfishness also fosters growth and advancement; however, pursuits that are not strictly competitive or are even altruistic in nature can function much more safely and to much greater benefit in a democratic society where competition itself helps to suppress the desires of leaders and the people to manipulate themselves and others for national gain.

No doubt selfishness is a great impetus for advance, but no less in oligarchy or autocracy. The great advantage without democracy is that no-one will dare level the accusatory finger and shout "elitist!" without embarassment; There is no crime in seeking greater individual power.

I don't understand your argument that competition suppresses the desire to manipulate others for ones own gain. It seems somewhat contradictory.



Japan powered its industrial revolution with the help of British and American technology, machinery, and technical expertise. Their industrial base was well developed, but was primarily built with external technology rather than domestic innovation; America and Britain, the freer societies of the time, were the ones who provided the technology and expertise because they dominated it. Japan did not emerge as a technological innovator until after the Second World War, when the autocratic regime was deposed and a democratic one instilled.

Nevertheless, the Japanese industrial revolution was an incredible feat that relied on the ability of a few to direct themselves to the needs of the many. The largely conservative population of Japan would not have allowed the possibility of such a post-war state if their shortsightedness had not been bypassed.

Russia's industrialization was fairly dramatic, but it still lagged the West due to the repression of the Czars; were they a freer society during preceding centuries they definitely would have industrialized earlier and to a greater extent and would have averted revolution due to the nonexistence of feudalism and the removal of a repressive and corrupt monarchy.

Russia suffered not from the existence of the Tsars, but from their caution; without doubt, a closer approach to British constitutional monarchy, as it existed at the time (alas, no longer) would have paid great dividends. However, they feared what I fear - the incapacity of the people to make intelligent choices beyond the short term. Count the smokers on the streets and tell me they were wrong.

Yes, their caution could only be so damaging because they were the sole power in the country - but democratic regimes can also make mistakes of caution too little or too great. Recent history is littered with examples.

Germany's industrial and technological innovation were a remarkable and almost unrivaled leap forward, but at the same time that growth was aided by the Zollverein movement and the relative youth of the German Empire; there simply wasn't the time to create the problems of corruption and incompetence that dominated older autocratic societies like Russia or pre-revolutionary France. However, the destructive wars spawned by that government should not be ignored; ultimately, it was the economic advantages of the freer nations, namely the US, France and Britain that resulted in German defeat.

It has been a while since I studied the rise of Germany - I suspect, however, that the movement you mention was one of the wave of populist movements around the turn of the 19th/20th centuries. If so, they were most likely the same as all the others - a sop handed to the middle classes who'd become slightly rambunctious under the strain of increased wealth, privilege and education. No longer content to accept being categorised as simply commoners, they required proof that their difference from the industrial/rural peasantry was recognised. It was a change in social status, tied to the illusion of greater power, that they desired and they recieved. It was the same in all the other great powers of the time. True control rested in the hands of a select few in each nation; Their position decided by wealth or tradition depending on the state.

The economic advantages of which you speak were based upon, to be frank, luck. Ideology played little part in Britain becoming a maritime empire, America owning a vast continent and France... well, having been at one time ruled by Napoleon (they're lucky he failed to enter the British army). During the war itself, the politics of the truly embattled nations shifted heavily towards the totalitarian in order to succeed, while America had the advantage of distance to protect it's libertarian illusion. The same farce played itself out in the Second World War. Britain became a police state, France collapsed under it's own contradictions and I can't quite remember how many terms Roosevelt had but I'm sure it wasn't constitutional. The economies certainly didn't suffer under their necessary incorporation to what was was essentially autocratic control. Britain was forced to become incredibly efficient and America just exploded into wealth. Hardly an indictment of non-democratic methods. And just look at the Soviets. Innovation, industrialisation and totalitarianism making incredibly efficient bed fellows despite the fact that the ultimate leader was a loon. Nazi Germany, mired in what was the ultimate populist ideal, died.


Appropriateness and moral judgement aren't valid arguments in any way, because morality is ultimately subjective.

True. I should have said "political correctness", that element which is most likely to acquire further votes and avoid alienation of potential voters.


However, democratic socieities are more efficient than autocratic ones giving them the edge in economic, social, technological, and political advancement.

I would dispute all of those, for the reasons given above. And because of modern China. I may hate even pragmatic commies, but I have to be distantly impressed.

Autocratic societies can launch such wars as easily as democratic ones; however, there would be no way to get the people out of office peacefully Good! A government should fear the people and the people can't fear themselves. and there would be no way to regulate how long they ruled...it would combine the worst of democracy with repression and that is highly undesirable. I don't quite follow the thrust of your argument here. Clarify for the dude with viral phlegm rapidly replacing brain tissue.

Also, the global economic situation does not lend well to autocracy; globalization and growth in technology require free discourse, investment, and research, and an autocratic society could not reliably provide that.

The global economic situation was engineered, consciously or unconsciously, to play to the strengths of the dominant powers and most efficiently interface with their governmental systems, or as I like to call them "transnational corporations". I joke, but the point still stands. Such corporations provide great wealth for their states like any crop; arranging the environment through political machination to be fertile for their growth is simple intelligence that would be possible in almost any system we have discussed. However, only in a democracy could such a corporation wield the powers that they do - therefore it is in their interests that democracy remain in place.

Heh. It amuses me to no end that the people that decry democracy because people are stupid and refuse to vote for the long term smart thing are the same people who'll spend hours debating in NS general about what the long term smart thing is without them or their opponent ever giving ground.

Which is why we don't want the other guy to vote.

Heh. It amuses me to no end that the people that decry democracy because people are stupid and refuse to vote for the long term smart thing are the same people who'll spend hours debating in NS general about what the long term smart thing is without them or their opponent ever giving ground.


Lol, it appears your sig is correct.

But in my defence, I tend to avoid arguments concerning long term policy, preferring to hide behind generalised optimism, rabid species patriotism and ultimately a belief in UFOs, fairies and King Arthur. I believe that a good state, correctly arranged, will ultimately arrive at good decisions.

But my reading of history leads me to conclude that democracy really isn't the best system. I'll concede that it hasn't really been tried yet. I mean, it only collapsed to disaster in Athens, Rome, France, Russia, China and pre-norman Britain but hey; if we keep trying it repeatedly for another 2300 years it might just work.