Democracy - does it work? (1 Viewer)

[magicboy]

communism is interesting in theory indeed.........but think about it..

i want to have three cars and one big mansion...while other people cant just get close to having a normal shelter.......are they gonna come and rob me and my money???? communism didnt work even in Sovie Union....there was still wide spread poverty in sovie union........its pretty impressive for me cause appartenly communism states that socialism is aiming at poor people


now, capitalisn has given people an opportunity.... we do not have any person in Australia living on less than 1 US dollar person day!!!!!! its just impossible
(poor people might not receive the dollar but they receive things like food and water thats worth more than a dollar)

democracy works because people want it to work...people want to be free, walk free, talk free, criticise leaders freely and blame John Howard freely, and live free.....only in democracy this is possible!

 

[Gilbert1]

If the only purpose of democracy is to give everyone the same vote then it does work beautifully... but surely the aim of a political system should be to run the country as effectively as possible and democracy doesn't do that.

No this is why democracy is great and disproves this argument. In gving everyone the same vote the people, by the large majority will decide how the country should be run. It will be a combined opinion of thousands of people that one way is correct, but of course not everyone will agree. The fact is those people who disagree with the majourity will lose and that is why democracy is great. It gives everyone the same vote but what will always be "correct" is whatever the people decide is correct. People will not agree with what the majority decide, but tuff luck, that is what living in a democrcy is all about. Everyone gets a vote, but only the majority will matter.

 

[_dhj_]

No this is why democracy is great and disproves this argument. In gving everyone the same vote the people, by the large majority will decide how the country should be run. It will be a combined opinion of thousands of people that one way is correct, but of course not everyone will agree. The fact is those people who disagree with the majourity will lose and that is why democracy is great. It gives everyone the same vote but what will always be "correct" is whatever the people decide is correct. People will not agree with what the majority decide, but tuff luck, that is what living in a democrcy is all about. Everyone gets a vote, but only the majority will matter.

So you just said that democracy is great because it is democracy.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

No this is why democracy is great and disproves this argument. In gving everyone the same vote the people, by the large majority will decide how the country should be run. It will be a combined opinion of thousands of people that one way is correct, but of course not everyone will agree. The fact is those people who disagree with the majourity will lose and that is why democracy is great. It gives everyone the same vote but what will always be "correct" is whatever the people decide is correct. People will not agree with what the majority decide, but tuff luck, that is what living in a democrcy is all about. Everyone gets a vote, but only the majority will matter.

Just because it was decided by the majority doesn't make it correct. The majority of people are complete idiots and cannot be trusted to decide the fate of an entire country.

 

[Miss Murder]

Democracy is ineffective in most current manifestations, but sadly it's the best political theory in existence. I'd much prefer a meritocracy - but that would require serious planning in many socio-economic and political aspects and be impossible to enforce.

In fact, democracy gives the masses an illusion of freedom - and the capitalism keeps them working and paying off mortgages. Thus the majority is middle class and too busy to think or revolt, and scared of change. Politicians get elected because they say what people want to hear.

 

[Gilbert1]

Just because it was decided by the majority doesn't make it correct. The majority of people are complete idiots and cannot be trusted to decide the fate of an entire country.

no you are the "idiot" for asuming that the masses of people who vote are idiots. You do not take into account the other people's opinions and votes and assume that you are correct. You would prefer a dictatorship where you are in command, but not everyone agrees with you. That is why a democracy works, because everyone gets a say. It is not up to you to say they are wrong

 

[Gilbert1]

So you just said that democracy is great because it is democracy.

no that is a stupid statement

 

[Triangulum]

I don't think there is a better system anywhere else either but that doesn't mean democracy is the best.

1. There is no better system than democracy.
2. Democracy is not the best system.

??

 

[banco55]

Democracy is ineffective in most current manifestations, but sadly it's the best political theory in existence. I'd much prefer a meritocracy - but that would require serious planning in many socio-economic and political aspects and be impossible to enforce.

In fact, democracy gives the masses an illusion of freedom - and the capitalism keeps them working and paying off mortgages. Thus the majority is middle class and too busy to think or revolt, and scared of change. Politicians get elected because they say what people want to hear.

You should look up the origin for the term "meritocracy".

 

[_dhj_]

no that is a stupid statement

You basically said that democracy is great because the majority decides. But we all know what democracy is, the question is why is the opinion of the majority the correct opinion? A minority is always more informed than the majority in most things. I'm not referring to an incumbent 'intelligentsia' but to transient classes of people that possess the relevant expertise. For example, scientific questions should be answered by scientists, economic by economists, medical by doctors, historical by historians, philosophical by philosophers etc. The fact is that the opinions of some people on some areas are worth more than the rest of the population.

 

[kazan]

1. There is no better system than democracy.
2. Democracy is not the best system.

??

he means he hasn't found a better system as of yet..(me thinks)




democracy works to a degree

i don't belive that limiting the vote via a test would work, the masses would eventually catch wind, and anarchy would break loose


we need to fuck off representative democracy

instead we should have elctronic voting.

so that each bill or new law can be voted on by the entire population

and by electronic i dont mean from your home, you'd still have to be supervised voting. but like it could be done from a police station or library or something.


but then, that also brings about the problem of the stupid masses...


hmm i guess that wouldn't work

 

[Gilbert1]

You basically said that democracy is great because the majority decides. But we all know what democracy is, the question is why is the opinion of the majority the correct opinion? A minority is always more informed than the majority in most things. I'm not referring to the 'intelligentsia' but to people who possess certain expertise. For example, scientific questions should be answered by scientists, economic by economists, medical by doctors, historical by historians, philosophical by philosophers etc. The fact is that the opinions of some people on some areas are worth more than the rest of the population.

I get what you are saying, but what I am saying is that the only people who diagree wth the majority are the minoraty, the other part of the population who got to vote for the country that both sides live in. Democracy works ecause the majority of people believe it is correct

 

[Valeu]

It depends on what definition of democracy you use. For some people democracy is ticking a box every few years and letting those who know best decide what is good for us (supposedly), for others it's about democratic participation in decision-making, or 'direct' non-heirarchical democracy.

And any system can "work" - the question is whether it delivers good outcomes for society. I think democracy, in the non-heirarchical co-operative sense, does deliver the best outcomes for society, simply because it is the people who decide how to run their own communities and lives.

And remember, a dictatorship is a dictatorship is a dictatorship. What if your 'benevolent ruler' suddenly decides not to be so benevolent anymore. There are no safeguards. Even the best-intentioned 'dictatorship' undertaking "the will of the people" will ultimately start to veer away from the interests and needs of the population. Lenin, Castro, etc.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

no you are the "idiot" for asuming that the masses of people who vote are idiots. You do not take into account the other people's opinions and votes and assume that you are correct. You would prefer a dictatorship where you are in command, but not everyone agrees with you. That is why a democracy works, because everyone gets a say. It is not up to you to say they are wrong

The majority of people are idiots and their opinions are wrong. It is not an assumption. It is a fact.

I don't think I am the only one that is correct in all situations which is why I suggest the top 10% of people be allowed to vote. That way you still get different opinions but you exclude the morons.

If the goal is allowing everyone to have a say then it works. If the goal is to get the best possible outcome then it doesn't work.

1. There is no better system than democracy.
2. Democracy is not the best system.

??

There is no better system currently being used somewhere else (in response to people who said if you don't like democracy go live [insert other country name here]). I think there are potentially better systems that aren't being used anywhere at the moment.

i don't belive that limiting the vote via a test would work, the masses would eventually catch wind, and anarchy would break loose

so that each bill or new law can be voted on by the entire population

and by electronic i dont mean from your home, you'd still have to be supervised voting. but like it could be done from a police station or library or something.

That's the problem. The majority would refuse to accept that they are too dumb to have a say and would never accept it. Only the intelligent people (who would be voting anyway so have no reason to be annoyed) would understand the reasoning behind it.

That is a horrible idea. The country would be completely fucked within a month.

 

[_dhj_]

I get what you are saying, but what I am saying is that the only people who diagree wth the majority are the minoraty, the other part of the population who got to vote for the country that both sides live in. Democracy works ecause the majority of people believe it is correct

The majority believes that it is correct. But that makes democracy a stable system, not necessarily a great one that achieves the best outcomes (note distinction between opinion and outcome). However, the opinions of the majority can easily be swayed, especially if they are not well informed in the area in question. If they can be swayed they can also be swayed to hold the better opinions - that is the opinions held by the informed minority. Also, the culture can be changed so that the uninformed majority respects the opinions held by the informed minority - recognising that they are in a better position to propound their opinions.

 

[Gilbert1]

The majority of people are idiots and their opinions are wrong. It is not an assumption. It is a fact.

I don't think I am the only one that is correct in all situations which is why I suggest the top 10% of people be allowed to vote. That way you still get different opinions but you exclude the morons.

No to me that sounds like royalty being placed in charge and deciding what happens.

 

[kazan]

That is a horrible idea. The country would be completely fucked within a month.

it'd be pure democracy tho
every person has a vote.



if we'd be fucked in a month, then what does that say about our education system?


didn't someone before mention how good it was?

 

[Gilbert1]

The majority believes that it is correct. But that makes democracy a stable system, not necessarily a great one that achieves the best outcomes (note distinction between opinion and outcome). However, the opinions of the majority can easily be swayed, especially if they are not well informed in the area in question. If they can be swayed they can also be swayed to hold the better opinions - that is the opinions held by the informed minority. Also, the culture can be changed so that the uninformed majority respects the opinions held by the informed minority - recognising that they are in a better position to propound their opinions.

