• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is Democracy really the answer?

Sushi said:
Also, Roadtoad, he was suspended due to the information thing.
Click to expand...
I'm curious, how do you know?

Personally, I hate democracy because it appeals to the lowest common denominator(republicanism is just a version of the same thing, I think).
Click to expand...
?

To quote Dean Vernon Wermer "...stupid is no way to go through life son."

I'm not talking about your opinion of Democracy. I could really not care less. I'm talking about ignorance of the subject.

Republic

...in its broadest sense the idea of a Republic can include almost any form of government that is not a Monarchy.
Click to expand...

Democracy

...a system where the population of a society controls the government
Click to expand...

So no, they are not the same. Bear in mind the framers of the American Constitution were students of history and understood very well the problems inherent in governments. They knew that they couldn't make a perfect system but they believed that could devise a pretty damn good one. And they did. It's called representative democracy.

Here, check it out.

Representative democracy is a form of democracy founded on the exercise of popular sovereignty by the people's representants. It is a theory of civics in which voters choose (in free, secret, multi-party elections) representatives to act in their interests, but not as their proxies—i.e., not necessarily according to their voters' wishes, but with enough authority to exercise initiative in the face of changing circumstances.
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine).

So no, it doesn't necessarily appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Hey, do yourself a favor, take a moment and look up the concepts and terms you want to discuss. Heed Dean Wermer's advice.

Why does a "good" solution even have to exist? I propose that there is no good solution.
Click to expand...
Well, for thousands of years the majority of people floundered in poverty, ignorance, lack of dignity, no redress and tyranny yearning for freedom. If their masters so chose the humble masses could be killed, tortured or starved without any saying or input on their part. Their lot in life was to a large degree beyond their control. If they were intelligent or gifted but not favored my those in power their talents were unrewarded. If they were industries and wanted to work hard to get ahead they had to hope for the favor of those in power.

I guess you could argue that "good" is relative and I would be inclined to agree. However compared to solutions of the past this solution is DAMN good.

Also, he hates libertarianism.
Click to expand...
In the end who cares?
 
Last edited:
Sushi, you wouldn't happen to be a sock of anti-Democracy, would you? This smacks of someone who wanted to "good cop, bad cop" a forum for fun.


ETA:

This is the first announcement on the forum I can find that says why anti-Democracy was suspended, but your post explaining to Roadtoad was roughly three hours earlier. How did you know the reason he was suspended?
 
Last edited:
fowlsound said:
Sushi, you wouldn't happen to be a sock of anti-Democracy, would you? This smacks of someone who wanted to "good cop, bad cop" a forum for fun.


ETA:

This is the first announcement on the forum I can find that says why anti-Democracy was suspended, but your post explaining to Roadtoad was roughly three hours earlier. How did you know the reason he was suspended?
Click to expand...
Sushi has been around for a year longer (October 2004 vs. Sept 2005,) he seems to have contributed quite a bit (though mostly in politics... I'm not sure if that constitutes "contributing" ;) ) always leaps into threads about democracy and the constitution (they seem to be something he's interested in,) and he posts in a very different style than our troll. That would be one HELL of a setup for a good cop routine!

I think his post about the suspension was probably just a lucky educated guess.
 
delphi_ote said:
Sushi has been around for a year longer (October 2004 vs. Sept 2005,) he seems to have contributed quite a bit (though mostly in politics... I'm not sure if that constitutes "contributing" ;) ) always leaps into threads about democracy and the constitution (they seem to be something he's interested in,) and he posts in a very different style than our troll. That would be one HELL of a setup for a good cop routine!

I think his post about the suspension was probably just a lucky educated guess.
Click to expand...



Point taken, but it would not be unheard of to use a proxy program and post as someone else, even evading posting style. As for socks and join dates, Tai Chi would be evidence the two don't have much to do with each other.

I'd like to see the answer to how he knew about the suspension.
 
fowlsound said:
Sushi, you wouldn't happen to be a sock of anti-Democracy, would you? This smacks of someone who wanted to "good cop, bad cop" a forum for fun.


ETA:

This is the first announcement on the forum I can find that says why anti-Democracy was suspended, but your post explaining to Roadtoad was roughly three hours earlier. How did you know the reason he was suspended?
Click to expand...

His name was added to the thread about people who have not put in their information before that.
 
delphi_ote said:
Sushi has been around for a year longer (October 2004 vs. Sept 2005,) he seems to have contributed quite a bit (though mostly in politics... I'm not sure if that constitutes "contributing" ;) ) always leaps into threads about democracy and the constitution (they seem to be something he's interested in,) and he posts in a very different style than our troll. That would be one HELL of a setup for a good cop routine!

I think his post about the suspension was probably just a lucky educated guess.
Click to expand...

2004? Been here a bit longer than that! This is not my first account; who I really am is not a secret either.
 
AnotherSillyAlias said:
This is the worst part of democracy in my opinion, the pollution.

Look at China, a good communist nation and not even the tiniest hint of pollution anywhere.
Click to expand...

As both Ayn Rand and Julian Simon suggest, care to look at the life expectancy differences between clean China and filthy west?

