NationStates Jolt Archive

I am not a fascist,monarchist, or pro-dictatorship, but is democracy overrated. Most people are not concerned at all with taking care of other people and the demand of millions of people slow legislative processes. Besides the overwhelming majority is what keeps minorities down. Think of Civil Rights in America, they couldnt vote to get protective legislation down until there was civil disobedience and decisions of the Supreme Court. So, could a dictatorship be beneficial just as a democracy?

Yes, pure democracy is far overrated.

I'll have to sign up on the side that it is indeed overrated, even in the case of representative democracy.

It just seems to me that all too often in a democratic system the people overall don't care to actually inform themselves about the issues and different perspectives of the consequences of each path. Even in the case of a representative democracy where supposedly representatives that are informed are elected to make the decisions, you run into a problem of them looking out for their own interests before the country's (see America and the oil industry).

The question then becomes: how do you limit the authority or reach of a dictator or monarch so that they cannot encroach on civil liberties? I have to admit it is such liberties that need protection over most other things, but then, that is my opinion.

Not over-rated, I never rated it that highly, but it's better than the alternatives.

I think it was Plato (though I may be incorrect) that said something like: "I shall not trust a system of government where the word of an idiot is equal to the word of a mastermind".
Unfortunately, I can't think of a better system other than perfect communism. :rolleyes:

Edit: Democracy tends to get overrated, especially in America and economically-weak nations.

Personally, I care more about liberty and freedom than I do about democracy.

Democracy is the worst form of government...except for all of the others we've tried.

Democracy is good, but it isn't as good as a lot of people say it is. Not that there is any better system.

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.

Real democracy, the power given to the people to decide together of matters that'll affect the life of everyone, is not over-rated.

But the pseudo-democracy of western countries (bourgeois democracy), in which you can just vote every few years for politicians who'll anyway follow the will of "the market", and in which anyway many things are kept completely outside the scope of democracy (every "privatisation", "liberalisation", "deregulation" is just a shrinking of the scope of democracy), well, yes, it's over-rated. Not that it isn't important, it is. But it's the only thing which matter to define "human rights".

Human rights is as much, if not more, being able to eat, to have a roof, to receive healthcare and to be able to study than the ability to vote every few years.

What if I don't want to choose a leader? What if I don't want to be led? I think I'm doing pretty good on my own. None of us are free, no matter how much they tell you you're free to live your own life. It's all bullshit. Tell me which 'free' piece of dirt you live on and I'll tell you how you aint liberated.

In the absence of the absence of government, Democracy isn't terrible. At least its better than having some god awful monarch strutting about in a fur coat and huge jewelry.

No. Those same people that don't care about others under a representative democracy are the same ones that will end up being in power in a dictatorship...the only difference is that now they're free to force that utter disregard on everyone. I mean, can you even think of a dictator who acted in the people's interest? Maybe a few of the Communists did, but they all still needed to use repression to keep their people from rebelling and rejecting the system imposed upon them.

why not just have a system where we have freedom for all, so long as that freedom does not take from the freedom of others. then we have a court to keep an eye on things, and to be fair, judges would be appointed by the people. then we could do away with politicians and most of government. i can dream can't i?

No. Those same people that don't care about others under a representative democracy are the same ones that will end up being in power in a dictatorship...the only difference is that now they're free to force that utter disregard on everyone. I mean, can you even think of a dictator who acted in the people's interest? Maybe a few of the Communists did, but they all still needed to use repression to keep their people from rebelling and rejecting the system imposed upon them.

Agreed, its is amazing that most people truly believe that the outcome of a representative democracy would not be the will of the people. Regardless of the resulting government, those who procured control via some form of manipulation, negotiation, will, or intellectual superiority would almost undoubtedly assert comparable dominion regardless of the rules. Laws may be enacted by rulers, but actions are reflective of the people's will.

The true failure of democracy, as is the case with most governments, is submission, fear,complacency and the need for self-preservation.

I'll take a democracy any day.

It's basically bullshit, yeah. It lulls people into thinking that their government is somehow legitimate due to the opinions of people a few years back, even when it's proven to be utterly incompetant and even when it goes back on its promises.

Eugh.

there has to be some check on power.

there has to be some check on the check.

democracy provides that.

its not overrated.

Call me when you find a better way to run government.

Yes, absolutely. Dictatorship is the way to go.

There's a certain irony in asking with a poll if democracy is overrated.

Democracy is very much overrated. Every nation should have some degree of democratic process - but only so that the populace can oust unpopular or incompetent rulers.

I'm all for some form of simplified democratic recall process, but let's let the people with the actual ability to lead run the countries.

Nowadays every layman thinks they're qualified and able to run a country, and the constant micromanagement of economic and state systems that politicians perform at the behest of their ever-demanding electorate is ultimately going to be the downfall of western civilization.

Or so goes my prediction, I guess we'll find out in a few decades/centuries.

see I believe democracy is a so-so system. It is just that when democracy gets tied in with business, it becomes an aristorcracy and when it ties in a lot, you get a two party system like the us and it becomes an oligarchy and a corportocracy. I would not mine a dictorship with limits to protect people's rights if it wasnt psychotic or anything. Greedy people only think about their pockets, not society?

Personally, I care more about liberty and freedom than I do about democracy.
I care about democracy because it limits liberty and freedom, thus it needs to be opposed.

Democracy is very much overrated. Every nation should have some degree of democratic process - but only so that the populace can oust unpopular or incompetent rulers.
Yes, they do. Its people.

I will like to resubmit my idea of having a NSG run world.

I will like to resubmit my idea of having a NSG run world.
I for one support our new pseudo-intellectual overlords.

I personally can't wait for the new fasco-communist libertaro-statist monarcho-republic set to dominate every / not a single aspect of everyone's lives.

Of course democracy is desperately overrated. One does not even need to go and look at the tragedy of World War I, spurred by the ethnic nationalism that democracy inspired (even Russia had near-universal suffrage through the zemstvos and Duma.) One can merely look at how democracy is tearing apart Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq with various groups fighting to gain power, Afghanistan, etc. etc. to realize what a miserable failure that system of governance is.

Democracy is too often used as a justification for injustice. Just because a majority agrees with something does not make it right.

Most people accept that sentence, but then don't go ahead and question what this means for representative (or indeed direct) democracy as a system. If what the majority wills is not necessarily the right thing, then we have no reason to suspect that democratic outcomes will generally be better than any other form. All we do is make sure that the dissenters will generally be a minority.

Which may well be a valid target to aim for, but isn't necessarily what supporters of democracy make their stated goal.

Of course, dictatorship is no better. The idea that a single person would care more for optimal outcomes than the majority doesn't exactly make sense to me either.

I tend to think that "dictatorship by constitution", with the day-to-day issues being decided by an inclusive and transparent (read: democratic) process is a better option than just relying on majority verdicts all the time.

I am not a fascist,monarchist, or pro-dictatorship, but is democracy overrated. Most people are not concerned at all with taking care of other people and the demand of millions of people slow legislative processes. Besides the overwhelming majority is what keeps minorities down. Think of Civil Rights in America, they couldn't vote to get protective legislation down until there was civil disobedience and decisions of the Supreme Court. So, could a dictatorship be beneficial just as a democracy?

A Democracy can still end up giving its government dictatorial powers, and even if it doesn't it can still perpetrate horrible crimes (slavery, the Spanish-American war and subsequent occupation of the Phillipeans and WWII annexation of Hawaii).

Problems it, those things happen despite democracy. However well meaning a dictator starts out, eventually he is going to whittle his advisers down to a trusted inner core, and stop listening to anyone else. Then his limited knowledge is going to lead to stupid decisions and then harsh abuses when those stupid decisions are resisted.

