The Problems of Democracy

[Salus Maior]

I think what UMN is trying to get across is that democracy isn't a virtue and a good thing in and of itself.

Which hinges on whether or not you think it's a good thing for the common man to have a say in how states run things. Perhaps UMN doesn't believe that?

The "common man" doesn't really have a say. The masses do.

A single vote doesn't mean anything. And it means even less if you're only voting for a certain class of people (wealthy, professional politicians), which UMN is discussing as a problem of democratic government, at least in so far as being "of the people, for the people" like such governments claim.

You might want to read the OP more thoroughly.

[Lady Scylla]

I fail to see why relativism is inherently a bad thing. I find democracy to be a very frustrating system, merely because it is intrinsically chaotic. However, at the same time, I admire such a system for this very same attribute. Power can shift on a whim, and popular mandate can change the path of a nation. It's both disturbing and amazing.

[Alvecia]

"Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time...."

[Secundus Imperium Romanum]

Democracy is a totally flawed system, impossible to maintain (of the 190 republics, only 20 had democratic elections in the last 10 years) and totally disorganized. We had several examples of this in the american elections with Donald Trump winning an election that was said to be "democratic" but more than 2 million people voted against it, and even if Hillary won, more than 47% of the population would be against the government, then how is it possible for a democracy to function from this angle with a totally divided nation?

I as a monarchist I say is the best person to keep is someone who has studied all his life to be a monarch, and administer the nation with the prime minister elected by the people however always intervene in case of a crisis or at a complicated time, such as the american elections. In Spain in 2014 something similar happened and King Philip VI dissolved the parliament and called new elections, the result was the end of the political crisis of that time and the people then chose new parliamentarians. I do not advocate an absolutist monarchy nor an interventionist state in the economy (i am a minarchist) but in situations of this case a king is necessary to intervene.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I think what UMN is trying to get across is that democracy isn't a virtue and a good thing in and of itself.

Which hinges on whether or not you think it's a good thing for the common man to have a say in how states run things. Perhaps UMN doesn't believe that?

Yes, I don't think it's a good thing; however, I also am pondering whether true democracy really even exists on a large scale. The conclusion I have come to is 1) Pure democracy is harmful, so people shouldn't idolize it, but, also, 2) pure democracy doesn't exist*, so the harm it does is purely based on its psychological and ideological impact as a principle.

However, that's not necessarily the point of the thread.

*it does not exist within the framework of the modern state, so is unattainable for the vast majority of the population

[Ifreann]

That's true but I don't see the relevance.

If not everyone can become a part of the political elite, then it isn't something open to everyone.

But it is open to everyone. Not everyone will become a politician, and it would be bad if everyone did to the exclusion of doing anything else, at least for the time being, but that's not the same as not being able to do it.

[Philjia]

"Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time...."

This, basically. The weaknesses of democracy exist in all other systems, often in a more dangerous form.

[Secundus Imperium Romanum]

"Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time...."

This, basically. The weaknesses of democracy exist in all other systems, often in a more dangerous form.

Exactly, so it is necessary for a monarch to intervene, perhaps, to avoid a political crisis.

[Philjia]

This, basically. The weaknesses of democracy exist in all other systems, often in a more dangerous form.

Exactly, so it is necessary for a monarch to intervene, perhaps, to avoid a political crisis.

I prefer a ceremonial monarch to prevent the existence of a president.

[Alvecia]

This, basically. The weaknesses of democracy exist in all other systems, often in a more dangerous form.

Exactly, so it is necessary for a monarch to intervene, perhaps, to avoid a political crisis.

Then you bring the weaknesses of a monarchy in as well.

[New Chilokver]

This, basically. The weaknesses of democracy exist in all other systems, often in a more dangerous form.

Exactly, so it is necessary for a monarch to intervene, perhaps, to avoid a political crisis.

Why a monarch? What makes that lineage any better than another person who has dedicated their life to politics?

[Nulla Bellum]

My team would win every game if not for those pesky other teams impeding us from scoring touchdowns and forcing us to go on defense.

[Conserative Morality]

So, we are faced with two premises:
1) Pure democracy is not inherently desirable, and
2) Large republics are oligarchies, not democracies

1. Is true.

2. Is debatable. Theoretically any government form that isn't just people voting with no enforcement mechanism could be said to be an oligarchy instead of a democracy. Common usage prevails, so I'm gonna say 'no' to this one.

