Democracy: Does the system work?
- Thread starter skirtboy
- Start date
sixtyandaquarter
Member
You do realize that neither book is an actual account of what happens, only a very nice story that shows what the author believes could happen - or even what they feel is bad with something right?
Jeff the Green
Member
1984 is a dystopian novel, and mostly conjecture (though very prescient at some points), but animal farm is an almost exact account of the Russian Revolution, the French Revolution, and even (to a lesser extent) the American Revolution. The most zealous warriors against tyranny (the pigs, Lenin, Robespierre, John Adams) see threats to their ideology everywhere and, upon seizing power, the paranoid become tyrants.
Jeff the Green
Member
NexS;314470 said:
Um, just responding to 60 1/4.
rpgfan_2007
Member
Read both Animal Farm, and 1984. I'd say we're at the stage at the end of Animal farm, and before 1984. Scary, huh?
Communism and Fascism are evil. But I think ( just my humble opinion ) that the leaders ( Politicians, Corps ) of our country USA look at China with envy. They want what Chinese Leaders have. Fascist control. Power to control our lives.
Like I said, I don't know what the solution is. Pretty depressing.
Communism and Fascism are evil. But I think ( just my humble opinion ) that the leaders ( Politicians, Corps ) of our country USA look at China with envy. They want what Chinese Leaders have. Fascist control. Power to control our lives.
Like I said, I don't know what the solution is. Pretty depressing.
sixtyandaquarter
Member
Beatcat has me on that. It is very truthful to the events that did occur. But it's still a dramatization and it's not an exact parallel, it's probably the closest you could find that keeps things fresh though, and it's actually a lot closer than my history books.
gamingfan1989
Member
Yes. Democracy works, when it's not in the USA. I think I am going to go live in Canada, because we have a bunch of fucking communists running the country, and soon, the whole US of A will be a complete tyranny.
Being from outside of the US, I can't see the glory in the constitution. It was written in the 18th century if I remember correctly, this was the century following the first explanation of gravity so therefore it is clear that the world and human specie has by no means peaked as far as innovative ideas are concerned, so who's to say it has the US constitution moral or political credibility in the 21st century, or universial accuracy whatsoever? I have very little knowledge of the ideals and principals contained within it, but from a general perspective my point stands. As for earching private properity without a warrant, this is nothing more than shortcut. If a government or authority needs a warrant to search a property, they will GET a warrant. Being able to search without a warrant simply makes the matter a lot more swift. The only difference is that on occasion their going to be able to detain a serious criminal/terrorist before they have a chance to flee.
Anyway, as for the actual question. Democracy in itself is the least flawed governmental system in place in the world at the moment. However, it is by no means perfect and to accept it as a Utopia is insane. It is set in place to create utility, and in most cases succeeds. Obviously Mr Bush is the exception, currently recieving below 50% approval if I remember correctly. This points out a major flaw in democracy, as around the time of the previous american election I remember hearing "It really comes down to which of the two idiots isn't as bad as the other". Having not paid any attention to Bush or Kerry's presidential policies, I can't say if this was entirely accurate or not, but it still remains a fair example. Furthermore it is debatable whether who is the figurehead of a nation even makes the slightest difference. There are a number of claims that the likes of Bush and Blair were nothing more than posterboys, appointed for their public speaking skills and nothing further. Again, it's debatable but still valid.
Now, rpgfan_2007, communism is most definitley not evil. Naive and implausible, yes, but evil? Absolutley not. Communism in itself would be a fantastic system if it were able to work as intended. A world in which every person has everything they need to be happy directly equates with global harmony and the end of all war and the majority of suffering. Don't get me wrong, I do not support communism, as this will never happen. For communism to succeed either conventional morality needs to be scrapped entirely, or a massive sociological change has to occur in which all citizens of a nation feel exactly the same way about every issue. Both are highly unfeasible, so although not at all evil; communism still falls short.
Ramble over. Bottom line? Utopia is a fallicy that requires a change in people not policy. Democracy is the best we've got until the world is uprooted in a disasterous fashion and the human race can start anew.