To be filthy, you have to have industry.
 
I think what Silly Alias meant to illustrate was that China is very polluted, just see the recent spill into a major river.
 
Beerina said:
As both Ayn Rand and Julian Simon suggest, care to look at the life expectancy differences between clean China and filthy west?

To be filthy, you have to have industry.
Click to expand...
And never mind the polution and environmental disaster of the Soviet Union.
 
RandFan said:
So no, they are not the same. Bear in mind the framers of the American Constitution were students of history and understood very well the problems inherent in governments. They knew that they couldn't make a perfect system but they believed that could devise a pretty damn good one. And they did. It's called representative democracy.

Here, check it out.

(emphasis mine).

So no, it doesn't necessarily appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Click to expand...

Rude patronizing tone aside:

Politicians are elected on what they say they are going to do to issues; the majority doesn't understand the issue and thus at the very least it causes significant problems.

I don't recall saying a republic and a democracy were exactly the same; I said they are similar enough--my basis is that the majority, or some majority, will elect the leaders who will campaign on silly "hot-button" issues that most people are not educated enough to know about (i.e. evolution). Different from having the masses vote on things, of course, but obviously a strong parallel.

(Also, as a sarcastic aside, my high school government teacher said it was so people didn't have to vote on every single issue. People today have the mentality that that's true up to the point that it's taught in schools!)

Anyway, nowadays "democracy" usually includes what a republic is in the common vernacular. These semantic games are boring.

Hey, do yourself a favor, take a moment and look up the concepts and terms you want to discuss. Heed Dean Wermer's advice.
Click to expand...

Shut up and stop with the name-calling, troll. You've got a very clever way of calling someone stupid, but it doesn't entertain me. I say you are a troll because of how you try to dig insults while trying to act polite...
Well, for thousands of years the majority of people floundered in poverty, ignorance, lack of dignity, no redress and tyranny yearning for freedom. If their masters so chose the humble masses could be killed, tortured or starved without any saying or input on their part. Their lot in life was to a large degree beyond their control. If they were intelligent or gifted but not favored my those in power their talents were unrewarded. If they were industries and wanted to work hard to get ahead they had to hope for the favor of those in power.

I guess you could argue that "good" is relative and I would be inclined to agree. However compared to solutions of the past this solution is DAMN good.
Click to expand...

Cause =/= correlation; we have natural scientific progress unaccounted for, and shifting ideologies may have been a factor (after all, how can a democracy/REPUBLIC/WHATEVER itself arise; shifting thought in what is acceptable and what isn't is necessary).

I"m not saying that democracy/whatever doesn't contribute or help to this; I think it does--just that not all improvements in society are due to democracy, not exactly a startling proclaimation.

Freer industry, freer people are pretty much beneficial for everyone. Democracy however does not necessarily mean either of those two, though there is a strong historical link.

But I don't think that, just by comparison alone I think it deserves to be called "good".
In the end who cares?
Click to expand...

I was responding to other people's comments.

----

As for anti-Democracy, he is sincere. That doesn't mean he isn't intentionally... what's the word, flamboyant?
 
Last edited:
As for why this is in Religion/Philosophy, beats me. a-D linked me to this topic.
 
Sushi said:
2004? Been here a bit longer than that! This is not my first account; who I really am is not a secret either.
Click to expand...
C'mon! I try to stick up for you, and my thanks is your complaining that I didn't search every detail of your profile? I thought I did a bit of good detective work there! :D
 
delphi_ote said:
C'mon! I try to stick up for you, and my thanks is your complaining that I didn't search every detail of your profile? I thought I did a bit of good detective work there! :D
Click to expand...

Looking under my username is not detective work :P
 
Sushi,

You raise some interesting points, but what solution do you propose? I'm going to paste in the last bit from my response to anti-Democracy, as it's relevant here and may have been overlooked above.

Personally I'm not a great fan of democracy (/republicanism, because there really is no such thing as a pure democracy). It's messy, inefficient, and tends to break down unless the voting population is sufficiently engaged in the process, which has not been the case in the United States for some time now. It also rests on the irrationally egalitarian assumption that every citizen's opinion is as valid as every other citizen's, and that the will of the majority will be correct in most cases. However, it's a more risk-averse strategy than monarchy. A good monarch can rule much more effectively than a democracy, to the greater benefit of all the population. However, a bad monarch can be really, really bad. You're also stuck with a monarch for a long time, generally a matter of several decades, and there's no error-correcting mechanism short of bloody rebellion. Democracy avoids these extremes by keeping society drifting in the doldrums of mediocrity where change, either for good or bad, is more difficult to bring about. On balance, I suppose I prefer the latter approach, but the ideal situation would be to be ruled by an intelligent, benevolent monarch who was actively engaged in the business of government and genuinely concerned with the best interests of the people. If only God were real.
Click to expand...

What's to be done about the fact that turning over ultimate authority from the public to a monarch or small aristocracy greatly enhances the risk to society? It probably is true that a good monarch could govern more effectively than a republic, but a monarch remains "good" only so long as she puts the interests of the public above the interests of herself and her close associates; history suggests that that is a quite uncommon situation.

