What do we all think of "democracy?"

[groph]

I was going to respond to a post in the thread about a pastor chucking a cat off of a bridge but I wound up ranting so I might as well make a whole new thread.

Well if democracy works as intended then it isn't the system at fault but the people who elected the troublemakers to represent them. Don't just blame government it is partially our fault and the silly people around us who support this two party system.

(from the pastor/cat thread)

It's probably a little more complicated than that. This is kind of opening up a whole other can of worms but if what you said was the reality, then yeah you'd probably be right, or closer to being right (less wrong, if you will?) but that's not the way it is. What I'm going to say is mostly directed at the second sentence of your post. "Democracy" at least in the old definition means "rule of the poor" so it appears to be implied that the wealthy (IE a minority) do not control the government, a majority of people do, since most people are "poor." That's an ancient Greek definition and it's probably pretty tough to try to apply that definition to our current era, where society is a LOT more complex than "rich and poor," we've got social strata and saying that the "rich" absolutely control the "poor" is a bit of a leap. Remember, "We Are The 99%" was a rhetorical statement, not a statement of fact. Detractors of that movement who say "the 99% doesn't exist" are just putting up a strawman, that's not what the statement ever meant in the first place.

Nowadays, a "rule of the poor" would probably be realized as sort of worker controlled socialism kind of lefty-anarchist organization? It seems that a strict free market capitalist doctrine would (hindsight being 20/20 and I totally could be oversimplifying things here) inevitably lead to a rule of the rich. This rests on the assumption that 1) the economy is the real guiding force in a society, 2) capitalism will lead to monopolies because as businesses gain momentum they will shut out any competition from smaller entities which in turn leads to 3) a class of super rich "plutocrats" who can guide the electoral process by offering obscene funds to political candidates (who are themselves from wealthy backgrounds to begin with). This is a charge of a lot of radical-left leaning people, especially those in the counterglobalization activist movement.

Something to consider would the the bureaucratic process behind all this which isn't inherently "capitalist" IE it's not strictly merit based for example (corporations often hire from within, bureaucracy is riddled with biased people with grudges against each other and it doesn't follow a laissez-faire kind of doctrine at all yet it's the administrative backbone of government and economic organization in a society that calls itself capitalist). As a society gets larger, bureaucracies get larger as well and the whole "big gummint" thing is in reference to enormous regulatory bodies, basically the bureaucrats who decide what the rules should be - so I probably shouldn't really say that the economy alone is the most important guiding force. I'm sort of going from a Karl Marx into a Max Weber kind of thing if any of you are into sociology. "Democracy" would also be the antithesis to bureaucracy, imagine how inefficient things would be if decisions were made by huge bodies of people IE the "demo" in democracy? Or, imagine how huge a government would have to actually get in order to have that kind of democracy where decision making really is shared amongst a majority of citizens, this is starting to sound like a state socialist sort of picture which is a departure from what I started from.

Fuck, this shit is complicated. Any thoughts?

- do we really live in a democracy?
- what does "democracy" mean to you?
- what should "democracy" mean to you?
- is there anywhere in the world that is "democratic"
- is democracy the answer?
- am I egregiously wrong in my thoughts?

 

[pink freud]

In my mind there exists two democracies.

The first is the electoral democracy, in which people vote in favor of an outcome. This is the most obvious democracy, easily recognized.

The second is the consensual democracy. This is an unconscious democracy. This is the democracy that exists in all forms of rulership over sentient beings: The leaders are only in a position of authority because those they rule deem their conditions acceptable enough to not overthrow said rulers.

This is a very complicated democracy, as psychological studies have shown that whole groups of dissatisfied people can still be ruled over because of a lack of meta-knowledge of the dissatisfaction. Once somebody voices dissatisfaction it creates a sweeping realization that not only are you unhappy, but that others know that you know that others are unhappy. This can solidify entire movements, and can be used to describe much of what we have been seeing in Africa and the Middle East.

