The Problems of Democracy

[Improved werpland]

Education in liberal democracies aren't so ideological. "Respect the system which allows you to implement your own ideology without unduly forcing it on others" is pretty moderate I'd say.

But how does that make it oligarchical?

By "ideological education" I mainly mean education on things like the Constitution, treatises of government, Locke, etc. There's a reason most American politicians are lawyers.

I think you've taken it too far if the fact that lawyers are much more politically adept invalidates democracy.

The best argument against democracy is a conversation with the average voter.

Limited monarchy is the only system to have proven to work without issues, we've been doing it for thousands of years.

This

Why? Most modern monarchies cannot be distinguished from republics in any significant way.

[Conserative Morality]

Aside from the occasional peasant rebellion and centennial civil wars, China was quite stable. Particularly from the Ming period to pre-Opium Wars Qing period, the only major wars China saw were those of conquest and the Manchu conquest that saw the Qing replace the Ming. Sure, there were a lot of wars, but this is a 3000 year-old civilization we're talking about.

Going just from pre-Opium Wars Qing, we have:

The Great Clearance
Revolt of the Three Feudatories
Dzungar–Qing Wars
The Ten Great Campaigns
The Miao Rebellions
White Lotus Rebellion

The Persian Empire, admittedly, was rather diverse, but Persia proper, even as far back as the late Achaemenid period, had developed a very strong sense of nationhood, or at least the fundamental aspects of it.

And what fundamental aspect was that? Loyalty to the king of Persia?

And in terms of Rome, there existed a very strong Roman identity from early one, one that eventually grew to cover all of Italy during the Social War, and much of the empire during the 3rd century AD.

A Roman identity is very different from a national one, especially considering that the Socii Wars were something that needed to be fought to see just the legal benefits of citizenship extended to Rome's close Italian allies. And by the late Empire when citizenship was universally extended, stronger dividing ideals between citizens and actual Romans were drawn. The ideal of Roman citizenship we like to see today has little in common with the practice of Roman citizenship as seen by Romans.

Roman Citizenship and the conception of who was and was not Roman are two entirely different things.

In terms of Athens and Sparta, while both systems had massive slave populations and participation in their governments was limited to the citizen and warrior classes, respectively, it's fairly clear that Athens at least idealized democracy, whereas the idealized system of the Spartans was quite different.

... 'Democracy' v. 'Militarized Democracy'?

Lastly, in terms of the Roman idea of nationhood, that is only partially true. The Roman idea of nationhood was different from the modern European idea of nationhood where national identity is closely tied in with ethnicity. Conversely, I'd argue it was, at least at is core, very similar to the ideas of nationhood congruent with other modern nations, like those of the US and Canada, where ethnicity has a much lesser role in terms of national identity.

I'd like to hear your explanation as to how.

[Conserative Morality]

The best argument against democracy is a conversation with the average voter.

Limited monarchy is the only system to have proven to work without issues, we've been doing it for thousands of years.

Ignoring the many problems 'limited' monarchy has, of course.

[NeuPolska]

Why? Most modern monarchies cannot be distinguished from republics in any significant way.

Well for one, limited =/= modern

I lament the overall loss of power experienced by most monarchies, however there have been a few times that monarchs have shown they do have some power. I believe there was an incident where HM Queen Elizabeth II stepped in in regard to some land reform or something like that, since the British monarchy has the power to step in when their estates are affected, or something like that. I'm pretty sure the Dutch monarchy is needed for legislation to pass, if I'm not mistaken.

Even if their power was truly reduced, the key difference is that a monarch isn't elected (well some are but that's blasphemy) and they rule for life, unless they abdicate.

[Conserative Morality]

Why? Most modern monarchies cannot be distinguished from republics in any significant way.

Well for one, limited =/= modern

I lament the overall loss of power experienced by most monarchies, however there have been a few times that monarchs have shown they do have some power. I believe there was an incident where HM Queen Elizabeth II stepped in in regard to some land reform or something like that, since the British monarchy has the power to step in when their estates are affected, or something like that. I'm pretty sure the Dutch monarchy is needed for legislation to pass, if I'm not mistaken.

Even if their power was truly reduced, the key difference is that a monarch isn't elected (well some are but that's blasphemy) and they rule for life, unless they abdicate.

Harsh words from someone calling themselves 'NeuPolska'

[NeuPolska]

Well for one, limited =/= modern

I lament the overall loss of power experienced by most monarchies, however there have been a few times that monarchs have shown they do have some power. I believe there was an incident where HM Queen Elizabeth II stepped in in regard to some land reform or something like that, since the British monarchy has the power to step in when their estates are affected, or something like that. I'm pretty sure the Dutch monarchy is needed for legislation to pass, if I'm not mistaken.

