Democracy. Does it work?

[CosmicNoodle]

Does democracy work?

In my opinion, no, it gives people the illusion of choice. All the political partys are basically the same wolfs in sheep's clothing. None of them actually caring about the people at hand, none of them giving a flying fuck about the population, all of them simply looking to extend there reach and power. Looking to benefit themselves. Keeping the rich rich, the poor, poor. Ect ect, you know this argument.

What do you think? Does Democracy work? In fact, do ANY political systems work?

[phuckphace]

not a fan, but it does "work" for a little while as long as you don't have multiculturalism and universal suffrage. if you do then bummer, enjoy your racially-polarized, "my hurt feelings" gridlock politics that are good for laughs but almost useless for forming coherent policy. give the vote only to married, natural-born male citizens aged 25 or older and your democracy might have a chance of lasting longer than an Internet startup. le fin.

[Vlerchan]

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Some cynical British asshole.

Of course democracy works better when it's (1) more localised and (2) more direct and (3) the influence of money is reduced and (4) a constitution exists to safeguard certain important rights from a prejudiced polity.

if you do then bummer, enjoy your racially-polarized, "my hurt feelings" gridlock politics that are good for laughs but almost useless for forming coherent policy.
Just like Canada!

[DeadEyes]

In my opinion, no, it gives people the illusion of choice.

people love having an illusion of choice with democracy.

There.

[SethfromMI]

Does democracy work?

In my opinion, no, it gives people the illusion of choice. All the political partys are basically the same wolfs in sheep's clothing. None of them actually caring about the people at hand, none of them giving a flying fuck about the population, all of them simply looking to extend there reach and power. Looking to benefit themselves. Keeping the rich rich, the poor, poor. Ect ect, you know this argument.

What do you think? Does Democracy work? In fact, do ANY political systems work?

I think if it was true democracy then it would work. however, I think most cases it is, as you said an illusion. but most governments I think just want to give the illusion of freedom to its people to help keep them in line

[Miserabilia]

You seem to confuse democracy as it is used in western countries with just "democracy";
a democracy means all**** people can participate equaly in government, either directly as representitive or indirectly, being represented by others.

It's interesting how people seem to say it gives an *illusion* of choice; what it actualy does is give one a choice of how direct they participate in governing.
A voter can only vote and therefore has limited influence, but a government representitive can only do something when they have more votes and therefore has limited influence.

I think that is a very balanced and delicate system. I personaly like the idea of it though. I haven't heard of a better system yet.



*****meeting certain creteria such as age and gender depending on what democracy it is

[CosmicNoodle]

You seem to confuse democracy as it is used in western countries with just "democracy";
a democracy means all**** people can participate equaly in government, either directly as representitive or indirectly, being represented by others.

It's interesting how people seem to say it gives an *illusion* of choice; what it actualy does is give one a choice of how direct they participate in governing.
A voter can only vote and therefore has limited influence, but a government representitive can only do something when they have more votes and therefore has limited influence.

I think that is a very balanced and delicate system. I personaly like the idea of it though. I haven't heard of a better system yet.



*****meeting certain creteria such as age and gender depending on what democracy it is

Interesting, most definitely.

But when I say "illusion of choice" it may be different from others, what I mean is that in out every day to day life we appear free to do as we wish, but we are not, it only seems that way because we have been brought up following the rules, so know not what true freedom is. I cam to this conclusion this way:
I spent 3 days with friends about a year ago in the middle of no where, too far away fro the laws fingers to reach us, we where truly free men, we could do as we pleased. By the end we had massive fires each night, spent most of our time naked, had music playing through 100W speakers as loud as we pleased. We where truly free.
Once we came home, back to the day to day drawl, I realised that we are not free as a people, we are free to obey, with no alternative. We are not born with an option of what to do, we are born with no option but to conform to society's views, laws, and the ever hated view of "normality". We as a society have no choice, we are born into this overbearing world in which we have no actual choice. But the choice to obey.

I can't speak for other people, but when I say it, that's what I mean. We are far from free. We are nothing more than numbers on a page that have no option but to do as we are told.


(I just threw my thoughts at the page, not sure how much sense that ,made, if any)

[Miserabilia]

Interesting, most definitely.