 

[groph]

In my mind there exists two democracies.

The first is the electoral democracy, in which people vote in favor of an outcome. This is the most obvious democracy, easily recognized.

The second is the consensual democracy. This is an unconscious democracy. This is the democracy that exists in all forms of rulership over sentient beings: The leaders are only in a position of authority because those they rule deem their conditions acceptable enough to not overthrow said rulers.

This is a very complicated democracy, as psychological studies have shown that whole groups of dissatisfied people can still be ruled over because of a lack of meta-knowledge of the dissatisfaction. Once somebody voices dissatisfaction it creates a sweeping realization that not only are you unhappy, but that others know that you know that others are unhappy. This can solidify entire movements, and can be used to describe much of what we have been seeing in Africa and the Middle East.

Yeah, for sure that is complicated. That starts delving into the Marxist "false consciousness" (an oppressed class or group believing the conditions which cause their oppression are just in some manner) kind of thing, or you can go into things like gunboat diplomacy - what seems to be a cornerstone of US foreign policy* which are not democratic in the least yet they serve to exert power over foreign states.

There's Africa and the Middle East, there are also movements like the Zapatistas in Mexico (any lefty who is hip to the scene knows that Che is totally passe, it's all about Subcomandante Marcos now ) or even the Oka Crisis in Canada back in 1990. The Zapatistas were basically an indigenous/some Mexican identified movement who occupied civilian villages (apparently not through coercion although they were/are an armed group) and they got into it with the Mexican government and state military. The Oka Crisis was basically a bunch of people who wanted to build a golf course on a reserve, indigenous people said "fuck this" and established a road block, barring the offenders from creating a golf course. The police came, the Army shortly after. I think one person was killed (a police officer I think, the indigenous people WERE armed) and I dont think the golf course was ever built? Basically both instances are one group thinking it's more powerful and more important than another group, so it walks all over them. This is basically the relationship between governments in the West and indigenous people. Democratic? Nope.
















*If you're in the service, I expect that it's quite possible that you'd object to this assertion because it doesn't show very well on the US or servicemen and I agree, it doesn't. I'm one to support the soldier, not the mission necessarily and that's basically where I stand. Go ahead and debate rather than neg rep because I'm all for broader thought. Or you could totally agree. In either case, I'm not trying to attack you or accuse you of anything.

 

[ArkaneDemon]

There are various flavours of democracy: representative, consensus, direct, liberal, social, soviet, etc. The most common one is called liberal democracy, which can and often is representative in nature. I'm pretty sure it was Churchill who said that liberal democracy is the best of the worst political systems, or something similar. I think it's a bunch of horsecrap.

Low voter turnout, plus uneducated voters who don't even so much as read the platform of the people they're voting for, plus a bunch of other stuff does not bode well. Not to mention all the interest groups and lobbying groups that very directly influence how things are run and what laws pass. Almost thankfully, though, the powers (legislative, executive, judicial) are separated and independent, which at least sort of guarantees that corruption remains isolated. However, to take a good example of Canada last election, Stephen Harper and the Conservative party won a majority government with only 40% of less than 60% of the entire country's votes. The other 60% of the people who voted Conservative were divided between the Liberals, NDP, and Green Party, which clearly shows that, out of the people that voted, a majority of them did not want a conservative government, but they sure got one, and a majority one as well, which is pretty shitty. Even if everyone voted, it would still end up with a majority of people wanting something more "left wing" than a Conservative government, but since the "left" in this country is pretty split up between Liberals and NDP (I don't count the Greens in here, they don't get enough votes to even matter, also the Liberals are still right wing, just left of the Cons), so in the end, 40% for Conservatives will still be "greater" than 30% Liberal, 30% NDP (exaggerated percentages, but you know what I mean).