I agree with you that a representative system is vulnerable to populist manipulation, and that resting ultimate political authority in the hands of the public, which on the whole lacks sufficient expertise to hold informed opinions on most complex issues, is not generally likely to produce the best policy decisions from an objective viewpoint. I disagree, though, in that I democracy/republicanism does seem more likely to protect individual liberties than any other system I can imagine. If the exercise of political power is usually dictated by the self-interest of the group wielding power, it seems to follow that the public itself will be more likely to preserve individual liberties than would any smaller group of elect lawmakers.

You said a while ago that perhaps there is no good choice of a form of government-- fine, but surely some choices are better than others? Which would you suggest as the least bad?
 
Is Democracy really the answer? ...

Yes, if we can accept the need for structure which, is what a Republic represents.
 
Sushi said:
Politicians are elected on what they say they are going to do to issues; the majority doesn't understand the issue and thus at the very least it causes significant problems.
Click to expand...
Yes, candidates are elected based on their stated positions on issues but the candidates are not proxies. Please understand the difference. We hope for and except our leaders to study, discuss and debate the issues and not simply run to us to ask us for our opinion as to how to vote. Sure our opinion is important to them but it is not the end all be all. Otherwise we could elect representatives by lottery. We don't do that for a reason.

I don't recall saying a republic and a democracy were exactly the same; I said they are similar enough...
Click to expand...
They demonstrably are not similar enough. I'm sorry if I'm being rude but your statement reveals an ignorance of the facts. I posted the definitions. You could read and discern the differences. As concepts they are as similar as baseball bats and aluminum. You could have a baseball bat and you could have aluminum or you could have an aluminum baseball bat.

Different from having the masses vote on things, of course, but obviously a strong parallel.
Click to expand...
No Sushi, no "strong parallels" (see above). Please read the links I posted above.

Shut up and stop with the name-calling, troll. You've got a very clever way of calling someone stupid, but it doesn't entertain me. I say you are a troll because of how you try to dig insults while trying to act polite...
Click to expand...
Life is tough. I can be diplomatic and I can be accommodating but I don't suffer willful ignorance very well. I know you have been on the forums for some time now so you really shouldn't be making such uninformed statements.

Look, I honestly don't care about your ideology. I can respect a difference of opinion. What I can't respect is a willful disregard for the history of civilization and government. To say you hate democracy because it appeals to the lowest common denominator is to be ignorant of the current state of democracy. If you mean a pure Democracy then perhaps I could agree but that is not real world.

There is a reason Western Democracies are representative Democracies and it isn't to save time. It was done in large part to avoid fickle public opinion and the lowest common denominator. Those who founded modern Democracies learned from the mistakes of the past. Democratic governments have actually evolved to avoid the types of problems you raise.

Cause =/= correlation; we have natural scientific progress unaccounted for, and shifting ideologies may have been a factor (after all, how can a democracy/REPUBLIC/WHATEVER itself arise; shifting thought in what is acceptable and what isn't is necessary).
Click to expand...
Your thoughts are disjointed. I don't understand the question. I don't know what natural scientific progress is. I know that when scientists, inventors, innovators and entrepreneurs are free we get -

1.) Advancements in medicine.
2.) Advancements in technology.
3.) Advancements in food production.
4.) Advancements in food storage.
5.) Advancements in knowledge.

We went to the Moon. We went to the bottom of the ocean, We conquered polio and eradicated many diseases. We are feeding a planet. The life expectancy is growing at an unprecedented pace. And here you are, communicating through a decedent western invention that is currently democratizing the world and you use it to bemoan the appeal to the lowest common denominator.

It's true that the Communists got to space before us. But they did it at a terrible cost to them and had to give up the race. The also were not as able to exploit the technology developed the way the West did.

I will concede that Democracy is not perfect. I will concede that Democracy comes at a cost that some, you I presume, are not comfortable with. I concede that the advancements that I speak of bing their own set of problems.

I"m not saying that democracy/whatever doesn't contribute or help to this; I think it does--just that not all improvements in society are due to democracy, not exactly a startling proclaimation.
Click to expand...
No one is claiming that ALL improvements in society are due to Democracy. This is just a straw man. The claim is that Democracy is far more likely to contribute to freedom.

Freer industry, freer people are pretty much beneficial for everyone.
Click to expand...
Thank you, I agree.

Democracy however does not necessarily mean either of those two, though there is a strong historical link.
Click to expand...
There are no guarantees. Democracies can fail. That is not the claim. The claim is that Democracies are far more likely to free and empower citizens than non-Democratic ones.

But I don't think that, just by comparison alone I think it deserves to be called "good".
Click to expand...
Why not? What other standard is there?
 
Last edited:
Sushi, let me get this straight: You are calling RandFan a troll? RandFan?

Let's see: RandFan, with far more respect than you deserve, offered up definitions and explanations. He provided evidence and data. You, on the other hand, are the one name calling, and insulting people like DO and Fowlsound.

Hmmm. If you're looking for a troll, you might check a mirror.

NOBODY attacks my friends.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom