Does Democracy even work?

[Agritum]

And if Democracy doesn't work (and it actually does, in plenty of countries), what would replace it with?

Lets try totalitarianism again.

Or you know, anarchy's cool too, if you like dog eat dog.

[Ifreann]

NOPE.
Democracy, a pure Democracy, has ever really existed.
Money is power in this shithole we call existence.

If your problem with existence is that your democratic country isn't a direct democracy then you are far from living in a shithole, most likely.

---

So... a few historical examples. That's a far cry from every state eventually degenerating into totalitarianism or anarchism.

There is a fundamental truth with mankind...

That's not how you spell "opinion".

---

Doing what the public wants is not a necessity in democracy. .

So that means no democracy then. Look up the meaning of the word democracy.

Take your own advice.

[Souriya Al-Assad]

Communism is better.

Yes, however it should be implemented combining whilst utilising the ideas of al-Kitaab al-Aḫḍar (the Green Book), thence we might have an even greater realisation of Communism right there. The Libyan genius that thought this out should be an utter inspiration.

NOPE.
Democracy, a pure Democracy, has ever really existed.
Money is power in this shithole we call existence.

I bow to these words.

You are going to the glorious quotes thread immediately, without delay.

[Free Soviets]

And if Democracy doesn't work (and it actually does, in plenty of countries), what would replace it with?

Lets try totalitarianism again.

we haven't had any god-kings in awhile. those even offered some long-term stability. grinding poverty and lives subject to arbitrary rule for most, of course. but stability!

[Datfilwen Nogurfen]

Democracy by definition, as long as we speak of a pluralist democracy, denies, or refuse, a category of success, of "working". It's meant to include the most possible and diverse actors, not to rule efficiently, that's why we have such kafkians bureaucracy sprawling everywhere.

[Nervium]

It may be flawed, but I rather have a parliamentary representative goverment that I dislike, then an unaccountable absolutist dickhead ruling me.

[AiliailiA]

Democracy by definition, as long as we speak of a pluralist democracy, denies, or refuse, a category of success, of "working". It's meant to include the most possible and diverse actors, not to rule efficiently, that's why we have such kafkians bureaucracy sprawling everywhere.

I'm not sure quite what you mean, but if you're implying that government bureaucracy is a growing sector of the economy then you're wrong. Governments have utilized IT at least as well as businesses have, and without the profit motive sapping it at every level, governments have become less bureaucratic than business have, by relative budgets.

Of course, in business it's not called "bureaucracy". It's called "middle management".

[The USOT]

Despite your conspiracy theory nonsense, people running for office to actually have oppinions and ideas. They are not just a conglomerate that sit around tables scheming, but are actual people who often run on a particular idea that they want to change in the world. We know that cost-efficiency is not the biggest deal in western politics considering the amount of governments who do large public programs which often make a net loss but are still worth having (e.g. much in the way of public transportation).

Corporations do bribe politicians. It happens sure. But it happens so rarely that when it does happen the news makes a giant deal about it, rather than go "oh you ".

And the last part is just sexist, presuming that women will only go out with guys if they will pay.

Where I come from, it is not "-ist" of any kind, it's basic etiquette.

---

Outright bribery is one thing, but I am talking about general sponsorship. People may run for office for many different reasons and may have different ideas of what to do when they get there, but to get there, they need money and lots of it. Obviously, the average citizen cannot contribute the necessary millions for the election campaign, so that leaves the aspiring politician with big business owners to rely on for support, and their interests are pretty much the same regardless of what trivial ideological differences they may hold. A businessman will always seek profit regardless of what ideology prevails in the state, and will be willing to donate money to whoever can provide him with advantages to make that profit. The only ideology of big business is cost-efficiency.

This paradigm of cost-efficiency also justifies some seemingly cost-inefficient practices like mass transit systems, since the advantages are greater than disadvantages. For example, you might not make money off a massive subway network with all the maintenance expenses, but the work hours saved by employees appearing for work on time without having to sit in traffic jams and the corresponding increase of productivity (and thus profit) more than offset this disadvantage. You can't have everything, something must be traded for something.

Currently, a socially-liberal capitalist democracy has been determined to be the most cost-efficient system to make money while keeping the common rabble content.

Contrary to popular belief, like all things your place of origin does not nullify you from flaws.

I know you meant general sponsorship too. Thats why I talked about some parties running very differently to control the source of sponsorship e.g. here in the UK Labour is generally funded by Trade Unions (although thats a bit messy now) to keep it within working class interest, and the green party keeps its party funding restricted to inner party annual donation funds (so you pay a subscription if you are a member, but then you are entitled to vote on policy and that funding goes on to help green party campaigns).

