is democracy realy that good
 

continued from other thread


I apologize for sounding arrogant, but its just that the first month of my last international relations class could have been entitled why Adamarks last post is wrong. This is not ment to be insulting. It dealt with dismissing common misconceptions about democracy.

Now onto the meat of the post, yes a government that rules by fear can be legitimate and accepted by the people. No government anywhere has the ability to both complete unpopular and be in power. if you look at most dictatorships they have the strong support of a majority. In order to control the dissenting minority measures are usually taken, but there not always as vicious as Stalin or Saddam, Mussolini was known to force feed a bottle of cod liver oil to dissenting journalists as a first warning. Some dictatorships even have measures that allow the people to voice dissent, Cuba has the policy of allowing criticism of government actions as long as there is no criticism of the system of government itself. But over all a people accept a government if they don’t rebel and overthrow it, oddly enough the only system of government that can servive while unpopular is a democracy, if a dictator becomes unpopular it’s days are numbered.


It is a common misconception that democracy brings prosperity and enlightenment to a society, if one looks at the great democracies one sees that before they shifted to democracy they where already quite prosperous and educated with a large middle class. I was the middle class of America both America and France that led the charge to revolution. In Canada and England it was far less bloody (at least towards the end) but the same could still be said. Now lets look at other was democracy has developed. The Weimar Republic was brought into existence in a poor uneducated country with a small middle class, and it fell to dictatorship. But one might add that brought about the prosperity and education necessary for it to become a democracy after the war. Japan is a special case, while it was still largely feudal when occupied by the Americans it was a very agreeable occupied country, something we may never see again, and allowed the Americans to engineer there society over seven years bringing about the elements necessary for democracy.

Now lets look at Africa, want to know how to tell the difference between the countries that where prosperous before they became democracies and the ones that weren’t? there the ones that still are.

Oh, right. Governments which use intimidation to repress people who don't agree with them in their entirety are vastly superior to democracies, where we can elect or choose not to elect our own representatives.

Democracies don't instantly bring some sort of enlightened society, but dictatorships bring what everyone has already seen. Honestly, something tells me the freedom of choice kind of outweighs fearing for either my life, or cod liver oil, or whatever extreme measures are taken against me in the dead of night.

Everything about that post is why dictatorships are horrible. Democracies don't get overthrown because if you don't like the government, you elect a new one. Power is in the hands of the people, limiting the possibility of corruption and abuse.

I have absolutely no idea why you would even fathom that a democracy could be worse than a dictatorships. Dictators are almost never benevolent. I can't even think of one who is. Becuase even the 'nice' ones feed their journalists cod liver oil or whatever.

first of all, find me a "nice" dictator. all dictators are either communists, religious fanatics or corrupt beyond all measure in some thirdworld nation. secondly, a dictator cannot, as shiney said, lack the support of the people, but it can maintain order in the people. in world war two, the military ruled Japan, and i would assume they kept order with force.

and yes, again as shiney pointed out, democracy does not lead to instantaneous enlightenment, it doesnt fix all of the problems. hell, it took us 10 years to write the constitution, just because its not an instant fix doent mean it doesnt work.

Something I wanted to point out on the topic of democracy.
Another one most of you should recognize.
I tried something like that on my own a while back. The problem is, it's impossible to create a government that's completely free from corruption. The worst part is, anarchy is worse. Fortunately, our scattering of bureacracy just minimizes it by giving everyone too little power to do much harm.

lifebecomeslessdefined:
From the online dictionary:
dictator
1. a.An absolute ruler.
##b. A tyrant; a despot.

So, by definition, kings (when they don't have to deal with parliaments and such) are dictators. I'm pretty sure if you go back through history, you'll find a king who was "nice." Perhaps Hezekiah?

One more quote on democracy and I'm done.

Dictators are all evil? Are you saying that if you were given absolute power, you would instantaneously abandon all of your morals and start dipping babies in the McDonalds deep-fryers to feed your army of bee-spitting attack dogs?

"That absolute power corrupts, and absolute power is kinda cool" axiom is just a cop-out. People with any sense of morality aren't corrupted by power, they're corrupted by their internal desires to act out against their social self-image. A dictatorship is just a way of cutting the fat. Does ANYONE have ANY idea how long the UN has been deliberating on Darfur, while people are still blown away, starving, naked, and screaming every day? I mean, hell, the US Senate is STILL passing bills to limit oil consumption that have been in deliberation for nearly a decade. A dictator is simply someone who has the ability to say "Ok, you guys, right the fuck now, use 10% less oil. No, I don't care how you do it, do it. You guys, you guys down there, you need jobs, so I'm going to put you to work for these guys to get them to use less oil. You bunch, I'm going to put through college, since the income tax you will give us for the rest of your life afterwards will pay for your schooling ten times over. You, you guys down there, you're going to stop killing eachother, or I'll bomb you both into the ground. There, see, all of a sudden you want to work out your problems, eh?"

