Do you agree with Democracy?

[Dalcaria]

I gave up on democracy when I realized I could run myself and fix all the world's problems, but then someone could just as easily come along and undo everything I did and thrust the world into chaos, just because they were voted in for looking pretty and promising to lower taxes. I support Non-Sovereign monarchy with a constitution that guarantees some rights permanently (meaning no law can take them away). As for the economic system, I support something along the lines of Social Credit and Fascist economics.

[Agritum]

So the people of America don't elect their rulers?
The horrors! We should definitely invade those dictatorial loonies.

You don't know how to read do you, we have democratic properties but we are not democracies.
One is a constitutional republic and the other is a constitutional monarchy.

What's democratic properties? Why having them doesn't make you...democratic?

Also, is this just a way to delegitimise Democrats based on their name only?

[Immoren]

A democratic republic, exactly.

You know, it's the thing that makes it different from un-democratic republics like North Korea.

Jumping flapping titties, they don't swear an oath to democracy, they swear an oath towards the constitution. Again I don't understand why this is so hard to comprehend, yes we have democratic properties but neither country is a democracy.

Neither is any country with constitutionthat votes in their politicians then

[Arcov]

I gave up on democracy when I realized I could run myself and fix all the world's problems, but then someone could just as easily come along and undo everything I did and thrust the world into chaos, just because they were voted in for looking pretty and promising to lower taxes. I support Non-Sovereign monarchy with a constitution that guarantees some rights permanently (meaning no law can take them away). As for the economic system, I support something along the lines of Social Credit and Fascist economics.

Guess what, that can happen under a dictatorship too, as it did in the USSR. And a monarchy as well.

[Othelos]

why?

Because I believe a system where the people that that make the laws do not listen to the people. The fact is is democracy the people (including me) are ignorant and a hereditary system of monarchy and nobility where they are raised to rule and commonors work and pay taxes works better. An system where the people in charge are trained from birth to rule. Democracy leads to people focusing on improving their own lot rather than the glory of the nation.

Do you have any valid reasons? This is all based on opinion, not logic or facts.

[New Socialist South Africa]

I support democracy, particularly Rita Abrahamsen's source and purpose approach to it.

[Imperial Nilfgaard]

I know, you're just simply wrong.

China just recently began a criminal investigation into the former security chief due to corruption allegations. He was one of the most powerful men in the country. When is the last time America threw a president behind bars.

[Arcov]

why?

Because I believe a system where the people that that make the laws do not listen to the people. The fact is is democracy the people (including me) are ignorant and a hereditary system of monarchy and nobility where they are raised to rule and commonors work and pay taxes works better. A system where the people in charge are trained from birth to rule. Democracy leads to people focusing on improving their own lot rather than the glory of the nation. Monarchs are imperial and work to expand their realm, maximise economic growth and scientific advancement so their children get a great inheritance.

You know none of this happened when there was an actual aristocracy in Europe. None of it.

[Othelos]

I know, you're just simply wrong.

China just recently began a criminal investigation into the former security chief due to corruption allegations. He was one of the most powerful men in the country. When is the last time America threw a president behind bars.

when was the last time a President needed to be thrown behind bars?

[Zottistan]

Why are you asking this? I agreed that the right dictators were few and far between.

I'm asking you to tell me exactly how many dictators you believe did right, compared to you gay marriage statistic.

Off the top of my head I can think of one or two. How does that change anything, when the point was that the right dictator makes the right dictatorship and the right general public makes the right democracy?...

[AkAr Cydonia]

The key difference between a democracy and a republic lies in the limits placed on government by the law, which has implications on minority rights. Both forms of government use a representational system where citizens vote to elect politicians to represent their interests and form the government. However, in a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a pure democracy, the majority is not restrained and can impose its will on the minority.

[Arcov]

I'm asking you to tell me exactly how many dictators you believe did right, compared to you gay marriage statistic.

Off the top of my head I can think of one or two. How does that change anything, when the point was that the right dictator makes the right dictatorship and the right general public makes the right democracy?...

Your equating that they are the same frequency. If you don't think that, I recommend you change your wording.