Of course, in the US we have that now. But that's the worst democracy gets, and it's the best dictatorship gets.

So when people think that democracy is the answer to all societies ills, it's overrated. If they think, as Churchill put it, that it's the worst form of government ever devised, except for all the others, then they're pretty much on point.

I am not a fascist,monarchist, or pro-dictatorship, but is democracy overrated. Most people are not concerned at all with taking care of other people and the demand of millions of people slow legislative processes. Besides the overwhelming majority is what keeps minorities down. Think of Civil Rights in America, they couldnt vote to get protective legislation down until there was civil disobedience and decisions of the Supreme Court. So, could a dictatorship be beneficial just as a democracy?

in an benevolent dictatorship it could.

You know what's overrated? FF7. When you're not watching uncontrollable cinematics, you're having blocky guys level up chunks of rock. It's an above average game, but NO WAY IN HELL is it top ten. Gimme FF3 anyday.

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/4828/ff3nowrb6.gif

Democracy, like communism, has not yet been properly implemented.

No, democracy is underrated. It is how it takes form in current systems that is the problem.

"Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic."
-Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn


"Independent of my love for freedom, I still would prefer to live under a lion's paw than under the teeth of a thousand rats who are my fellow citizens."
-Voltaire


"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury."
-Alexander Tytler


"Democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all, and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel."
-John Adams


"Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
-James Madison


"My opinion is...that you would as soon scrub the blackamore white as to change the principle of a profest Democrat, and that he will leave nothing unattempted to overturn the Government of this Country."
-George Washington


"I seize the opportunity to tell him that I am opposed to the democracy from regard to liberty."
-Gouverneur Morris


"Better to be secure under one king, than exposed to violence from twenty millions of monarchs, though oneself be one of them."
-Herman Melville


"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance."
-H.L. Mencken


"Democracy is also a form of worship. It is the worship of Jackals by Jackasses."
-H.L. Mencken


"Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage."
-H.L. Mencken


"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
-H.L. Mencken


"A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years."
-Lysander Spooner


"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill

Democracy, like communism, has not yet been properly implemented.
So?

That doesn't mean that the basic idea behind it is good. You'd get places in Texas which would probably vote to kill all of the homosexuals in the area. In the Balkans, some settlements might well vote to kill or expel the ethnic minorities.

That's pure democracy for you. Mob rule.

Democracy, like communism, has not yet been properly implemented.

yeah! someone who'se actually honest and objective. i'm sure there are others too. and not to discredit them either. just my way of saying yes. and probably goes for a lot of other things a lot of people think they know but very few act or use as if they actually did.

democracy is a means of doing something about the freedoms you don't have. it isn't a guarantee of anything.

being able to do something about the freedoms you don't have is not something i knock.

but it is still neither those freedoms themselves, nor any guarantee of gaining or maintaining them.

=^^=
.../\...

You know what's overrated? FF7. When you're not watching uncontrollable cinematics, you're having blocky guys level up chunks of rock. It's an above average game, but NO WAY IN HELL is it top ten. Gimme FF3 anyday.

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/4828/ff3nowrb6.gif

I do believe you mean Final Fantasy VI (originally released as Final Fantasy III in the United States), in which case I heartily agree.

yeah! someone who'se actually honest and objective. i'm sure there are others too. and not to discredit them either. just my way of saying yes. and probably goes for a lot of other things a lot of people think they know but very few act or use as if they actually did.

democracy is a means of doing something about the freedoms you don't have. it isn't a guarantee of anything.

being able to do something about the freedoms you don't have is not something i knock.

but it is still neither those freedoms themselves, nor any guarantee of gaining or maintaining them.

=^^=
.../\...
All that democracy is a guarantee of is that people are ruled by an ignorant mob rather than somewhat left to get on with their lives by a small group of people who've gone to university and studied to become politicians.

So?

That doesn't mean that the basic idea behind it is good. You'd get places in Texas which would probably vote to kill all of the homosexuals in the area. In the Balkans, some settlements might well vote to kill or expel the ethnic minorities.

That's pure democracy for you. Mob rule.

I wouldn't call that democracy, majority rule without respect for minorities is not a democracy but a majority dictatorship.

All that democracy is a guarantee of is that people are ruled by an ignorant mob rather than somewhat left to get on with their lives by a small group of people who've gone to university and studied to become politicians.

who might still be an unruelly mob, and did they actually graduate? or even if they did, actually learn anything other then flimflam and conartistry? but of course you WOULD get that in a true democracy too. as the tale of socraties somewhat illustrates.

=^^=
.../\...

i've never met a hierarchy yet that didn't come in direct conflict with reality at some point. the best is not neccessarily the least, but perhaps one you stand the best chance of being unnoticed by. or at least the most free might be.

=^^=
.../\...

"Democracy is the worst system of government ever attempted, saving only all others." - Winston Churchill (I think).

No. As the least of all evils, it works best.

Democracy is a terrible form of government; tyranny by majority, mob rule.

A dictatorship could be a good thing, but it has a lousy track record. Who can name the last successful, benevolent dictator?

The lesser of two evils is still evil and the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

I am not a fascist,monarchist, or pro-dictatorship, but is democracy overrated. Most people are not concerned at all with taking care of other people and the demand of millions of people slow legislative processes. Besides the overwhelming majority is what keeps minorities down. Think of Civil Rights in America, they couldnt vote to get protective legislation down until there was civil disobedience and decisions of the Supreme Court. So, could a dictatorship be beneficial just as a democracy?

How can you even consider saying that?

Think about it!

Mind you, democracy as a word would not work at all, however a representative democracy would and has worked fine over the years for man countries.

I wouldn't call that democracy, majority rule without respect for minorities is not a democracy but a majority dictatorship.

The bolded terms are synonymous.

I've always seen democracy as being counterproductive becausenot everyone votes and the people don't really know what they are voting on. If society were to educate themselves on the issues and cast their opinion I could respect democracy...but that will never happen.

I've always seen democracy as being counterproductive becausenot everyone votes and the people don't really know what they are voting on. If society were to educate themselves on the issues and cast their opinion I could respect democracy...but that will never happen.

Actually it could, but the benefits of better education won't be seen for many years even decades, as education is one way of securing informal rules/norms and values in a society. So in 100 years from now society might be more democratic (if it lives that long), might have less wars and might have higher standards of living.
For example if you compare our lives with those 100 years ago, it's hugely different Britain wasn't very democratic until 1928, and many standards of education then would be considered pathetic nowadays.
Also living standards have improved since 100 years ago, better sanitation, better hygiene and medical knowledge.
So a better Democracy is possible but i'm not sure i'll live to see it.

Yup. Democracy is overrated. MASSIVELY overrated. The government should never be judged by the liberties and freedom (what's the fuss about "freedom" anyway?!) it grants to the people, but by its efficiency and the safety of the nation and people it controls.

Absolutely not. If you believe in freedom, you must believe in democracy, for without democracy the population will always be living not under laws and policies it chooses itself, but rather ones imposed from above.

Absolutely not. If you believe in freedom, you must believe in democracy, for without democracy the population will always be living not under laws and policies it chooses itself, but rather ones imposed from above.
Perhaps the people imposing laws know what they're doing a bit more than the average worker, no?

The bolded terms are synonymous.

Nonsense. The difference is right there in the plain meanings of the words.

Democracy: rule of the people
Majority dictatorship: unrestricted rule of the majority (one particular part of the people)

Perhaps the people imposing laws know what they're doing a bit more than the average worker, no?

