Does Democracy even work?

[Ponyfornia]

So...much...edgy.

[Conservative Idealism]

I have an incredibly odd metaphor for how I see democracy.

Democracy is like butter. By itself, it's pretty darn useless - I mean, who would eat butter plain, just by itself, by the stick? Direct democracy doesn't work, especially in large amounts. But when you put in on something, suddenly that something is a whole lot better - of course, it only works with certain systems; adding democracy to, say, a business model, would make about as much sense as spreading butter on an ice cream cone. Representative governments and democracy go hand in hand, like bread and butter. I'm a huge supporter of butter, much the same way I'm a huge supporter of democracy. I think that if it fits somewhere, it should be that somewhere.

[The Emerald Legion]

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.

That doesn't answer the question of whether or not, say, a feudal system could work.

The problem is that Liberal Democracy came about in an altogether more enlightened era, and was lucky enough to not hit any real roadblocks to it's advancement. Most tragedies that happen under it are usually ignored or dismissed as merely the fault of the people, not the system.

Whereas when you mention feudalism, Autocracy, or Communism, people immediately jump to "Example nations: Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Etc.." And start using the atrocities committed there to ignore any potential advantages of that particular organization system.

[Luveria]

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

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

Capabilities for waging war and mass destruction have vastly increased such as the development of nuclear warfare, but that doesn't mean wars continued to get more and more devastating.

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

Then you're making hasty assumptions based on limited information that isn't insufficient to make such guarantees about the inevitability of something ending.

[Wind in the Willows]

HA, DEMOCRACY? NO NEED FOR GOVERNMENT, JUST FIGHTING. I AM VEGETA, SUP BRO.

So you support Anarchy then?

[Hathradic States]

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

Capabilities for waging war and mass destruction have vastly increased such as the development of nuclear warfare, but that doesn't mean wars continued to get more and more devastating.

Yes, because that would result in our extinction, and no one wants that. However, keeping tabs on citizens is very desirable to the State.

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

Then you're making hasty assumptions based on limited information that isn't insufficient to make such guarantees about the inevitability of something ending.

This is not hasty. I have spent a lot of time thinking about it. I found that humanity as a whole goes in cycles of liberty and totalitarianism.

[Ifreann]

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

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

There are, if memory serves, 193 countries. Two examples proves nothing.

---

Capabilities for waging war and mass destruction have vastly increased such as the development of nuclear warfare, but that doesn't mean wars continued to get more and more devastating.

Yes, because that would result in our extinction, and no one wants that. However, keeping tabs on citizens is very desirable to the State.

Then you're making hasty assumptions based on limited information that isn't insufficient to make such guarantees about the inevitability of something ending.

This is not hasty. I have spent a lot of time thinking about it. I found that humanity as a whole goes in cycles of liberty and totalitarianism.

So show your work. Or did you find this based on your examination of the last 5 years in the US and Russia?

[Mkuki]

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

There are, if memory serves, 193 countries. Two examples proves nothing.

---

Yes, because that would result in our extinction, and no one wants that. However, keeping tabs on citizens is very desirable to the State.


This is not hasty. I have spent a lot of time thinking about it. I found that humanity as a whole goes in cycles of liberty and totalitarianism.

So show your work. Or did you find this based on your examination of the last 5 years in the US and Russia?

There are more. 193 is just UN member states. Last time I checked it was 206 countries whose sovereignties(word?) have been recognized.

[Wind in the Willows]

Sort of.

[Hathradic States]

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

There are, if memory serves, 193 countries. Two examples proves nothing.

---

Yes, because that would result in our extinction, and no one wants that. However, keeping tabs on citizens is very desirable to the State.


This is not hasty. I have spent a lot of time thinking about it. I found that humanity as a whole goes in cycles of liberty and totalitarianism.

So show your work. Or did you find this based on your examination of the last 5 years in the US and Russia?

193 countries. 20 with any amount of global influence. 8 of those with supreme influence.