Nphyx: fixed, was broken, sorry ><
@Venetia : Actually, socialism isn't government-less. My guess is you were thinking about anarchism. Socialism does indeed support a government, although not an all-powerful entity akin to the Communist's "transition" government. Control in a socialist society would be exercised by collectives such as unions, syndicates and the likes for the good of the community.
As for Communism, I agree with Dorito. It was a good -- nay, a superb idea in theory. It's hard to say that it truly failed, though, seeing as how it wasn't applied correctly; it was supposed to be a revolution of the proletarians, yet it was the bourgeoisie who led (Lenin wasn't from the working class, in case anyone was wondering...). Furthermore, Karl Marx's ideas had been specifically modeled for and after his own people, the Germans. Last but not least, it was tailored specifically for the century. Nowadays, it would need to be completely revised. So much for that, eh?
As for democracy, which is the current topic, it is, as aforementioned, inherently flawed; by giving equal power to each individual, individuals easily manipulated through demagogy and other political ruse, you're simply begging for a popularity contest; whoever convinces the most people wins, not whoever has the correct ideas. And that's another problem too: how can you affirm that anyone has the correct ideas? It's a pretty subjective reasoning, thus the popularity contest.
As for Communism, I agree with Dorito. It was a good -- nay, a superb idea in theory. It's hard to say that it truly failed, though, seeing as how it wasn't applied correctly; it was supposed to be a revolution of the proletarians, yet it was the bourgeoisie who led (Lenin wasn't from the working class, in case anyone was wondering...). Furthermore, Karl Marx's ideas had been specifically modeled for and after his own people, the Germans. Last but not least, it was tailored specifically for the century. Nowadays, it would need to be completely revised. So much for that, eh?
As for democracy, which is the current topic, it is, as aforementioned, inherently flawed; by giving equal power to each individual, individuals easily manipulated through demagogy and other political ruse, you're simply begging for a popularity contest; whoever convinces the most people wins, not whoever has the correct ideas. And that's another problem too: how can you affirm that anyone has the correct ideas? It's a pretty subjective reasoning, thus the popularity contest.
Dissonance
Member
A dictator that is just and keeps the interests of the people first is far, far superior to ANY democracy.
Of course, such dictators are few and far between, but they have existed.
Of course, such dictators are few and far between, but they have existed.
eharper256
Member
Actually, I feel that Democracy generally fails because of apathy. But then again, apathy is at the core of the system. I mean, it is basically an advanced form of delegation; as you put all of your faith into your chosen candidate, and leave them to shoulder that entire responsibility.
People are by definition selfish creatures; and only the most politically driven usually end up caring about exactly what a party stands for. So long as a government keeps out of your business and does its best to please you, your relatives, and your friends with its services, you really couldn't care less, and don't mind paying your tax. Sadly, it is of course impossible to please everyone. So, yes, it does often dissolve into a popularity contest- the party able to sabotage their opponents most effectively comes out on top, making it less of a democratic election and more of a 'what mud can we dig up on them?' race.
It is really no different to a military coup. Only, all violence is now performed through the pen, the word of mouth, the journalist, and the spin doctor. And America seems to want to introduce this 'democracy' to 'less enlightened' countries and individuals. That merely amuses me.
True democracy is in fact defined by the Ancient greeks as a governmental system called 'Eudaimonia'. This is a system where everybody has a vote upon every issue. It might work in small villages and perhaps city states, but of course, the red tape involved in such a system would make it terrifyingly inefficient for national government. Well, at least until the internet takes over our minds, giving us collective conciousness. Haha.
People are by definition selfish creatures; and only the most politically driven usually end up caring about exactly what a party stands for. So long as a government keeps out of your business and does its best to please you, your relatives, and your friends with its services, you really couldn't care less, and don't mind paying your tax. Sadly, it is of course impossible to please everyone. So, yes, it does often dissolve into a popularity contest- the party able to sabotage their opponents most effectively comes out on top, making it less of a democratic election and more of a 'what mud can we dig up on them?' race.
It is really no different to a military coup. Only, all violence is now performed through the pen, the word of mouth, the journalist, and the spin doctor. And America seems to want to introduce this 'democracy' to 'less enlightened' countries and individuals. That merely amuses me.