No. Happening to be in power is neither indicative of competence at ruling nor of any desire to actually promote the public welfare.

democracy is a cool idea. Of course pure democracy dosen't work. The protection of minority rights is a very undemocratic idea, but it works well with democracy. Most Americans, (especially the student government association at my school) think that democracy is greatest thing since sliced bread and never get anything useful done as a result. fuckin losers.:rolleyes:

No. Happening to be in power is neither indicative of competence at ruling nor of any desire to actually promote the public welfare.
Being smart enough to get into power suggests, to me at least, a knowledge of people better than the average chump.

Being smart enough to get into power suggests, to me at least, a knowledge of people better than the average chump.

That depends entirely on the manner through which a person gets into power, and the kind of knowledge necessary to get into power still isn't necessarily the knowledge needed to rule a country well. (See Mao.)

And, if anything, the kind of personalities inclined to seize power tend to be the kinds of personalities that do not particularly care about the general welfare.

Absolutely not. If you believe in freedom, you must believe in democracy, for without democracy the population will always be living not under laws and policies it chooses itself, but rather ones imposed from above.

democracy is cool cuz it lets the people decide things. Of course letting the people decide everything is a bad idea, but democracy in moderation works well. and freedom is possible without democracy. Laws destroy freedom, not styles of government.

and freedom is possible without democracy.

No, it isn't, not if there is another form of political organization anyway.

At the very best, "freedom" without democracy is the generosity of the masters towards their servants.

That depends entirely on the manner through which a person gets into power, and the kind of knowledge necessary to get into power still isn't necessarily the knowledge needed to rule a country well. (See Mao.)

And, if anything, the kind of personalities inclined to seize power tend to be the kinds of personalities that do not particularly care about the general welfare.
They care about general welfare insomuchas they have to placate enough people to stop a revolution. If you give everyone an equal share of the responsibility of leadership, then why would people care about anyone but themselves - after all, there are so many others one can blame.

They care about general welfare insomuchas they have to placate enough people to stop a revolution.

Well, that's a nice, effective, safe way to maintain accountability. :rolleyes:

If you give everyone an equal share of the responsibility of leadership, then why would people care about anyone but themselves

I don't know--a general tendency toward morality and compassion?

after all, there are so many others one can blame.

Who gives a shit who's blamed if one person has all the power? And if you have a more widely distributed system of political power, then the same problem of blame arises. After all, the dictator can claim that he or she didn't implement the needed policy because the people would have revolted.

One of the many benefits of democracy is that even if everyone is out for themselves, you still have an influence on policy... your participation doesn't depend on the generosity of others.

No, it isn't, not if there is another form of political organization anyway.

At the very best, "freedom" without democracy is the generosity of the masters towards their servants.

You don't think so? I don't see how participating in democracy insures my freedom any more than participating in despotism. Why dose it matter if a group decides how the government should be or a single person?

I don't see how participating in democracy insures my freedom any more than participating in despotism.

Participating in democracy is in and of itself more an expression of freedom than living under a despotism.

In a democracy, you participate in choosing the laws and policies of the society in which you live. In a dictatorship, those laws and policies are chosen by others and imposed by force on you.

Why dose it matter if a group decides how the government should be or a single person?

It doesn't. But it matters greatly if the relevant group is the group over which the government is instituted.

Participating in democracy is in and of itself more an expression of freedom than living under a despotism.

In a democracy, you participate in choosing the laws and policies of the society in which you live. In a dictatorship, those laws and policies are chosen by others and imposed by force on you.

so, why does it matter who chooses what? I mean, democracy does not insure freedom just as a monarchy doesn't ensure oppression.


It doesn't. But it matters greatly if the relevant group is the group over which the government is instituted.

I agree, but only if the group in question is ruled by the government of interest while assuming that the system of notice regulates the laws.

I mean, democracy does not insure freedom just as a monarchy doesn't ensure oppression.

Democracy in and of itself gives us an important aspect of freedom. Monarchy in and of itself denies us an important aspect of freedom. It isn't about what one or the other ensures, it's about what they are.

Think of it this way: if freedom is the capacity to live our lives according to our wishes, then democracy is part of freedom because it makes the laws that govern our lives subject to our wishes.

I agree, but only if the group in question is ruled by the government of interest while assuming that the system of notice regulates the laws.

What are you saying?

Absolutely not. If you believe in freedom, you must believe in democracy, for without democracy the population will always be living not under laws and policies it chooses itself, but rather ones imposed from above.
For the minority, the latter is true in both cases.

Think of it this way: if freedom is the capacity to live our lives according to our wishes, then democracy is part of freedom because it makes the laws that govern our lives subject to our wishes.
This is only true if the people speak with one voice.

For the minority, the latter is true in both cases.

And that's precisely why any true democrat supports minority rights. The first principle is equality: equality under the law and equality of political power. Otherwise it ceases to be the rule of the people oriented towards the public good, and instead becomes the rule of some of the people oriented to their own private welfare at the expense of the others.

In accordance with this principle, then, in a properly-functioning democracy there is no "the minority" and no "the majority": there are temporary majorities and minorities in every vote, but no part of the population that is continually subordinated. It follows that it will be in the interest of each particular majority to moderate itself, lest it become a victim of its own precedent--thus the power of constitutional protections.

If you have a society whose culture and social structure is such that a particular minority is continually subordinated, then mere democratic forms are not enough: true commitment to democracy requires action to reverse this, including extra-legal action if necessary and potentially secession if that's a viable option.

Still, it is probably better than a society where almost everyone is continually subordinated, and necessarily so.

This is only true if the people speak with one voice.

No, it's true as long as everyone has the opportunity to meaningfully participate in the political system.

If you are forbidden suffrage, or you always lose, then you have reason to complain. But not if this or that particular vote goes against you.

Democracy in and of itself gives us an important aspect of freedom. Monarchy in and of itself denies us an important aspect of freedom. It isn't about what one or the other ensures, it's about what they are.

What is this aspect of freedom that democracy makes possible that monarchy dose not? Is it more free because people get to make choices? Dose it really matter who makes the choices? Maybe it dose. But what is this aspect of freedom that you speak of?

What is this aspect of freedom that democracy makes possible that monarchy dose not? Is it more free because people get to make choices? Dose it really matter who makes the choices? Maybe it dose. But what is this aspect of freedom that you speak of?

The very basic aspect of freedom: deciding who gets to rule over you.

Democracy in and of itself gives us an important aspect of freedom. Monarchy in and of itself denies us an important aspect of freedom. It isn't about what one or the other ensures, it's about what they are.

What is this aspect of freedom that democracy makes possible that monarchy dose not? Is it more free because people get to make choices? Dose it really matter who makes the choices? Maybe it dose. But what is this aspect of freedom that you speak of?

What is this aspect of freedom that democracy makes possible that monarchy dose not?

The freedom of the people to live according to the laws they themselves choose.

What else is freedom, except the capacity to decide how to live your life yourself?

The freedom of the people to live according to the laws they themselves choose.

What else is freedom, except the capacity to decide how to live your life yourself?

except that democracy is not pure individualism, it is majority rule. So under a democracy, I do not choose how I want to be governed, everybody else dose. For instance, I think I should be able to smoke pot and run around my university in the nude, but marijuana is illegal and nobody wants to see my wiener. Wait thats a bad example. The point is, it doesn't matter if my government is a monarchy or a democracy, only laws can make me free or not.

So under a democracy, I do not choose how I want to be governed, everybody else dose.

You participate in making the choice. So does everyone else. Equally.

For instance, I think I should be able to smoke pot and run around my university in the nude, but marijuana is illegal and nobody wants to see my wiener.

That's because you're not the only one entitled to freedom. Everyone is, and thus everyone can participate.

There are, of course, some individually-oriented choices that should not be political questions at all--at least not in the way I have been suggesting. It could be reasonably argued that marijuana and public nudity fall into that category, but that has nothing to do with the political system and everything to do with the extent of political rule.

