Is Democracy Overrated?

[AmateurScientist]

Re: Re: Re: Is Democracy Overrated?

If everyone in the world restricted their wants and desires to simple things like a nice place to live and good food to eat, the world would be a better place.


Graham

Graham,

With all due respect, I couldn't disagree more. It is precisely because so many people yearn for a better life, one filled with hopes and dreams of better material possessions and comforts, and the freedom that comes with not having to worry about whether or not one can make the next month's rent payment that America has such a strong economy (And these are the same desires that drove western exploration and expansion in the 15th and 16th centuries--hell, throughout most of recorded history).

We are strong economically because we are a nation of greedy, wasteful consumers. Greed and wastefulness and rampant consumerism on a macro scale create demand, entrepreneurialism, innovation, efficiency, the free flow of capital, and economic robustness. Of course, they also lead to undesirable effects, such as inflation and income and wealth disparity among the population. Nothing good ever comes without a cost.

Nevertheless, I'll take the robustness over simple complacency any day of the week.

Complacency and contentedness with just the bare necessities on a macro scale are evils beyond measure, in my opinion. They lead to stagnation and an utter dearth of creativity and innovation in the society. A stagnant society is a dying one.

No thanks.

AS

 

[Graham]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Democracy Overrated?

Graham,

With all due respect, I couldn't disagree more. It is precisely because so many people yearn for a better life, one filled with hopes and dreams of better material possessions and comforts, and the freedom that comes with not having to worry about whether or not one can make the next month's rent payment that America has such a strong economy (And these are the same desires that drove western exploration and expansion in the 15th and 16th centuries--hell, throughout most of recorded history).

We are strong economically because we are a nation of greedy, wasteful consumers. Greed and wastefulness and rampant consumerism on a macro scale create demand, entrepreneurialism, innovation, efficiency, the free flow of capital, and economic robustness. Of course, they also lead to undesirable effects, such as inflation and income and wealth disparity among the population. Nothing good ever comes without a cost.

Nevertheless, I'll take the robustness over simple complacency any day of the week.

Complacency and contentedness with just the bare necessities on a macro scale are evils beyond measure, in my opinion. They lead to stagnation and an utter dearth of creativity and innovation in the society. A stagnant society is a dying one.

No thanks.

AS

Hmm, I'm not advocating complacency, though I can see how it reads like that.

I also have nothing against ambition, as such, certainly not personal ambition. If a person wants to be a doctor or a lawyer or and astronaut then more power to them. If a person sees something wrong with the world then, by all means, they should try and fix it.

What I'm trying to say (my six year old just swore at the dog, btw - I'm actually quite shocked!) what I'm suggesting is that it's wrong to condemn people for just wanting to live their lives, just wanting to be comfortable and happy.

As you say, without ambition and without the drive to succeed, we'd still be stuck in the dark ages but at the end of the day, you have to ask yourself - what's it all for?

Some might say the glory of god, others the glory of the stars and stripes or whatever but ultimately, it's all about a better life for you, me and everyone else. So why condemn people who are happy because that's just what they've got?

Revolutionaries want to change the world and remake into something better, somewhere where everyone will be happy. At the same time, they rail against that small proportion of the world that is actually already happy or at least reasonably so, like they're doing something wrong.

So be as greedy and/or as ambitious as you like (the two are not the same thing, as you know). Strvie towards whatever it is that you think will make you happy or strive because that is what makes you happy. Just don't condemn those people who are already happy and, for goodness sake, don't take that happiness away from them just because you think you know what's good fot them better than they do.

Graham

 

[Malachi151]

I disagree that a society has to be primarlily self serving in order to be robust. For example, I live in South Florida and there are many, many multi-million dolars homes here.

People spend millions and millions of dolars on things that are ultimately not imporant at all.

Our society has created a culture where many people would rather spend money buying something usless for themselves than spend that same money helping someone else.