But when I say "illusion of choice" it may be different from others, what I mean is that in out every day to day life we appear free to do as we wish, but we are not, it only seems that way because we have been brought up following the rules, so know not what true freedom is. I cam to this conclusion this way:
I spent 3 days with friends about a year ago in the middle of no where, too far away fro the laws fingers to reach us, we where truly free men, we could do as we pleased. By the end we had massive fires each night, spent most of our time naked, had music playing through 100W speakers as loud as we pleased. We where truly free.
Once we came home, back to the day to day drawl, I realised that we are not free as a people, we are free to obey, with no alternative. We are not born with an option of what to do, we are born with no option but to conform to society's views, laws, and the ever hated view of "normality". We as a society have no choice, we are born into this overbearing world in which we have no actual choice. But the choice to obey.

I can't speak for other people, but when I say it, that's what I mean. We are far from free. We are nothing more than numbers on a page that have no option but to do as we are told.


(I just threw my thoughts at the page, not sure how much sense that ,made, if any)

Ah, I see what you mean. That actualy makes sense

[Stronk Serb]

Yeah, Cosmic Noodle and Phuckphace summed it up pretty well. The advantage of a dictatorship is that the state is always progressing in desired direction. The problems are the desired directions which vary from dictator to dictator.

[Paladino]

Doesn't work for us because our votes don't make much difference with the difference in population with england.

[Typhlosion]

You seem to confuse democracy as it is used in western countries with just "democracy";
a democracy means all**** people can participate equaly in government, either directly as representitive or indirectly, being represented by others.
He's quite right, actually. You're confusing democracy with direct democracy and "democracy" with representative democracy.

[Miserabilia]

He's quite right, actually. You're confusing democracy with direct democracy and "democracy" with representative democracy.

You're right , well f*k me :lol3:

[Dennis98]

National Socialism ( Nazism )
Fascism
Communism
Socialism
Totalitarianism
Dictatorship ( any kind )
Nationalism

That kind of government . Shortly said , right wing politics can not vanish or be destroyed , they can only be silenced for some time. And that kind of politics will always be present , no matter on current situation or year , decade or century . These types of ideology will never vanish. Democracy is just World deception , and people will realize that one day.

[Guillermo]

It seems to me that the better question is "how long will __(insert form of government here)__ work?" rather than "does it work?"

[Aajj333]

For a small population, yes, but it could get too big and take too long for decisions to be made since eveyrone votes in a democracy

[phuckphace]

democracy doesn't necessarily mean universal suffrage, that's essentially a 19th/20th-century revision. and like pretty much every other bad thing we did for good reasons in that period, it phailed pretty hard.

but whatever, since your choices are mostly illusionary in a democracy, you might as well just go with an autocracy of some form or another since that's what you're going to end up with regardless.

[Faolan]

Too much bipartisanship, which leads to–in such cases as the USA–a country in which too little gets accomplished. In my opinion, though, it's the best form of government we have; it theoretically gives everyone a voice.

[Cpt_Cutter]

Democracy works in the sense that Imperium worked for the Romans. No one in modern history has put forward a better system, so they status-quo remains.

[Miserabilia]

Democracy works in the sense that Imperium worked for the Romans. No one in modern history has put forward a better system, so they status-quo remains.

define "better".
For example, democracy has worked for a while but there are different systems that have worked for far longer, would that make them "better'?

[Stronk Serb]

Herman Goring in Nurenberg:
Democracy simply didn't work in post-WWI Germany. When we got in power, inflation was reduced, industry got started, people had jobs and earned money. In a few years we did what the democratic regime couldn't do in almost 15 years.

Also, when the ex-Yugoslav countries got derpmocracy, everything went in the shitter. I found flaws in Tito's communist regime but I admit it was better and stable, economically and socially. Why would we look at an ancient government type when we can think of something better, fore adapted for this time.

[Kahn]

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Some cynical British asshole.

Of course democracy works better when it's (1) more localised and (2) more direct and (3) the influence of money is reduced and (4) a constitution exists to safeguard certain important rights from a prejudiced polity.


/thread

[Syrum]

To be honest, nothing works well. For example, USSR (Socialism) people died, Cuba people die, and such. Democracy works the best. As a Slavic-brother posted above, Tito was very well liked. Governments depend on whom is running them. Nothing will every be perfect as long as humans run governments.