Yup. Democracy is overrated. MASSIVELY overrated. The government should never be judged by the liberties and freedom (what's the fuss about "freedom" anyway?!) it grants to the people, but by its efficiency and the safety of the nation and people it controls.To paraphrase a quote commonly attributed to Ben Franklin, 'those who would give up liberty for safety deserve neither'.

Well if you don't like democracy; ie giving each member of society an equal amount of political power, then inevitably you advocate centralizing this power into some kind of minority clique or elite, the same can be extended to economic power.

why not just have a system where we have freedom for all, so long as that freedom does not take from the freedom of others. then we have a court to keep an eye on things, and to be fair, judges would be appointed by the people. then we could do away with politicians and most of government. i can dream can't i?

we thought of it, gave it a name, and tried it. It's called communism. Unfortionatly, we decided to give it a bad name, so a lot of people hate it.

and my 2 cents are this: If America were fascist and still at the power level we are today, than fascism would be the new democracy. People love democracy because the big gun s are democratic.

And that's precisely why any true democrat supports minority rights.
"No True Scotsman", much?
The first principle is equality: equality under the law and equality of political power. Otherwise it ceases to be the rule of the people oriented towards the public good, and instead becomes the rule of some of the people oriented to their own private welfare at the expense of the others.
That's what democracy always is as soon as the majority realises they can vote themselves benefits at the expense of the majority. That's why most western nations have progressive taxation.

In a democracy, the people have the power to change any aspect of the legal system, including the safeguards against abuse. This is why democracy is antithetical to individual freedom.

If democracy necessarily included these safeguards you describe, the problems would be mitigated. Similarly, if secession were always an option for any group of any size (including individuals), then I would have fewer complaints.

But that's not what democracy is.
No, it's true as long as everyone has the opportunity to meaningfully participate in the political system.

If you are forbidden suffrage, or you always lose, then you have reason to complain. But not if this or that particular vote goes against you.
Even using your somewhat constrained view of democracy, the idiosyncratic still always lose.

You've seen the positions I espouse here at NSG. When do you think I last got an election result I liked?

There are, of course, some individually-oriented choices that should not be political questions at all--at least not in the way I have been suggesting. It could be reasonably argued that marijuana and public nudity fall into that category, but that has nothing to do with the political system and everything to do with the extent of political rule.
Unfortunately for democracy, the extent of political rule is determined democratically.

To paraphrase a quote commonly attributed to Ben Franklin, 'those who would give up liberty for safety deserve neither'.


Well, I disagree with that. Safety first, liberties and freedom after more important values have been secured. After all, liberty IS overrated... The whole purpose of a government is to restrict freedoms in favor of law, order and safety.

we thought of it, gave it a name, and tried it. It's called communism. Unfortionatly, we decided to give it a bad name, so a lot of people hate it.

and my 2 cents are this: If America were fascist and still at the power level we are today, than fascism would be the new democracy. People love democracy because the big gun s are democratic.

Paranoid ranting. Communism never establishes itself due to the fact that giving the power you hold in a representative democracy to a socialist dictator, so he can make the "transition" to a communist regime is very trusting and naive of you.Communism was a concept used by many a dictator to make people believe in him and do everything.In the end, it is just election campaign promises with indefinite starting date.

Democracy is the thing. And it must work on all levels of government (city, state, nation).That's the closest way to get the wills of the majority of people done in all places. As Churchill said, it is the worst system of government in the world, excluding all others already thought.We either stick with it, or risk everything you've already built (for something not worth it).

Well, I disagree with that. Safety first, liberties and freedom after more important values have been secured. After all, liberty IS overrated... The whole purpose of a government is to restrict freedoms in favor of law, order and safety.No, the whole purpose of a government is to protect the biggest number of freedoms possible from incursion. The problem arises when government incurs against too many freedoms.

"No True Scotsman", much?

How about "a conception of democracy beyond simplistic cliches"?

That's what democracy always is as soon as the majority realises they can vote themselves benefits at the expense of the majority.

Who's "the majority"? Who's "the minority"?

A majority in one particular case may be able to subjugate a minority for their own benefit. But they will hesitate to do so for two reasons, both founded on the fact that majority-minority relations are (generally) not constant. First, if that majority is split, the minority may have the deciding vote: it makes sense to form coalitions, to support the interests of others, because then in turn they can support yours. Second, if the majority is empowered to do whatever it wants, then the moment anyone joins the minority (which will be sometimes in any democracy) they will be vulnerable. It is in their interest to protect against such an eventuality.

Even using your somewhat constrained view of democracy, the idiosyncratic still always lose.

Your concept of "lose" is distorted.

Can they vote? Yes. Can they influence policy? Yes. Do they always get their way? Of course not. But then, no one does. That's how democracy works.

Now, perhaps some people's opinions happen to generally coincide with the general consensus, and thus they "win" more often than others. But this is not due to any greater intrinsic influence; it's because, incidentally, their preferences happen to be so.

That's true in any social arrangement.

Unfortunately for democracy, the extent of political rule is determined democratically.

Right (though usually there are more stringent limitations than mere majority vote). And the people have every reason to democratically limit it.

The extent of political rule must always be determined by someone. You can't escape that.

'Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.' -Ben Franklin

Democracy in and of itself gives us an important aspect of freedom.
Not really, no.

I don't see what odds it really makes to your every day life if every however many years you get to pick someone else who tells you how you should be living your life.
Monarchy in and of itself denies us an important aspect of freedom.
Err, no it doesn't.

What aspect of freedom does it deny?
It isn't about what one or the other ensures, it's about what they are.

Think of it this way: if freedom is the capacity to live our lives according to our wishes, then democracy is part of freedom because it makes the laws that govern our lives subject to our wishes.
Democracy doesn't even the beginnings of make any laws, and the day that it does is going to be a sad one.

It needs to be made absolutely clear that all systems of government are either systems of majority rule or systems of minority rule. There is no other option.

A lot of conservatives talk about "constitutionalism" and "rule of law" with no apparent knowledge of the fact that laws and constitutions do not write themselves; some group of people must be given the power to decide what the law or the constitution will actually contain. And that group can be either a majority or a minority. So, laws or no laws, constitutions or no constitutions, the fundamental choice is between majority and minority rule.

The majority of the people on this board have voted that democracy is over-rated. ;)

Democracy is over-rated, or at least over-hyped. I don’t think you can truly answer the question as to whether or not it is the “best” form of government, as one thing that is clear from this discussion is that everyone has a different idea of how they would measure “best”. Is it the one that grants most personal freedoms, that grants the most security and stability, the most social mobility, the most justice, the most equality, the most choice?

For me the most important thing in society is justice, social stability security, cultural and educational achievement, and social harmony. I think personal freedoms and social climbing come behind those things, and don’t feel democracy is the best way to achieve the things I consider important, as I believe the electoral cycle means that stability, unity and consensus are all undermined.

I am not absolutely opposed to democracy, and I think it has a place to some degree within government, but in a very different form to as we (ab)use it now.

Not really, no.

I don't see what odds it really makes to your every day life if every however many years you get to pick someone else who tells you how you should be living your life.Because otherwise you would not be picking someone else who tells you how you should be living your life.

No, the whole purpose of a government is to protect the biggest number of freedoms possible from incursion. The problem arises when government incurs against too many freedoms.

You know, people can have too many freedoms... I'm not saying people should live in some kind of monstrous dictatorship which controls every aspect of their daily lives, but the government has to be strong, not weak. Sometimes being strong requires restricting personal freedoms (and don't mind my name "Despoticania"... When I started to play NS, I was going to make a "evil" nation. However, right now I'm saying what I'm REALLY thinking).