---

I actually based it first off of the study of the Roman Empire, and subsequent major powers since.

[Robert Magoo]

Too much democracy and you have mob rule. Too little and you have totalitarianism. I believe that the democratic republic is still the best option to this day, and I'm not sure anything better will ever come along.

[Mistelemr]

Democracy only works in certain circumstances... Just like Communism...

At least in my mind the two are mutually inclusive, you cannot have a true democracy without communism and vice versa. At the end of the day, Communism extends democracy over all things (unlike capitalism which is economically authoritarian) and communism needs to in order to foster an environment where people will be empathetic citizens.

That hearkens back to the concept of whether a benevolent dictator or a faulty democracy would be better. The democracy will always be better, as encouraging the citizens of a state to be politically active will create a system by which they care for what happens in the world.

[The Emerald Legion]

Too much democracy and you have mob rule. Too little and you have totalitarianism. I believe that the democratic republic is still the best option to this day, and I'm not sure anything better will ever come along.

Totalitarian isn't necessarily bad.

[Ifreann]

There are, if memory serves, 193 countries. Two examples proves nothing.

---

So show your work. Or did you find this based on your examination of the last 5 years in the US and Russia?

193 countries. 20 with any amount of global influence. 8 of those with supreme influence.

Are you amending your hypothesis to only apply to sufficiently influential governments?

---

I actually based it first off of the study of the Roman Empire, and subsequent major powers since.

Are you amending your hypothesis to only apply to major powers?

---

Too much democracy and you have mob rule. Too little and you have totalitarianism. I believe that the democratic republic is still the best option to this day, and I'm not sure anything better will ever come along.

Totalitarian isn't necessarily bad.

It basically is.

[Mkuki]

Too much democracy and you have mob rule. Too little and you have totalitarianism. I believe that the democratic republic is still the best option to this day, and I'm not sure anything better will ever come along.

Totalitarian isn't necessarily bad.

Sure it is. Losing the ability to choose one's leaders is very bad.

[The Emerald Legion]

Totalitarian isn't necessarily bad.

It basically is.

So, a society that is the exact mirror of what a liberal democracy aims to achieve, barring the utter absence of public influence of the government. Would be bad?

Totalitarian isn't necessarily bad.

Sure it is. Losing the ability to choose one's leaders is very bad.

Not really.

[The Stormlands and Kings Landing]

193 countries. 20 with any amount of global influence. 8 of those with supreme influence.

Are you amending your hypothesis to only apply to sufficiently influential governments?

---

I actually based it first off of the study of the Roman Empire, and subsequent major powers since.

Are you amending your hypothesis to only apply to major powers?

On both points: It always has. However, with increased globalization, I find that what the major powers do trickles down to the lower powers.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

Evidently, yes.

[Lordieth]

Show me true, working democracy, and I'll tell you if it works.

[Ifreann]

It basically is.

So, a society that is the exact mirror of what a liberal democracy aims to achieve, barring the utter absence of public influence of the government. Would be bad?

Yeah, basically.

---

Show me true, working democracy, and I'll tell you if it works.

Does democracy work? Well answer me this: are the people in power there because they won a free and fair election?
"Yes, but--"
But nothing. That means democracy is working.

[Trotskylvania]

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!

Just as long as our God-Emperor is Leto II, whose stated mission was "to teach humanity a lesson they'll remember in their bones" about the evils of authoritarianism.

[Blasveck]

Totalitarian isn't necessarily bad.

Sure it is. Losing the ability to choose one's leaders is very bad.

Or no leaders.

That's always an option.

[Mkuki]

Sure it is. Losing the ability to choose one's leaders is very bad.

Or no leaders.

That's always an option.

I don't like that option.

[Blasveck]

Or no leaders.

That's always an option.

I don't like that option.

Because......

[Draakonite]

Or no leaders.

That's always an option.

I don't like that option.

Anarchy is obviously giving the people the most amount of freedom possible... if you are the last man standing.