Democracy as a form of government

[Chan Island]

Why is democracy so widely seen as a good and/or great form of government?

Because it is.

What has been it’s fruits?

Almost universally the states that have the longest lifespans, highest standards of living, highest GDP per capita, best healthcare, greatest social consciousness, most happy people [reported], most trusting people, lowest crime rates, most educated population, highest technological and scientific achievements, have the world centres of excellence in the fields of the arts, sciences, business, technology and design ect... just coincidentally happen to all be in democracies.

I’m an American

Of course you are.

Most of the people who come here asking this question are.

Which is not a surprise. American democracy was always deliberately designed to negate the will of the people, and that system is now proving more and more extreme discrepancies between them. Worse, one of the 2 major parties (coincidentally the one that has benefited from that) has been moving things in the direction of less and less people have a say by supporting such things as gerrymandering, voter suppression, the electoral college, not investigating allegations of election fraud, no restrictions on campaign finance and so on. And they have the power to do so because the travesty of the First Past The Post electoral system ensures that most of their core supporters will just go along with anything they say regardless of how batshit it is.

On top of that, America has been manipulated. Don't 7 people own like 80% of the media (I'm talking newspapers, television channels, radio stations etc) in the US? And we see that watching some US television channels actively makes the viewer less informed about the world around them. This has fuelled a polarisation that leaves people wondering if the other side even lives in the same reality.

In short... you live in a disturbingly sick country. I'm not surprised many have decided that they would be better off just dumping democracy. You wouldn't though.

,

maybe I’ve just never lived under other government forms, but to me democracy just doesn’t seem that great, it’s the system that elects socialists and communists who, historically speaking, have devastated economies and entire countries and societies and caused immense human misery.

A lot of it is that you haven't lived under other systems. Or under a functional democracy. Just a deliberately flawed version that is collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions.

Socialists and Communists I'd argue have gotten into power more often, and more completely, when they lead revolutions to overthrow dictatorships or monarchies. The most famous ones (Russia, China, Cuba, Yugoslavia, Cambodia...) all certainly are in that category.

And they often got devastated because America and it's allies hurried to sanction and/or coup and/or invade those countries.

To quote Pinochet: “democracy is the system that chooses Barabbas over Jesus”
What do y’all think, NSG?

"Wolf insists that wolves eating sheep is a good thing."

Apart from Pinochet being a terrible person to take inspiration from (newsflash: the economy didn't grow all that much under him), he is also wrong about Jesus.

He was put before the crowd by an unelected governor acting on behalf of a moneyed elitist priesthood. The crowd was then deliberately manipulated by agents of the elite to sway the crowd to Barabbas.

In fact, I'd argue that democracy would have chosen Jesus, especially considering how many people apparently went to his events. But the vote was rigged and the rest is religion.

[Woodfiredpizzas]

Why is democracy so widely seen as a good and/or great form of government? What has been it’s fruits?

I’m an American, maybe I’ve just never lived under other government forms, but to me democracy just doesn’t seem that great, it’s the system that elects socialists and communists who, historically speaking, have devastated economies and entire countries and societies and caused immense human misery. To quote Pinochet: “democracy is the system that chooses Barabbas over Jesus”
What do y’all think, NSG?

Democracy is only seen as good by those who abuse it.
It requires a lot of adjustment to become functional. It doesn’t even have a minority veto for major issues.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Uhh that's what the Nazis called it when they enslaved the Poles and 're-educated' them according to their ideals. I might want to watch what you're saying there.

It’s ok I’m not a Nazi.

I don't think you're quite understanding the idea that forced re-education camps are universally bad.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I think democracy is fine as long as it remains simply a form of decision-making.

As opposed to what?

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Democracy is dumb

This is so sad, can we ban libertarians from hating on democracy?

[Ghost Land]

Right-wing libertarian here, from the United States no less. I know it's a cliche by now, but the United States isn't a democracy; it's a republic. In a democracy, the people have the power. In a republic, also known as representative democracy (which is itself an oxymoron as one guy can't truly be said to "represent" all of a group of millions of people), the people pick the oligarchs with the power. As such, there is very little actual democracy to be found in the world; Switzerland might count, but that's about it outside of the very local level.