I entirely agree that sponsorship is an issue with modern democracy, but that does not nullify the honest intentions of those in politics NOR is it always effective from the donors part.

[Luveria]

Lets try totalitarianism again.

we haven't had any god-kings in awhile. those even offered some long-term stability. grinding poverty and lives subject to arbitrary rule for most, of course. but stability!

I'm okay with that, as long as I'm the god-king.

[Datfilwen Nogurfen]

Democracy by definition, as long as we speak of a pluralist democracy, denies, or refuse, a category of success, of "working". It's meant to include the most possible and diverse actors, not to rule efficiently, that's why we have such kafkians bureaucracy sprawling everywhere.

I'm not sure quite what you mean, but if you're implying that government bureaucracy is a growing sector of the economy then you're wrong. Governments have utilized IT at least as well as businesses have, and without the profit motive sapping it at every level, governments have become less bureaucratic than business have, by relative budgets.

Of course, in business it's not called "bureaucracy". It's called "middle management".

My point was that,
Each time a government gets to power, they don't have to rebuild the Public Institution from zero, neither are there such big changes on the personnel, other than directive positions (in the countries were such changes are legal). Reforms on institutionality are rare, and national institutions tend to be adapted to take on the new assigments from the executive power, without needing much reforms. It's also a republic virtue that public service stands off political ground, be it the military or public workers. The whole body of laws is meant to last after each election, with minor changes.

Most States have internal mechanism to distribute charges, to avoid political discretionism and to withstand the changing tides of politics.

[Hathradic States]

There is a fundamental truth with mankind. They hate being told what to do, but they need someone to tell them what to do. That is why we formed societies. Once we went away from hunter/gatherer and went into agriculture, the need for someone to tell us what to do came along. However, we are not naturally meant to take orders, no more than any other animal. This leads to the inevitable paths of society. Now, this does not mean I like either option, I shall clarify. But, I won't pretend that it won't ever happen, anymore than I won't pretend that the revolution won't happen, or that an all seeing, all powerful global state isn't the future of mankind at the current rate. It is horrible, but going to happen due to human nature and the lust for power and control that all humans feel.

Then you're ignoring how the historical trend in some parts of Europe for example, has gone from authoritarian governments, to democratic governments, to totalitarian, and then to being more democratic than the previous democratic governments. It's quite a leap of faith on your part to assume your predictions are a guaranteed inevitability.

Just because I say it will end up as totalitarian doesn't mean it will stay that way. It is a cycle, you know.

[Souriya Al-Assad]

we haven't had any god-kings in awhile. those even offered some long-term stability. grinding poverty and lives subject to arbitrary rule for most, of course. but stability!

I'm okay with that, as long as I'm the god-king.

Thank you for making my day Luveria.

Then you're ignoring how the historical trend in some parts of Europe for example, has gone from authoritarian governments, to democratic governments, to totalitarian, and then to being more democratic than the previous democratic governments. It's quite a leap of faith on your part to assume your predictions are a guaranteed inevitability.

Just because I say it will end up as totalitarian doesn't mean it will stay that way. It is a cycle, you know.

We might end up following the ideas of the Green Book... who knows?

[Luveria]

Then you're ignoring how the historical trend in some parts of Europe for example, has gone from authoritarian governments, to democratic governments, to totalitarian, and then to being more democratic than the previous democratic governments. It's quite a leap of faith on your part to assume your predictions are a guaranteed inevitability.

Just because I say it will end up as totalitarian doesn't mean it will stay that way. It is a cycle, you know.

Yet you have no evidence that the world will end up totalitarian, or that totalitarianism will return. You're making assumptions.

[Hathradic States]

Just because I say it will end up as totalitarian doesn't mean it will stay that way. It is a cycle, you know.

Yet you have no evidence that the world will end up totalitarian, or that totalitarianism will return. You're making assumptions.

But it already is heading that way. Look at the shit the NSA has been pulling. Look at what Russia is becoming (again).

[Ifreann]

Yet you have no evidence that the world will end up totalitarian, or that totalitarianism will return. You're making assumptions.

But it already is heading that way. Look at the shit the NSA has been pulling. Look at what Russia is becoming (again).

Two countries, therefore all human government forever! Top reasoning.

[Luveria]

Yet you have no evidence that the world will end up totalitarian, or that totalitarianism will return. You're making assumptions.

But it already is heading that way. Look at the shit the NSA has been pulling.

