Does Democracy even work?

[Nervium]

Bye Dave....

To clarify my position.

[The Emerald Legion]

It's a smaller sample size. Easier to control.

But even so...



Genivaria here has the jist of the long-term plan. Rule by AI.

And an external AI, or anybody in a totalitarian state for that matter, knows what is best for me because.......

Because you are not a magical extra-special individual with fairies running around inside your head making you make the choices you make. The difference between you and any other human being is minor, and the required freedoms to meet all those needs are few, none of which are political.

[Draakonite]

It's a smaller sample size. Easier to control.

But even so...



Genivaria here has the jist of the long-term plan. Rule by AI.

And an external AI, or anybody in a totalitarian state for that matter, knows what is best for me because.......

Because, unless YOU are the dictator, the government isn't made to benefit you.

[Blasveck]

And an external AI, or anybody in a totalitarian state for that matter, knows what is best for me because.......

Because you are not a magical extra-special individual with fairies running around inside your head making you make the choices you make. The difference between you and any other human being is minor, and the required freedoms to meet all those needs are few, none of which are political.

I guess that's why we all agree on nearly everything and all require the same things to satisfy us.

Oh wait.

[Nazis in Space]

Obviously we should welcome our Robot Overlords.

Genivaria here has the jist of the long-term plan. Rule by AI.

Oh, excellent. So we can basically disregard your opinion as irrelevant since you're apparently confusing fantasizing about Halo with reality.

Always good to know.

[The Emerald Legion]

Because you are not a magical extra-special individual with fairies running around inside your head making you make the choices you make. The difference between you and any other human being is minor, and the required freedoms to meet all those needs are few, none of which are political.

I guess that's why we all agree on nearly everything and all require the same things to satisfy us.

Oh wait.

No "Oh wait" about it.

Please explain any difference among any different culture that doesn't distill down to basic needs? It's no different than one person wanting chocolate and another vanilla. There is no fundamental difference. It's merely wrapping paper. The substance of the decision is still nothing.

[Souriya Al-Assad]

I guess that's why we all agree on nearly everything and all require the same things to satisfy us.

Oh wait.

No "Oh wait" about it.

Please explain any difference among any different culture that doesn't distill down to basic needs? It's no different than one person wanting chocolate and another vanilla. There is no fundamental difference. It's merely wrapping paper. The substance of the decision is still nothing.

You just raised an interesting perspective. I am going to reflect upon it.

[Ifreann]

Yeah, basically.

Why? What's so magically special about democracy that it should always be included even when irrelevant or in some cases even detrimental?

The whole bit where people have the right to a say in who'll be governing them. It's pretty important.

---

No government works. Democracy just has the least amount of flaws.

Repeating yourself doesn't make it any less nonsensical.

[Blasveck]

I guess that's why we all agree on nearly everything and all require the same things to satisfy us.

Oh wait.

No "Oh wait" about it.

Please explain any difference among any different culture that doesn't distill down to basic needs? It's no different than one person wanting chocolate and another vanilla. There is no fundamental difference. It's merely wrapping paper. The substance of the decision is still nothing.

Define basic needs.

Food, Water, Shelter? Sure, everybody need that.

What about gun laws, or drug laws, or welfare, or infrastructure?
Different people need different laws and different services in different areas.

A man in New York requires vastly different services and laws to address the issues that are most important to him than a farmer in Texas.

One usually makes these needs know through democratic means.
That example was simplified, for the argument's sake.

Well, there's that whole bit about choosing who rules me as well.

[The Emerald Legion]

The whole bit where people have the right to a say in who'll be governing them. It's pretty important.

Why?

No "Oh wait" about it.

Please explain any difference among any different culture that doesn't distill down to basic needs? It's no different than one person wanting chocolate and another vanilla. There is no fundamental difference. It's merely wrapping paper. The substance of the decision is still nothing.

Define basic needs.

Food, Water, Shelter? Sure, everybody need that.