But yeah, not only that, but to delve deeper into the idea that a lot of media corporations can influence a hell of a lot of people into voting a certain way is a bit unnerving. Media are not some magical, unbiased entities, for the most part. Not only that, but large corporations have enough power to successfully lobby governments in their favour, or try to skew peoples' perceptions in their favour, which translates to a continuation of what corporations want.

Democracy gives people the illusion that they have the power to change stuff. In reality, they do have that power, but voting this or that won't do it. It can also be argued that moving towards a more "social democracy" or welfare state type idea is detrimental in the long run, because it gives people a bit more comfort, and therefore keeps them content enough to not want anything more. To give an example, it's like having a slave, and then deciding to beat him just a bit less, or give him just a bit more food. He's still a slave. Bonus points for you, groph, for mentioning false consciousness. Marx had a lot of good sociological ideas, and another one of those is the idea of alienation. People become so alienated to their own reality that they're left in a false sense of "this is how things are because this is how they should be".

But yeah democracy as we have it isn't very fair or free (two conditions which are necessary for democracy by any definition), because of how things are run, how they are established, and how they are perpetuated. It gives people the illusion of power, and even if the entire idea was somehow incorruptible, then people would still be subject to a lot of external factors which will in the end affect their voting patterns. If people were left to their own devices, free from outside factors, and they'd sit there and think critically and read the damn platforms of the parties they want to vote for, maybe representative democracy wouldn't suck so much. No guarantees though.

 

[oremus91]

Way to put me in the hot seat man!

I would say yes we do live in a democracy, although it is not "pure". If we don't it is because of the generations before us that elected representatives and swayed public opinion in a way that is contrary to our beliefs now. I know "the people" aren't directly responsible for government as it stands today but that would be unfeasible with the population that exists in our country. We are a product of what previous generations set in place (so at one point it was initiated by people), and therefore the laws and capitalistic nature that we experience now is because of them albeit through the folks they elected or their ideals.

Now times are changing as they often do and modern logic is clashing with some legacy ideals within government. If we take responsibility we have the power to reflect our current vision in legislation and change the way we operate but it doesn't happen overnight, and that was the design of our system to begin with.

 

[The Reverend]

We live in a republic, not a democracy, let me get that straight right off the bat. As such, the people in power should be representing the common man, not trying to sell us on their platforms.

I'd get more in depth, but it's late and I have stuff to do. Just know that lots of great men, from Aristotle to America's founding fathers, had serious and relevant issues with the masses controlling themselves.

 

[-42-]

 

[Xaios]

Without delving too much into the issue, the biggest problem with democracy is that you have to leave the door open for people who would undermine said democracy to voice their opinions, because otherwise it's not democracy. Basically, if you've got one person who believes that it is their God-given right to step on other people, and another person who doesn't believe in impeding the beliefs of others, the latter will get trampled on. But if the second person turns to the first and says "it's my God-given right not to be trampled on," the first person will respond, "well then, your rights are interfering with my rights, so your democracy is broken."

Again, I know that I'm simplifying it hardcore, but I think that's what one of the biggest problems with our society comes down to. The doctrines of cultural relativism and globalization that we as a society are intent on preaching don't really mesh particularly well.

 

[tacotiklah]

People fail to realize that the US is NOT a true democracy. We have elements of communism and socialism as well. The US is a mixed-type government, much like other nations. Pure democracy doesn't work. It's a lot like communism in that it looks good on paper, but its flaws show when applied. Rampant apathy leads to people not voting (which pisses me off since so many brave soldiers gave their lives so that we can have that right), and sheer ignorance leads to people just voting for somebody because they agree with only ONE, MAYBE TWO of their ideas and ignore the rest of the crap they stand for. ( I'm looking at you Paulbots. )
And that's if they even bother to look at what the candidates are about. I find it incredibly sad that our way of doing things went from "Who is/are the best candidate(s) for the presidency/congress" to "Who is the least likely to further fuck up international relations, domestic policy, and further increase the chasm between the working and ruling classes?" Note that the latter seems to be less and less important to modern candidates.