As for myself, I don't see either democracy or representative democracy as an ideal course of action. I've posted about this before, but I feel a benevolent dictatorship is the way to go, as seen in my prior posts on the topic:

My ideal vision of a benevolent autocrat would grant the populace a wide range of individual freedoms, though the cops would be stern (but not invasive unless necessary) against people who murdered, raped, robbed, set other people's stuff on fire, etc. Basic stuff like that that would be guaranteed by a bill of rights that exists within or as an addendum to the constitution. In addition, if he got too corrupt and decided a few years in to start killing random people or nuking a bunch of other random countries and making the whole world mad, et cetera, there would be a procedure for getting him kicked out via public referendum, which is just one component of still being accountable to the people as opposed to his own bottom line or hedonistic whims.

... Ideally he would represent my own views , but if he and I do disagree on policy positions, it's fine as long as he remains libertarian and benevolent, i.e. pro-choice policy would be fine (I'm pro-life, but I live in the USA, where abortion is legal, so it wouldn't be any different), but a campaign of Stalinist economics or killing ethnic group X would absolutely not. Heck, he might even turn some of the decision-making to the voters via referendum. My point is, though, I'm sick of living in a Corporate Police State or Compulsory Consumerist State, and I'd rather live in a nice Benevolent Dictatorship or Capitalizt, to use NationStates terminology.

My idea of an ideal ruler would be a benevolent autocrat (dictator or king) who favours small-government, libertarian, and right-wing policies, deriving his authority from a constitution that prevents him from getting too powerful. ... Free-market economics and extensive civil rights would be in place, and the leader would use referendums to seek public opinion on new laws and influence his decision (though as leader, he has the ultimate say). Basically, it's constitutional autocracy with an element of direct democracy.

To sum it up, my ideal vision of a benevolent autocrat would grant the people a wide range of personal and economic freedoms, but be stern on those who break the rules. He would remain accountable to the constitution and to the people, likely with some use of public referendums, and there would be a procedure for kicking him out via public referendum if he got too corrupt.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

The U.S. is a partial democracy, but it is better than other countries I’ve been to.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Right-wing libertarian here, from the United States no less. I know it's a cliche by now, but the United States isn't a democracy; it's a republic. In a democracy, the people have the power. In a republic, also known as representative democracy (which is itself an oxymoron as one guy can't truly be said to "represent" all of a group of millions of people), the people pick the oligarchs with the power. As such, there is very little actual democracy to be found in the world; Switzerland might count, but that's about it outside of the very local level.

As for myself, I don't see either democracy or representative democracy as an ideal course of action. I've posted about this before, but I feel a benevolent dictatorship is the way to go, as seen in my prior posts on the topic:

My ideal vision of a benevolent autocrat would grant the populace a wide range of individual freedoms, though the cops would be stern (but not invasive unless necessary) against people who murdered, raped, robbed, set other people's stuff on fire, etc. Basic stuff like that that would be guaranteed by a bill of rights that exists within or as an addendum to the constitution. In addition, if he got too corrupt and decided a few years in to start killing random people or nuking a bunch of other random countries and making the whole world mad, et cetera, there would be a procedure for getting him kicked out via public referendum, which is just one component of still being accountable to the people as opposed to his own bottom line or hedonistic whims.

... Ideally he would represent my own views , but if he and I do disagree on policy positions, it's fine as long as he remains libertarian and benevolent, i.e. pro-choice policy would be fine (I'm pro-life, but I live in the USA, where abortion is legal, so it wouldn't be any different), but a campaign of Stalinist economics or killing ethnic group X would absolutely not. Heck, he might even turn some of the decision-making to the voters via referendum. My point is, though, I'm sick of living in a Corporate Police State or Compulsory Consumerist State, and I'd rather live in a nice Benevolent Dictatorship or Capitalizt, to use NationStates terminology.

My idea of an ideal ruler would be a benevolent autocrat (dictator or king) who favours small-government, libertarian, and right-wing policies, deriving his authority from a constitution that prevents him from getting too powerful. ... Free-market economics and extensive civil rights would be in place, and the leader would use referendums to seek public opinion on new laws and influence his decision (though as leader, he has the ultimate say). Basically, it's constitutional autocracy with an element of direct democracy.

To sum it up, my ideal vision of a benevolent autocrat would grant the people a wide range of personal and economic freedoms, but be stern on those who break the rules. He would remain accountable to the constitution and to the people, likely with some use of public referendums, and there would be a procedure for kicking him out via public referendum if he got too corrupt.

