Democracy: Does the system work?

[skirtboy]

Do you think that Democracy works? Or do you think that it is similar to communism (Great in theory, but does not work well in practice.)?

I am starting to lean toward the latter view. Were all people able to think logically, Democracy would work well. However, many more people tend to think emotionally, which can cause them to make decisons that are not very good. A perfect example of this is the Patriot Act. For those of you who are not American, the Patriot Act, passed after 9/11/01, greatly expands several powers of the government, very possibly beyond what the Constitution allows, including, but not limited to, survelliance without a warrant, searches of private property without a warrant, and indefinite incarceration without trial. The bill was passed without comment because the proponents said "This will keep you safe. Sign it." When the details of the bill became known, hundereds of people immediately wrote their Congressmen to demand immediate repeal. What is your take on the matter?

 

[Roman Candle]

That depends on what the system's supposed to do.

 

[Venetia]

I just think it's amusing that the foundations of socialism identify with a government-less harmony of the people, when all liberal socialists do is increase taxes and give more power to big government. Conservatives do, too--but they're atleast not fooling themselves into thinking they're giving more power to the individual.

I say the best comes of a number of comparitively small sects of government which coordinate, not one large power (where you get despots, loss of rights) or a community power (where it will always ultimately end in one group becoming a large power unless you police the hell out of it, which requires a large power).

 

[Jeff the Green]

Pure democracy won't work simply because it doesn't protect rights of individuals or minorities. A constitutional republic (with strong sunshine laws and division of power) is, as Churchill said, a very poor form of government, but the best we've tried so far. I'm not as concerned about the government being powerful as I am about the government being accountable.

And you're trolling, Venetia. If you want to discuss whether or not liberals are socialists or the origins of socialism and liberalism, be my guest, but this isn't the thread for it.

 

[Venetia]

Actually, this is the thread for it, more so than the one I started. If you read the first post you'll see he's fishing for a debate on the fundamentals of democracy--and liberalism v. "conservativism" is just that.

It's not a troll unless you take offense to it directly. I appreciate your candor in what you believe in--are you denying me the same respect by inhibiting what I have to say about my views on the subject? I actually rather like debating about this stuff, it doesn't bother me at all. If it bothers you that I have a dissenting opinion, don't post, or else bring it up with me privately, because it seems as if you think I'm attacking you directly. Quite the opposite, you're just the most verbose and easy to quote and I appreciate that.

... Now THAT was off topic, heh

 

[PINEDAXP]

Democracy

Demos= People
Cracy= law/government

Democracy is then, the People's Government, where everyone is supposed to have the same rights and to contribute with the decisions and working together towards a common good... hmmm sounds like socialism...

In ancient Greece (crib of the democracy) people gathered around the central "park" to let the people decide on how should the nation be "managed"

The Aristocrats had the lead, since they were prepared by ancient sophists and old times politicians. Nevertheless, they respected the system until the mentioned Aristocrats were able to make a denoted class separation.

In that period of time, Socrates appeared and criticized the downfall of democratic systems, because now the power was delegated on "higher rank" people, so they killed him.

So, birth and immediate death of democracy and the born of a "disguised democracy" based on the principle of some people being able to rule over others...

So yeah, democracy has failed, because there's no democracy any more. Just re-named imperialist systems

 

[Jeff the Green]

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response. (Emphasis mine)

Venetia, you knew I was in the Symposium and were trying to extend one argument into another thread. Thanks for the compliments, though. :D

 

[Andy6000]

Venetia, you knew I was in the Symposium and were trying to extend one argument into another thread. Thanks for the compliments, though. :D

pro-tip, you're wrong. How about we talk about the topic instead of pretending we're trolling each other? Unless you'd like me to direct some people that are actually trolls in here?

 

[Anglachel]

Nothing is perfect. Demorcarcy is simply better than a tyranny or comunism. It's the best we can reasonably hope for. Lots of older people have told me how important deocracy is, saying how luck we are to have it. Just ask anyone who has came from a place where it didn't exist.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

Anglachel, by that logic any form of governing body can be considered better than (fill in random blank).

All it takes is for a privileged group of people to decide that they like how things are being run - and hell, if they are privileged they better like how things are run. How many people could and would say that the way things are run in Islamic Republic/Leagues are the bester and better than everything else. Or the single party republics such as in China. Common Wealths and Grand Duchy, etc. I'm not trying to pick on these forms of rule, just the only ones that popped up into my head mind you. I'm splitting hairs here but still.