There is much more DEMAND in the world than there is in the US, there is simply less MEANS to fulfill that deamnd.

People can rally behind and get more excited about war to kill people than a war to help people, for example like the Peace Corps.

If our culture took the attitude to the Peace Corps that we have to the military I guarnetee you that we coudl solve more violence in teh world and create a much, much better, safer, healthier, and happier world. We spend billions of dollars year making weapons and paying armies and people spend millions on trivial home decor because they can't think of anything better to do with their money, when in fact there is plenty that can be done with the money that woudl actually matter and make a diffrence in the world.


People in America don't value that though, they don't value making a difference in the world, they value self gratification to ecxess.

Our culture is based on creatign as much excess as possible in a relatively few individuals to fuel demand. Its just asinine.

Let's go to war, let's mobalize insustry to do what? To go to Africa and South America and help them build essential infrastructure and housing etc.

The thing is, that IS a possibility. As a country we COULD do that if we wanted to, we simply don't want to. Nothing is preventing us from doing that other than our own free will.

 

[LFTKBS]

People in America don't value that though, they don't value making a difference in the world, they value self gratification to ecxess.

That's right, Malachi, and you should also add that it's only Americans, and that no other country on the planet has citizens who are greedy or who are concerned with their own interests. America's greed is so powerful, in fact, that first-generation immigrants start businesses and get jobs just to sate their never-ending hunger for solid-gold limousines and $70 steaks. As an American, I enjoy skewering Guatemalan babies and roasting them over a fire fueled by African hardwoods. I would tell you, Malachi, that all forms of life compete for food and power, including humans and trees and bacteria and koala bears, and that's just the motherf****** way it is, but of course no one can trust me, because I'm pure, concentrated evil.

 

[LFTKBS]

And P.S., you idiots, what are you going to do if someone doesn't vote? Put them in jail? What possible good does that accomplish?

 

[Jessica Blue]

And P.S., you idiots, what are you going to do if someone doesn't vote? Put them in jail? What possible good does that accomplish?

Which idiots are you referring to...those who support compulsory voting?

Since the average turnout rate for an Australian election is 95%, it's unheard of that anyone is sent to jail for not voting. Just because you might not agree with compulsory voting doesn't mean that people who do are *idiots*, when a very reasonable case can be made for it. Just in case you haven't heard one, here are a few points in support of compulsory voting:

Under a non-mandatory system, parties and candidates have to spend alot of energy on just getting the voters to come, energy that could be better spent elsewhere.

Citizens are only required to turn up at a ballot box every few years, so mandatory voting causes very little intrusion on peoples freedoms compared to the many other legal compulsions which are a consequence of living in a society.

There is no doubt compulsory voting means a wider representation of the people and thus it could be argued, a more effective democracy.

Evidence strongly suggests that non-mandatory systems favour conservative governments so many people who desperately need representation are disadvantaged. When political parties know the less powerful groups in a society are going to exercise a vote they are more likely to consider their needs.

No-one is forced to make a "real" vote.

Prior to the introduction of compulsory voting in Australia, voter turnout was only 47%. There appears to be little sense of "oppression" here by being legally compelled to vote and not much antipathy to it. If it's a "compulsion", it's one most Australians accept willingly. Being able to vote is a great thing, that was once denied to many people and is still not an option in parts of the world...it seems a tad *spoilt* to look upon mandatory voting as a drag or a significant infringement on your personal liberty.

Compulsory voting may not suit the American psyche...but it seems to have worked just fine for us.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Compulsory voting may not suit the American psyche...but it seems to have worked just fine for us.

What's the American psyche got to do with it? Of course you have a 95%+ turnout; voting is compulsory. That doesn't make it right. Claiming that only 47% turnout is low, and energies should be better spent elsewhere is farcical. People don't vote not because their apathetic, bet because there is no one worth voting for. If the political parties were actually honest, then more people will vote. Case in point: At the 1997 UK general election, Tony Blair promised that in his first term as PM he would: 1. Introduce more liberal licencing laws; 2. Abolish hunting with dogs; 3. Reform the Lords. He has done none of this things, so at the 2001 election, unsurprisingly, voter turnout was at an all-time low. If politicians could be trusted, more people would suppport them. And compulsory voting is still tyrannical.