[CosmicNoodle]

To be honest, nothing works well. For example, USSR (Socialism) people died, Cuba people die, and such. Democracy works the best. As a Slavic-brother posted above, Tito was very well liked. Governments depend on whom is running them. Nothing will every be perfect as long as humans run governments.

You sir, are the propigatior of a new idea I now enjoy. Many thanks, you have given me many hours of thinking to do.

[Syrum]

No idea what that word means. :D

[Gamma Male]

I don't like democracy. I do not believe the majority should be able to dictate the rights of the minority.

I think that the non aggression principle is a much better general rule to run a system by.

You can do ABSOLUTELY whatever you want, so long as you do not cause harm to any other sentient being or make someone do something against their will, and the same goes for me.

But like I said, this is just a good general rule. I can think of numerous exceptions I would approve of. But just like people who say they support democracy don't always think everything should follow democratic principles, I support the NAP but don't think it's absolute or always the solution.

I think democracy should generally be second to the NAP. I support democratic principles so long as no one is forced to do anything against their will.


My ideal system would be anarchocommunist and voluntaryist.

[CosmicNoodle]

My ideal system would be anticommunist and voluntaryist.

As would mine, but each of those brings up a multitude of problems on there own. For instance, those sorts of society's only really work if each and every person within the society is completely and utterly devoted to the system, it wouldn't work when applied to the general populous. To much variation in beliefs, but yes, in an ideal world, one of those two systems (or something similar) would likely be my system of choice, most likely anticommunism.

[Vlerchan]

I don't like democracy. I do not believe the majority should be able to dictate the rights of the minority.
This is why we live in constitutional democracies where rights deemed important are protected from prejudice-inspired attack.

[Gamma Male]

This is why we live in constitutional democracies where rights deemed important are protected from prejudice-inspired attack.

And who determines what rights the constitution should and shouldn't protect? What if I want to do something not protected by the constitution that the majority deems wrong, even though it would only effect me? The same problem still applies to everything outside the range of the constitution, unless it includes a clause similar to the NAP.

[Vlerchan]

And who determines what rights the constitution should and shouldn't protect?
The People outline a set of broadly-defined rights that they themselves would want to have.

These rights then apply to the minorities they don't like.

---

The NAP is also as much made-up as a constitution. You considering it "better" is just as subjective as The People considering any constitution "better".

What if I want to do something not protected by the constitution that the majority deems wrong, even though it would only effect me?
Then a belief in the NAP isn't going to save you.

The same problem still applies to everything outside the range of the constitution, unless it includes a clause similar to the NAP.
Sure.

---

I feel I should also add that the NAP is based on property rights being the basis for all rights.

It entails capitalism.

[Gamma Male]

The People outline a set of broadly-defined rights that they themselves would want to have.

These rights then apply to the minorities they don't like.

And everything else is up to the majority to dictate regardless of whether an individuals actions affects anyone other than himself.

The NAP is also as much made-up as a constitution. You considering it "better" is just as subjective as The People considering any constitution "better".
Sure. The good thing about the NAP is that it doesn't matter what each individual deems wrong or a right though. You can do whatever you want so long as you don't initiate force against someone without their consent.


Then a belief in the NAP isn't going to save you.

Sure it would. If society operated off the NAP it wouldn't matter what the majority thinks.



I feel I should also add that the NAP is based on property rights being the basis for all rights.

It entails capitalism.

True, the non aggression principle and voluntaryism has typically been associated with capitalists and propertarians, but I see no reason why I can't cut out the icky private property related bits and appropriate the rest for myself.

[Vlerchan]

And everything else is up to the majority to dictate regardless of whether an individuals actions affects anyone other than himself.
Sure.

But then I'm a utilitarian and not a hedonist so I'm happy with curtailing people's freedom in the name of the common good.

The good thing about the NAP is that it doesn't matter what each individual deems wrong or a right though.
Yes. It does. An individual considering the initiation of violence right is in direct contrast to the NAP.

I tend to take a moral consequentialist standpoint so there's lots of circumstances where I'd consider the initiation of violence just.