A good example is what happened in my homeland, Finland, last month... The Union of Health and Social Care Services was planning a nationwide mass resignation of nurses (as a part of job action), which would have almost certainly resulted in death of several patients in hospitals. The Parliament passed a law which allowed the authorities to "force" some of the nurses back to work in order to prevent deaths. Many considered this to be "slavery", but then again, that was the only way to ensure that patients won't suffer. I myself wholeheartedly supported the law.

You know, people can have too many freedoms... I'm not saying people should live in some kind of monstrous dictatorship which controls every aspect of their daily lives, but the government has to be strong, not weak. Sometimes being strong requires restricting personal freedoms (and don't mind my name "Despoticania"... When I started to play NS, I was going to make a "evil" nation. However, right now I'm saying what I'm REALLY thinking).It's debatable whether or not there can be too many freedoms, but it's a lot easier for there to be too few freedoms with a "strong" government than too many.

A good example is what happened in my homeland, Finland, last month... The Union of Health and Social Care Services was planning a nationwide mass resignation of nurses (as a part of job action), which would have almost certainly resulted in death of several patients in hospitals. The Parliament passed a law which allowed the authorities to "force" some of the nurses back to work in order to prevent deaths. Many considered this to be "slavery", but then again, that was the only way to ensure that patients won't suffer. I myself wholeheartedly supported the law.For what purpose were the nurses resigning en masse?

Because otherwise you would not be picking someone else who tells you how you should be living your life.
Oh noes, the sheer tragedy of it...

Most people in the UK are utterly disaffected with politics, because it's all a load of irrelevant shit to us. It doesn't really matter who's in charge, because everyone has the same opinions on almost every issue. Hell, the governments been getting laws passed due to opposition support lately.

Utter disgrace, really. Why bother turning up?

David Cameron is nothing new, and the conservative party is an utter mess, Gordon Brown seems to be re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, and the Lib Dems are essentially a "none of the above" vote.

...and the Lib Dems are essentially a "none of the above" vote.
Seen this (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3266583.ece)?

Tickles me pink.

Seen this (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3266583.ece)?

Tickles me pink.
Oh for fuck's sakes.

We've already had Bono being a self-righteous wanker, why need we put up with other musicians being so too?

*sighs*

For what purpose were the nurses resigning en masse?


They wanted more salary. And they surely deserved it... until they started to threaten with patient-deaths.

So?

That doesn't mean that the basic idea behind it is good. You'd get places in Texas which would probably vote to kill all of the homosexuals in the area. In the Balkans, some settlements might well vote to kill or expel the ethnic minorities.

That's pure democracy for you. Mob rule.
But there's no system that is inherently more reasonable than democracy. The more removed you make the representative structure, or the more you eliminate it, that doesn't guarantee a higher likelihood of an enlightened government emerging than the "mob rule" of democracy. As far as "forms" of government are concerned, all you can do is put into place a power structure, and hope it is used correctly by whomever controls it. The only thing that makes representative forms of government better than non-representative forms of government is people are more likely to vote for their own self interests - that's the only fundamental difference in consequence between democracy and non-democratic forms of government.

This myth that you can write a values-enshrining constitution that will act as law by creating some kind of system where nobody can wrest control from a dead document is appealing, but even the founders (of the US) knew better than to think it would last long. That there's an enlightened elite who can somehow be objectively selected meritoriously is even more ridiculous. The only chance to stave off oppression is to put power in the hands of the people, and give every individual and group all possible means to seize their rights when they would inevitably be taken from them by force.

Oh noes, the sheer tragedy of it...

Most people in the UK are utterly disaffected with politics, because it's all a load of irrelevant shit to us. It doesn't really matter who's in charge, because everyone has the same opinions on almost every issue. Hell, the governments been getting laws passed due to opposition support lately.

Utter disgrace, really. Why bother turning up?

David Cameron is nothing new, and the conservative party is an utter mess, Gordon Brown seems to be re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, and the Lib Dems are essentially a "none of the above" vote.Of course, part of being in a democracy is having the ability to run for office yourself...

They wanted more salary. And they surely deserved it... until they started to threaten with patient-deaths.Which means that instead of the government passing laws to force the nurses back to work, they could have capitulated to the nurses' demands, could they not?

Yeah, democracy encroaches on the freedoms of those with minority opinions. Democracy is still authoritarian; authority is in the hands of the majority. The only truly free system is one wherein there is no authority but oneself.

But there's no system that is inherently more reasonable than democracy. The more removed you make the representative structure, or the more you eliminate it, that doesn't guarantee a higher likelihood of an enlightened government emerging than the "mob rule" of democracy. As far as "forms" of government are concerned, all you can do is put into place a power structure, and hope it is used correctly by whomever controls it. The only thing that makes representative forms of government better than non-representative forms of government is people are more likely to vote for their own self interests - that's the only fundamental difference in consequence between democracy and non-democratic forms of government.
On the other hand, a non-democratic government can get done what needs to be got done without having to worry about pleasing the crowd. See China, for example.

You couldn't even the beginnings of discuss a one-child policy in a democratic country, let alone have it as a 100-year long plan, it would be political suicide. The same goes for casual imperialism in Tibet (fair enough IMO, but many disagree), knocking down houses for the Olympics, and so on and so forth.

Democracies nowadays are more mediocracies than anything else, and since most of the important political parties in Western Europe and the US have essentially similar goals and methods of acheiving them, not that many people bother to turn up to vote.

The only reason why the French election had such a high turnout last time is because most working people and the middle class were very strongly in favour of Sarkozy coming to power, due to his economic policies, and probably just as much because he's at least been honest about what he thinks of the people in the citées, versus Royale, who would probably have won had she not repeatedly shot herself in the foot throughout her election campaign, although to be honest, I could easily have seen France ending her first term far poorer, what with some of the quite frankly ridiculous benefit policies.

Bit of a farce, really.
This myth that you can write a values-enshrining constitution that will act as law by creating some kind of system where nobody can wrest control from a dead document is appealing, but even the founders (of the US) knew better than to think it would last long. That there's an enlightened elite who can somehow be objectively selected meritoriously is even more ridiculous. The only chance to stave off oppression is to put power in the hands of the people, and give every individual and group all possible means to seize their rights when they would inevitably be taken from them by force.
Yes, well since The People seemed utterly incapable of saving US democracy in 2000 after Dubya essentially stole the election, with the help of his brother, I've verylittle faith in them, to be quite honest.
Of course, part of being in a democracy is having the ability to run for office yourself...
Yes, and as an exec officer for both of my years at college (although I changed the constitution in the first year so I didn't need to be voted on for the second time, wahey), I can say that it's been enormous fun.

On the other hand, it's shown me what kind of people get into power. It's either people like myself who actually give a shit about improving things, and then people who get elected because they won the popularity contest element by being the gay candidate, or the most attractive of the female candidates, etc. etc., and then proceed to do absolutely nothing of any value to anyone whilst frittering away Union funds.

On the other hand, my own views on how best to improve the country's economy are basically a mish-mash of Labour and Conservative policies. It's just that I personally wouldn't feel right for voting in Labour again after the current car crash of Gordon Brown's government, and don't want to vote in the Conservatives much. Were it not for the sheer cynicism of both parties, I'd probably vote, but Gordon Brown is a rubbish PM, and David Cameron is going to let it get to his head when he's voted in (for he will be).

As to the Lib Dems, they're essentially a joke, and a cruel joke for British politics.
Which means that instead of the government passing laws to force the nurses back to work, they could have capitulated to the nurses' demands, could they not?
When they talk about killing their patients, then I think that letting them get off without some degree of police brutality ensuing is pretty lenient.

Yes, and as an exec officer for both of my years at college (although I changed the constitution in the first year so I didn't need to be voted on for the second time, wahey), I can say that it's been enormous fun.

