NationStates Jolt Archive

I can't justify democracy tonight. A friend asked me what made pluralism such a good thing, and I am struggling for an answer. It seems to me more and more that the common man is too easily manipulated by a change in language, knows too little to make a truly educated descision in politics, and is given to making descisions for all the wrong reasons. The people on NSG are people who have made a long-term study of government and politics (just by being here). We see, as people who know little of governance enter the forum, that there is a broad difference between merely being willing to have an opinion, and having an opinion based in reality.

Have I lost too much faith in my common man, or am I right? I certainly fear the effects of tyranny, but I'm having trouble coming up with a reasonable answer to the world of The Republic.

Boy is that a sad example of a personal crisis, or what?

Welcome to the dark side. I had this crisis three years ago, and ever since I've given up on electoral politics.

I can't justify democracy tonight. A friend asked me what made pluralism such a good thing, and I am struggling for an answer. It seems to me more and more that the common man is too easily manipulated by a change in language, knows too little to make a truly educated descision in politics, and is given to making descisions for all the wrong reasons. The people on NSG are people who have made a long-term study of government and politics (just by being here). We see, as people who know little of governance enter the forum, that there is a broad difference between merely being willing to have an opinion, and having an opinion based in reality.

Have I lost too much faith in my common man, or am I right? I certainly fear the effects of tyranny, but I'm having trouble coming up with a reasonable answer to the world of The Republic.

Boy is that a sad example of a personal crisis, or what?


it is just a tad geeky.

what to replace it with?

it is just a tad geeky.

what to replace it with?

Plato's System?

I'm not entirely sure. The philosopher's republic seems to have some merit.

the part that makes representative democracy bearable is that all governments are temporary. when the voting citizens of the US have elected a president that i despise, at least i know that he doesnt have the job forever. even when the disaster happened and bush was re-elected in '04 i could hold on to the notion that it cant happen again.

The democratic process itself is sound -- by giving letting the majority make decisions, then those decisions should theoretically be in the best interests of the majority of the people. Also, by forcing candidates to gain a majority vote, they have to appeal to the mainstream rather than forking out to unpopular radical positions.

The problem, however, is when the process is corrupted, perverted. This has happened in many ways -- lobbying, gerrymandering, propaganda, and the ignorance of the electorate.

But I still think democracy has a chance. As long as there are people willing to maintain the integrity of the system -- by educating others, pushing for reforms, and acting as watchdogs -- then the system will continue to work. That's why we need to protect protestors, whistle-blowers, and other "free-speech abusers": they help keep democracy together.

Plato's System?

I'm not entirely sure. The philosopher's republic seems to have some merit.

plato was living in a dream world.

plato was living in a dream world.

I fear that the same is true of Pluralists. We know, from years of effort, that governments are complex and difficult to understand. I fear that by expecting those who have not made the effort, or haven't the ability to make the effort to make good descisions, we ask too much.

I fear that the same is true of Pluralists. We know, from years of effort, that governments are complex and difficult to understand. I fear that by expecting those who have not made the effort, or haven't the ability to make the effort to make good descisions, we ask too much.

i know what you mean but the alternative isnt very good either.

do we create a class of electors? that has already been rejected in the US eh? im willing to discuss the problems with it if thats what you were thinking of.

do we create a permanent government? how then do we get accountability? no matter how talented the people you put into government you still have to deal with one solid immutable fact: people suck.

and now i have to run into town for a bit. ill be back in half an hour

Lets bring back, oh lets say, the pharo's...

the part that makes representative democracy bearable is that all governments are temporary. when the voting citizens of the US have elected a president that i despise, at least i know that he doesnt have the job forever. even when the disaster happened and bush was re-elected in '04 i could hold on to the notion that it cant happen again.

Amen to that. That's one of the only good thigns about democracy...

i know what you mean but the alternative isnt very good either.

do we create a class of electors? that has already been rejected in the US eh? im willing to discuss the problems with it if thats what you were thinking of.

do we create a permanent government? how then do we get accountability? no matter how talented the people you put into government you still have to deal with one solid immutable fact: people suck.

and now i have to run into town for a bit. ill be back in half an hour

I recognize the danger of "Litteracy Tests", but surely we could create a test to get a voter's liscence that is not dissimilar to a Driver's liscence?

Well, with representative democracy and a strong constitution the worst thing you'd probably get is someone like W or Nixon. Without that, you're getting someone like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Caligula, or any of the really fucked up nobles throughout history.

Worse or Worst, pick one.

I recognize the danger of "Litteracy Tests", but surely we could create a test to get a voter's liscence that is not dissimilar to a Driver's liscence?