Even if their power was truly reduced, the key difference is that a monarch isn't elected (well some are but that's blasphemy) and they rule for life, unless they abdicate.

Harsh words from someone calling themselves 'NeuPolska'

Mistakes were made

(Back when I made this nation not much else was available)

[United Muscovite Nations]

There are two separate arguments; one, which is that, because democracy is relativistic, it is undesirable, and then the second, based on Michels work, that the republican systems created based around political and legal organization aren't truly democracies.

I think it's fairly clear, myself, but, as you know, I'm not the best at organizing my thoughts due to mental disorder.

Dont hide behind your illness. Youre not getting any special treatment from me.

The arguments arent solid, and their premises are faulty. You fail to explain why its undesireable, again, lacking a metric, qnd fail to accurately explain why its relativistic. You then try to lead that into this weird feedback-loop by attacking the 'argument' you just made with another, creating what is, essentially, just circular reasoning that goes nowhere.

Relativism is bad - why? [Premise]
Democracy is bad - why? [Premise]
=
Democracy is relativistic - why? [Failed Argument]

Iron Law says Democracy becomes Oligarchy [Premise]
Republics today arent Democracies [Premise]
=
Therefore Iron Law is true [Failed Argument]

Neither of these has enough assertions to make valid arguments. Their premises are flawed, or their conclusions are wrong. To then string them together just makes some abomination in logic.

I explained why it's relativistic: because democracy relies on the voter to decide what is the correct course of action and what is desirable (i.e. what are the goals of state).

Relativism is bad, I contend, because it allows essentially anything that you can persuade people to think, rather than being based on a moral system.

I never argued that the Iron Law of Oligarchy is true, so, again, you're barking up the wrong tree. I think it is true, but I don't actually make an argument for it being true in the OP.

[Conserative Morality]

I explained why it's relativistic: because democracy relies on the voter to decide what is the correct course of action and what is desirable (i.e. what are the goals of state).

Relativism is bad, I contend, because it allows essentially anything that you can persuade people to think, rather than being based on a moral system.

Er, that's true for objective moral systems as well.

[Somewherica]

I explained why it's relativistic: because democracy relies on the voter to decide what is the correct course of action and what is desirable (i.e. what are the goals of state).

Relativism is bad, I contend, because it allows essentially anything that you can persuade people to think, rather than being based on a moral system.

Er, that's true for objective moral systems as well.

At least an intellectually honest and truly objective school of ethics is somewhat empirically based on obsvervations of basic action/reaction.
Politics in and of itself being primarily a device for limiting freedom and concentrating authority, for whatever reasons, typically maintains a murky moral compass.

[Kovacna]

I'm pretty sure that democracy is a system where the most effective propaganda that suits your self-interest wins. You just need to find the effective method of persuasion in order to win votes, while only thinkign about yourself. The problem is that people don't see that democracy is really like this, but they see it as something else and complain about the reality of democracy.

[UCE Watchdog of the Puppets]

Well, those are pretty bad problems.
Only way to win is to coopt the elites to keep your dream alive and destroy the system when it stops working for anyone but the elites and runs your dreams over with a bus.

[Somewherica]

I'm pretty sure that democracy is a system where the most effective propaganda that suits your self-interest wins. You just need to find the effective method of persuasion in order to win votes, while only thinkign about yourself. The problem is that people don't see that democracy is really like this, but they see it as something else and complain about the reality of democracy.

You simply fail to see the distinction between a thing, and a thing corrupted.
Humanity being the imperfectable condition that it is, means none of our contrivances can ever remain pure either in conception or practice.

[Kovacna]

I'm pretty sure that democracy is a system where the most effective propaganda that suits your self-interest wins. You just need to find the effective method of persuasion in order to win votes, while only thinkign about yourself. The problem is that people don't see that democracy is really like this, but they see it as something else and complain about the reality of democracy.

You simply fail to see the distinction between a thing, and a thing corrupted.
Humanity being the imperfectable condition that it is, means none of our contrivances can ever remain pure either in conception or practice.

What are you trying to point out? Any system of government, may it be democracy or anything else, can be corrupted in the name of self-interest, because we humans have the natural instinct of doing everything to help ourselves survive. Life is basically survival of the fittest.

[Springstile]

As a Filipino and a citizen of the Philippine Republic: Where should I start?

[Somewherica]

You simply fail to see the distinction between a thing, and a thing corrupted.
Humanity being the imperfectable condition that it is, means none of our contrivances can ever remain pure either in conception or practice.

What are you trying to point out? Any system of government, may it be democracy or anything else, can be corrupted in the name of self-interest, because we humans have the natural instinct of doing everything to help ourselves survive. Life is basically survival of the fittest.

