NationStates Jolt Archive

How do you feel about democracy (representative or direct)? And if you are against democracy, which system do you prefer as an alternative?

Should be banned. Letting people vote...whatever will they think of next? Flying automobiles?

oh bugger....

With the way things are now, direct democracy would turn the US into a nation of theo-cons. Representatives are the only way to go until the US population wises up.

How do you feel about democracy (representative or direct)? And if you are against democracy, which system do you prefer as an alternative?

I am opposed to representative democracy, but especially to direct democracy. I support any system that is closest to the natural order, which includes kingly government (but even this has flaws. Private property anarchy is the best overall.)

It should be limited. The current contemporary notion of "more democracy = better" is terribly misguided, and giving rise to corrupt bureaucrats more than willing to pander to what is no more than mob rule, and with little respect for the state of the nations that they govern.

Democracy should serve soley as a method for the people to get rid of leaders that do them a disservice, but the common person should have as little say in running the country as possible.

A quick read through the BBC's "Have Your Say" section is a good indicator of how barbaric the common person becomes when placed with a large group of people.

Of course, don't ask me what exactly the best alternative would be - some form of meritocracy with a legal form of democratic recall might be nice.

Private property anarchy is the best overall.

QFT.

In a democratic state, no government gets to stay for too long, so people will (in most cases!) not have time enough to get sufficiently frustrated to start uprisings. This makes democracies more stable - somewhat ironically :cool:

Also, a politician knowing that there will be another election within the next few years will be less prone to promote violations of basic rights...

... which brings me to another, and perhaps even more central point: Democracy is not just about being able to vote every few years. It is also about having certain rights, such as fair trial and freedom of expression. Without these, a country could have elections twice a day, and yet it could not call itself a democracy.

EDIT: BTW, WTF is QFT? I can't stand it when people use abbreviations :rolleyes:!

I feel that democracy is a good way to govern, in fact, it may even be the 2nd best form of government! But obviously, it's second to an absolute monarchy.

What! You question my rule? To the dungeon with you!

:D

EDIT: BTW, WTF is QFT? I can't stand it when people use abbreviations :rolleyes:!

QFT = Quoted For Truth

Syndicalism based on participatory economics. Best ideas humanity's come up with so far, in my opinion.

I do not oppose democracy, but I oppose the state.

I would prefer a constitutional monarchy(all the rights smaller goverment).

I do not oppose democracy, but I oppose the state.

I heard you were an anarcho-capitalist, though? :confused:

Democracy as a concept is good. Though, in most cases, some people tend to act as if they're created more equal than others.

I would prefer a constitutional monarchy(all the rights smaller goverment).

But why not take it all the way to its logical conclusion; private property anarchy? The very earliest form of feudalism was essentially an anarchy, as there was no monopoly on jurisdiction. Rather, every person could do what he wanted with his property, as the king's rights were based on the same foundation as that of everyone down to a miller.

I heard you were an anarcho-capitalist, though? :confused:

A market anarchist yes.

Why does that preclude democracy?

But why not take it all the way to its logical conclusion; private property anarchy? The very earliest form of feudalism was essentially an anarchy, as there was no monopoly on jurisdiction. Rather, every person could do what he wanted with his property, as the king's rights were based on the same foundation as that of everyone down to a miller.
Yes but the definition of anarchy is a state of choas or no goverment,that can lead down a dangerous road and eventualy a dictatorship.All anarchy will end at some time or another.

democracy has proven itself crap in all the forms off the top of my head, but I guess that goes with it being government crap sticks to crap as we all know

I think we should all just give up on trying really giving up FTW!

Yes but the definition of anarchy is a state of choas or no goverment,that can lead down a dangerous road and eventualy a dictatorship.All anarchy will end at some time or another.

That's a common misunderstanding, but that's not the actual definition. Anarchy means that no one has a monopoly on decision-making (jurisdiction), but rather are free to do as they wish. This precludes criminal acts against other people, as doing such things to others is a violation of their free will. As such, people are free to defend themselves against the aggression of others. In fact, the de facto anarchy of early feudalism afforded a great deal of freedom to many people in just such a way.

