Is democracy self-destructive?

[HunterSeeker]

Assuming that a nation that is democratic will have its quality of life and happiness of its citizens increase constantly, with some times where it decreases of cource.

This means that as people becomes more happy and comfortible with thier current situation their debates will become quiter and fewer and fewer will become involved with politics as they are comfortible in thier current situation.

As the people become less and less polically active they will loose intrest in actually ruling the nation, the precentage of voters will go down significantly and this will open the way for an ambitious individual who is all to happy to take the troubles of ruling the nation away from the people.

Opinions?

 

[Llama]

Well since no democracy has constantly increasingly happy civilians (or constant improvements) It's a bit of a moot point.
No democracy functions like that, and we see the evidence all around us today.

 

[HunterSeeker]

Well since no democracy has constantly increasingly happy civilians (or constant improvements) It's a bit of a moot point.
No democracy functions like that, and we see the evidence all around us today.

I really meant that the population gets more happy overall over time, as democracy improves their life more then it makes it worse.

 

[Jintor]

People are too stupid to let that happen.

 

[15357]

The problem with democracy is not that people don't vote, it's that people do vote. People don't know what's good for them, and for democracy to work people have to be sufficiently educated.


Of course, I'd be more than happy to, you know, help people out.

 

[Jintor]

You're going to cull the people who you consider 'idiots', aren't you.

 

[15357]

Of course not. Put them in interment camps, maybe, but never kill them. It'd immoral.

 

[Tagaziel]

Of course not. Put them in interment camps, maybe, but never kill them. It'd immoral.

15357 Korea rule bellyfeel goodest goodthinkwise?

 

[clarky003]

Well it's not really a democracey, we are told it is all the time, but it isn't, we get a few votes.. and 51% of people can decide for the other 49%, so it's far from any true democratic society. It's more comparable to a kleptocracey, and I believe we delude ourselves when we call it a proper democracey, all you have to do is compare it to what the greeks had.

 

[Tagaziel]

Even the Greek system was imperfect, the assemblies were very, very vulnerable to manipulation by demagogs.

 

[theotherguy]

Well, the US (for example) is only a republic and not a true democracy and therefore only an extremely tiny body of about 300 people make all of the laws and decisions. We only elect the 300 or so people. (I am talking nationally of course)

and voter apathy has always been a scourge in every democracy. The truth of the matter is, any large number of people ruling tend to make sound decisions because they always vote towards the middle (because people on extremes would rather take a centrist candidate than one on the opposite extreme).

Unfortunatley democracy also opens up an unequal and inneficient distribution of resources (mainly because of special interest groups having sway over politicians, and the net cost to average americans of any large and unnecessary public works plan or military budget is too low to end such projects)

But on a whole I think democracy works much better than hardcore authoritarianism, autocracy or oligarchy. Peaceful anarchy with unlimited resources is of course probably the best form of government, but unfortunatley not all people would be peaceful and resources are limited, meaning violence, chaos and a lowering of the human condition.

 

[kirovman]

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

 

[15357]

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

Heh, I remember reading that somewhere.... but forgot.


I beleive in democracy. No, really.


Ok, actualy more in that educated democracy of the authoritarian goverment of my utopian ideals.

 

[Operational]

In Australia it is compulsory to vote, we get a voter turn out of about 95 percent.
http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/RN/1996-97/97rn29.htm

 

[Nemesis6]

Of course democracy is self-destructive. It gives the wrong people the right to voice their wrong opinions, and makes the rest of the people strangle their own free speech and to a greater extent, that of others, with political correctness.

 

[Jintor]

And the alternative is...?

 

[15357]

And the alternative is...?

Order! Justice! Freedom! Stability! Prosperity! And whatever words that sounds good to you!

 

[theotherguy]

Of course democracy is self-destructive. It gives the wrong people the right to voice their wrong opinions, and makes the rest of the people strangle their own free speech and to a greater extent, that of others, with political correctness.

except in other forms of government when the wrong people get into power, the right people are shot or thrown into prison. Then the only way to get the wrong people out of power is to shoot them in turn, which leads to violence and chaos.

 

[XANA]

Guess what I just did... I just visited the Phelps' website and contacted them and asked them if they like kiwis. Then I told them I laughed when I saw the video of Shirley Phelps getting hit by a sheriff. Yeah, off topic but I thought you guys needed to know. I'll tell you if they reply...
I CAN'T WAIT!!!:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

 

[99.vikram]

The only thing destroying democracy where I live is vote bank politics..

 

[gick]

Guess what I just did... I just visited the Phelps' website and contacted them and asked them if they like kiwis. Then I told them I laughed when I saw the video of Shirley Phelps getting hit by a sheriff. Yeah, off topic but I thought you guys needed to know. I'll tell you if they reply...
I CAN'T WAIT!!!:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

Where is this video?

 

[spookymooky]

Well, democracies have voted themselves out of existence time and time again...

 

[Nemesis6]

Cough, Venezuela, cough?

 

[Kadayi]

Democracy might well exist, but certainly not in this solar system.