What about gun laws, or drug laws, or welfare, or infrastructure?
Different people need different laws and different services in different areas.

A man in New York requires vastly different services and laws to address the issues that are most important to him than a farmer in Texas.

One usually makes these needs know through democratic means.
That example was simplified, for the argument's sake.

Well, there's that whole bit about choosing who rules me as well.

No... they really don't. A farmer in New York requires roughly the same things a farmer in Texas requires. Accommodating for regional climate.

You're vastly overcomplicating something that is simple, because like most people, you notice you are confused, and immediately jump to the conclusion that the situation is complex.

Gun/Drug fit easily into entertainment culture and the other two are also subsets of survival.

No "Oh wait" about it.

Please explain any difference among any different culture that doesn't distill down to basic needs? It's no different than one person wanting chocolate and another vanilla. There is no fundamental difference. It's merely wrapping paper. The substance of the decision is still nothing.

You just raised an interesting perspective. I am going to reflect upon it.

Thanks. That's all an internet debater can ask.

[Blasveck]

The whole bit where people have the right to a say in who'll be governing them. It's pretty important.

Why?

Define basic needs.

Food, Water, Shelter? Sure, everybody need that.

What about gun laws, or drug laws, or welfare, or infrastructure?
Different people need different laws and different services in different areas.

A man in New York requires vastly different services and laws to address the issues that are most important to him than a farmer in Texas.

One usually makes these needs know through democratic means.
That example was simplified, for the argument's sake.

Well, there's that whole bit about choosing who rules me as well.

No... they really don't. A farmer in New York requires roughly the same things a farmer in Texas requires. Accommodating for regional climate.

You're vastly overcomplicating something that is simple, because like most people, you notice you are confused, and immediately jump to the conclusion that the situation is complex.

Gun/Drug fit easily into entertainment culture and the other two are also subsets of survival.

You just raised an interesting perspective. I am going to reflect upon it.

Thanks. That's all an internet debater can ask.

Perhaps I am overcomplicating things. I'll admit that.

One question I simply have is this:

Why is it bad for people to choose (IE Elect) who rules them?

Because they don't know any better/stupid/whatever-the-hell?

[Souriya Al-Assad]

Why?



No... they really don't. A farmer in New York requires roughly the same things a farmer in Texas requires. Accommodating for regional climate.

You're vastly overcomplicating something that is simple, because like most people, you notice you are confused, and immediately jump to the conclusion that the situation is complex.

Gun/Drug fit easily into entertainment culture and the other two are also subsets of survival.



Thanks. That's all an internet debater can ask.

Perhaps I am overcomplicating things. I'll admit that.

One question I simply have is this:

Why is it bad for people to choose (IE Elect) who rules them?

Because they don't know any better/stupid/whatever-the-hell?

We are not really in control of our "representative democracies", its the agendas of those giants that funded their electoral campaigns, whom get the finalised word. Groups such as defence corporations, AIPAC, amongst many others, are the real ones in power, as a result.

[Mkuki]

Perhaps I am overcomplicating things. I'll admit that.

One question I simply have is this:

Why is it bad for people to choose (IE Elect) who rules them?

Because they don't know any better/stupid/whatever-the-hell?

We are not really in control of our "representative democracies", its the agendas of those giants that funded their electoral campaigns, whom get the finalised word. Groups such as defence corporations, AIPAC, amongst many others, are the real ones in power, as a result.

[The Emerald Legion]

Why?



No... they really don't. A farmer in New York requires roughly the same things a farmer in Texas requires. Accommodating for regional climate.

You're vastly overcomplicating something that is simple, because like most people, you notice you are confused, and immediately jump to the conclusion that the situation is complex.

Gun/Drug fit easily into entertainment culture and the other two are also subsets of survival.



Thanks. That's all an internet debater can ask.

Perhaps I am overcomplicating things. I'll admit that.

One question I simply have is this:

Why is it bad for people to choose (IE Elect) who rules them?