We also have mass media to blame. It's both a blessing and curse. We can instantly learn about what's going on thousands of miles away within 1 or 2 clicks on a mouse or tv remote control. It's a great way to gain an idea of how things are in the world. At the same time, we now have stations like Faux (fox) news that shit all over the set rules of journalism (which is supposed to be neutral and honest) and promote bigotry and flat out lies which indoctrinate people into coercion and submission. Why would people do such a thing? Follow the paper trail. The companies that own these stations are some of the biggest lobbyists and have much of government in it's pocket. It's about power and control. He who controls the media, controls the country. Don't believe me? Observe nazi germany. Call it what you will, but one of the most insidious, yet genius things hitler ever did was make all news state-controlled and used it to spread his hate rhetoric. The hate speech and downright falsehoods poisoned the ears of germany's people and eventually they started believing that shit. Can't really blame them since basic psychology dictates that if you hear something enough times, you subconsciously start believing it. Over six million people died from this abuse of the great and terrible power that mass media and propaganda are. And of course it's pretty common knowledge that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
And here we are again, with people spouting hate on gays and scapegoating minorities because their puppet masters tell them to. They lick the fingers of those that are really the cause of their woes the way a beat dog shows affection to an abusive owner. They are blinded to the source of their own woe and as such do nothing to make any real change. Instead they keep spreading the hate and good, honest people are hurt in the process because said people challenge the status quo and expose things for what they really are.

This is what democracy has become. It is a combination of idiocracy, plutocracy, aristocracy, bureaucracy, complacency, apathy and bigotry. Sprinkle on a bit of capitalism and a falsehood belief in the fact that we are the leaders of social reform along with good ol' fashioned misguided (and often arrogant) patriotism and there's the American government in a nutshell. God bless 'murrica...

Edit:
To the blinded overly-patriotic sheep that have hit my rep board in the past for me expressing less blatant dislike for the way we do things in the US nowadays; Come at me bros...

 

[ArkaneDemon]

People fail to realize that the US is NOT a true democracy.

True, you've got a constitutional republic, I'll give you that much.

We have elements of communism and socialism as well.

Uh, no. Not even close. Socialism is when the workers of the country own the means of production; that's the necessary condition for socialism. Hell, man, you don't even have socialized healthcare. And communism? The necessary condition for communism is classlessness and statelessness, plus the previous necessary condition for socialism, and you have none of those.

The US is a mixed-type government, much like other nations.

I'll give you this one.

Pure democracy doesn't work. It's a lot like communism in that it looks good on paper, but its flaws show when applied.

Wow, I've never heard this argument before. "It looks good on paper..." is a terrible argument; always has been, always will be. You can't fucking throw away an entire political spectrum with a single phrase like this. It's as if SOMEHOW, the hundreds, if not thousands or ten of thousands of writers who have contributed to that ideology missed something, and therefore everything they've ever come up with is just good on paper, but beyond that it's not going to work. It's just another buzz phrase thrown around to reinforce people's ignorance and to keep new ideas down and away from mainstream talk.

Pure democracy? What kind? There's many kinds of democracy. I'd say the purest is direct democracy, which has its own flaws because everything has flaws. Representative democracy is even more flawed because of many reasons, and to have a pure version of it requires much more than the people with influence are willing to give up.

Rampant apathy leads to people not voting (which pisses me off since so many brave soldiers gave their lives so that we can have that right), and sheer ignorance leads to people just voting for somebody because they agree with only ONE, MAYBE TWO of their ideas and ignore the rest of the crap they stand for. ( I'm looking at you Paulbots. )

I've seen that soldier thing spewed out way too many times, and even here, in Canada, where people say that the Canadians who died in WWII are the ones who somehow granted this country the freedom to vote, even though Canada had like three soldiers overseas. I don't know the US's situation with soldiers dying for the freedom to vote but it sounds like a poor argument, to say the least, especially when one looks at the causes of war and the pointlessness of it all. Seems like another one of those buzz phrases thrown around. When I ask people what they mean by the idea that soldiers dying for our freedom to vote, they look shocked and they just repeat the same thing over and over like a broken record. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works...Maybe I'm wrong, but no one I've ever met has said anything to prove their point when it comes to this.