I need someone to make one of those Lisa Simpson presentation memes but with "If you prefer autocracy over democracy, you're not a libertarian."

[United Muscovite Nations]

I think democracy is fine as long as it remains simply a form of decision-making.

As opposed to what?

As opposed to the idea that democracy has innate value.

[Misthas]

Right-wing libertarian here, from the United States no less. I know it's a cliche by now, but the United States isn't a democracy; it's a republic. In a democracy, the people have the power. In a republic, also known as representative democracy (which is itself an oxymoron as one guy can't truly be said to "represent" all of a group of millions of people), the people pick the oligarchs with the power. As such, there is very little actual democracy to be found in the world; Switzerland might count, but that's about it outside of the very local level.

As for myself, I don't see either democracy or representative democracy as an ideal course of action. I've posted about this before, but I feel a benevolent dictatorship is the way to go, as seen in my prior posts on the topic:

My ideal vision of a benevolent autocrat would grant the populace a wide range of individual freedoms, though the cops would be stern (but not invasive unless necessary) against people who murdered, raped, robbed, set other people's stuff on fire, etc. Basic stuff like that that would be guaranteed by a bill of rights that exists within or as an addendum to the constitution. In addition, if he got too corrupt and decided a few years in to start killing random people or nuking a bunch of other random countries and making the whole world mad, et cetera, there would be a procedure for getting him kicked out via public referendum, which is just one component of still being accountable to the people as opposed to his own bottom line or hedonistic whims.

... Ideally he would represent my own views , but if he and I do disagree on policy positions, it's fine as long as he remains libertarian and benevolent, i.e. pro-choice policy would be fine (I'm pro-life, but I live in the USA, where abortion is legal, so it wouldn't be any different), but a campaign of Stalinist economics or killing ethnic group X would absolutely not. Heck, he might even turn some of the decision-making to the voters via referendum. My point is, though, I'm sick of living in a Corporate Police State or Compulsory Consumerist State, and I'd rather live in a nice Benevolent Dictatorship or Capitalizt, to use NationStates terminology.

My idea of an ideal ruler would be a benevolent autocrat (dictator or king) who favours small-government, libertarian, and right-wing policies, deriving his authority from a constitution that prevents him from getting too powerful. ... Free-market economics and extensive civil rights would be in place, and the leader would use referendums to seek public opinion on new laws and influence his decision (though as leader, he has the ultimate say). Basically, it's constitutional autocracy with an element of direct democracy.

To sum it up, my ideal vision of a benevolent autocrat would grant the people a wide range of personal and economic freedoms, but be stern on those who break the rules. He would remain accountable to the constitution and to the people, likely with some use of public referendums, and there would be a procedure for kicking him out via public referendum if he got too corrupt.

That's a good idea in theory, but it almost never works to its intended effect.

[Vallermoore]

Pluses of democracy
1-allows peaceful government changes.
2-is a check on the worst government abuses.
3-makes wars less likely.

Minuses of democracy

1-lets the stupid, ignorant, racist, poor, greedy people have as much of a say as the wealthy, rich, clever people.
2-encouages demagogues and liars to become politicians.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Pluses of democracy
1-allows peaceful government changes.
2-is a check on the worst government abuses.
3-makes wars less likely.

Minuses of democracy

1-lets the stupid, ignorant, racist, poor, greedy people have as much of a say as the wealthy, rich, clever people.
2-encouages demagogues and liars to become politicians.

In autocracies, rulers seem to be on average more racist and greedy than the general population, and what's wrong with giving rich and poor people an equal say in the running of the government?

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

As opposed to what?

As opposed to the idea that democracy has innate value.

I think that democracy is vital for holding leaders to account and for giving the people a say in how they're governed. Does that count as thinking it has innate value?

[United Muscovite Nations]

As opposed to the idea that democracy has innate value.

I think that democracy is vital for holding leaders to account and for giving the people a say in how they're governed. Does that count as thinking it has innate value?

If you think that those two things are innately valuable. I don't think we should go very far in placing moral value on abstract political systems. Also, as an aside, I don't think democracy accomplishes either of those two things.

[VoVoDoCo]

If you don't mind not having rights, dealing with unaccountable corrupt officials, and potentially being persecuted for having a certain ideas.