The only problem is, when a country reaches a certain size, the social centres of morality get so far apart they can't even see eachother anymore (Modern Libertarian, Democratic Concervative). Countries need to be small. Small countries are composed entirely of people who think roughly the same way, IE, war is bad, art is good. The US, as an example, is full of millions and millions of people with diametrically opposed views, and yet have identical people to vote for, so no-ones happy with the system. Plus beaurocracy is proven to expand at a faster rate than the population, in order to keep an acceptable buffer between the upper levels of government and the body politic, which is an out of shape body with no idea how politics work.

But, hey, thats just me. I'm unpopular for more reasons than this.

I actually agree, WanderingWombat. See, here in Ecuador, we have a special issue. We have a Dictocrat. He describes this as dictator to the oligarchy (which exists) and democrat to the people. (Doesn't that make him controller of the controllers, therefore dictator...?) He is really the president, but he could kill a couple of folks and become dictator soon enough. He also has complete control of the Courts and majority in Congress. Really, this country could almost use it. Our idea of democracy is forcing everyone to vote for someone they don't like, and watchng him steal and bullshit until the next election. It is really that bad. However, this bastard will just continue to steal and bullshit. The dictator needs to be an outsider, or someone who thinks like one. Too much corruption in Ecuadorian society. Any of you want to take over a third world country? (or, psst, tell the UN we want them to interfere here.)

Regardless, a dictator is cool when the situation is as out of hand as it is here. Then the only thing that will save you is getting someone to tell people to straighten their act up, or get cod liver oil down their throat (or, more likely, a bullet in the head). Especially in areas where an oligarchy has taken over, and everyone else is too poor and uneducated to know better. In places like the US, it would be a waste. Democracy is good over there.

As for the comment on finding the 100 smartest people... I personally think that that would work better than leaving everything up to a bunch of idiots, but frankly it is better if the people elect someone than if he is force-fed to them.

To sum myself up:
*Ecuador is has a shitty government...
*...which is a good example of where a dictaroship would be good.
*In all other cases, democracy is better, though the right dictator would probably do a better job.

Democracy's great. it works and helps communities settle their differences. We don't have a democracy here in the U.S. though. We have a Representative Democracy which is a watered down democracy which is mostly reflects very little of what the people want and all of what the goverment wants. Ever notice how a President totally loses the popular vote, yet some how wins the other, more important one? We vote for other people to vote for us, and they will only possibly vote for us. Does anyone notice the problem with that?

Now, a representative Democracy can work well, it just needs the involvement of everyone to participate in the decisions made for our country, rather than just vote for someone else to do it. Unless in reality America is really run by a shadowy group of people who influence the media and the like to forward their regimes. The Patriots are out there!

Edit: The Founding fathers weren't exactly the brightest peas in the pod, they were just the only ones who gave a damn. But I'll admit it, people are stupid.
Edit2: It's good to know I'm not the only one posting at 12:45 in the morning

But, what you just said was, "A representative democracy can work well, it just needs to not be a representative democracy." The whole point of having the representatives is that they do what we want they think is best for their _____(Country, State, Region, County), instead of what they think we want them to do. If they don't do anything, then what exactly are they representing? Besides, do you remember how long it takes for a Presidential election? Imagine constant campaigning, only for issues, instead of candidates. "Vote yes on Article 156-4.5B. Your life may depend on it." Quite frankly, in a nation as large as the US, only a republic such as ours could even POSSIBLY work. Besides, the founders thought that the common man was too stupid to vote on important decisions for the country...and having walked around outside my room, I have to say I don't blame them...

No. Democracy is not a good core principle.

Liberty is a good core principle. As much as possible, people should be self govern. But when states are needed, people need to have a say in their state, as well. Its an extension of self government.

Democracy could imply that the Mob gets to rule individual lives. However, None of us is as dumb as all of us. People are better at solving their own problems then anyone else, not to mention considerably more motivated to do so.

It is that reason why democracy is good. People get together and decide on solutions to their mutual problems. Autocracy is way too far on the other side. One person, unmotivated and often unable to solve people's individual problems gets to make decisions that effect everyone, but usually not himself? Besides being Wrong in my book, its just not effective. Yes, its often quick, but it rarely serves the people. At least, not as well as people can serve themselves.

I guess I could respect the point of view that some people are wiser then others. Its hard to deny. But I don’t think that gives one person the right, or even the ability, to rule others against their consent. The connection between a man’s consciousness and his actions is how we humans survive, and we do it well. Taking the place of another man’s mind is clumsy and destructive, no matter how wise one person is.

And this isn't even factoring malicious intent of dictators, or any politician

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others"

-Winston Churchill