Is Democracy really the answer?

[RandFan]

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.

Thanks Roadtoad, I was a bit bit strong. I get my buttons pushed especially when it comes to Democracy. Not that everyone has to like it.

 

[Skeptic]

Democracy is the tyranny of the majority.

Communisim is the tyranny of the educated.

I think you mean, "Marxism is the opium of the intellectuals".

 

[Correa Neto]

You know, I bet the apologists of "strong governments" never actually lived under the umbrella of an authoritarian regime.

They would benefit from the experience.

I remember Brazil's right-wing millitary governments. Very good if you are part of the ruling elite or a no-brainer.

 

[Sushi]

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.

Whomever we have in office is ultimately dependent on some majority. Since there is no real "ruling class". Yes, representative democracy (which is of course different from democracy but similar enough in my eyes, and I don't think I've suggested otherwise.

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.

You are neither diplomatic or accomodating; you are rude, ignorant, and presumptious. And probably pretentious.

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.

I don't care what you think about my opinion; I threw it in to clarify my stance and seperate myself from a-D.

When I say it appeals to the lowest common denominator, it is because that is who politicians appeal to to get the necessary votes--a sarcastic remark on the education of the populace, of course. If we had lived in some fantasy world with philosopher kings making all the right decisions, in my opinion we wouldn't be having these silly debates over such things like evolution in schools or pornography, which the answers are already there but the ignorance of the public only causes problems.

If you want a good idea at the state of our government, look at the last election.

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.

Don't make the mistake that I think the public holds the reins directly; the "system" (I hesitate to use that phrasing due to its connotation with lesser thinkers) is far more complex than that. After all, the public cannot know everything a politician will do, for one.

But at the core it is some majority that has the power; that and the prison of habit of the two "ruling" political parties.

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 -

Scientific progress that, naturally, occurs over time.

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.

Do not confuse me for an apologist for communism; Communism in all its forms, idealized or not, is the exact opposite of what I stand for and is far worse than what we have today.

And again, while some of this may be due to democracy, it may not be. The fact that we are in another age of scientific revolution and we also have a revolution in rights (relative to the past!) does not mean one caused the other. It could be that due to some facet of human psychology, increased technological application may lead to us seeking democracy or getting more freedoms, for example.

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 take a purely individual take on rights and how to live; as such I do not believe in personally following an unjust law or enforcing injust laws. So to me, it does not matter if the laws come from a monarch or the masses. I'll take whatever offers me the freedoms I want (again, not talking anarchy) even if it includes subverting democracy (within what little means I possibly could) because the masses the politicians play to (or are played by, in a sort of reciprocal determinism) make a decision anathema to what I find acceptable.

I see no solution to this problem, either; too often we expect there to be a solution when there isn't one at all.

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.

Well, not all improvements; I was addressing what you listed as improvements democracy supposedly gives us, which was quite broad.

Why not? What other standard is there?

As a standard of governance? None, of course, but my personal standard is what I find acceptable and damned on how many other people view otherwise.

Again, I am taking an individual stance: I am powerless and will be ruled by the norms and dogmas of society (or a central ruler, in a dictatorship) whether I agree with them or not. I'll take whatever makes me freer or appeals to my sensibilities.

Not really a revolutionary or different philosophy; I doubt any of us support laws regarding the selling of sex paraphenalia, and I hope none of us would enforce the law even if were were obligated to, such as working in law-enforcement. I, however, do not personally accept "well, the people voted on it..." or "well, the politicians voted on it..." as valid ways to live my life.

I suppose some of my views are echoed in Thoreau's Civil Disobedience, for reference.

---

I'll admit that I do have some problems... elaborating what I think.

 

[Sushi]

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.

And thus the circus begins. Rudetoad, ever so habitually biased and blind beyond belief. Are you a troll (hah)? I suspect so, as I don't see any name calling to DO (?) or fowlsound. The name calling started with Randfan's presumptious and insulting response to me.

The circus of "troll" name-calling here on this forum is quite amusing; it is like reading fundamentalists on a Christian website accusing someone of being a "liberal." Of course, though, anyone who disagrees with you on something that stirs the emotions is a troll, on the internet.

And again, as for a-D, he is not so much a troll (here, that is; he does "serious" trolling on the side, I do not suspect he is really doing it here however) in the sense that he believes what he writes, though he may be extra-expressive about it given that he knows he will run into some disagreement here.

 

[delphi_ote]

The circus of "troll" name-calling here on this forum is quite amusing; it is like reading fundamentalists on a Christian website accusing someone of being a "liberal."

Have you posted in other forums? What you're describing is actually extremely common these days no matter where you go.

 

[emperorchaos]

Hey I'm anti-democracy too but that's just because I think I should rule absolutely. I think I'd assign the whole of the JREF as my royal advisors.

 

[Sushi]

Have you posted in other forums? What you're describing is actually extremely common these days no matter where you go.

I know...

"Of course, though, anyone who disagrees with you on something that stirs the emotions is a troll, on the internet."

 

[Sushi]

Hey I'm anti-democracy too but that's just because I think I should rule absolutely. I think I'd assign the whole of the JREF as my royal advisors.

Sounds good to me! Of course, the "I" I am quoting really refers to "I" I.

 

[Sushi]

Also, here is a criticism of our democratic system that I'm sure at least most of us can agree with:

 

[Roadtoad]

If you think RandFan is rude, pompous, and offensive, I would suggest you re-read some of your posts. Pretend someone else wrote what you did, about you. Then tell me how "rude" RandFan has been.

I know the man. You know nothing about him, and that's too bad. Because you'd probably be a better person for it.