You can do whatever you want so long as you don't initiate force against someone without their consent.
Because the NAP considers this wrong or not right.

It's built on subjective foundations just like a constitution. They're just thinner.

Sure it would. If society operated off the NAP it wouldn't matter what the majority thinks.
Yes. If society agreed with you that initiating violence was wrong then you'd be fine.

I was more hoping to make the point that individual rights are defined by the collective in all cases.

[B]ut I see no reason why I can't cut out the icky private property related bits and appropriate the rest for myself.
It's certainly possible. Though you'd need to re-jig the moral justifications for its establishment.

---

I was also confused as to whether you'd jumped in with the an-caps for a moment: Cosmic Noodle quotes you above as saying you were "voluntaryist" and "anti-communist" which made me do a double take.

[Gamma Male]

I was also confused as to whether you'd jumped in with the an-caps for a moment: Cosmic Noodle quotes you above as saying you were "voluntaryist" and "anti-communist" which made me do a double take.

I think the anticommunist part was a typo or autocorrect or something. I'm still as far left as ever. Death to ancaps and whatnot :D



It's good to be back.

[eli_w]

I don't really consider USA a democracy of pure intentions really, more a manipulated version just BARELY meeting the criteria of the definition of the word. And because the definition is vague enough to manipulate in such a way, I don't really think that it is functional long term



Edit:
To be honest, nothing works well. For example, USSR (Socialism) people died, Cuba people die, and such. Democracy works the best. As a Slavic-brother posted above, Tito was very well liked. Governments depend on whom is running them. Nothing will every be perfect as long as humans run governments.

Denmark/Netherlands/etc are doing something right, everything over there is amazeballs

[phuckphace]

Death to ancaps and whatnot :D

I concur, but in my opinion neoliberals are a more immediate concern because, unlike ancaps, the former have serious political influence right now. anarcho-capitalism is a very radical and utopian ideology that will only ever appeal to a tiny handful of pasty troglodytes, meanwhile neoliberals like Milton Friedman actually sat next to presidents like Ronald Reagan and helped direct the policies that led to the shitshow we're seeing now.

[Vlerchan]

Relevant:

I just found out that my girlfriend went and converted to Austro-Libertarianism there at the weekend.

It hurts deep inside.

[Arkansasguy]

Does democracy work?

In my opinion, no, it gives people the illusion of choice. All the political partys are basically the same wolfs in sheep's clothing. None of them actually caring about the people at hand, none of them giving a flying fuck about the population, all of them simply looking to extend there reach and power. Looking to benefit themselves. Keeping the rich rich, the poor, poor. Ect ect, you know this argument.

What do you think? Does Democracy work? In fact, do ANY political systems work?

Depends on what one means by "works". If you mean that it increases licentiousness, which is really what the idea was designed to do, then yes it certainly works. If you mean keeping a society orderly and virtuous, then no, monarchy would work much better.

[phuckphace]

Relevant:

I just found out that my girlfriend went and converted to Austro-Libertarianism there at the weekend.

It hurts deep inside.

time to downsize (dump). if she's offended, remind her that the girlfriend market is highly competitive

Depends on what one means by "works". If you mean that it increases licentiousness, which is really what the idea was designed to do, then yes it certainly works. If you mean keeping a society orderly and virtuous, then no, monarchy would work much better.

I like you.

[the main man]

I've always believed a form of direct democracy would work much better but the question/problem will the us gov change peacefully?

[BraydenD]

if its the right people running it it works

[RickMason]

Democracy only works in a society of well educated people who have knowledge in every field important to run such society. Letting smaller circles of experts in certain fields decide would be a shortcut to technocracy or other form of government surpressing needs of many for the benefit of a few and a badly working one at that. I know no aparate that would operate in the realm of the educated, so I can't tell whether it works or not as its pure form most probably never existed.

[tasminsmith]

no it irritates me democracy doesn't work well in my opinion

[Syrum]

Yesh. My thread. Well, democracy doesn't work what so ever, nor does Socialism, or communism, or anything. But, democracy is the best political system the world has had so far, but. Many countries are not ready for democracy (Mostly like ALL of the middle east), and shouldn't be forced on them.

[Katie96xox]

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others" - Winston Churchill

Sums it up perfectly, nothing left to say.