Because they don't know any better/stupid/whatever-the-hell?

Not because of any particular failing on their part. It's just the common person is not where I'd want the decision making to be happening. You need above average at least, and exceptional if at all possible.

It's a difficult task requiring clear thought and foresight, and it's been entrusted to people who can barely read. I seriously wish I was kidding about that last part... but the level of ignorance I've seen simply does not lead me to have any faith in democracy as a system.

Now, assuming that could be corrected. Then I'd be a little less worried about it, as, with an informed, rational populace it is indeed an excellent system.

However the populace is neither rational nor informed.

[Blasveck]

Perhaps I am overcomplicating things. I'll admit that.

One question I simply have is this:

Why is it bad for people to choose (IE Elect) who rules them?

Because they don't know any better/stupid/whatever-the-hell?

Not because of any particular failing on their part. It's just the common person is not where I'd want the decision making to be happening. You need above average at least, and exceptional if at all possible.

It's a difficult task requiring clear thought and foresight, and it's been entrusted to people who can barely read. I seriously wish I was kidding about that last part... but the level of ignorance I've seen simply does not lead me to have any faith in democracy as a system.

Now, assuming that could be corrected. Then I'd be a little less worried about it, as, with an informed, rational populace it is indeed an excellent system.

However the populace is neither rational nor informed.

Eh. Depends where you go.

[Timothia]

Why is it that Rome didn't have lasting peace until a dictator came along? We all hate the idea, but a noble despot is better than a corrupt president. It's not so much the process, it's the executive.

Now go ahead and rip me to shreds.

Sure.
Rome didnt have lasting peace after the rise of the Caesars. That is just so wrong. That is like saying that Iraq/Persia has not had any conflict since the 1800s.

Rome went on its biggest territorial expansion after becoming an empire. Prior to that it was a minor world power in the mediterranian which largely held Italy and parts of spain.
It then was torn apart by barbarians who it failed to assimiliate when more and more dictators with noble ambition tore the empire apart (amongst far far more complex socio-economic reasons for the fall of the western roman empire). The eastern roman empire existed for almost 1000 years in an almost perpetual state of war which ended with its destruction.

So considering you dont appear to understand history, or society to make such a blundering mistake, I think you need to go look at the history books before you make sweeping demonstrably false statements again.

Quick question before I disprove everything you just said; how did you do in high school history?

First of all, historians agree on the pax romana, which was one of the most peaceful times in Western history. I can quote 1,000 other sources, but this one should do. Rome was never entirely at peace, but it was most peaceful during the time of the Caesars.

To refute your ignorant claims, Rome added more land during the Republic than in the Empire. I have done the math, and I can source it if you need it (or you can look it up yourself). The Republic was every lick as corrupt and controlling, and it was far from ideal.

1,000 years of perpetual war? The Byzantine Empire, 1,000 years of perpetual war? Ok. I'll live with that. Let me know when America survives for 1,000 years, let alone 1,000 without fighting any wars. IT WON'T HAPPEN. Over the course of 1,000 years, chances are that two nations are going to fight.

It's not that I think kings, despots, and monarchs are the way to go, but name me 3 successful republics who existed for more than 500 years. Few - if any, and no world powers. But there are dozens, even hundreds, of monarchies and empires that have stood the test of time. Bottom line is that democracy isn't sustainable, historically speaking.

[Libertarian California]

Yes. From Monday to Friday, and it closes on Saturdays and Sundays.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I face palmed when i saw the title of this.

Are you trying to say you're just so narrow-minded and have a knowledge of political theory so lacking that you cannot envision any other system of governance other than representative democracy being existent in the world?

[Distruzio]

In my experience and to the best of my knowledge, I'm going to have to say no.

As much as I'd like to say democracy fails.... it doesn't. It provides exactly what it promises depending upon the particular variation of democracy along the continuum.

Democracy looks good on paper, but so does Communism and we all know why the Communism experiment didn't work so lets never speak of it again.

