NationStates

Representative democracy: A slave voting for his masters.
Direct democracy: Exxploitation of the minority
Democracy in general: I think it controls too much

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:

Trippoli wrote:What is your thoughts on Democracy? Do you prefer another system of Government? Personally, I really depends on the said peoples comprehension of politics. On one hand, I believe, although coming from Hitler; that one smart, strong-hearted individual is better than a million incompetents and cowards. On the other hand, I believe without a Democracy it will intervene in the rights of these people,if all decisions are made my one person. Especially in this point in time. I can't believe in both.

But what do you think?

Democracy all the way in my opinion: Democracy allowed me to express my opinions like I do now.

Of course I will keep thinking of ways to improve democracy using NS Roleplay as a test base.

^ THIS!!!

Saurisia wrote:I believe Democracy is flawed.

Care to elaborate about it's flaws?

Glorious Homeland wrote:

Supreme Marshal Petan wrote:A democracy is nothing more then a dictatorship by the majority. Ideally, you want many small factions to keep the minority from being overwhelmed.

If that was true all the time why do minorities enjoy equal legal status in many western countries? Gays, religious or ethnic minorities?

Because there are many factions within a majority. There are people who are fiscal conservatives and social liberals, vice versa; there are far left and far right; moderates; overly-religious and none. These divisions keep a majority from forming, gaining enough power and abusing a minority group. Because they are widely divided, they may unite for one reason or another, but after that issue has been resolved, the coalition will collapse (i.e. New Deal coalition, Reagan's 'big tent' party).

Also to show the point of why it is dangerous. Europe right now has a common enemy -the threat to their identity. As a result, you see what is a very tolerant, open, muti-cultured society becoming united over that common enemy. The banning of minarets, and scraves is spreading. Why? Because though their are factions in Europe which prevent this from happening all the time, they now have one threat and are working to oppose it. This is why Madison believed democracy could be dangerous and this is why he favored many factions.

Concordeia wrote:

Saurisia wrote:I believe Democracy is flawed.

Care to elaborate about it's flaws?

Eh, I'll let someone else explain the flaws, there's plenty of Democracy-detractors.

ME, I'm more of a Republic kind of guy, preventing all that Tyranny of the Majority crap from taking place.

The Worst Form of Government, except all others that have been tried. To explain further, democracy has many faults, but all of them much less then any alternative government.

Democracy is the good old NS category of tyranny-by-majority, and, thusly, should be destroyed or at least ignored.

Supreme Marshal Petan wrote:

Glorious Homeland wrote:If that was true all the time why do minorities enjoy equal legal status in many western countries? Gays, religious or ethnic minorities?

Because there are many factions within a majority. There are people who are fiscal conservatives and social liberals, vice versa; there are far left and far right; moderates; overly-religious and none. These divisions keep a majority from forming, gaining enough power and abusing a minority group. Because they are widely divided, they may unite for one reason or another, but after that issue has been resolved, the coalition will collapse (i.e. New Deal coalition, Reagan's 'big tent' party).

Also to show the point of why it is dangerous. Europe right now has a common enemy -the threat to their identity. As a result, you see what is a very tolerant, open, muti-cultured society becoming united over that common enemy. The banning of minarets, and scraves is spreading. Why? Because though their are factions in Europe which prevent this from happening all the time, they now have one threat and are working to oppose it. This is why Madison believed democracy could be dangerous and this is why he favored many factions.

In your initial statement you implied that a democracy would also be a "dictatorship" by the majority. But is there such a thing as a a dictatorship of a liberal majority, when most people are indifferent to most things other people do on their own or behind closed doors?

Glorious Homeland wrote:

Supreme Marshal Petan wrote:
Because there are many factions within a majority. There are people who are fiscal conservatives and social liberals, vice versa; there are far left and far right; moderates; overly-religious and none. These divisions keep a majority from forming, gaining enough power and abusing a minority group. Because they are widely divided, they may unite for one reason or another, but after that issue has been resolved, the coalition will collapse (i.e. New Deal coalition, Reagan's 'big tent' party).