And that's if they even bother to look at what the candidates are about. I find it incredibly sad that our way of doing things went from "Who is/are the best candidate(s) for the presidency/congress" to "Who is the least likely to further fuck up international relations, domestic policy, and further increase the chasm between the working and ruling classes?" Note that the latter seems to be less and less important to modern candidates.

Look at the potential US candidates right now, every single one of the GOP hopefuls are, to be really blunt, not even fit to scrub toilets, let alone rule a fucking country. How are people like Bachmann and Santorum even fucking considered in this kind of thing? And even the democratic party is fucked up, but not nearly as badly as the republicans, which of course doesn't say a lot, but nevertheless. If this is the best that your country can do in terms of presidential candidates, then I have nothing but pity. 300 million people in your country, and right now it's coming down to Santorum or Romney as the republican presidential nominee, fucking pathetic. I won't go into the fact that most of your major politicians are in the pockets of large corporations, because it's pretty much a given, and it may or may not render the idea of the government serving the people outdated or incorrect.

We also have mass media to blame. It's both a blessing and curse. We can instantly learn about what's going on thousands of miles away within 1 or 2 clicks on a mouse or tv remote control. It's a great way to gain an idea of how things are in the world. At the same time, we now have stations like Faux (fox) news that shit all over the set rules of journalism (which is supposed to be neutral and honest) and promote bigotry and flat out lies which indoctrinate people into coercion and submission. Why would people do such a thing? Follow the paper trail. The companies that own these stations are some of the biggest lobbyists and have much of government in it's pocket. It's about power and control. He who controls the media, controls the country. Don't believe me? Observe nazi germany. Call it what you will, but one of the most insidious, yet genius things hitler ever did was make all news state-controlled and used it to spread his hate rhetoric. The hate speech and downright falsehoods poisoned the ears of germany's people and eventually they started believing that shit. Can't really blame them since basic psychology dictates that if you hear something enough times, you subconsciously start believing it. Over six million people died from this abuse of the great and terrible power that mass media and propaganda are. And of course it's pretty common knowledge that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

I agree 100% with you here, it's by far the greatest thing in your post because it is completely true. However, it's between 11-17 million deaths in the Holocaust, because it wasn't just Jews that got killed. That's the official estimate, at least. But yeah, still. Media is not an unbiased arbiter, as much as we'd like, and stuff like Fox news is definitely a big contender for the douchebag award. It's because of news outlets like Fox that ignorant people spew shit like "don't trust the liberal media" and other shit like that.

And here we are again, with people spouting hate on gays and scapegoating minorities because their puppet masters tell them to. They lick the fingers of those that are really the cause of their woes the way a beat dog shows affection to an abusive owner. They are blinded to the source of their own woe and as such do nothing to make any real change. Instead they keep spreading the hate and good, honest people are hurt in the process because said people challenge the status quo and expose things for what they really are.

Nevermind, this is also a great part in your post There was this one guy way back when, who created a list of early warning signs of fascism in a country, which included powerful and continuing nationalism (murrika fuck yeah), identification of enemies as a unifying cause (scapegoating minorities or other people or other countries [oh no Iran]), supremacy of the military, controlled mass media, obsession with national security, religion and government intertwined (cough Bachmann cough), corporate power protected, labor power suppressed (anti-unions), obsession with crime and punishment, corruption, and fraudulent elections, but there were a few others on there that I don't remember. It's pretty scary to think of, but I don't think that the US is going to become fascist. At least not openly. The necessary condition for fascism is that the government and corporations become basically one (as Mussolini put it). We'll see what happens.