Are the misspellings in this post intentional or unintentional? ;)

Another has realized the flaws of democracy. The revolution will be realized. :rolleyes:

Congrats on seeing the problems. Now if we can only agree on the solution.

it is just a tad geeky.

what to replace it with?

Nothing, it is the best system, just employed foolishly. You can't have every dipshit voting and whoever voting whenever they feel like. It should be a requirement that every person who can pass a knowledge test on the issue must vote.

Well, with representative democracy and a strong constitution the worst thing you'd probably get is someone like W or Nixon. Without that, you're getting someone like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Caligula, or any of the really fucked up nobles throughout history.

Worse or Worst, pick one.

True in all accounts except one. Hitler was elected so it's perfectly possible for a tyrant to get into power without a coup.

Nothing, it is the best system, just employed foolishly. You can't have every dipshit voting and whoever voting whenever they feel like. It should be a requirement that every person who can pass a knowledge test on the issue must vote.

W.

True in all accounts except one. Hitler was elected so it's perfectly possible for a tyrant to get into power without a coup.

That's why I added the "strong constitution" qualifier; he got elected in a democratic government that had crucial flaws in its structure which enabled him to take power. The only way that democracy could be preserved is if it had these protections built in to it.

I recognize the danger of "Litteracy Tests", but surely we could create a test to get a voter's liscence that is not dissimilar to a Driver's liscence?

youd think so wouldnt you?

but no, no you cant.

take a quick look at the simple task of deciding the borders of congressional districts...... do you really think that the powerful wouldnt gerrymander the voting test too?

True. For the sake of arguement, what would be in that constitution that would keep tyrants at bay?

Are the misspellings in this post intentional or unintentional? ;)

:p

Unintentional. I'm very dyslexic today.

:p

Unintentional. I'm very dyslexic today.

Yeah, I had a day like that a while ago. PsychoticDan was wondering if I was drunk or stoned...

Not that I'm assuming the same, of course. I know what it's like. :p

Yeah, I had a day like that a while ago. PsychoticDan was wondering if I was drunk or stoned...

Not that I'm assuming the same, of course. I know what it's like. :p

Yeah. I'm not normally inclined to this sort of thing, but it hasn't exactly been my day, spelling wise.

I tried to convince someone that 'grammar' was spelled with an 'e' this morning, whilst editting their article on common grammatical mistakes this morning (I am -- Or perhaps was -- a copyeditor for my school's newspaper).

I recognize the danger of "Litteracy Tests", but surely we could create a test to get a voter's liscence that is not dissimilar to a Driver's liscence?

Only if those who aren't allowed to vote are exempt from all forms of taxation. No taxation without representation.

Nothing, it is the best system, just employed foolishly. You can't have every dipshit voting and whoever voting whenever they feel like. It should be a requirement that every person who can pass a knowledge test on the issue must vote.

I used to be totally opposed to to "forced" voting. But now I'm beginning to think it is a good idea. Think about it. Who votes the most in the US. Extremists and the elderly. Many (if not most) sensible middle of the road people don't vote out of apathy or just because they think they are too busy. And young people (those most likely to hold new and progressive ideals) vote in appallingly small numbers.

For example, if everyone were forced to vote, many of the anti-gay rights amendments wouldn't have passed. Most Americans favor equal rights for gay people, but it isn't an important issue to them, so they don't bother to get out to vote on it. The people most likely to go to the polls when that issue comes up are the fundies and others who are virulently opposed to it.

I'm starting to think that maybe the reason Europe and Canada are more secular and open is because they are required to vote (I think Canada has compulsory voting, not sure though). Everyone votes, not just the fringe and a small handful of the middle.

I can't justify democracy tonight. A friend asked me what made pluralism such a good thing, and I am struggling for an answer. It seems to me more and more that the common man is too easily manipulated by a change in language, knows too little to make a truly educated descision in politics, and is given to making descisions for all the wrong reasons. The people on NSG are people who have made a long-term study of government and politics (just by being here). We see, as people who know little of governance enter the forum, that there is a broad difference between merely being willing to have an opinion, and having an opinion based in reality.

Have I lost too much faith in my common man, or am I right? I certainly fear the effects of tyranny, but I'm having trouble coming up with a reasonable answer to the world of The Republic.

Boy is that a sad example of a personal crisis, or what?
Of course you should fear a tyrant, but that doesn't rule out a Dictator.:)

I recognize the danger of "Litteracy Tests", but surely we could create a test to get a voter's liscence that is not dissimilar to a Driver's liscence?

I think the standard I'd set is make sure they're capable of operating a voting machine. If they can't put the needle in the right hole, or tap the right glowing green spot with their finger, they don't get their vote counted.