Anarchy was toted as being the have all/end all of governments by a huge amount of people in my old school - doesn't make it better, just more popular in that circle.
---
Democracy on paper is like Communism on paper. Both sound great, but neither truly hit the mark spot on. It's a form of government I could really get behind, but people will also have a way to screw cogs in.

Does Democracy work? It can, and it has. Is it? That's a better question, since every form of government can and at one time has worked.

 

[Fafnir]

No form of gov't will ever work perfectly, because everyone wants different things. But so far, it's worked the best.

Socialism ends up becoming communism, communism can eventually become fascism if left unchecked; all much faster then democracy could, and much easier.

 

[Jeff the Green]

I'm sorry, Venetia. Reading the posts makes me realize that I was a bit of an idiot, a bit of an ass, or both.-_-

 

[Jstreet]

Pure forms of gov't are usually faulty, hence why most gov't used mixed systems and ideals. Democracy, in theory, is best for the people controlling it, but in a gov't built on checks and balances it simply won't work. The wants and needs of the people become individualized if left to the people. At that point laws and such would not be fit for influencing a macro level of society.

Keep in mind, pure democracy is almost never in play. This is why things such as, Representative Democracy are put into play.

 

[Roman Candle]

In ancient Greece (crib of the democracy) people gathered around the central "park" to let the people decide on how should the nation be "managed"

The Aristocrats had the lead, since they were prepared by ancient sophists and old times politicians. Nevertheless, they respected the system until the mentioned Aristocrats were able to make a denoted class separation.

In that period of time, Socrates appeared and criticized the downfall of democratic systems, because now the power was delegated on "higher rank" people, so they killed him.

So, birth and immediate death of democracy and the born of a "disguised democracy" based on the principle of some people being able to rule over others...

No. That is not what happened.

Democracy works in the sense that it's more stable than a benevolent dictatorship. On the other hand, it means we can't enforce unpopular but neccessary long term controls... Like effectively slowing global warming. Nevermind.

 

[Jeff the Green]

No. That is not what happened.

If I remember correctly, Athens (which was actually one of the few "democracies" in ancient Greece) was conquered by Sparta in the last of the Peloponesian Wars, and rather than have to deal with a rebellious province, decided to install separate, oligarchical government. That was the government that Socrates got in trouble with, and he got in trouble for questioning the existence of the gods, rather than (directly) criticizing the government.

There's also some question over whether you can consider Athens a democracy, since only citizens, who had to be a) male, b) 18, c) not slaves, and d) nearly as racially pure as Hitler required of his SS troops. Also, many of the poor and working class were disqualified, since if at any time you owed a debt to the state (unpaid taxes, mainly), which were inheritable, you could not participate.

 

[rpgfan_2007]

We don't have a democracy in this country anymore ( USA ). Most of the USA voted for a Democratic Congress to send those bastards in the office a message, and get our damn troops home. Well did anything happen since? No.

So we don't have a democracy anymore. The system is corrupted and broken. The politicians supposedly are our representatives but they are not. They are paid for by various SIGs. It's depressing to think about this, but our country is seriously in trouble and I don't know how to fix it either. All I can do is pray.

I'd rather make games than think about stuff like this. It makes my head hurt. Fantasy worlds are much better.

 

[NexS]

Human beings don't have the will to handle power such as communist government's leaders get. If any of you have read "animal farm" you will know exactly what i'm talking about. I suppose Democracy can be seen as just a way to take 'absolute' power from the leader, hence they don't get a far bigger head.

But honestly, has anyone here been a prime minister, a presedent, a dictator?(or anything else you can think of :P) Personally, i haven't and i wouldn't dare say that the way they do things is wrong, i'm sure it's far more work than we give them credit for, just that different leaders have different ideas. But thats where the democracy kicks in, giving some people the ability to have their opinions heard and taken into account..

please, orrect me if i'm wrong

 

[Jeff the Green]

Human beings don't have the will to handle power such as communist government's leaders get.

Actually, communism isn't supposed to have leaders, as I understand it. What they had in the USSR and still have in China is closer to fascism with a state-controlled economy (whereas Nazi Germany was fascism with a corporate-controlled economy). Communism has never existed, and probably never will, simply because people like to own things, and like to own more than their neighbors.

 

[NexS]

thenthe power goes to their head. Bringing themselves as gods...

seriously, if you havent read George Orwell's Animal Farm, i put it to you to read it, it is very good and so political but hidden behind animals

 

[Fafnir]

I perfer 1984 to Animal Farm. It shows what happens AFTERWORDS....