 

[billydkid]

Duh!!!

As for compulsory voting, the empirical evidence is in. Countries with compulsory voting have a higher participation rate in elections than those that don't. I think that justifies the 'tyranny' of making voting compulsory justified.

DUH!!!

I think that people who classify compulsory voting as 'tyranny' don't know what a real tyranny is. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, Stalin and Hitler were tyrants.

I'm sorry, you are mistaken. You may not view compulsory voting as tyrannical. I'm sure that those doing Hitler's will didn't think of themselves as tyrants - they thought they were doing the right thing. Mandatory participation is a form of tyranny. Is it as awful as what Stalin did? Well, of course, no. Does that mean it isn't tyranical? Again, no.

 

[Jessica Blue]

Oxford Dictionary
Tyrannical...a despotic or cruel exercise of power.

Compulsory voting cruel and despotic? I don't think so.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Compulsory voting cruel and despotic? I don't think so.

Definitely cruel and despotic. It's despotic by virtue of the fact that it's compulsory. What of my right to abstain as a protest?
And cruel? What could be crueller than being forced to vote for a candidate in whom I have no faith?

 

[Jessica Blue]

It's despotic by virtue of the fact that it's compulsory.

Then I guess all legal compulsions in a society must be despotic.

What of my right to abstain as a protest?

Your right not to turn up at the ballot-box doesn't outweigh the benefits to be had and you already know you dont have to give anyone your vote if you don't wish to.

Of course you have a 95%+ turnout; voting is compulsory.

Sheesh...yes, ironic isn't it. We have a vibrant, highly representative democracy and it's all because of a cruel and despotic law.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
Then I guess all legal compulsions in a society must be despotic.

Then you guess wrong. There is an essential difference between the compulsion against killing and the compulsion to vote. Killing someone inflicts direct harm upon another person, which is a right I do not have. My refusal to vote, however, harms no one.

Your right not to turn up at the ballot-box doesn't outweigh the benefits to be had and you already know you dont have to give anyone your vote if you don't wish to.

So you think I should just show up at the ballot box and then tear up the ballot paper? Where's the sense in that? My right not to turn up outweighs everything ] because it is my right. Governments, by contrast, have no right to force me to attend a voting station. Such compulsion, I reiterate, tyrannical.

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
Sheesh...yes, ironic isn't it. We have a vibrant, highly representative democracy and it's all because of a cruel and despotic law.

It's not vibrant or representative; the principled abstainers are not represented. The disillusioned are not represented. The cynical are not represented. There is no RON (None of the Above) option on the ballot paper, so pretending that the ultimate results is representative is a fraud. If 51% of ballot papers are spoiled, is that counted as a NO vote against all the candidates, and the election recalled? (Don't bother; I already know the answer.) Pretending that compulsory voting invigorates democracy is to play into the hands of the politicians, who are deswperate to conceal the fact that even the incumbent wins on a minority of the votes because the majority of the electorate don't trust them. Of course, being their dupe is what the politicians want all along...
Also, your above paragraph is an insult to all the other countries of the world where voting is not compulsory: Britain, America, Canada, France, New Zealand, Germany, Norway, Sweden, The Netherlands.... The assumption that Australia is somehow more of a democracy because of a compulsion is as daft as screwing for chastity. One of my democratic rights is the right not to vote, nor even to attend the voting. Taking away that right does not enhance the cause of democracy; it subverts it. A fact that you seem to miss completely, so I'm goign to spell it out for you: You do not know better than I do, and you do not have my best interests at heart. I am not your child. So stop trying to tell me what to do. I am quite capable of deciding for myself that all politicians are corrupt and that we would be better off without them. A viewpoint for which I am unable to vote, because the rigged system does not offer that as an option on the ballot paper. So there is no option for me to support. Where is the democracy there? Or can it be that, like the politicians, what you really want is the pretence of validation? If so, I know a good place to start. A place where they have universal compulsory suffrage, and no ability to register a protest vote. It's called North Korea...