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Look at what Russia is becoming (again).

2)

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/russia-gay-propaganda-law-may-fall-after-historic-court-ruling021013

The process went like this, in 2009 Ms. Fet held up a sign saying Gay is normal in front of schools. She was arrested and fined, she lost her case at the trial court. She then took her case to the UN court of human rights that ruled in her favor. And now the regional court in Russia ruled that the UN was right and her rights were violated dismissing all fines and charges.


I am amazed I was under the impression that Russian courts were merely Putin's play thing. So NSG does this bring joy, or does this bring Hell Yeah?

[Souriya Al-Assad]

Yet you have no evidence that the world will end up totalitarian, or that totalitarianism will return. You're making assumptions.

But it already is heading that way. Look at the shit the NSA has been pulling. Look at what Russia is becoming (again).

Then look at how willing Hollande was to bypass the constitution to go bomb Syria.
As well as ignore the opinion of us the masses.

However, thence again, its quite possible we can change our destinies if we have the stomach to do so.

[The Emerald Legion]

Liberal democracy has produced the best results (in so far as economic prosperity, human development and so on goes) out of any system. I surely prefer it to an autocracy.

Correlation =/= causation.

Liberal Democracy has had the advantage of pre-existing higher technological level.

[Hathradic States]

But it already is heading that way. Look at the shit the NSA has been pulling. Look at what Russia is becoming (again).

Two countries, therefore all human government forever! Top reasoning.

Two examples, yes. The first two I could think of.

[Souriya Al-Assad]

Liberal democracy has produced the best results (in so far as economic prosperity, human development and so on goes) out of any system. I surely prefer it to an autocracy.

Correlation =/= causation.

Liberal Democracy has had the advantage of pre-existing higher technological level.

Whilst it is also true our countries in EU as well as North America had the advantage from assets gained from colonial era plunder to Cold War under-development of the tri-continental.

[Mkuki]

Yes, democracy, usually, works.

[Hathradic States]

But it already is heading that way. Look at the shit the NSA has been pulling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Not always a fallacy. Further, I am also not referring to years or decades. I am referring to much longer time period.

Look at what Russia is becoming (again).

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/russia-gay-propaganda-law-may-fall-after-historic-court-ruling021013

The process went like this, in 2009 Ms. Fet held up a sign saying Gay is normal in front of schools. She was arrested and fined, she lost her case at the trial court. She then took her case to the UN court of human rights that ruled in her favor. And now the regional court in Russia ruled that the UN was right and her rights were violated dismissing all fines and charges.


I am amazed I was under the impression that Russian courts were merely Putin's play thing. So NSG does this bring joy, or does this bring Hell Yeah?

Yes, I saw that. The UN saved the day. Maybe.

Also, how long do you think the UN will last? 100 years? 200? Eventually, things will break down. Something bad will happen, and things will collapse in on themselves. I cannot say when, I cannot say how, but it will happen. I'm not saying "TROLOLOL Obama is antichrist and Putin is Satan, WORLD SO GONNA END NAOAOA!!!11!11!", I am saying that eventually things will end up worse.

[Imperial Nilfgaard]

Democracy is a foolish exercise of vanity and shortsightedness.

[Luveria]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Not always a fallacy. Further, I am also not referring to years or decades. I am referring to much longer time period.

In your example you've provided, it is a fallacy.

Yes, I saw that. The UN saved the day. Maybe.

Also, how long do you think the UN will last? 100 years? 200? Eventually, things will break down. Something bad will happen, and things will collapse in on themselves. I cannot say when, I cannot say how, but it will happen. I'm not saying "TROLOLOL Obama is antichrist and Putin is Satan, WORLD SO GONNA END NAOAOA!!!11!11!", I am saying that eventually things will end up worse.

You mean like how NATO collapsed and is now defunct?

[Hathradic States]

Not always a fallacy. Further, I am also not referring to years or decades. I am referring to much longer time period.

In your example you've provided, it is a fallacy.

That the increased Big Brotherness of things means that Big Brother ideas might increase?

Yes, I saw that. The UN saved the day. Maybe.

Also, how long do you think the UN will last? 100 years? 200? Eventually, things will break down. Something bad will happen, and things will collapse in on themselves. I cannot say when, I cannot say how, but it will happen. I'm not saying "TROLOLOL Obama is antichrist and Putin is Satan, WORLD SO GONNA END NAOAOA!!!11!11!", I am saying that eventually things will end up worse.

You mean like how NATO collapsed and is now defunct?

Again, you miss the timeframe. I'm not talking this century.