Yes but the definition of anarchy is a state of choas or no goverment

silly rabbit:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Anarchy-symbol.svg/110px-Anarchy-symbol.svg.png

notice the O around the A, it stands for order which as every revolution proves doesn't come from policemen with truncheons it comes from folk being folk

A 'democracy' in and of itself is not necessarily a virtuous state. 'Democracy' can lead down many dark paths, even into the arms of tyranny. No, democracy in and of itself is of virtually no value. Liberal democracy, on the other hand, that's a whole 'nuther matter.

It's better than the other choices, but that's not saying much.

As an American, I of course love Democracy..... but.... Maybe we need a little time-out from representational government.

I think we have shown in the past few years that we are a little too ignorant sometimes in who we elect as our leaders. I think it's time for a bit of a break so we can think about what we've done and maybe grow up a little.

So... here's my plan: Let's go back to being a British colony. Let the Brits appoint a royal governer. Maybe Prince Harry. Let's give Monarchy a few decades as sort of a cooling off period. We'll let London handle all of our foreign policy and military matters.

Now I understand that we'll have some crow to eat and some apologizing to do first. I'll start right now with that Tea-party thing in Boston... Sorry - Big misunderstanding there.

Of course, I don't expect this colonial arrangement to be free... We'll have to kick in about 100 billion in administration fees a year to the Brits - but that's a bargain compared to what we've spent on the last 6 years of tom-foolery.

Also, as a vassal of Britain - we should of course not be host to the UN. I suggest we move that to Paris.

Freed of the difficult intellectual demands of world politics, I think America would find great happiness.

I like dictatorships.

I like dictatorships.

With whom in charge? ;)

I dislike representative democracy, as I dislike all states.
Direct democracy, though, while imperfect, is the best system possible.

Direct democracy, though, while imperfect, is the best system possible.

Why?

Why?The goal of any system should be to maximize freedom. Self-determination is one form of freedom. Where there isn't democracy, there isn't self-determination, and there is thus a reduction of freedom.
You could make the argument that democracy doesn't always lead to self-determination, and this would be true, but it is the only system where self-determination is possible.

The goal of any system should be to maximize freedom. Self-determination is one form of freedom. Where there isn't democracy, there isn't self-determination, and there is thus a reduction of freedom.
You could make the argument that democracy doesn't always lead to self-determination, and this would be true, but it is the only system where self-determination is possible.
Democracy doesn't equal self-determination though. Rights = self-determination and on some level, I think that democracy can challenge the notion of a right. There is a natural imposition of the collective will over the individual that can happen in a democratic state, and I fear that a more purely democratic state could have a greater tendency for that as at minimum, politicians are bound to rational calculations of the good action and fear being hurt do to ideology, the masses can afford to be more ideological though. Honestly, I would tend to think that the real equation is less government means more self-determination rather than it necessarily relating democracy.

Democracy doesn't equal self-determination though. Rights = self-determination and on some level, I think that democracy can challenge the notion of a right.Naturally, as rights are created via democracy, (or at least some form of a social contract).

I don't like democracy. I would prefer some sort of meritocracy. Off course, I oppose the current nationstate system the world's got going on, also, so meh.

Dictatorships are great, especially when I'm the dictator.

But seriously, I'd prefer anarchy, specifically anarcho-capitalism.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on whats for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.

How do you feel about democracy (representative or direct)? And if you are against democracy, which system do you prefer as an alternative?

Hellos,
Democracy is mob rule.

i believe in a neo-feudalism.
Towns and cities in a county are ruled under certain Lords/Ladies, yet each city is at the same time, a city-state.

speaking from a US'ian point of view, there would be no "fifty states" thing.

government would stop at county level. you ally or biff power would be at county level. yes, this means each county technically has its own currency, passport, laws, ad nauseum.

in other words, there would be a federation of commonality within a perticular county so each city in that county is more or less the same, yet still has semi-self rule.

Like the federal constitution = county contract
Constitutions of each state = city-state contract.

Election of lords or ladies would be direct democracy, both at city-state level from the citizens, and county ruler from among the lords and ladies.

with a term of service of about 5 years. before being put up for possible re-election.

-Rafe