This is what democracy has become. It is a combination of idiocracy, plutocracy, aristocracy, bureaucracy, complacency, apathy and bigotry. Sprinkle on a bit of capitalism and a falsehood belief in the fact that we are the leaders of social reform along with good ol' fashioned misguided (and often arrogant) patriotism and there's the American government in a nutshell. God bless 'murrica...

Yeah, dude, pretty much, but I think that you have to sprinkle on a lot of capitalism, not a bit. Capitalism is the global system right now, and in consequence, the governments we have are a product of it. After the industrial revolution, new laws had to be put in place, new facets to the government had to be created. There used to be 16 hour work days, and that was maintained for a long time because of the fact that rich factory owners lobbied the fuck out of the governments at the time (especially in England). That's happening right now, albeit a bit more subtly. There's still a lot that we don't know, but from what we know and what is observable, the way things are going are a direct product of capitalism, its development, and its evolution. Where we end up in the future is to be seen.

Amurrika....fuck yeah...coming again to save the muthafuckin day YEAH
Amurrika...fuck yeah...freedom is the only way YEAH

 

[areyna21]

I believe Thomas Jefferson put it best "A democracy is nothing more than a mob rule, where 51% of the population can take away the rights of the other 49%". Like a lot of you said there are various forms of democracy and America just happens to be a mixed bag of shit like many others. To touch on social medicine I also don't believe we are there quite yet. I do work at a hospital that just got recently involved in a new white house project. Basically this organization among others were invited to the white house to speak about how to provide better "faith based healthcare" in rural areas. This organization in 15 years has bought out healthcare in three surrounding counties and keeps expanding. Now the white house wants to tell them how they can better fit to their standards. So now the white house gets to sway the healthcare provided in my area because there is only one company providing it and being overseen by the executive branch. This is not social medicine but the executive branch seems to be getting their feet wet before they dive in.

We are a free constitutional republic but I have yet to feel true freedom. It feels as if in america we are just given a longer leash by our puppet masters. I as an american don't agree with pretty much all of our foreign politics but because the 51% i am grouped into being a obstinate aggressor. Most people don't have the knowledge of how governments work and really don't have any desire to learn. No matter republic, democracy, or socialism people should overthrow their governments at times of corruption.

It's only when the pain of staying the same becomes greater than the fear of change that we will diverge from this path. As the transfer of wealth continues the pain will strike the lives of more and more. Right now men only whisper in the dead of night but someday i hope we will be shouting from the rooftops. No one in this world is truly free we are all enslaved economically or otherwise.

 

[Explorer]

Most people don't have the knowledge of how governments work and really don't have any desire to learn. No matter republic, democracy, or socialism people should overthrow their governments at times of corruption.

I don't know if you've ever been in a foreign country when a new President is sworn in, but a lot of places which have endemic corruption and *no* lawful transfer of power are amazed that we not only manage to have peaceful transitions, but also that the Constitution is respected.

A lot of those places started with your assumptions about overthrowing and all that, and after that it became might making right.

You should do a little reading about Leviathan and so on. They normally touch upon it in better schools.

there are also movements like the Zapatistas in Mexico (any lefty who is hip to the scene knows that Che is totally passe, it's all about Subcomandante Marcos now )

Funny story:

When the Zapatistas were first making trouble, I was in Mexico watching the news. This Zapatista general was talking about how people kept claiming they were foreign fighters, but he declared himself a native born Yucateño.

Unfortunately, this rang as true as hearing a politician declaring himself a native New Yorkan. The correct word, from the Maya, is Yucateco, and every Mexican listening knew it.