On the other hand, it's shown me what kind of people get into power. It's either people like myself who actually give a shit about improving things, and then people who get elected because they won the popularity contest element by being the gay candidate, or the most attractive of the female candidates, etc. etc., and then proceed to do absolutely nothing of any value to anyone whilst frittering away Union funds.

On the other hand, my own views on how best to improve the country's economy are basically a mish-mash of Labour and Conservative policies. It's just that I personally wouldn't feel right for voting in Labour again after the current car crash of Gordon Brown's government, and don't want to vote in the Conservatives much. Were it not for the sheer cynicism of both parties, I'd probably vote, but Gordon Brown is a rubbish PM, and David Cameron is going to let it get to his head when he's voted in (for he will be).

As to the Lib Dems, they're essentially a joke, and a cruel joke for British politics.If you have centrist positions, it probably wouldn't be too difficult for you to get in (when you're old enough).

When they talk about killing their patients, then I think that letting them get off without some degree of police brutality ensuing is pretty lenient.I got the impression from Despoticania's post that the nurses were killing their patients by walking off the job, through neglect, (in theory) as opposed to intentionally killing them.

If you have centrist positions, it probably wouldn't be too difficult for you to get in (when you're old enough).
All fine and dandy until you realise that the Labour Party is actually a champagne socialist-fest, where everyone imagines that money to help the poor grows on trees, and that the Conservative Party is mainly the preserve of the farmer and those who imagine that the poor are poor only because they are idle.

Eugh.
I got the impression from Despoticania's post that the nurses were killing their patients by walking off the job, through neglect, (in theory) as opposed to intentionally killing them.
Buggering off instead of looking after the sick pretty much sounds like murder to me. Manslaughter at the very least.

Buggering off instead of looking after the sick pretty much sounds like murder to me. Manslaughter at the very least.

I would be curious as to why you feel this way. It seems a bit hypocritical to hold public office to a double standard: we're supposed to elect people who are inordinately selfless to do an altruistic job. This sense of (let's be frank) moral superiority is decidedly lacking on the part of what 'normal' society is supposed to be about: enlightened self-interest. There is a tension there that those who are public servants are supposed to be different from the rest of regular society as to who they are responsible for.

In a sense, the failure then is of the society which has forsaken the duties requisite with the rights associated with 'democracy'. Any wonder why people are so disillusioned with politics, but when it comes to them practicing the franchise they don't seem to care? You can't expect public servants to operate at a different standard when the rest of society puts them on a pedestal they can't possibly meet.

I do agree that neglect is a tragedy, but neglect is not the sole domain of the public servant, certainly not when it comes to charity, which our 'conscience' tells us we should be performing. Then again no one likes those 'chuggers' marching around with rattling jars under your nose for every cause under the sun...

I would be curious as to why you feel this way. It seems a bit hypocritical to hold public office to a double standard: we're supposed to elect people who are inordinately selfless to do an altruistic job. This sense of (let's be frank) moral superiority is decidedly lacking on the part of what 'normal' society is supposed to be about: enlightened self-interest. There is a tension there that those who are public servants are supposed to be different from the rest of regular society as to who they are responsible for.
Because if people are supposed to be representing tens of thousands of people at an MP level, and literally millions if they get into the cabinet, then one would hope that they'd act at least marginally in the public's favour.

With a dictatorship, the people at the top actually have to put some work in, or it doesn't get any results. And a dictatorship without results is nothing but a revolution waiting to happen, for someone else to come to power.

The problem, in my opinion, with democracy is that it makes governments legitimate by virtue of them being what the public wanted some years ago - in the UK's case, that can be up to five years ago. This generally leads to either very strong governments which hardly need to even announce elections to win the next five years, or governments of a very poor quality pretty much from the outset, which we can't get rid of for bloody ages.

If people actually had to make a large effort to get public elections, then they'd only bother if the current government was doing something Very Wrong Indeed, which, if picked due to their merits rather than due to how popular they were with the local population, should happen with a high degree of irregularity.
In a sense, the failure then is of the society which has forsaken the duties requisite with the rights associated with 'democracy'. Any wonder why people are so disillusioned with politics, but when it comes to them practicing the franchise they don't seem to care? You can't expect public servants to operate at a different standard when the rest of society puts them on a pedestal they can't possibly meet.
It's not really so much about an unmeetable pedestal so much as that most people simply don't care who's supposedly in charge, or, more to the point, only care when things start to go horribly wrong.

That's not something that's going to change very soon, so why bother with regular elections anyway?

If people want too see a circus, then there's doubtless one more than every five years in their area which they can go to and watch people jump through hoops.
I do agree that neglect is a tragedy, but neglect is not the sole domain of the public servant, certainly not when it comes to charity, which our 'conscience' tells us we should be performing. Then again no one likes those 'chuggers' marching around with rattling jars under your nose for every cause under the sun...
Quite.

I would argue of course that the cynicism you are expressing with the government is in many ways part of the actual problem.

As I see it, the concept is that the whole thing is pointless, and therefore why bother expressing political opinion at all? In many ways, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy because the people who we would want as agents of change are too disillusioned to actually work to change it: the task is confined to the one-issue ideologues and the 'MasterCard Marxists' who preach revolution while on the government school voucher.

As for your opinion on a dictatorship, I believe you are quite wrong. A dictator has to put only so much effort in as to please the people who actually have the means to oust him/her. The idea goes that of people are so cynical and unwilling to practice politics without any perceived penalty and *don't*, what makes you feel they may see it as worth it to oppose the dictator? Revolution only occurs when things get so bad that the masses say "Well, I am going to die/suffer inordinately anyways, so I might as well fight as sit here and take it". They require some spark to make them shake their self-concern and put it in terms relating to all the people suffering with them. Call it social apathy if you will, but the default feeling is that people are concerned only with themselves and their small sphere of influence. A dictator has it quite easy so long as the military and law-enforcing classes are pleased, and the ravaging of the country can be checked to a marginal degree. It's only when that social apathy threshold is crossed that they have to worry...or else when outside parties become involved.

To be honest, I was rather surprised by my time in the UK. At least where I was studying at for the year (LSE) people did take politics no more or less seriously than back at my home institution. The small minority (5-10%) involved were *very* involved, and the rest waxed and waned as the issues arose came and went. Sitting on both the constitution and steering committee as well as chairman of the SU (for a time), I could say as an outsider looking in, it was rather representative of how politics works for most people.

Of course, are you surprised that stasis is the default method of governance? When you need to be elected, you generally face a lot of people who are generally tolerant with what is going on. Bureaucratic theory would suggest changes must be incremental, and when answering to an electorate those changes need to be justified. In the British case, I would say part of the stagnation of government is the set-up of Parliament itself. While I detest the two-party system here in the US, the multi-party system there did not strike me as working much better. Or maybe I just hated the 'illiberal liberal' authoritarian Greens on the LSE campus, I don't know.

Representative democracy, which was called representative aristocracy up until around the time America used democracy to describe their aristocracy, is overrated. However, actual direct democracy is the way it should be.

we thought of it, gave it a name, and tried it. It's called communism. Unfortionatly, we decided to give it a bad name, so a lot of people hate it.

That's nothing like what Marx or any1 later thinks of as communism. In fact, most of the forms of communism (if it is even approriate to call it that ) that were actually practised were authoritarian regimes and not

and my 2 cents are this: If America were fascist and still at the power level we are today, than fascism would be the new democracy. People love democracy because the big gun s are democratic.
America is not properly democratic. People call it democratic because that is what they call it.

Oh noes, the sheer tragedy of it...

Most people in the UK are utterly disaffected with politics, because it's all a load of irrelevant shit to us. It doesn't really matter who's in charge, because everyone has the same opinions on almost every issue. Hell, the governments been getting laws passed due to opposition support lately.