Also to show the point of why it is dangerous. Europe right now has a common enemy -the threat to their identity. As a result, you see what is a very tolerant, open, muti-cultured society becoming united over that common enemy. The banning of minarets, and scraves is spreading. Why? Because though their are factions in Europe which prevent this from happening all the time, they now have one threat and are working to oppose it. This is why Madison believed democracy could be dangerous and this is why he favored many factions.

In your initial statement you implied that a democracy would also be a "dictatorship" by the majority. But is there such a thing as a a dictatorship of a liberal majority, when most people are indifferent to most things other people do on their own or behind closed doors?

But it's never the case. Or as you said "most things..." Even a liberal society, which believes in tolerance and equality will oppose those that are against it. There is nothing wrong with that, but will they then turn that around and punish them for believing it? A democracy is a dictatorship by the majority, whether it be liberal or conservative. The safeguard to a democracy from going into a state of tyranny is, as a I said, hoping for as many factions as possible, which will keep any clear majority from forming without some moderation in their policies to maintain that loose alliance.

Personally, I am all for representative democracy.

Supreme Marshal Petan wrote:

Glorious Homeland wrote:In your initial statement you implied that a democracy would also be a "dictatorship" by the majority. But is there such a thing as a a dictatorship of a liberal majority, when most people are indifferent to most things other people do on their own or behind closed doors?

But it's never the case. Or as you said "most things..." Even a liberal society, which believes in tolerance and equality will oppose those that are against it. There is nothing wrong with that, but will they then turn that around and punish them for believing it? A democracy is a dictatorship by the majority, whether it be liberal or conservative. The safeguard to a democracy from going into a state of tyranny is, as a I said, hoping for as many factions as possible, which will keep any clear majority from forming without some moderation in their policies to maintain that loose alliance.

...the implication of your statements is that by nature, it appears, you think humans simply are dictatorial creatures. If democracy, given popularity would lead to dictatorial, even amongst generally liberal voters, then that and everything else is by nature dictatorial?

Glorious Homeland wrote:

Supreme Marshal Petan wrote:
But it's never the case. Or as you said "most things..." Even a liberal society, which believes in tolerance and equality will oppose those that are against it. There is nothing wrong with that, but will they then turn that around and punish them for believing it? A democracy is a dictatorship by the majority, whether it be liberal or conservative. The safeguard to a democracy from going into a state of tyranny is, as a I said, hoping for as many factions as possible, which will keep any clear majority from forming without some moderation in their policies to maintain that loose alliance.

...the implication of your statements is that by nature, it appears, you think humans simply are dictatorial creatures. If democracy, given popularity would lead to dictatorial, even amongst generally liberal voters, then that and everything else is by nature dictatorial?

People are not by nature dictatorial, that is not what I was trying to imply. I am trying to imply that people do not like something different. People form groups, usually because they are like-minded, and dislike or hold ill-favor towards those who differ. That is natural.

Supreme Marshal Petan wrote:

Glorious Homeland wrote:...the implication of your statements is that by nature, it appears, you think humans simply are dictatorial creatures. If democracy, given popularity would lead to dictatorial, even amongst generally liberal voters, then that and everything else is by nature dictatorial?

People are not by nature dictatorial, that is not what I was trying to imply. I am trying to imply that people do not like something different. People form groups, usually because they are like-minded, and dislike or hold ill-favor towards those who differ. That is natural.

But then what would be a fairer system in your eyes, than a more representative or responsive democracy? Something of an enlightened elite or dictator? If you feel the system is no better in effect for it's persecution of minority groups that are disliked at any given moment of time?

Saurisia wrote:

Concordeia wrote:Care to elaborate about it's flaws?

Eh, I'll let someone else explain the flaws, there's plenty of Democracy-detractors.

ME, I'm more of a Republic kind of guy, preventing all that Tyranny of the Majority crap from taking place.

You realise a republic just means a type of nation that has it's government elected in some form by some of it's citizens, and isn't led by a monarch... regardless of how transparent or accountable that selection process is? You can't say a nation is a democracy and not a republic, unless it's either a constitutional monarchy or an absolute monarchy or junta of some form. The USA is a republic and a democracy, much like France or Germany. The UK, Sweden or Japan are constitutional monarchies, but effectively republican democracies. The monarchs grant rights to rule for the elected people, or pass laws, but they just rubber stamp the thing, their role is entirely ceremonial rather than functional.

