Topic: Democracy Yes OR No ??? - page 4. (Read 16571 times)

1)It is more accountable

It can be more transparent than totalitarian regimes but only if the institutions are strong enough to enforce transparency.

2)The elected leaders need to perform better for their stability

Can be a negative. They only need to LOOk like they are doing a good job, just good enough to be reelected, without consideration for long-term effects of policies.

3)Gives the people right to choose among the best

Varies. I live in a country where there was a town where all the politicians are from the same clan. They just decided which one to run unopposed. Since they are not really doing anything illegal, nothing can be done about it.

4)It enhances the dignity of a citizen

Ideally, yes.


1)Leaders keep on changing leads to instability

Agreed. I wonder if a modified version of the Venetian system can work today.

2)It is all about political competition and power play

This is good if it uncovers corruption. They are constantly finding faults in each other.

3)Elected leaders do not know the best interests of people

Well, you can just imagine how much worse it can get in totalitarian regimes like North Korea where the government do not answer to the people.

4)Democracy leads to corruption.

More the result of lobbying, which can happen in any government system. In democracies the erring politician can at least be impeached.

Consider the 51% to 49% vote in democracy. Both sides vote for the other side to support them entirely. I mean, literally, the losing side has to support the winning side in style. Because that's all it is. Democracy is slavery in the making.

In practice, the democratically elected leaders make slaves of everybody else. Of course... they do it shrewdly so that the rest of the people don't understand what they are doing, but continue to fight it out between themselves in the next election.

The joke is on all those people who love to vote and fight. They all lose to the elected leaders... who live in style.

The only thing I must have to agree on your statement  is that democracy really indeed can have a very corrupt type of government. My place is a democratic country and ever since then corruption was always been the problem.

Also because of the freedom that the people has been bragging about is now slowly becoming a big problem cause you will not know anymore  what to believe in.

i cant do anything about that its the retarded banksters in my country that fund american debt, same is the case in japan china etc.

regards

In the primitive time there is no democracy and people were been ruled by there tradition and they were living in peace and harmony.  But now that we think we can select our leaders we are having serious problem ranging from war,  poverty, corruptions and hatred.  I think democracy is not good for us and if I have my ways we would not adopt democracy in my country.

Only because Americans have the bad habit of getting in debt instead of saving (holding) to buy things (and that's what the Chicago school of economy teaches for entire countries) doesn't mean you should. You have the freedom to live without debts a modest life, like many Chinese people living abroad do.

You are the only ones giving power to the "financial system". Why are you giving them your money when nobody forced you to? Sadly most wages are still paid that way, but at least you can withdrawn them immediately and purchase bitcoin.

I had grand visions of direct democracy powered by crypto until I watched "The Orville" Majority Rule episode. Oh well. The majority would likely reject such an idea, anyway.

Which just means representative democracy is shit.

Not that democracy is shit.

As I heard in the past, the democracy is an cantitative regime, instead of an qualitative one.

Define as the government  of the people by the people, but this is not always the way it happen, especially when the leaders have been voted, they tend to focus on there personal/ political parties vision and not bothered about the citizen that vote them in, Thou worst democracy is still better that military rule, with democracy citizen still have a voice.

I'm surprised
I've never noticed so many negative aspects of democracy..

The biggest problem with most non autocratic forms of government is there tendency to trend towards kleptocracy (humans are nasty greedy parasites).  Autocratic forms of government are many times worse than any kleptocracy so until someone figures out something better we are stuck with Kleptocracy's.  On the bright side Kleptocracy's are very good at propaganda to keep the dull in line most of the people getting fucked in the ass with a cactus don't even know it, they think they have it all already!

^^^ This is possibly the best reason why a Democracy is better than a dictatorship. In the democracy, the people can vote a bad leader out, giving them another chance.

The USA, however, is not really a democracy. The USA is a nation built on the right of people to do all kinds of free things, including meet together, and talk together, and the right to private property.

The basic thing that holds the USA together is the ignorance of the people about the right that they have to privatize their government in a new way, based on all their private rights. If enough people got together and privatized their rights, the new private thing would become government. Mostly, the people are too ignorant to realize this, and government people want them to remain ignorant.

This is hidden right out in the open from the people by one major thing. It is hidden by the words of the founding documents and laws that hold protection from government in place. These are the Constitution, Amendments, laws, and court cases. The people focus on the writings, and forget to focus on the real freedom that they have.

The people think that they have freedom through the above writings, when the writings mostly only state what government people are limited to. WHEN A PERSON WINDS UP IN PRISON BUT IS INNOCENT, MOST OF THE TIME IT IS BECAUSE HE AGREED TO BE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT WITHOUT EVEN REALIZING THAT THIS IS WHAT HE AGREED TO. Somehow he gave up or threw away his private capacity.

On the outside of the understanding about the USA government, is the idea that it is a democracy. This popular understanding is partially right. But the greater part of freedom for the people is the built-in libertarian part that people barely focus on objectively.

In my opinion, democracy is more better as compared to countries that are govern by the dictatorship this is because all the disadvantage under the Democratic setting still can be found in the dictatorship government and still the populace of country can't vote him out, because such government tenor is not subjected to a period of time.

Most systems that are democracy, lead to a form of dictatorship. Why? Because the democratic electing of government officials places leaders (rulers) in office. These leaders seldom do the things that they were elected to do. So, we wind up with dictatorship by group, or by the group leader... like a president.

Which is why democracy can work only with education.

You don't need to be of great intelligence to make the correct decision. You only need to be educated into thinking logically that's all.

What country gives classes of philosophy, sociology, history and logic/politics/debate together? None. Still those are the important field any citizen should be taught and that would be enough to vote logically and accordingly to one's values.


No matter what, any system that is NOT a democracy can only lead to dictatorship anyway.

The problem with democracy is that everything is decided by the majority, and what does the majority comprise of? Is there more smart or more dumb people in every country?
Is there more academic teachers, people with higher education, or bums, drunkards, morons, and such?

When you give a specialist in the field a single vote and you also give an unqualified worker with only primary school education 1 vote as well, how do you think a decision will be made? Of course by the smart and wealthy people looking for ways to persuade the uneducated to lend them their votes. As a result, here's how a typical democratic system works:

There's a problem that has to be voted over.
People with deep understanding of the problem are either for or against it, so they divide themselves into groups.
Both groups have only 20% of votes each (at best), so they have to look for ways to persuade the simple people.
Both groups give promises to the people that apply to their basic needs, like if you vote for that new nuclear power plant we'll lower your electric bills. You'll have more money! While the other group will take the fear mongering stance of: If you vote for that power plant your children will have cancer!
And that's what it ultimately comes down to. Lobbying, persuading, buying the dumb majority, or scaring them.

All of these problems would go away if you took the representative out of representative democracy.  With real democracy, the people are always in control and there can be no mistakes.  If the people don't like a decision they make, they just go back and overturn it.

Of course yes! in democracy, government officials will never become a ruler! However, democracy has its own lapses. it always occurs during the election because people always elected the wrong one!

You just don't get it. We need Liquid Democracy and Modern Monetary Theory man. Dude. Man...