To me, this just means that this particular democracy (and all representative 1s by extention) don't work, not that all democracies don't work. Apathy and 1st past the post systems are at elast partly to blame.

Utter disgrace, really. Why bother turning up?

David Cameron is nothing new, and the conservative party is an utter mess, Gordon Brown seems to be re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, and the Lib Dems are essentially a "none of the above" vote.

You do realise that there are more than 3 parties, don't you?

You couldn't even the beginnings of discuss a one-child policy in a democratic country, let alone have it as a 100-year long plan, it would be political suicide. The same goes for casual imperialism in Tibet (fair enough IMO, but many disagree), knocking down houses for the Olympics, and so on and so forth.
And you support these things?! The 1 child policy ain't too bad but any imperialism sucks balls and how would you like your house to get knocked down just for a few weeks of sport?


The only reason why the French election had such a high turnout last time is because most working people and the middle class were very strongly in favour of Sarkozy coming to power...
If that were the case then the result would have been more of a landslide.


Yes, well since The People seemed utterly incapable of saving US democracy in 2000 after Dubya essentially stole the election, with the help of his brother, I've verylittle faith in them, to be quite honest.
Well that isn't an example of democracy, is it? What that shows is we need measures to stop corruption not just take away democracy. That's like having a computer that crashes constantly and because of that, you conclude that all computers are useless.

On the other hand, my own views on how best to improve the country's economy are basically a mish-mash of Labour and Conservative policies.
Now that's seriously generic capitalism!

With a dictatorship, the people at the top actually have to put some work in, or it doesn't get any results. And a dictatorship without results is nothing but a revolution waiting to happen, for someone else to come to power.

The problem, in my opinion, with democracy is that it makes governments legitimate by virtue of them being what the public wanted some years ago - in the UK's case, that can be up to five years ago. This generally leads to either very strong governments which hardly need to even announce elections to win the next five years, or governments of a very poor quality pretty much from the outset, which we can't get rid of for bloody ages.
Bloody ages as in 27 years max? And that was back when it was much more of an aristocracy than it is now. Compare that to any dictatorship or monarchy and see how fast they change the governing group of people. Because we're saying how fast the people themselves change their goverment, exclude changes enacted by outside forces or alternative dictatorship or monarchies. Fastest I can think of is 44 years for Albania.

On the other hand, a non-democratic government can get done what needs to be got done without having to worry about pleasing the crowd. See China, for example."What needs to be got done" is the central point of contention. If "what needs to be got done" defies the will of the people, then what is it that makes the alleged "needs" actual needs from a political standpoint?

You couldn't even the beginnings of discuss a one-child policy in a democratic country, let alone have it as a 100-year long plan, it would be political suicide.Not necessarily, but isn't that a good thing? First of all, procreation is a human right. Second of all, prosperity is the only way to effectively slow population growth, and that cannot be achieved without a certain amount of liberty.

The same goes for casual imperialism in Tibet (fair enough IMO, but many disagree), knocking down houses for the Olympics, and so on and so forth.By what standard are these positive things?

I'll bet good money that China will eventually be considered an example of how non-representative governments fail even when they do attempt to pursue prosperity. As the meat of society's workings penetrates virtual space (eew gross), China will be unable to both regulate their culture and maintain a globally competitive capital market economy. Social and economic liberalization are too connected to each other to have a lot of one without much of the other.

All fine and dandy until you realise that the Labour Party is actually a champagne socialist-fest, where everyone imagines that money to help the poor grows on trees, and that the Conservative Party is mainly the preserve of the farmer and those who imagine that the poor are poor only because they are idle.

Eugh.Are there any other parties with somewhat centrist viewpoints?
Couldn't someone run as an independent?

Buggering off instead of looking after the sick pretty much sounds like murder to me. Manslaughter at the very least.So then an individual nurse isn't allowed to quit?

I am not a fascist,monarchist, or pro-dictatorship, but is democracy overrated. Most people are not concerned at all with taking care of other people and the demand of millions of people slow legislative processes. Besides the overwhelming majority is what keeps minorities down. Think of Civil Rights in America, they couldnt vote to get protective legislation down until there was civil disobedience and decisions of the Supreme Court. So, could a dictatorship be beneficial just as a democracy?

As Winston Churchill once said (or at least I think it was Churchill): "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others"

The best system is Monarchy, as long as they know what they are doing. Baisicaly a dictatership without the civil war when they die.

As Winston Churchill once said (or at least I think it was Churchill): "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others"

Yes, as have been pointed out several times in this thread.

It doesn't make the statement any more legitimate whether he said it or not.

The best system is Monarchy, as long as they know what they are doing. Baisicaly a dictatership without the civil war when they die.Monarchys fail. They don't work cause some one will challenge the throne, and send the country into a state of imbalance

Monarchys fail. They don't work cause some one will challenge the throne, and send the country into a state of imbalance Throughout history they have had more ups than downs. Although so has democracy, perhaps my views are made up by the political failings i have seen in the last 10 years in my own country.

Since most "democracies" are not really that democratic at the end of the day, it is probably underutilized more than it is overrated.

Throughout history they have had more ups than downs. Although so has democracy, perhaps my views are made up by the political failings i have seen in the last 10 years in my own country.

They had their successes in their time, but a form of government based on the whims of a single person is inappropriate and ill-equipped to deal with the complexities and size of modern societies.

I would argue of course that the cynicism you are expressing with the government is in many ways part of the actual problem.
Also, I was being cynical due to having just had an exec meeting with the usual fuckwits.
As I see it, the concept is that the whole thing is pointless, and therefore why bother expressing political opinion at all? In many ways, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy because the people who we would want as agents of change are too disillusioned to actually work to change it: the task is confined to the one-issue ideologues and the 'MasterCard Marxists' who preach revolution while on the government school voucher.
Because "this is an absolute waste of time" is a political opinion of pretty much equal value to the current general public's view of "this is OK, we suppose"?

If the government simply stopped pretending that it was a particularly democratic one, that'd be fine. It's just the sheer bare-faced lying that really gets me. I'd probably be just as pissed off with a dictatorship that proclaimed to be anything but, too, but most of them don't.
As for your opinion on a dictatorship, I believe you are quite wrong. A dictator has to put only so much effort in as to please the people who actually have the means to oust him/her. The idea goes that of people are so cynical and unwilling to practice politics without any perceived penalty and *don't*, what makes you feel they may see it as worth it to oppose the dictator?
Revolution only occurs when things get so bad that the masses say "Well, I am going to die/suffer inordinately anyways, so I might as well fight as sit here and take it". They require some spark to make them shake their self-concern and put it in terms relating to all the people suffering with them. Call it social apathy if you will, but the default feeling is that people are concerned only with themselves and their small sphere of influence.
Revolutions are very rarely effected by The Masses (tm), they're usually started by disgruntled (ex-)military types that can either pronounce their aytches or come from very poor backgrounds.

The fact that such causes are often supported by, at the very least, some elements of the society in which the revolution is taking place sort of helps them out.
A dictator has it quite easy so long as the military and law-enforcing classes are pleased, and the ravaging of the country can be checked to a marginal degree. It's only when that social apathy threshold is crossed that they have to worry...or else when outside parties become involved.
And a politician with mates who write for The Sun or The Daily Mail can do practically the same without fear of recourse.
To be honest, I was rather surprised by my time in the UK. At least where I was studying at for the year (LSE) people did take politics no more or less seriously than back at my home institution. The small minority (5-10%) involved were *very* involved, and the rest waxed and waned as the issues arose came and went. Sitting on both the constitution and steering committee as well as chairman of the SU (for a time), I could say as an outsider looking in, it was rather representative of how politics works for most people.
Absolutely true. There's a small clique at York College (and a clique is absolutely what it is) who are interested in effecting change. We have a Student Council set up for such people to become members of (along with people that actually got voted onto it), so that, in theory, the exec has something which it needs to report to.