 

[Kimpatsu]

...And another thing. There are people who do not vote because it breaches their religious faith, or code of ethics. For example, there are some Buddhist sects that eschew voting as a roadblock to enlightenment; their aim is to avoid being mired down in grubby earthly concerns such as politics. How does compulsory voting benefit them? And how is fining them for their principled stand against voting either a) contributing to a vibrant democracy, or b) different from the Sharia compulsion to fine non-Islamic believers (Xpians, Jews, etc.) in an Islamic state?
Fine example of democracy you have there, Jessica.

 

[Tony]

Is it okay for a society to be indifferent to leaders who engagein wars of aggression (so long as such acts of violence bring material comfort)? Of course not.

Why not? If people have all they want, and they feel fullfilled, why should they care what goes on in the world? I think it is ok, because people have the freedom NOT to care. Do you want to take that freedom away?

 

[Jessica Blue]

Kimpatsu,

I'll just say no, I don't think compulsory voting ensures a perfect democracy or a vastly superior political system...some countries do have high voluntary voter participation rates, such as New Zealand, Sweden and Denmark which all have rates over 80%, conversely, many others have much lower rates.

Regardless, I think it works well for us and I prefer it to the American system. As I understand it, participation rate in the last US Presidential and Congressional elections was very low, which meant that the candidates were effectively elected by a *majority* of 20% or less of eligible voters. The US has been described by some as a "DisneyWorld Democracy", with much hype to cover the low participation rate, voter disenfranchisement, vote rigging and probably vote buying.

It would be great if our society were perfect and we had no need of compulsions, or that politicians were so honest and inspiring that people felt a voluntary sense of civic duty and voted en masse. But in the abscence of perfection, I think the best way to get political parties and their representatives to take account of the needs and opinions of all citizens, is to have a wide representation as possible of those citizens voting.

What I dont buy into is the idea that some people don't "deserve to vote" because they aren't motivated, educated or intelligent enough and we'd have a better democracy if a smaller percentage voted. This would be a sham democracy and an insidious kind of of authoritarianism.

Finally, and the reason I don't balk at the "compulsory" side to our voting system is that at bottom, I do believe in the idea behind the original Athenian democracy ie; that citizens have both rights AND responsibilities. I don't see it as tyrannical at all and if most Australians don't view it that way, where is the problem?


And another thing. There are people who do not vote because it breaches their religious faith, or code of ethics. For example, there are some Buddhist sects that eschew voting as a roadblock to enlightenment; their aim is to avoid being mired down in grubby earthly concerns such as politics. How does compulsory voting benefit them? And how is fining them for their principled stand against voting either a) contributing to a vibrant democracy, or b) different from the Sharia compulsion to fine non-Islamic believers (Xpians, Jews, etc.) in an Islamic state?
Fine example of democracy you have there, Jessica

Don't go overboard. I hardly think turning up at a ballot box every few years is going to shatter anyones religious freedoms. Besides, I don't think Australia should be organizing its political system by walking on eggshells around religious dictates. Some religious sects want to slice up a womans vagina but we dont allow that either. Is that undemocratic?

 

[Kimpatsu]

Don't go overboard. I hardly think turning up at a ballot box every few years is going to shatter anyones religious freedoms. Besides, I don't think Australia should be organizing its political system by walking on eggshells around religious dictates. Some religious sects want to slice up a womans vagina but we dont allow that either. Is that undemocratic?