Well yeah. It is difficult to help others when you do not help yourself. Profit enables charity, so the more productive you are, the more helpful you can be.
That is what anticapitalists do not understand about profit. It is an age old survival mechanic. Catch all you can today, because you may not be able to forage tomorrow. If your goal is a zero sum balance, then you are doomed to starve. If only alleycats could talk.
So what is your point then? Do you believe democracy is more corruptible than other systems of government? You may be right given that democracy has the widest field of evolutionary avenues and potential. The greatest rewards are always offset by even greater failures. Such is life.

[Kovacna]

What are you trying to point out? Any system of government, may it be democracy or anything else, can be corrupted in the name of self-interest, because we humans have the natural instinct of doing everything to help ourselves survive. Life is basically survival of the fittest.

Well yeah. It is difficult to help others when you do not help yourself. Profit enables charity, so the more productive you are, the more helpful you can be.
That is what anticapitalists do not understand about profit. It is an age old survival mechanic. Catch all you can today, because you may not be able to forage tomorrow. If your goal is a zero sum balance, then you are doomed to starve. If only alleycats could talk.
So what is your point then? Do you believe democracy is more corruptible than other systems of government? You may be right given that democracy has the widest field of evolutionary avenues and potential. The greatest rewards are always offset by even greater failures. Such is life.

Any system of government is fine by me as long as it would still enable me to pursue my own interests. Some systems are just less effective in allowing such freedoms, though. Any system is corruptible, too.

I just happen to prefer democracy and a capitalist economic policy because I can at least promote my own voice in my own little ways to promote my own interests, and I would also have a higher economic/financial freedom with such a system.

[Alvecia]

Democracy is a terrible way to run a country, except all the other ways that are even worse.

People really need to stop quoting Churchill in this thread.

Point of fact, Churchill was actually supposedly quoting or paraphrasing someone else when he said it.

[Kovacna]

Thoughts on Authoritarian Populist Democracy?

[Isyrannaea]

Democracy is a nothing more than a variant of bolshevism and political jewry dumbed down for the masses to accept.

[Tekeristan]

Democracy is a nothing more than a variant of bolshevism and political jewry dumbed down for the masses to accept.

Sounds good to me

[Secundus Imperium Romanum]

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.

A monarch who has no power is the same thing as a republic. Then it would not make sense.

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.

Actually, in some cases the monarchy can present its defects like any political system, but in counterpart, constitutional monarchies today have developed more than certain republics (see african and asian republics)

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?

A monarch, in addition to having studied throughout his life to become a king, is the national personification of his country, that is, he represents all the people of a certain country and was educated to defend it, without political parties. While a king defends the population, a politician when he becomes president first wants to benefit his party by giving positions of ministries/secretaries and devoting himself only to re-elect (with rare exceptions). So the king rules the people, while most politicians only think about the upcoming elections.

[Constantinopolis]

And again these are criticisms that are both just as if not more true in undemocratic nations.

^ There you have it. This should have been in the second post, and then no further posts would be needed. /thread.

Seriously though - the problem with pretty much all criticisms of democracy is that they're not criticisms of democracy in particular, they are criticisms of all human politics in general.

Politicians lie in order to gain support? They don't follow any particular ideology or moral code? They seek personal power and wealth? Welcome to every government ever.

[Constantinopolis]

A monarch, in addition to having studied throughout his life to become a king, is the national personification of his country, that is, he represents all the people of a certain country and was educated to defend it, without political parties.

So you're talking about a fantasy king that has never existed and never will exist in reality. Got it.

That is the other reason why most criticisms of democracy are wrong: People compare real-world democracy with idealized, pie-in-the-sky fantasy versions of the other political systems.

[Community Values]

Democracy is a nothing more than a variant of bolshevism and political jewry dumbed down for the masses to accept.

Who knew the Athenians were the first ZOG and that they were also apparently the Athenian Commune.

Nice, my man.

[United Muscovite Nations]

And again these are criticisms that are both just as if not more true in undemocratic nations.

^ There you have it. This should have been in the second post, and then no further posts would be needed. /thread.

Seriously though - the problem with pretty much all criticisms of democracy is that they're not criticisms of democracy in particular, they are criticisms of all human politics in general.

Politicians lie in order to gain support? They don't follow any particular ideology or moral code? They seek personal power and wealth? Welcome to every government ever.

I realize this happens, but it has more implications in a democratic system than in a state that is governed on an ideological basis. In, say, a Marxist-Leninist state, if someone is just a demagogue who has no ideological leanings, then you can simply not allow them to run for office. In an autocracy, the autocrat could bar this person from power as they are a threat to the ideology of the state.