I can't justify democracy tonight. A friend asked me what made pluralism such a good thing, and I am struggling for an answer. It seems to me more and more that the common man is too easily manipulated by a change in language, knows too little to make a truly educated descision in politics, and is given to making descisions for all the wrong reasons. The people on NSG are people who have made a long-term study of government and politics (just by being here). We see, as people who know little of governance enter the forum, that there is a broad difference between merely being willing to have an opinion, and having an opinion based in reality.

Have I lost too much faith in my common man, or am I right? I certainly fear the effects of tyranny, but I'm having trouble coming up with a reasonable answer to the world of The Republic.

Boy is that a sad example of a personal crisis, or what?

So you got a job working with the general public too?

I think the standard I'd set is make sure they're capable of operating a voting machine. If they can't put the needle in the right hole, or tap the right glowing green spot with their finger, they don't get their vote counted.

So Diebold is just acting as an intermediary to protect democracy from mob rule? If you aren't smart enough to know how to avoid being tricked by the system, you don't get your vote counted? :p


So you got a job working with the general public too?

No such... Er... Luck?

I just spent four hours trying to explain government to a group of my peers doomed to fail the simplest test in the world.

How can you justify government without democracy?

Unless the people themselves make the rules they are to be ruled by, they are nothing more than the victims of tyranny.

How can you justify government without democracy?

Unless the people themselves make the rules they are to be ruled by, they are nothing more than the victims of tyranny.

And how does the tyranny of the majority differ from the tyrrany of the dictator?

And how does the tyranny of the majority differ from the tyrrany of the dictator?

The fact that, firstly, the concern about the "tyranny of the majority" is mostly scarmongering (where does it exist?), and secondly, at least the tyranny of the majority has the support of the majority. The tyranny of the minority does not.

This issue was the subject of the play ‘An Enemy of the People’. The english version is on Netflix. It’s worth a watch (havent actually seen the DVD but it was good on the stage). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Enemy_of_the_People

Democracy is a wonderful system in a small and well educated society.
When you have a huge population of ignorant people who hold terrible misconceptions about how the world works (like how tolerance of homosexuality caused Katrina), it is a horrible system precisely because you get the government you deserve.

I don’t want a government the American people deserve; I want a government that actually works well.

Democracy is based on a logical fallacy known as appeal to popularity. In debate and reason, something isn't justified, correct, or true just because a majority of people support or believe it. But in politics, apparently it is. Interesting eh?

But what else is there? Everything else is worse.

Not that we truly have "democracy" anyway. We have representative democracy, which means something is justified, correct or true if a popular person supports it. ;) Heh.

The fact that, firstly, the concern about the "tyranny of the majority" is mostly scarmongering (where does it exist?), and secondly, at least the tyranny of the majority has the support of the majority. The tyranny of the minority does not.

The undereducated minority enforces sexist laws, enforces laws that opress minorities, and passes laws that are so stupid they harm the economy, the national defense, and essential freedoms.

The undereducated minority enforces sexist laws, enforces laws that opress minorities, and passes laws that are so stupid they harm the economy, the national defense, and essential freedoms.

And the minority would do better?

Any government by a minority would be partial to that minority, and would thus violate the right of all other members of society to equality under law. It would be incapable of representing the interests of the entire population and would swiftly turn into an elitist tyranny.

*Epiphany*Congratulations. You now know why I became an anarchist.

And the minority would do better?

Any government by a minority would be partial to that minority, and would thus violate the right of all other members of society to equality under law. It would be incapable of representing the interests of the entire population and would swiftly turn into an elitist tyranny.

I'm attacking the majority, not defending the minority. Frankly, I haven't much taste for either. I just can't agree with Democracy tonight, because it seems like putting the stupidest in power over the smartest.

Congratulations. You now know why I became an anarchist.

Er...

So that the stupid people could be completely unbound to do what they wanted?

I'm attacking the majority, not defending the minority. Frankly, I haven't much taste for either. I just can't agree with Democracy tonight, because it seems like putting the stupidest in power over the smartest.

Smart people can vote, too - and they can make arguments and proposals to the general population if they so choose.

Er...

So that the stupid people could be completely unbound to do what they wanted?And so the rest of us can be completely free to avoid all their nonsense.

Smart people can vote, too - and they can make arguments and proposals to the general population if they so choose.

True, but it's kind of a law that there are more stupid people, and for some reason smart people are often the ones that don't vote. Cuz they get to thinking, and think things like "Ah, voting is pointless. Pointless I say! Nihilism! [Insert philosophical ravings here]"

Similar to how stupid people have more children.

Or maybe we're just being elitist here in determining who is smart and who is not.

True, but it's kind of a law that there are more stupid people, and for some reason smart people are often the ones that don't vote.

Surely you are aware that voter turnout increases according to level of education?

And so the rest of us can be completely free to avoid all their nonsense.