I always love this thought that the people who voted for the government are missinformed and are idiots, but the only people who hold this opinion are the people who ote for the opposition.

Also I dont like the current government in power. I reckon they are not very good, but not everyone agrees with me. So does that mean screw the majourity because I THINK I am right?

 

[flappinghippo]

There's been a lot of hype in the media about the wonders of democracy, and it is often equated with such noble ideals as freedom, progress, equity, stability, peace, prosperity and even civilisation. But is this really true?

Short answer is YES, YOU FUCK.

The slightly longer answer is: Mostly yeah, but it's still a work in progress.

Under democracy, Australia and also America have come under the leadership of complete idiots, ie. Bush. Just because the majority believe someone would be a good leader clearly doesn't mean they're right.

A sign of a healthy democracy is debate. Ronald Reagan had a lot of haters - a lot of people like yourself thought he was an old, incapable fool, and yet he managed to give the biggest and longest economic boom in America, solving the 'unsolvable' issue of stag-flation, during his two terms, and had the balls to call the Soviet Union the 'evil empire'. My point isn't that Bush is a good president or a bad one, and as Gilbert1 has said that's irrelevant. Good presidents can come and go, just as bad ones can as well, it's democracy at work since people have the power and the freedom to choose on the whole for themselves.

The very fact that you're on here talking shit about democracy is ironically the very reason why democracy works.

Democracy has put the real power in the hands of the giant media corporations, because Murdoch et. al have power over everyone's opinion and can influence or even outright control how they choose to vote, what issues people are informed and concerned about, and what people are kept ignorant about.

That's fucking bullshit. And so under this so called media conspiracy that EVERYONE is under, how the fuck would you know this is the case? Are you some brave crusader out to fight the giant evil corporations, armed with the Truth and a Genuine Desire to Help Humankind? Please. You're living in a fantasy.

If democracy is supposed to be good for people, how come inequality is only increasing with time, with the wealthiest people continually gaining an increasingly large share of society's wealth?

Again, bullshit. You make it sound as if the poorer is getting poorer while the richer is getting richer. This is a half truth.

The poorer are getting richer. Everyone is getting richer. The evidence is all around. The only people missing out are the people living without democracy, and without capitalism.

Someone said the richest 20% of the world's population consume 80% of the world's resources, while the other 80% consume only 20%. This is bullshit too. As if the top 20% are <i>stealing</i> from the other 80%. They aren't. It's because they're <i>producing</i> 80% of the resources.

And if that still sounds bad? What was the situation 200 years ago? Even a 100 years ago? Yeah, not so bad anymore, is it.

Democracy has allowed the continual degradation of the natural environment, with massive issues such as Climate Change made to be of secondary importance in the public opinion to non-issues such as "interest rates" and "killing Muslims".

Ever heard of the tragedy of the commons? It was a communist idea that the land is everybody's. Sounds all great and romantic but in practice it became the most horrific and widespread environmental catastrophe in history. Whole bodies of water were systematically depleted of fish because for the fishermen, if they didn't catch the fish, someone else would. It became a race to grab what you could before someone else could. In an economy, it's in the interests of everyone to have these regulations and restrictions, because then they'll have a renewable resource and a more prosperous future. It's not in the interests of the fishermen of course, who have to limit their profits and thus complain loudly when anything is introduced, but it is to the rest of the country.

As for global warming, it's the same idea. It's not in the interests of anyone, corporation or activist, of having to deal with the potential dangers. Public opinion is that global warming is real, and companies have already reacted, and hopped on the bandwagon to go 'green'. This is only going to get better.

Most people are not intelligent, informed or educated, and as such not fit to determine the direction a country's leadership should best take. In other words Democracy puts power in the hands of those not competent to use it, who don't even have the slightest idea what's going on in the world around them.

Well no shit, people care about themselves and are too caught up in their lives to care. That's human nature.

I believe that because most people are so blind and selfish, we require a benign dictatorship to keep the masses' idiocy in check, and make informed decisions about the nation's future.

You think you're so superior to the fellow man, you think you should take that power away from him? Why? Just because you read Lefty Bitches Magazine? Democracy Now? Is it because you cry every time someone chops down a tree? You're sensitive? You "know" what's right? You can decide for your fellow man, you can decide what he wants? What he should get or what he shouldn't?

The point is everyone has their vote. Some are stupid, some are lazy. But that's got nothing to do with it. Everyone can choose to care or not. It's called freedom.

The alternative is an eternity of George Bushes.

You've spent less than two decades on Earth. Democracy originated in Ancient Greece, two millenia ago. You're ignoring so much history. So much progress. Freedom and liberty. Prosperity.

You know what? You're the ignorant one. You have no idea. You are a moron.

You sir, are the idiot.


I'm going to bed. I'm gonna give you another salvo tomorrow.

 

[Gilbert1]

I'm just going to leave everything up to flamming hippo. He seems to have more effort then me to get through to you guys