Of course, the leftists, normally only speaking English, were all about the "downtroddern." *laugh*

Fun relevant fact: My great uncle managed to get huge parts of the Yucatan peninsula transferred back to the native Maya. Within a decade, the majority of the Mayans has sold it off. Again, not something about which most leftists either know or are too concerned by. *laugh*

Fun fact: My uncle's family had their home destroyed early on by those foreign insurgents who claimed to be Yucateños. I think that if a group of foreign fighters destroyed people's homes in the US and claimed they were fighting for their rights, not many would be sympathetic. And that should give you an idea of much of the Mexican perspective on an identical situation.

----

Just out of curiosity, since it's always nice to know how much perspective is being brought to the discussion. I've lived outside the First World for a few years of my life, and also spent a bit of time in places where there wasn't even a democracy in name.

What about you guys?

 

[areyna21]

While overthrowing a government is complicated i don't think civil war or violence is the answer. I think civil conversations between opposing groups should be taking place but instead American politics has become a joke. Look at our gop cadidates they are perfect examples of this. It seems like we have reverted back to the days of yellow journalism. I think there are still enough honest people in the government to turn this around or at least I feel there is.

If your referring to Thomas Hobbes leviathan then no i have not read it in its entirety but have only read summaries of his ideas. I have read books more along the lines of Americas founding fathers and some Greek. It seems like an interesting read so thanks for the reccomendation but the better schools comment seemed a bit condescending but that just may be your personality. I guess i should have the American people and not people in general.

 

[Powermetalbass]

Democracy has been around since ancient Greek times. Infact I believe the concept for democracy in the US was based on the ancient greek model. We (Canadians & Americans) live in a democracy. It was rife with corrupt in Greece and Rome over 2000 years ago, and it still functions as it did back then. You have "good" politicians and you have bad politicians. You have virtuous politicians (idealist) and you have corrupt/non-virtuous politicians. There is no prefect government, just ideas. Democracy essentially is an argument as it allows people to argue who and how their nation should be lead. Democracy is not an Ideal form of government, but until someone comes up with something better and can convince people that it truely is better.....Democracy is the best we have.

People have been writing about proper government and democracy for a long time. Some readings on ideas of government include: Thucydides (SP?), Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Jefferson, Washington, etc, etc, etc.

 

[ArkaneDemon]

Just out of curiosity, since it's always nice to know how much perspective is being brought to the discussion. I've lived outside the First World for a few years of my life, and also spent a bit of time in places where there wasn't even a democracy in name.

What about you guys?

I've lived in Romania for 8 years, being born in the capital and living there most of that time, with a few years spent in a smaller city where my grandmother used to live. That's about the extent of my outside-the-first-world experience, but it was more than enough to see what had to be seen. I don't know if anybody considers Romania first world right now, but when I lived there, it was right after the overthrow of the prior regime, and by no means would it have ever been a first world country when I lived there, much less beforehand. I wish I would have seen what it was like under Ceauşescu, for it would have given me a richer perspective, but oh well. Romania under Ceauşescu was the worst-off country in all of the Eastern Bloc, and even afterwards, it's been pretty shitty.

Democracy is not an Ideal form of government, but until someone comes up with something better and can convince people that it truely is better.....Democracy is the best we have.

People have come up with something better, only to be belittled, persecuted, or even executed, with a continuing deliberation of keeping those ideas down, hidden, or ridiculed through whatever means necessary; mainly propaganda. That's why a large number of people believe that communism is a pipe dream, or massively evil because "herp derp Soviet Union, guys", and repeating of buzz words and phrases until they are drilled so deep within their minds that they actually start to believe it en masse. The same type of people also believe that anarchism is all against all, living permanently in fear that everything you have will be taken from you by force because "herp derp you can't have order without government". Both communists and anarchists have been fucked with since the 1800s, with the original persecutions being initiated by people in power at the time, people who had everything to lose and who were afraid of the growing sentiment to those ideologies. And so, for some 150 odd years, the general public has been getting pounded constantly with propaganda, with the current state of affairs being what it is because of said propaganda. And it's not just anarchism and communism that have been shit on, there's a lot more out there that has suffered the same fate.