On the other hand, in reality, a lot of the members of the exec can't be arsed, and were voted in because they knew the most people, and a lot of the council are unrealistic time-wasters who basically turn up for the food, make utterly unreasonable demands and then bugger off.
Of course, are you surprised that stasis is the default method of governance? When you need to be elected, you generally face a lot of people who are generally tolerant with what is going on. Bureaucratic theory would suggest changes must be incremental, and when answering to an electorate those changes need to be justified. In the British case, I would say part of the stagnation of government is the set-up of Parliament itself.
Basically, they should either stop pretending to be democratic, or open they system up.

That's my take on it. In its current state, it's a bit of a waste of time to even go to the polls.
While I detest the two-party system here in the US, the multi-party system there did not strike me as working much better.
Quite.
Or maybe I just hated the 'illiberal liberal' authoritarian Greens on the LSE campus, I don't know.
They get the Hippie Twat vote instead of Respect or something?
The other two posts, which were pretty similar, all in all
Quick breakdown :

- Tibet is none of our business, really, and at least the Chinese army has taken to a bit less brutality than it used to, at least in mainland China. And the people whose houses are getting knocked down for the Olympics lived in slums, and will undoubtedly be resettled in better housing than they were previously living in.

- The one child was, and continues to be, absolutely necessary to improving prosperity in China, by reducing the amount of time that people need to spend looking after their children instead of going to work. It's going to come out of the 100 year policy much better off than it otherwise would have, that's for sure.

- Since nobody cares about democracy, why even let them get involved, since they'll only be voting for who the press tells them to anyway?

- Voting for anyone other than the major three parties is a waste of time, the only other party people vote for is the BNP anyway, and in my opinion, the BNP should be taken out into the woods en masse and shot.

- Direct democracy is an anarchist (eugh) and Marxist (EUGH) pipedream, and nothing more.

Are there any other parties with somewhat centrist viewpoints?
Not worth mentioning.
Couldn't someone run as an independent?
That opens a whole new set of problems, both in terms of getting elected, and then what to do with it afterwards.
So then an individual nurse isn't allowed to quit?
Quitting their job after a letter of resignation, so that the health service can get a new one in sharpish, fine.

Simply walking out along with the rest of them, no.
As Winston Churchill once said (or at least I think it was Churchill): "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others"
On the other hand, he was a collosal moron, essentially the Boris Johnson of his day, and were it not for the second world war, he'd have been remembered as one of the worst politicians of the second world war.

It depends on which democratic regime you have the (dis)pleasure of living under, really.

The best system is Monarchy, as long as they know what they are doing. Baisicaly a dictatership without the civil war when they die.

well I think what your getting at is absolute monarchy's thinking of having one leading raised from birth to lead

however that doesn't work out now does it (http://granitegrok.com/pix/PrinceCharles.jpg)

edit: though your sig is rather silly its too large, its not 1916 and chanting about being English is silly when there is only British

And a politician with mates who write for The Sun or The Daily Mail can do practically the same without fear of recourse.

would you like to run for Prime minister sometime?

On the other hand, he was a collosal moron, essentially the Boris Johnson of his day, and were it not for the second world war, he'd have been remembered as one of the worst politicians of the second world war.

I think moron is such a weak word

how about filthy drunk racist who killed millions of Indians through starvation?

would you like to run for Prime minister sometime?
Yes, on the one hand, I might be a bit more honest than some candidates, but the other I'd probably be a fairly poor one due to losing motivation if I lose momentum, so it'd be a terrible idea in practise.
I think moron is such a weak word
True.
how about filthy drunk racist who killed millions of Indians through starvation?
And advocated gassing 'tribals', as well as 'carrying on' after we beat Germany to take on the USSR, which would have been quite staggeringly stupid.

Not worth mentioning.

That opens a whole new set of problems, both in terms of getting elected, and then what to do with it afterwards.Perhaps running under one of them would spurn some positive change, even if you don't get elected?

Quitting their job after a letter of resignation, so that the health service can get a new one in sharpish, fine.

Simply walking out along with the rest of them, no.So they're not allowed to quit without a letter of resignation? Saying "I'm quitting this job on Thursday" to their boss won't cut it?

Perhaps running under one of them would spurn some positive change, even if you don't get elected?
Nah, it'd be pissing into the wind. Maybe after I've finished uni I'll be a wee bit less cynical, mind.
So they're not allowed to quit without a letter of resignation? Saying "I'm quitting this job on Thursday" to their boss won't cut it?
Not really, no. If you give a time about a week or so into the future, fine. Not going to work at all in that kind of job? Not on.

In the absence of the absence of government, Democracy isn't terrible. At least its better than having some god awful monarch strutting about in a fur coat and huge jewelry.

And abominable, tenuous grasp of his supposed first language and meaning of certain words within.

Nah, it'd be pissing into the wind. Maybe after I've finished uni I'll be a wee bit less cynical, mind.Heh. Good luck with that. :)

Not really, no. If you give a time about a week or so into the future, fine. Not going to work at all in that kind of job? Not on.Workers about to strike pretty much always give warning about what they're going to do.

Heh. Good luck with that. :)
If I'm running as an independant, I'll sure as hell need it.
Workers about to strike pretty much always give warning about what they're going to do.
People in actually life-saving professions shouldn't be allowed to go on strike without making provisional arrangements, full stop.

I know that's "unfair", but they should be responsible about what they're going to do, rather than using the deaths of peoples' family members as a political weapon, to be quite honest.

Which means that instead of the government passing laws to force the nurses back to work, they could have capitulated to the nurses' demands, could they not?

Of course they COULD have done so... But the nurses' demands were quite high, and Finland already has a very high tax-rate.

I know that's "unfair", but they should be responsible about what they're going to do, rather than using the deaths of peoples' family members as a political weapon, to be quite honest.


The idea it 'should' be is rather relative, as you well know. As for death being used as a political weapon: ...military service? 'Bring the troops home?' I can't count the times that the bodies of the dead are used to instigate something, or else repeal it. A strategic war or action can be completely negated by the publication of pictures causing a visceral gut reaction to a large segment of the population. One only has to look at what came out of Vietnam to see how powerful those black and whites could be. The bodies of the dead are paraded by both left and right to seize their objectives.

Still, I guess the challenge remains that cynicism about government is relatively easy. It's more of a challenge devising ways to want to change it... or else it's just pointless kvetching is it not?

If I'm running as an independant, I'll sure as hell need it.Heh. Well, at the very least, what often comes with democratic systems is the ability to change things via other methods, such as protest.

People in actually life-saving professions shouldn't be allowed to go on strike without making provisional arrangements, full stop.

I know that's "unfair", but they should be responsible about what they're going to do, rather than using the deaths of peoples' family members as a political weapon, to be quite honest.Why is it acceptable to not use the threat of death as a political weapon, but to use the threat of imprisonment as a political weapon?

Of course they COULD have done so... But the nurses' demands were quite high, and Finland already has a very high tax-rate.Perhaps; certainly they couldn't have capitulated perpetually to their demands, but doing so at least once wouldn't have been horrible. Of course, I don't know what their demands were, but it's an option that is almost never considered to give in to them.

The idea it 'should' be is rather relative, as you well know. As for death being used as a political weapon: ...military service? 'Bring the troops home?' I can't count the times that the bodies of the dead are used to instigate something, or else repeal it. A strategic war or action can be completely negated by the publication of pictures causing a visceral gut reaction to a large segment of the population. One only has to look at what came out of Vietnam to see how powerful those black and whites could be. The bodies of the dead are paraded by both left and right to seize their objectives.Oh, this is a good point, too.