I, personally, am fairly convinced by these arguments, but I think it is foolish to rely solely on one's own faculties to assess an argument, especially when you are already biased in-favor or against it. Because of that, I direct the following questions to the largest internet community I am a part of (outside of 4Chan):

1) Is democracy inherently relativistic? If not, how does it avoid becoming so?
2) In-practice, do existing political organizations (specifically, political parties) adhere to the Iron Law of Oligarchy (i.e. are they ruled by a politically educated elite).
3) Are there large, successful governments, either historically or currently-existing, that did not rely on the organization which, according to Michels, creates oligarchy in all cases?



Like, comment, and subscribe

1. Yes. Everything is.
2. Yes.
3. No, but his definition of oligarchy is far too broad to be useful.

[Napkiraly]

"Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time...."

"Witty quotes on the Internet do not prove anything." - Isaac Newton

[Somewherica]

I fail to see why relativism is inherently a bad thing. I find democracy to be a very frustrating system, merely because it is intrinsically chaotic. However, at the same time, I admire such a system for this very same attribute. Power can shift on a whim, and popular mandate can change the path of a nation. It's both disturbing and amazing.

In short, the "problem" with democracy is that it provides the widest range for ideological evolution. The trick being to find that sweet spot of power organization that provides fair representation without sliding too far towards overly centralized at the top, or overly diffused amongst the populace.

[Wallenburg]

Firstly, the question of democracy as universally desirable or good, I think, is a self-defeating one.

How can an unloaded question be self-defeating?

Democracy is inherently relativistic; policy isn't decided based on ideological reasons or even necessarily according to merit, but according to what is supported by the majority (or plurality) of people in the society. This is self defeating because, when even what is desirable is relative, then whether democracy is desirable is also relative, and most democracies only maintain themselves as democracies (and this is debatable, as I shall go into later) through legal force, grounding themselves on an ideology that, at its core, is not democratic.

How is rule by the majority not democratic?

The main way, as previously mentioned, to prevent relativism from rendering democracy into continually degenerating, is a republican structure based on core principles. Two problems present themselves here, firstly, as mentioned before, that these core principles aren't democratic, by nature. The nature of things like civil rights, is that it violates the principle of majority-control.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/consti ... -democracy

The second problem, is that, as pointed out by Robert Michels in his formulation of the Iron Law of Oligarchy in 1911. The argument made by Herr Michels is that the organization of large republics inevitably creates hierarchy, on the bases that 1) political organization requires people to devote their lives to it (i.e. political organization is not a part-time endeavor), 2) that, because political organization requires time and training, it is not open to everyone, as the great mass of the population must work on other things, 3) because only a small class of people will be able to spend their time running the political organizations, they will eventually come to be the only people who actually know how to run the political machine, becoming a political elite, and 4), because the political elites are the only people with the organization and expertise to run the political machine, they will be the only choices.

The question of career politicians does, indeed, stand out as an issue. However, that entire line of logic rests on the premise that "political organization requires people to devote their lives to it", in the sense that organizing enough to serve capably as a representative, 1) is correct and 2) limits office to a handful of elite members of society. However, this premise meets both of these marks. It is incorrect given that people like Donald Trump did not dedicate themselves to politics and government until running for national office. It does not limit office to a handful of elites because even ordinary people have taken political office countless times.

Michels also includes the point that the weight of a single vote in a large enough society is so little, that it is a poor investment to actually spend your time and money educating yourself on the political process simply for the purpose of voting.

In any society, the average citizen is uninformed. An uninformed voter base makes for a stupid, unreliable democratic government, not an undemocratic one.

As evidence of his assertion that even democratic institutions will be subsumed into the oligarchy, he provided the examples (later, not in his original book) of how the radical socialist and Marxist parties, with the exception of the Bolsheviks, rallied behind their wartime governments in the First World War, even though this would undoubtedly lead to the deaths of millions of working-class people for the gain of the existing political structure, not the workers.

Under any government, people rally to war even if it directly hurts their interests. It's a natural human instinct to seek out an other to hate and destroy, and a nation at war with yours fits that role perfectly.