True democracy is in fact defined by the Ancient greeks as a governmental system called 'Eudaimonia'. This is a system where everybody has a vote upon every issue. It might work in small villages and perhaps city states, but of course, the red tape involved in such a system would make it terrifyingly inefficient for national government. Well, at least until the internet takes over our minds, giving us collective conciousness. Haha.
The foundations were laid for democracy more than 2500 years ago in ancient Greece, so I don't know that critiquing on the basis of 200 years or so being out-of-date is a good place to start. The United States constitution probably isn't anywhere near perfect, if it was we wouldn't have much to argue about; it's not full of all the best ideas, either; other democracies have handled some issues differently and in admirably innovative ways. You have to give it some props for being the first in the modern age though, and it's holding up pretty well.skirtboy":1t0qll48 said:
See, here you're absolutely wrong but it's forgivable since you obviously don't understand U.S. law. Our government isn't (or at least wasn't previously) fundamentally entitled to violate our personal space; in fact we have a very strong legal theory about personal property. Without going into it too much, in order to get a warrant in the U.S. the executive (police, FBI, what-have-you) must apply for it from a judge based on the evidence he already has. It's not at all a transparent process; because of our system of separation of power and the checks and balances built into our constitution, the Judge is obligated and empowered to make an independent decision based on the merits of the application, not based on the predicted outcome or the supposed need of the executive. Warrants are turned down more often than they are granted, usually because they are spurious or lack enough evidence to meet the judicial standard.
Because of this the Patriot Act is an egregious violation of not only our rights, but of several parts of our constitution and even the fundamental framework of our government that is behind it; it robs the judicial branch of one of its most sacred checks against executive power. It is not simply a legal shortcut to help get the "bad guys," it is an assault against our system of government and our fundamental civil rights.
Yes, and in many other occasions they are going to break into an innocent person's home, take them from their family and their job, imprison them without basic civil rights, or even habeas corpus (the right to challenge your imprisonment on the grounds that there is no proof the crime you are accused of has even been committed). This has already happened and continues to happen. The reason we have the system of warrants is to give an independent party (a judge) a chance to review the evidence against the suspect and make sure there's actually enough substance to it to "warrant" putting them in jail, see how that works.
I don't know, people love to say that but you need to think about the implications before you can really make that judgment. Communism relies on a system where all production is controlled by the government, and it expects a society of people who are wiling to accept having an exactly identical life to their neighbor in most ways, with the goal of eliminating inequality. The goal is admirable, but the result is not, because it not only eliminates inequality (in an ideal system) it also eliminates individual choice and freedom. Would you really want to live in a country where your choice of employment was decided by the government? What if you didn't like the job you got assigned? What if you had an idea you wanted to try out, or a talent that was going to waste that you would like to try to build a life on? This is not possible in communism, even in utopian, perfect communism. Would you really want to live in a country where you are not allowed any kind of choice or individuality for the betterment of the nation, where risk-taking and innovation isn't just looked down on, it's actively stifled? This is the result of communism. The socio-economic environment implied by perfect communism is terrifying to the person who values individual choice, freedom of thought, or the ability to pursue his own definition of happiness over the one dictated by his government. That style of complete oppression is fundamentally evil in my book, and no goal, however lofty, is worth that cost.
Having said that, capitalist democracies are hardly creating ideal lives for us either; we are stuck in a problem of false dichotomy in our political mindsets, where anyone who doesn't support capitalism must be a communist and vice versa. Consider for a moment that their might be a third choice, not just a mixing of the values of socialism and free-market capitalism like we're experiencing in most democracies today but an actual fundamentally differently structured third economic and governmental route that hasn't even been explored yet. If you let yourself imagine that for a little while, who knows, maybe you'll come up with a few good ideas instead of saying, "meh, this isn't perfect but it's better than what they have over there, so I'm content."
kimpoy2006
Member
The system of democracy has many factors to which it can succeed or to which it can fail.