I don't trust stupid people that much.

Just because they aren't that bright, doesn't mean that they can't arm themselves and do lots of damage.

Surely you are aware that voter turnout increases according to level of education?

I'm not, but I am aware that education doesn't exactly equal intelligence.

I'm not, but I am aware that education doesn't exactly equal intelligence.

No, but since both the economically well off and the well-educated vote more than average, and both of those traits correlate with IQ, it amounts to the same thing.

Then again, I don't know if IQ is at all meaningful in terms of capability to make decent political decisions.

No, but since both the economically well off and the well-educated vote more than average, and both of those traits correlate with IQ, it amounts to the same thing.

That's kind of a stretch. Besides, I don't put stock in IQ tests either, nor with statistics that extrapolate correlations between IQs, "economically well-off," or "well-educated" either.

Then again, I don't know if IQ is at all meaningful in terms of capability to make decent political decisions.

There is that too. I mean, if we assume IQ is intelligence and that intelligent people are more likely to vote... and they voted in Bush, twice... what exactly does that say? Nothing good.

I'm not, but I am aware that education doesn't exactly equal intelligence.

Or, more importantly, an understanding of government.

I don't trust stupid people that much.

Just because they aren't that bright, doesn't mean that they can't arm themselves and do lots of damage.Well, if we dispense with the stereotypes for a sec, it probably wouldn't be an issue.

Anarchy is governing by communication. Instead of a couple of people elected to represent ideological bollox, you get a whole bunch of people to discuss the optimal course of action in any given situation.
Meaning, if you disagree with something, you can find a compromise you like, or simply stall indefinitely. This approach doesn't require the participants to be exceptional in any way, it only requires they agree to agree or do nothing.

That's kind of a stretch. Besides, I don't put stock in IQ tests either, nor with statistics that extrapolate correlations between IQs, "economically well-off," or "well-educated" either.

Oh, your skepticism is shared.

I doubt that intelligence is quantifiable in a genuinely meaningful sense, which is one reason that I am opposed to the idea of a benevolent oligarchy of allegedly intelligent people.

Well, if we dispense with the stereotypes for a sec, it probably wouldn't be an issue.

Anarchy is governing by communication. Instead of a couple of people elected to represent ideological bollox, you get a whole bunch of people to discuss the optimal course of action in any given situation.
Meaning, if you disagree with something, you can find a compromise you like, or simply stall indefinitely. This approach doesn't require the participants to be exceptional in any way, it only requires they agree to agree or do nothing.

If men were angels and all that... :p

Oh, your skepticism is shared.Yes indeed. I'll take a bunch of retarded ignorant fuckers with a sense of empathy any day of the week, over a bunch of wiseasses with a high IQ/long education

I can't justify democracy tonight. A friend asked me what made pluralism such a good thing, and I am struggling for an answer. It seems to me more and more that the common man is too easily manipulated by a change in language, knows too little to make a truly educated descision in politics, and is given to making descisions for all the wrong reasons. The people on NSG are people who have made a long-term study of government and politics (just by being here). We see, as people who know little of governance enter the forum, that there is a broad difference between merely being willing to have an opinion, and having an opinion based in reality.

Have I lost too much faith in my common man, or am I right? I certainly fear the effects of tyranny, but I'm having trouble coming up with a reasonable answer to the world of The Republic.

Boy is that a sad example of a personal crisis, or what?


The first reply to this post was someone who has given up on electoral politics.. I'm inclined to agree (although since it's the system in place, it makes sense to use it)..

However, I think the time of plural plitics has reached the end of it's useful lifespan, just as the time of monarchies reached the end of it's useful life span 2 centuaries ago.. Something must be found to replace it (although a few scattered systems will no doubt continue to exist in a modified form (think smaller nations like the Swiss)..

If men were angels and all that... :pPrecisely that argument against anarchism has to be the least sensible of them all.

In order for there to be functional representative democracy, we all have to agree to abide by it. In order for there to be functional anarchy, we all have to agree to abide by it. You'd have a point if the modern world was a burning pit of chaos, but we actually do agree to allow the representative democracies function, so why would we not agree to let anarchy function?

Oh, your skepticism is shared.

I doubt that intelligence is quantifiable in a genuinely meaningful sense, which is one reason that I am opposed to the idea of a benevolent oligarchy of allegedly intelligent people.

Same here. It's a nice idea in theory, but there are many different kinds of intelligence, and of course everyone views themselves as being intelligent. I do think you can test raw problem-solving skills and such, in a general sort of way (as with say, rats being less intelligent than chimpanzees), but of course it wouldn't be exact nor particularly relevant to political decision-making, as you say.

As Forrest Gump says, stupid is as stupid does.