What do you think of democracy?

Website · by **arocoun** » Sat 03 Dec 2005, 01:20:54

I just wanted to know the general opinion around here.

More and more, around the world, democracy is accepted as the best form of government. Not that it's actually implemented anywhere--most so-called democracies are actually republics with corporate-chosen officials in charge. But the concept of democracy is increasingly being accepted as the best possible kind of law making gov't.

Out of curiosity, what do you think should happen when the results of democracy go against the principles of justice? Liberty? Equality? Fairness? How much power should democracy have?

by **PenultimateManStanding** » Sat 03 Dec 2005, 01:35:25

They were talking earlier, at The Oil Drum, about the trouble that Democracies have with long-range policy. Politicians have to get re-elected and don't look past the next election. Combine that with the fact that profit-driven business interests don't look past short-term profitability, and you have the potential for unwise policy. I think we know what they are referring to.

by **The_Toecutter** » Sat 03 Dec 2005, 02:18:17

Most "democracies" are somewhere between a representative republic and a corporate police state. Hardly a democracy by any standard, and America today certainly isn't the free republic Jefferson envisioned.

The ideal government would follow this advice:

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."

That means the following criteria need to be met:

-no frivalous anti drug laws
-no torture camps and detention centers(even if on foreign soil)
-no illegal resource wars
-no conscription
-no corporate welfare
-no surveillance of population by either the government itself OR government chartered entities
-free, untampered, fully auditable elections
-the ability to say as you want and demonstrate against the government or corporations on public property without fear of reprimand provided disruptions to individual people are minor
-individual rights also protected in the case government-chartered private entities try to violate them
-individual people have more rights than either property and corporations
-government figures punished equally with the rest of the population for crimes committed
-an elimination of the majority of race/money/gender biases in the courtroom(A change major in the format of the legal system will be required. With two sides often making up pure bullshit to 'prove' their case, justice often will not be sought.)

America currently meets none of those criteria. Any European country will be lucky to meet 1/4 of them. No country so far meets more than half of them.

by **Chaparral** » Sat 03 Dec 2005, 02:38:48

Democracies need the hard yank of a strong tight-fitting constitutional leash every now and then to keep them from running off and getting killed in traffic.

Without the leash it's a mobocracy.

With the head kleptrocrat(s) choking it with an overly tight constitution by dictatorial fiat it's wrapped around a tree and choked or starved to death.

Anarchism would suit me personally the best but I'm afraid thats something that only exists in fairyland.

by **GrizzAdams** » Sun 04 Dec 2005, 04:41:12

What about Karl Marx, and that Socialist utopia that is supposed to be coming?

Website · by **arocoun** » Sun 04 Dec 2005, 15:03:28

I believe that Marx's plan was to start off as a dictatorship to establish the rule of the proletariate (sp?), then transition to a democratic, minimalist utopia.

---

I'm really surprised how few people said they would oppose an unjust law. But, I'm glad to see how many people want a minimalist democracy, at least.

I myself believe that all life and land should be free, that people should only be ruled over by a government only by voluntary agreement, and that all life should be treated justly. I guess that makes me an anarchist.

by **threadbear** » Sun 04 Dec 2005, 15:17:42

I would have chosen the fourth, but survival of the planet rests with the third choice. Minimalist govt, if it could somehow be a regulating force to control ecological destruction would be the best, if it could be done, though.

Constitutions which enshrine minority rights are important in democracies or you end up with mob rule. This has been one of the criticisms of emerging democracies in Asia. Some ethnic Chinese residing outside of China have been murdered, beaten up and driven out of their neighbourhoods. Democracy means freedom and vigilante justice, unfortunately. It's the hallmark of American foreign policy. Actually democracy is what they'll likely get in Iraq, and they're going to get it good and hard. God help the Sunnis.

by **Free** » Sun 04 Dec 2005, 15:25:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('arocoun', '
')I'm really surprised how few people said they would oppose an unjust law.

by **entropyfails** » Sun 04 Dec 2005, 18:13:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Free', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('arocoun', '
')I'm really surprised how few people said they would oppose an unjust law.

by **threadbear** » Sun 04 Dec 2005, 18:36:04

Entropy, I think Free is actually in agreement with you.

by **entropyfails** » Sun 04 Dec 2005, 18:42:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'E')ntropy, I think Free is actually in agreement with you.

by **Free** » Sun 04 Dec 2005, 18:45:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('entropyfails', '
')Just because someone doesn’t have the power to stop you from hitting them doesn’t make them wrong for saying you shouldn’t hit them. What sort of person are you?

by **entropyfails** » Sun 04 Dec 2005, 19:20:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Free', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('entropyfails', '
')Just because someone doesn’t have the power to stop you from hitting them doesn’t make them wrong for saying you shouldn’t hit them. What sort of person are you?

by **Free** » Sun 04 Dec 2005, 20:07:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')If it were true. Someone had to be the primary aggressor, violating the rights of the other person.

by **Kingcoal** » Sun 04 Dec 2005, 21:32:42

Pure unchecked democracy is not much more than mob rule. The Spartans thought so and created the republic. Our forefathers thought that the best form of government was a democratic republic which has a constitution (the republic) and the ability to change it (democracy.)

Watching over all of this is the Judiciary. Their job is to make sure that the various members of the government do not violate the constitution while going about their jobs.

In my opinion, the Judiciary has been significantly weakened over the years in America. First by Woodrow Wilson and FDR and now by the Republicans. The nation we have today is more democratic and less republic than it used to be. America needs a stronger, more active Judiciary.

by **jaws** » Mon 05 Dec 2005, 00:30:08

Regular people have no time to be rulers. Establishing rules is a time-consuming, complicated process that takes full-time dedication. Anyone who is gainfully employed has no time to pay attention to this process. Democracy in this sense is a sham. The people are not in charge, a select group of elite politicians are, just like a select group of elites are in charge of bread-making and a select group of elites are in charge of health care.

The free market keeps the elites in charge of bread making in check, less so those of health care, and not at all in the case of political elites since they have the power to take as much money as they want. The ideal system of representation would then give the most selection power to the voters, which is not what we have in most countries. Political parties for the most part control who ends up on the list at the voting booths.

Thankfully there are alternatives, such as single-transferable-vote, which enable the voters with immense power. There is no way in hell you can put this in place from within the system though as it directly challenges the power of established elites.

by **Lokutus** » Fri 28 Apr 2006, 19:12:37

Exit polling will no longer take place.

Why?

Probably because it created suspicions over the Diebold machine tallies.

Mock the Vote!

If anyone had attempted to introduce mysterious black boxes back in the 1960s or 1970s to tally votes without the benefit of an audit trail, the Whitehouse would have been torched by an angry mob.

Today the sheeple are far too distracted by American Idol and Brittney's breakup with Cletus.

Thank you George Bush and the NEOCONs.

Thank you corporate America.

by **Kod** » Sat 29 Apr 2006, 16:39:39

...shocking.

Where did you hear that exit polling was cancelled? Do you have a link?

by **UIUCstudent01** » Sat 29 Apr 2006, 18:35:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kod', 'W')here did you hear that exit polling was cancelled? Do you have a link?

by **Specop_007** » Sun 30 Apr 2006, 12:07:46

I love watching the Democrats cry about the voting machines. It really gives me endless amusement.