In my opinion, democracy is at its best when communication is best established with contacting and brainstorming is efficient. This system would be fit for a city-state, and maybe a reason for its average success in greece. The system starts to collapse in huge and far-flung colonies & if communication is slow and usually severed, this where governors and provincial heads start to act on their own propaganda and shape their own beliefs that can be contrary to the ruling administration.
It also depends on the people who are running it even if you have good natured laws, corrupt and ill-intentioned despots try to bend and paint on these laws.
You want an example?
Here in the Philippine Republic, the laws are generally good but it is hindered by new laws that are breaking in holes. Lets say the writ of amparo (it says that if the congress or some tribunal voted for a majority favoring the use of the writ, the military must disclose information the the tribunal wanted), this is overshadowed by the anti-terror law and they will say that it threatens national security.... WTH? if you are afraid of extremist terrorizing, don't worry we already have foreign forces scouring the land since like a decade ago!
The system here also fails to coordinate with the people and the congress is considered lower than the executive power, which is wierd since the government is an indirect-democracy and the congress is the voice of the people.
A generally good example for democracy would be for me, I guess:
Switzerland, I like the idea of the country is small and the government is a semidirect-democracy. wooooot, we choose what we want!
The forms of government are usually shades, not theories that are written in stone.
My opinion of communism:
The Good:
umm... is equality here (i believe that this eliminates competition and produces an ineffective workforce, hey there is a for the competitive proletariat)
The Bad:
susceptible to abuse
I find it that this will only be effective in small villages and not for running countries.
I believe that any towering executive administration destroys the idea of communism.
This is a government form that I do not want to be under.
If you would be a future conqueror of the world, I would just suggest that you take an Imperial rule and just have different councils and tribunals to voice in the wishes of the people.
In my opinion, democracy is at its best when communication is best established with contacting and brainstorming is efficient. This system would be fit for a city-state, and maybe a reason for its average success in greece. The system starts to collapse in huge and far-flung colonies & if communication is slow and usually severed, this where governors and provincial heads start to act on their own propaganda and shape their own beliefs that can be contrary to the ruling administration.
It also depends on the people who are running it even if you have good natured laws, corrupt and ill-intentioned despots try to bend and paint on these laws.
You want an example?
Here in the Philippine Republic, the laws are generally good but it is hindered by new laws that are breaking in holes. Lets say the writ of amparo (it says that if the congress or some tribunal voted for a majority favoring the use of the writ, the military must disclose information the the tribunal wanted), this is overshadowed by the anti-terror law and they will say that it threatens national security.... WTH? if you are afraid of extremist terrorizing, don't worry we already have foreign forces scouring the land since like a decade ago!
The system here also fails to coordinate with the people and the congress is considered lower than the executive power, which is wierd since the government is an indirect-democracy and the congress is the voice of the people.
A generally good example for democracy would be for me, I guess:
Switzerland, I like the idea of the country is small and the government is a semidirect-democracy. wooooot, we choose what we want!
The forms of government are usually shades, not theories that are written in stone.
My opinion of communism:
The Good:
umm... is equality here (i believe that this eliminates competition and produces an ineffective workforce, hey there is a for the competitive proletariat)
The Bad:
susceptible to abuse
I find it that this will only be effective in small villages and not for running countries.
I believe that any towering executive administration destroys the idea of communism.
This is a government form that I do not want to be under.
If you would be a future conqueror of the world, I would just suggest that you take an Imperial rule and just have different councils and tribunals to voice in the wishes of the people.
Personally, I am coming to believe that a republic can only survive if the ballot box is backed up by a well-armed citizenry, with the threat of rebellion countering the natural tendency of governments and men to gather power to themselves, as well as the universal human desire to control the lives of others for "the greater good." This principle, in point of fact, was one of the primary reasons why the right to bear arms was second in the Bill of Rights.
Democracy works until corruption begins. It's a great system where no one wants more power than they're granted, but this isn't that world. Corruption in numerous areas has already begun for the U.S., probably more than we know. Our government is made "by the people, for the people", but we have no idea what's going on. The government keeps secrets, such as Area 51, without telling the general public. Although they have good reason to keep certain things secret, I think we should at least be entitled to know what's in the area that's causing them to guard it so heavily.
~Guardian1239
~Guardian1239