So, as you can see, saying "I prefer a republic to a democracy" doesn't make a lot of sense. Unless you're referring to a "direct democracy" where there isn't much in the way of government checks on power or policy and most things are ratified by ceaseless referendum and public votes on all matters. Switzerland is the closest to one of those functionally, but almost all other western "democracies" function in ways too similar to what could be described as a "democratic republic" than anything else.

Glorious Homeland wrote:

Supreme Marshal Petan wrote:
People are not by nature dictatorial, that is not what I was trying to imply. I am trying to imply that people do not like something different. People form groups, usually because they are like-minded, and dislike or hold ill-favor towards those who differ. That is natural.

But then what would be a fairer system in your eyes, than a more representative or responsive democracy? Something of an enlightened elite or dictator? If you feel the system is no better in effect for it's persecution of minority groups that are disliked at any given moment of time?

No. I never said I opposed a representative democracy. I favor it, actually. Though it is imperfect, it's by far the best of what is out there.

Supreme Marshal Petan wrote:

Glorious Homeland wrote:But then what would be a fairer system in your eyes, than a more representative or responsive democracy? Something of an enlightened elite or dictator? If you feel the system is no better in effect for it's persecution of minority groups that are disliked at any given moment of time?

No. I never said I opposed a representative democracy. I favor it, actually. Though it is imperfect, it's by far the best of what is out there.

That statement seems a bit of a contradiction, what do you define as "the best of what is our there"?

Supreme Marshal Petan wrote:A democracy is nothing more then a dictatorship by the majority.

And the other choice is - what? The Dictatorship of the minority?

No thanks.

Glorious Homeland wrote:

Supreme Marshal Petan wrote:
No. I never said I opposed a representative democracy. I favor it, actually. Though it is imperfect, it's by far the best of what is out there.

That statement seems a bit of a contradiction, what do you define as "the best of what is our there"?

How does it contradict?

Supreme Marshal Petan wrote:

Glorious Homeland wrote:That statement seems a bit of a contradiction, what do you define as "the best of what is our there"?

How does it contradict?

Oops, misread, sorry. Carry on.

Faute de mieux, the best basic principle for political systems.

The blessed Chris wrote:Faute de mieux, the best basic principle for political systems.

Ack... you're as bad as Boris Johnson using vague latin terms during discussion on live TV with your terminology I have to reference!

K, not even Latin, French, and bloody vague too!

The blessed Chris wrote:Faute de mieux, the best basic principle for political systems.

Glorious Homeland wrote:

The blessed Chris wrote:Faute de mieux, the best basic principle for political systems.

Ack... you're as bad as Boris Johnson using vague latin terms during discussion on live TV with your terminology I have to reference!

K, not even Latin, French, and bloody vague too!

And you didn't post the definition? How dare you!

For the Greater Good is a good political philosophy. But, then there's the question of "what is good?"

In an uneducatced society where lack of knowlege about one's right is prominent, democracy is just a cover up for the many curropted government officals to take advantage of the mass in their own self-interest. There are too many government officials intoday's democratic world, than the communist or any other form of government. That is is why I refer to democracy as the demonstration of crazyness and crazy demonstration.

Democracy is inherently unstable and usually provides no protection for the minority. I like in the US. It has got out of control, and even though it is a Republic, it is trying to spread "Democracy" around the world. The citizens will probably have to regain control of our military.

Columbaria wrote:Democracy is inherently unstable and usually provides no protection for the minority. I like in the US. It has got out of control, and even though it is a Republic, it is trying to spread "Democracy" around the world. The citizens will probably have to regain control of our military.

Wait ... what? Since when is the US military not under civilian control? I will grant you that the Bush Administration did talk about spreading democracy around the world, they spread it to exactly two countries, Afghanistan and Iraq, and in neither case very successfully. SO, could you demonstrate how the democratic US is out of control? I would love to learn.