 

[cuzza07]

i agree, but we cannot overgeneralize the presumptions which emulates among this discussion, clearly interdigestion is common, but uncliently i urge directly that intergration be the main aspect to our overstimulation, generally i would not mentrurate this issue but recently underconversions have been made clear among my state capatalist injustice system, for instance if these intolerated people really expect us the juvenalate our views lively than i perposteroise.

 

[CptStern]

i agree, but we cannot overgeneralize the presumptions which emulates among this discussion, clearly interdigestion is common, but uncliently i urge directly that intergration be the main aspect to our overstimulation, generally i would not mentrurate this issue but recently underconversions have been made clear among my state capatalist injustice system, for instance if these intolerated people really expect us the juvenalate our views lively than i perposteroise.

lol, it's the attack of the unintelligible! that is what I perposteroise! mentrurate not this question as it is juvenalate

 

[Asknoone]

The problem with democracy is not that people don't vote, it's that people do vote.

A fair point, actually.

 

[Jintor]

I'm depressed now, Numbers. Thanks a lot.

And, to Stern; he's just trying to mastubate words into sentences, even if he doesn't know what they mean.

 

[15357]

A fair point, actually.

Yay!

I'm depressed now, Numbers. Thanks a lot.

And, to Stern; he's just trying to mastubate words into sentences, even if he doesn't know what they mean.

Indeed. :smoking:

 

[AJ Rimmer]

Well the obvious problem with democracy is that if 51% of the people vote for someone, there are 49% of the people who are gonna be really unhappy with who's running the country. And if there's more than two parties, like in sweden, more than 70% of all the voters hate the current government.

 

[Gray Fox]

Well the obvious problem with democracy is that if 51% of the people vote for someone, there are 49% of the people who are gonna be really unhappy with who's running the country. And if there's more than two parties, like in sweden, more than 70% of all the voters hate the current government.

That can't be IIRC in Sweden the parties form alliances to achive the majority.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

That can't be IIRC in Sweden the parties form alliances to achive the majority.

This is true, however the party that got the most votes still gets the most seats in parliment, and those who voted for another party in that alliance obviously didn't want that. They wanted the alliance to win, but they wanted a different party to lead it. And my point still stands.

 

[Gray Fox]

It's still seems pretty fair, since the party that leads it did get the most votes. I mean I would like my party lead the government, but if the majority disagree then so be it. Besides all the parties need to compromise a bit in their views to stay in the alliances, so it's not like that one party has a monopoly on the governing.
The only way to improve it would be to have a system where voters rank the parties according to their preference.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

It's still seems pretty fair, since the party that leads it did get the most votes. I mean I would like my party lead the government, but if the majority disagree then so be it. Besides all the parties need to compromise a bit in their views to stay in the alliances, so it's not like that one party has a monopoly on the governing.
The only way to improve it would be to have a system where voters rank the parties according to their preference.

Well, I voted for a party that wasn't in the alliance so I can be as unhappy as I want with the current government

 

[Gray Fox]

Which party.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

Which party.

Green Party. T'is a left-wing party, the alliance is right-wing.

 

[Gray Fox]

You pussy, should have voted for the socialist party. The veggies are weak.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Democracy is difficult to maintain.

It must operate on the principle that every citizens's vote and generally, every citizens's influence on government is equal, yet it's almost impossible in practise to stop the exercise of undemocratic power. Every personal fortune, favour, vested interest, personal alleigance etc weighs down on the system like a rubber sheet until it gets to the point where certain people - those with money, power, influence or all three - command far more influence on the country than anyone else. This is anti-democratic and arguably the gravest threat representation in government currently faces.

It's as impossible to have a perfectly operating democracy as it is to have a perfectly operating society, but considering the alternatives it is probably worth giving it the best shot we can.

 

[repiV]

The problem also is that in the 21st century, public opinion is generally meaningless as it is little more than the sum total of media brainwashing.
Government can never be truly fair, just or represent everyone's best interests. The only solution is a small government with little influence.

 

[Sulkdodds]

But then isn't it likely that other power interests - corporate, media, private individuals, workers unions, whatever - will assert influence where government does not? Kind of a damned if you do/don't situation.

That said, on the subject of 'media brainwashing', it's arguable that as independent methods of quickly and easily broadcasting/accessing information become more commonplace and more powerful, combined with methods of recording - hell, at some point people will be able to use themselves as walking cameras - this can be countered. Will media be better if everyone participates in it? If the principle of the internet is applied?

I think it's somewhat like (and linked) to the idea of sousveillance. Consider: you're never going to be able to stop government or whoever from using security cameras and suchlike against you; you'll never stop them from abusing modern technology to collect every detail of your life.

The answer, then, is surely for everyone to do it back. If every single person had cameras in their eyes, wireless internet in their head, recorders in their ears, then it'd be damn near impossible to stop people from recording anything and everything.

The paradigm of a collaborative media might one day be the most powerful defence against anti-democratic power distortion. I have my doubts, but a man can hope.