Michels used this "Iron Law" to explain why there have been so few long-lasting democratic institutions throughout history (because they would either collapse into mob rule or rule by a political elite).

1) Mob rule is pure democracy.
2) The growth of a political elite is not unavoidable.

So, we are faced with two premises:
1) Pure democracy is not inherently desirable, and
2) Large republics are oligarchies, not democracies

1) Correct.
2) A republic is, by definition, a representative form of democracy.

I, personally, am fairly convinced by these arguments, but I think it is foolish to rely solely on one's own faculties to assess an argument, especially when you are already biased in-favor or against it.

These are not arguments, these are claims separate from any arguments to support them.

Because of that, I direct the following questions to the largest internet community I am a part of (outside of 4Chan):

1) Is democracy inherently relativistic? If not, how does it avoid becoming so?
2) In-practice, do existing political organizations (specifically, political parties) adhere to the Iron Law of Oligarchy (i.e. are they ruled by a politically educated elite).
3) Are there large, successful governments, either historically or currently-existing, that did not rely on the organization which, according to Michels, creates oligarchy in all cases?

1) Yes, as any government or society is relativistic. You can see that in how different groups of people believe different or opposing things to be right or wrong.
2) Mostly, yes. As a rule, no.
3) No. The few undemocratic governments in the world are backwater states with enormous problems across the board, especially issues of poverty, public health, and human rights.

[Alvecia]

"Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time...."

"Witty quotes on the Internet do not prove anything." - Isaac Newton

[Community Values]

Couldn't the Iron Law of Oligarchs be mitigated if there were, say, smaller republics in the larger ones? And that those smaller governments had an almost equal amount of power to the big central government, as guaranteed by a document which spells out the rights of those smaller governments, and of the people?

[Zhopgrad]

I am a bit busy to read all 7 pages of the discussion, but I will present my opinion.
I believe the idea of democracy is a great one, it is more likely for people to love their nation if their trusted with running it. But it should not go too far, some systems, like a strong leader must be put in place to ensure order is maintained. I also believe the people should be able to decide how the economy is run, and should be able to hold petitions and referendums to make changes so your favorite beverage is not taken off the shelves because it "was not profitable enough".
Finally if the Government is stable and doing a good job and the people want it gone, it is clear the government should change in accordance to the demands, and also ensure the people are taken care of.
That is my opinion, yours is likely wildly different, and I respect that.

[Lmao Free Stuff Man]

yeah democracy is pretty dumb, i just wanna ban everything i dont like because fascist scum want to run this nation into the ground #bashfash

[Community Values]

I am a bit busy to read all 7 pages of the discussion, but I will present my opinion.
I believe the idea of democracy is a great one, it is more likely for people to love their nation if their trusted with running it. But it should not go too far, some systems, like a strong leader must be put in place to ensure order is maintained. I also believe the people should be able to decide how the economy is run, and should be able to hold petitions and referendums to make changes so your favorite beverage is not taken off the shelves because it "was not profitable enough".
Finally if the Government is stable and doing a good job and the people want it gone, it is clear the government should change in accordance to the demands, and also ensure the people are taken care of.
That is my opinion, yours is likely wildly different, and I respect that.

A strong leader is what leads to the decaying of democratic traditions. You can not have a leader which is "strong" (Actually, I don't even know what most people imply by this) and also have a long lasting democratic system.

[Community Values]

yeah democracy is pretty dumb, i just wanna ban everything i dont like because fascist scum want to run this nation into the ground #bashfash

tbh, this isn't even good bait. At least try to not be banned while acting like an asshole.

[Lmao Free Stuff Man]

yeah democracy is pretty dumb, i just wanna ban everything i dont like because fascist scum want to run this nation into the ground #bashfash

tbh, this isn't even good bait. At least try to not be banned while acting like an asshole.

fuck off fascist, i have every right to my opinion

[Alvecia]

tbh, this isn't even good bait. At least try to not be banned while acting like an asshole.

fuck off fascist, i have every right to my opinion

So long as you express it in a civil manner, unlike above.

[Lmao Free Stuff Man]

fuck off fascist, i have every right to my opinion

So long as you express it in a civil manner, unlike above.

civility is for fascists