[Conscentia]

The key difference between a democracy and a republic lies in the limits placed on government by the law, which has implications on minority rights. Both forms of government use a representational system where citizens vote to elect politicians to represent their interests and form the government. However, in a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a pure democracy, the majority is not restrained and can impose its will on the minority.

[/img/]http://i59.tinypic.com/t670cy.jpg[/img/]

That image is a lie.

[Dalcaria]

I'm asking you to tell me exactly how many dictators you believe did right, compared to you gay marriage statistic.

Off the top of my head I can think of one or two. How does that change anything, when the point was that the right dictator makes the right dictatorship and the right general public makes the right democracy?...

Given the past few hundred years of Democracy, we get the "right general public" about as often as we get the "right dictator". I can name Tito for a good dictator, not sure of anyone else though.

[Arcov]

The key difference between a democracy and a republic lies in the limits placed on government by the law, which has implications on minority rights. Both forms of government use a representational system where citizens vote to elect politicians to represent their interests and form the government. However, in a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a pure democracy, the majority is not restrained and can impose its will on the minority.

(Image)

Why don't you source that?

" government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic

"Representative democracy (also indirect democracy) is a variety of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.[1]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

[Othelos]

The key difference between a democracy and a republic lies in the limits placed on government by the law, which has implications on minority rights. Both forms of government use a representational system where citizens vote to elect politicians to represent their interests and form the government. However, in a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a pure democracy, the majority is not restrained and can impose its will on the minority.

(Image)

You're confusing a 'pure' democracy with a direct democracy. The US is not a direct democracy, but it is a representative democracy.

The US is both a republic and a democracy. They are not mutually exclusive.

Also, that image is wrong, because republics can be autocratic, such as in ancient rome.

[Immoren]

The key difference between a democracy and a republic lies in the limits placed on government by the law, which has implications on minority rights. Both forms of government use a representational system where citizens vote to elect politicians to represent their interests and form the government. However, in a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a pure democracy, the majority is not restrained and can impose its will on the minority.

(Image)

Would increase legitimacy of pic slightly if you sourced it

[Agritum]

The key difference between a democracy and a republic lies in the limits placed on government by the law, which has implications on minority rights. Both forms of government use a representational system where citizens vote to elect politicians to represent their interests and form the government. However, in a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a pure democracy, the majority is not restrained and can impose its will on the minority.

(Image)

So,

North Korea is a Republic. I'm sure they have a constitution, too.

Their form of government is the same as the one of the US, definitely.

[Arcov]

Off the top of my head I can think of one or two. How does that change anything, when the point was that the right dictator makes the right dictatorship and the right general public makes the right democracy?...

Given the past few hundred years of Democracy, we get the "right general public" about as often as we get the "right dictator". I can name Tito for a good dictator, not sure of anyone else though.

We have also had more dictators than general publics.

Tito and Ataturk and the only two I can think of. Even then, Tito brutally killed off his political opponents.

Now, tell me, which democracies have done what dictators have done?

[Bentus]

Ultimately, a leader's objective is to stay in power whether they a democratically elected one or an autocratic one. In order for an individual to stay in power, they have to gain and hold the favour of those who keep him in power - the 'kingmakers' if you will. In an autocractic regime, the 'kingmakers' are the elite inner circle, such as influential military chiefs and the like who wield the power to either collectively usurp or protect the rule of the leader. In a democracy, however the kingmakers are - at least on paper - the whole of the electorate. The best method for a leader to use to keep the kingmakers on side differs, but in autocracies they tend to be much more specifically targeted as there are fewer kingmakers. The elites get tax breaks, lavish gifts and a secured lifestyle - in return the dictator gets their support. This doesn't work nearly as well in a democratic system as trying to send gifts in a similar way to every member of the electorate is just unfeasible. Rather, it's more effective to invest in public works, infrastructure and services that provide things which the majority of the electorate desire. In my opinion, it is this which makes democracy generally superior to autocratic regimes - it provides an incentive for leaders to provide for the betterment of the majority of their people rather than for a few.