The Soviet Union was not communist.

Democracy tends to have a generous view of the people who vote for their leaders; it makes the assumption that everyone knows the difference between a good leader, and someone who will essentially bend them over a prison bench with a baton handy.

Democracy tends to have no view of people at all. Democratists, however, tend to feel that even the most ignorant individual deserves a say in what he, and everyone around him, may or may not do.

The only way politics gets done in democratic countries is on spreading the most slander and gossip about the opposition in an attempt to make them look bad, rather than explaining why their policies would hurt the country or better yet, why the gossip-spreading candidates policies would benefit the country. The system also heavily relies on which party just looks better in the public eye, which is probably why the system is so centered on slinging gossip and slander ie; many center-right people wouldn't vote Republican because all Republicans are bible-thumping ignoramus' hell bent on making life miserable for everyone, despite that they are more ideologically closer to the GOP than the Democrats.

So.... you're complaining that democracy tends to elevate the greatest common denominator (a liar and a thief) by satisfying the greatest common denominator (joe ignorance) by making overly generalized and biased observations, yourself? I may not be a fan of democracy at all but, even to me, this tactic is less than satisfying.

I blame political apathy and everything that causes it. Political apathy is also on my top 100 list of reasons why to lose faith in humanity. The GOP is also in there, too.

Wait.... "democracy sucks because democracy empowers the stupid who don't care enough to empower asshole primadonnas"?

That.... doesn't make sense, bruh.

So Democracy is inherently flawed in my eyes, but like the Right Honourable Sir Prime Minister Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill said:
"... Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

What do you think about Democracy, NSG?

I despise it as immoral.

Does it work?

Yes.

Do we have any alternatives?

Of course. There are many varieties of democratic governance. From unitary to federal, from authoritarian to liberal, from representative to consociationalist, from parliamentary to republican, etc etc.

I'm curious to know what you think.

Just told ya.

[Seleucas]

For me, I would need to include the Western style mass politics alongside authoritarian styles of mass politics, since I don't believe in the concept of the will of the people. Both are very effective at consolidating power because of their powers of propaganda and patronage where a system based upon adversarial political orders/classes might fail (case in point, Charles I vs Cromwell.) Whether or not that is good is a value judgment, but in terms of whether it serves the interests of the state it would seem that democracy does seem to work for that purpose.

[America Libertaria]

Democracy, for those who do not know (yeah, right) is the process of which a leader is determined by suffrage. This can be done in multiple ways such as a popular vote (a popularity contest) or the more infamous electoral college (a more selective version of a popularity contest) and while democracy may still sound more lovely than despotism, hereditary rule or a police state, it is far far from perfect.

That's a republic not a democracy, bro. Learn your facts.

[Stormaen]

It’s probably already been mentioned or alluded to already but ok this argument, I quote arguably my nation’s greatest leader, Sir Winston Churchill, “It is said that democracy is the worst form of government except all others ever tried.”

In short: it’s not perfect but it’s the best we’ve got.

[Pravengria]

Worked well for Athens in my opinion. If you're referring to the US, its hardly a democracy I believe the correct term is a Constitutional Republic. There in line not a complete democracy it worked well for Athens because after all there weren't three hundred million of them. For a nation the size of the US, I think delagative democracy would work best.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Democracy, for those who do not know (yeah, right) is the process of which a leader is determined by suffrage. This can be done in multiple ways such as a popular vote (a popularity contest) or the more infamous electoral college (a more selective version of a popularity contest) and while democracy may still sound more lovely than despotism, hereditary rule or a police state, it is far far from perfect.

That's a republic not a democracy, bro. Learn your facts.

Learn your own:

a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

noun (plural democracies)
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives:

de·moc·ra·cy [dih-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA
noun, plural de·moc·ra·cies.
1.
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

Emphasis mine.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Pet peeve, bro.

[The Scientific States]

Yes, for the most part.