So don't tell me that people haven't come up with better ideas. Convincing the people, aye that's the hard part now...

People have been writing about proper government and democracy for a long time. Some readings on ideas of government include: Thucydides (SP?), Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Jefferson, Washington, etc, etc, etc.

Have you read any Plato? He's not in favour of a democracy, as outlined in The Republic. Jefferson said "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." Aristotle also said things in opposition of the idea of democracy. From what I understood in Hobbes, he thought that democracy wouldn't work as intended because people are motivated by self interest. I don't think that name dropping these people will help your argument, if that was your intention, but they are, nevertheless, interesting reads nonetheless.

 

[Ryan-ZenGtr-]

Interesting discussion.

Look up

Anarcho syndicalism - You'll find lot's of strange people.

Greek origins of democracy
History Blog » Sumerian Democracy

As above, with reference to Sumer, Phoenicia and Rome
JSTOR: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 1, H. 4 (1950), pp. 515-548

Pythagorian origins of Communism (his communities were exterminated each time )
http://onlineessays.com/essays/politics/his173.php

Military history of Canada during WWII
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Canada_during_World_War_II

Have fun.

 

[The Reverend]

I'm not sure what relevance living outside a first-world country has to this discussion. I've talked to people like my father, who's from the Congo/Zaire/DRC, and Russians who've emigrated, and they all like democracy well enough, while always talking about how fucked up it is in practice.

 

[ArkaneDemon]

I'm not sure what relevance living outside a first-world country has to this discussion. I've talked to people like my father, who's from the Congo/Zaire/DRC, and Russians who've emigrated, and they all like democracy well enough, while always talking about how fucked up it is in practice.

He's probably trying to say that "people from the first world see things through a certain lens, which is different than people from the third world". I hope he's not trying to imply that people from the first world shouldn't have a say in things, as I have heard many people say over the years, because it's downright silly. Those who believe the previous idea generally say that "well you're born in a good country and you have many opportunities, therefore you should keep your mouth shut and your head down and take it as it comes because there's people in other countries who don't have the same opportunities as you". It just stifles discussion and the promotion of new ideas. I hope that's not what Explorer was implying.

 

[Painhawg]

While mass media is an issue, it's not only Fox News. It's all mass media. The left feeds the left, and the right feeds the right. Conservatives agree with Fox because they are preaching to the choir, just as CNN does for Liberals. I see little journalistic integrity in any news outlet.

Which brings me to my point.

The problem with any Government is people. Whether it's a pure Democracy, an idealistic Republic or perfect Communism. Someone will screw it up, and get other people to help screw it up. DC is not about the money, it's about prestige and power. Money helps with both, but it's not the reason they are there. For corp owners and the rest of us, it's greed and lust for wealth. Not just the wealth, but the comfort and perceived status that wealth gives.

Democracy is about self interest. Folks vote the candidate who represents that interest. It matters little if that interest is detrimental to others. I want a bigger cave; it doesn't matter to me that some other cave has to be dug into to make mine larger.

Socialism, Marxism, Communism, all the isms, profess to be about equality and the oppressed, but again it's self interest. Only the inequal or the downtrodden care. If my cave were the largest, why would I want to give any of it up? Sure the neighboring cavedweller would love it, after all he has the same size cave and now feels equal. For the moment.

The US is indeed jacked. No two ways about it. People want theirs, and are willing to go a long way to attain it, no matter how others feel about it. Can the citizens do anything? Most likely no. The deck has been stacked against us, and we let it happen. We voted crooked pols in, let someone tell us that our moral compass belongs to a higher authority, and that everything should be fair and no-one has to lose. We have been told that anyone can rise to be anything, and that if we can't then someone else is to blame. We have taken our pride, honor and responsibility and handed it over to lawmakers. We have allowed ourselves to become apathetic, myopic and lazy.

People are the problem

 

[troyguitar]

Most people are idiots, why would letting the majority run a country be a good idea? Democracy is stupid.