Although, it has to be mentioned that I say 'generally'. A good dictator can achieve things which a democratic leader simply cannot without ostracizing the electorate - tough but necessary or long term policies are counter-productive for a democratic leader looking to keep his job. However, autocracies can just as likely end up with bad leaders as good ones and its dangerous to play lottery with the future of a nation - particularly if a dictator is in there for life. A democracy, on the other hand, enables for leaders to undergo something of a vetting process - it isn't always effective but it's better than nothing.

Personally, I see plenty of major flaws in modern democracies. Large corporations and interest groups wield significant power over aspiring leaders. A slick advertising campaign can give them votes and help secure their position, in return for a few favours which will largely not be noticed by the electorate. Democracies end up looking something like autocracies, with the needs of a smaller group of kingmakers starting to have greater weight than the rest, due to the massive influence those interests hold. If I had to hazard a guess at a solution, I'd say maybe limit campaign donations to reduce the ability of large corporations to influence politicians. If they can't pay for the votes, then the leader loses much of the incentive to attend to their demands. How we go about doing this, I have no idea in the slightest without causing a metric ton of loop holes to burst from the shadows. But, I still think democracy is better than autocracy over a long period - even if one autocratic ruler is good, there'd always be another bad one to balance it out.

[Apparatchikstan]

You obviously don't know how to read, yes we can elect reps to represent us but again neither Canada or America is a democracy, they have democratic properties they are not democratic nations, one is a constitutional republic and the other is a constitutional monarchy, you need to learn some history.

Repeating what you said before doesn't make you right. If you can't grasp the concept of an election then we're done here.

The right to vote in and of itself isn't representative. The franchise is just a societal placebo in the face of single party systems or systems that maintain bureaucracies that enact or propogate policy independent of the electorate's will.

[Zottistan]

Given the past few hundred years of Democracy, we get the "right general public" about as often as we get the "right dictator". I can name Tito for a good dictator, not sure of anyone else though.

We have also had more dictators than general publics.

Tito and Ataturk and the only two I can think of. Even then, Tito brutally killed off his political opponents.

Now, tell me, which democracies have done what dictators have done?

Add in Caesar Augustus.

What do you mean by "what dictators have done"? Dictators have done quite a lot.

[Blackwing Coast]

why?

Because I believe a system where the people that that make the laws do not listen to the people. The fact is is democracy the people (including me) are ignorant and a hereditary system of monarchy and nobility where they are raised to rule and commonors work and pay taxes works better. A system where the people in charge are trained from birth to rule. Democracy leads to people focusing on improving their own lot rather than the glory of the nation. Monarchs are imperial and work to expand their realm, maximise economic growth and scientific advancement so their children get a great inheritance.

Then remove the factor of personal gain, at least on any level that leads itself to bribes. If every politican in office had to live like, say, a monk (no personal property or even belongings), and knew that, at the end of their their term the public could vote whether the politician in question returns to the political circuit or is executed for corrupion, breaking of his word, or sheer incompetence, they would be way more focused on the benefit of the state as a whole. Sword of Damokles.

[Dalcaria]

Given the past few hundred years of Democracy, we get the "right general public" about as often as we get the "right dictator". I can name Tito for a good dictator, not sure of anyone else though.

We have also had more dictators than general publics.

Tito and Ataturk and the only two I can think of. Even then, Tito brutally killed off his political opponents.

Now, tell me, which democracies have done what dictators have done?

I'm unfamiliar with this claim of Tito killing off political opponents, and I question the validity given that near the end of his reign he tried to make Yugoslavia more democratic. As for Democracies doing this, they never needed to kill opponents, that would lose them votes anyways. Instead, we got things like the Watergate scandal, political manipulation (ie. spin doctoring), and an uninformed public that would have vote Hitler in if he promised to lower taxes.

[Othelos]

Repeating what you said before doesn't make you right. If you can't grasp the concept of an election then we're done here.

The right to vote in and of itself isn't representative. The franchise is just a societal placebo in the face of single party systems or systems that maintain bureaucracies that enact or propogate policy independent of the electorate's will.

people vote for who they want to be represented by = representative democracy.