I'm not saying its my personal preference. I'm just saying that democracy is not the only viable option for a 21st century government. Other societies don't value democracy as much and that's fine. Societies should decide for themselves what style of government they want. If they don't want democracy then it should not be forced upon them.

But you ARE saying that democracy is how we get socialists and communists in office. Saying American Democracy resulting in AOC's victory and China's authoritarian government are both equally viable options is absurd to say the least

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I think that democracy is vital for holding leaders to account and for giving the people a say in how they're governed. Does that count as thinking it has innate value?

If you think that those two things are innately valuable. I don't think we should go very far in placing moral value on abstract political systems. Also, as an aside, I don't think democracy accomplishes either of those two things.

I think it accomplishes those two things far better than any other system. And I forgot to mention, democracy is the one thing most strongly correlated with overall freedom. Compare any modern democracy to any modern autocracy, the difference is staggering.

[United Muscovite Nations]

If you think that those two things are innately valuable. I don't think we should go very far in placing moral value on abstract political systems. Also, as an aside, I don't think democracy accomplishes either of those two things.

I think it accomplishes those two things far better than any other system. And I forgot to mention, democracy is the one thing most strongly correlated with overall freedom. Compare any modern democracy to any modern autocracy, the difference is staggering.

The vast majority of leaders win their re-elections, regardless of approval rating, and the general public is poorly informed about issues, usually meaning that people aren't held to account at all, regardless of their poor decisions. Moreover, democracy doesn't give the people a say in the bureaucratic processes that run government.

Overall freedom isn't necessarily a good thing.

[CrvenaParsa]

It's always those who have only lived in democracy's that complain loudest at the faults of that system. I grew up in a dictatorship and can tell you that it's a shit place to live. There are a few people on NS who currently live in dictatorships and can tell you that they make life needlessly shit.

Also defending your point by quoting Pinochet proves you don't have the strongest grasp on what his Chile looked like.

Depends on the dictatorship. For example i once lived in a country that at the time was run by a fairly benevolent Military dictator and their was quite a lot of freedom and compared to some of its neighbors, less press restrictions.

[VoVoDoCo]

It's always those who have only lived in democracy's that complain loudest at the faults of that system. I grew up in a dictatorship and can tell you that it's a shit place to live. There are a few people on NS who currently live in dictatorships and can tell you that they make life needlessly shit.

Also defending your point by quoting Pinochet proves you don't have the strongest grasp on what his Chile looked like.

Depends on the dictatorship. For example i once lived in a country that at the time was run by a fairly benevolent Military dictator and their was quite a lot of freedom and compared to some of its neighbors, less press restrictions.

What country?

[CrvenaParsa]

Depends on the dictatorship. For example i once lived in a country that at the time was run by a fairly benevolent Military dictator and their was quite a lot of freedom and compared to some of its neighbors, less press restrictions.

What country?

Pakistan under Musharraf

[Heloin]

Depends on the dictatorship. For example i once lived in a country that at the time was run by a fairly benevolent Military dictator and their was quite a lot of freedom and compared to some of its neighbors, less press restrictions.

What country?

Doesnotexististan.

[CrvenaParsa]

What country?

Doesnotexististan.

Pakistan under Musharraf ooga booga

[Thermodolia]

Why is democracy so widely seen as a good and/or great form of government? What has been it’s fruits?

I’m an American, maybe I’ve just never lived under other government forms, but to me democracy just doesn’t seem that great, it’s the system that elects socialists and communists who, historically speaking, have devastated economies and entire countries and societies and caused immense human misery. To quote Pinochet: “democracy is the system that chooses Barabbas over Jesus”
What do y’all think, NSG?

US isn't a democracy, its a constitutional republic.

The US is most definitely a democracy. One can be both a constitutional republic and a democracy they aren’t an either or proposition

[First American Empire]

US isn't a democracy, its a constitutional republic.

The US is most definitely a democracy. One can be both a constitutional republic and a democracy they aren’t an either or proposition

Democracies don't put people in power when they lose elections by 2.8 million votes.

[Heloin]

The US is most definitely a democracy. One can be both a constitutional republic and a democracy they aren’t an either or proposition

Democracies don't put people in power when they lose elections by 2.8 million votes.

Not being a particularity good democracy doesn't necessarily make it not a democracy.