You've missed the point again. With female circumcision, there is a victim. My desire not to vote is mine and mine along; if I am compelled to vote, then I am the victim of a crime: government tyranny. And it doesn't matter how often you vote; one compulsion is one too many. You have just insulted everyone in these esoteric Buddhist sects who eschew voting, again proving my point that you seem to think that you know better than they do what's in their own best interests. You don't. I know better than anyone what's best for me. If you can dictate my voting requirements, why can't I dictate your dietary habits? Or your sexual preferences? Or anything else for that matter? Tyranny is tyranny, regardless.

 

[corplinx]

Democracy == Mob Rule

In democracy, instead of being led by an evil dictator you are ruled by a mostly ignorant and self-absorbed majority.

Make no mistake, a pure democracy can be as bad or worse than a dictatorship.

Now, federal republics on the other hand I dig.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Democracy == Mob Rule

In democracy, instead of being led by an evil dictator you are ruled by a mostly ignorant and self-absorbed majority.

Make no mistake, a pure democracy can be as bad or worse than a dictatorship.

Now, federal republics on the other hand I dig.

Republics aren't a political system in the way that democracies or dictatorships are. You can have a monarchist dictatorship or a republic democracy; you can't, however, have a monarchist republic.
The point of a real democracy is to make sure that everyone is politically savvy so that the feared "mob rule" is an impossibility, based on the notion that a mob is a mindless entity moving in unison.

 

[Jessica Blue]

You've missed the point again. With female circumcision, there is a victim. My desire not to vote is mine and mine along; if I am compelled to vote, then I am the victim of a crime: government tyranny. And it doesn't matter how often you vote; one compulsion is one too many. You have just insulted everyone in these esoteric Buddhist sects who eschew voting, again proving my point that you seem to think that you know better than they do what's in their own best interests. You don't. I know better than anyone what's best for me. If you can dictate my voting requirements, why can't I dictate your dietary habits? Or your sexual preferences? Or anything else for that matter? Tyranny is tyranny, regardless.

Seems I'm insulting people all over the globe with my insistence that compulsory voting works in Australia and is not tyrannical.

You've missed the point again. With female circumcision, there is a victim.

Okay...yes, female circumcision is a different matter. But I didn't miss the point, I just thought it was absurd. You were trying to claim that the "tyrannical" nature of compulsory voting prevented people from exercising their religious freedoms.

Strictly speaking this might be true...but any effects on religious freedom are negligable and to call this tyranny is the real insult to those who suffer real tyranny and real religious persecution.

If a buddhist doesn't want to sully the purity of his mind with lowly politics he doesn't have to. He can blank out the candidates with some enlightened meditation, pick up his ballot, stuff it in the box and walk out. No-one is dictating his voting...he's merely being required to perform a civic duty by attenting the ballot box.

Such persecution! Such tyranny! Is it reasonable to expect to enjoy the rights of a society without paying any heed to the responsibilities? Sometimes the benefits to a society from a particular law outweigh the benefit of a particular freedom to an individual.

 

[Kimpatsu]

You still miss the point, Jessica. First of all, compulsory voting IS denial of religious freedom. Secondly, the Buddhist doesn't want to go to the polling booth, spoil the paper, and leave. Nor should they have to. Making them do so is to forcibly involve them in an earthly process they find grubby and demeaning. You have no right to force people to do that.
Your parting line about "real tyranny" is the most telling, however. You assume that Australia is a fine western demo0cracy, and so tyranny can never truly happen there, so all objections to the tyranny of cumpulsory voting is mere hyperbole on my part. You're wrong, and your complacency is dangerous, not least because it is capitalised upon by the likes of John Howard and the convict Pauline Hanson. The curtailments of liberty using the excuse of 9/11 are a case in point, but most of all, if you really want to witness the contempt in which Howard holds you, look at how he treats asylum seekers, for in the words of Neil Acheson, "Always watch how a country treats refugees, for that's how they'd treat the rest of us if they thought they could get away with it."