IS DEMOCRACY THE BEST OPTION FOR GOVERNANCE? - page 2.

Tash

sr. member

Activity: 1190

Merit: 305

Pro financial, medical liberty

Nostradamus predicted the end of the so called "democracy" (someone voting on my behalf is not democratic)

NOSTRADAMUS

Quote

"A plague shall fall upon the world. After, a feeble man shall rule the western world with a jezebel.
The people will be damaged and subjugated by a fool ruler.
The great eagle shall suffer and fall".

https://biblehub.com/revelation/17-4.htm

Quote

New International Version
The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries.

Hang on why is that ring finger longer as index?
Index/ring finger. (2D:4D ratio) human anatomy
https://h2d4d.blogspot.com/2016/11/measuring-2d4d-ratio.html
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28208851/

Quote

Ratio of 2D:4D is found to correlate negatively to testosterone and positively to oestrogen in the foetus. Interestingly, it is constant since birth and not influenced by the adult hormone levels. Usually, males have lower ratios when compared to females.

Lordhermes

sr. member

Activity: 1232

Merit: 379

Quote from: Masplanc on December 01, 2021, 01:53:39 PM

Democracy would have been the best, but Democracy has changed. Democracy is not what it used to be as before. Sometimes looking at Democracy, it's not favourable to all, with Democracy some people can't speak up for themselves. Government still intimidate with power.
True Democracy is when every man in the society have equal right, no intimidation towards common citizens.

Yes we know democracy is no longer how it used to be,it has changed,but it's still better than military,where every action will be decided by the government.Sometimes,the masses seeks to speak with the government,and they grant them their voice,and are given fair hearing.
Government also sometimes seek for public opinion and will at the end do the mimds of the masses.

Masplanc

member

Activity: 798

Merit: 34

Democracy would have been the best, but Democracy has changed. Democracy is not what it used to be as before. Sometimes looking at Democracy, it's not favourable to all, with Democracy some people can't speak up for themselves. Government still intimidate with power.
True Democracy is when every man in the society have equal right, no intimidation towards common citizens.

Cnut237

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1277

Capitalist democracy is probably the least bad option.

One problem with most systems of government is that they can be exploited. Some people still defend communism by saying that 'communism in theory' hasn't yet been tried, because the various implementations we've seen so far are corrupt. But this isn't a problem of implementation, it's the nature of the system itself. Communism is easy to exploit. Those in charge can do whatever they like, and make themselves unaccountable. At the other end of the scale, laissez-faire capitalism is bad for the same reason, it's too easy for the rich and powerful to entrench their own advantage.

I believe the best system to be one where two forces oppose one another, and so work to maintain a balance. In short, a capitalist democracy with a left-of-centre government.

Tash

sr. member

Activity: 1190

Merit: 305

Pro financial, medical liberty

No of course not.
Two school drop-outs will tell the medical professor whats best for his health, with a 2/3 majority vote. He can never get elected because he is the weird one out and does not speak the lingo.

Just check my sig of current issue with corrupt officials at conflicting opinion to scientist.

Gyfts

legendary

Activity: 2828

Merit: 1515

Quote from: ?? on ??

In my opinion Democracy is the best form of government ! And ill tell you why i think so by just mentioning the pros and cons of having it:

YES points:
- Freedom
- Represents the people
- Better governance duo to transparency
- Respect and Promotes Human Rights

The NO points:
-We increasingly depend more and more on money
-Most of the times Electorate is not motivated.

Thats all i can say and everyone desides for his own if its the best or the worst.

thank you

An unmotivated electorate is a feature, not a flaw. I don't want idiots to vote, and many people are morons that couldn't distinguish up from down. So if a politician comes along and convinces enough idiots to vote for him/her, they get elected even though the sane minority may not want them in power.

If the electorate were wise, then high participation is what's best. And you can count on your hand the number of societies that are educated enough to want the majority to vote.

Shaftdel

jr. member

Activity: 44

Merit: 2

Quote from: zcooipo on August 30, 2018, 02:01:56 AM

I think that democratic elections are very good, because such a government will be restrained and not dictatorial. I think the most terrible thing is authoritarianism!

It would have been the best form of government. But the elected, through this platform never support the system that brought them to power. Rather become dictator

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

KirunBarber

full member

Activity: 567

Merit: 100

in the field of democracy work is very difficult to implement, as we know now those who have a lot of money will win everything. need renovation in a messy government, but all that is not easy and cannot be as fast as we expected.
start from ourselves first ... apply democracy in our lives.

lapasan

newbie

Activity: 3

Merit: 0

in my opinion, democracy, as we have seen it for the last 20 years, is rather an average show. Everywhere in the world, events are extremely harmful to entire nations and countries, and these processes are called "democratic transformations." The word "democracy" - to become abusive, vivid adherents of the ideas of democracy noticeably lose the electorate and conscience, but zealously hold on to power.

criptix

legendary

Activity: 2464

Merit: 1145

Quote from: theymos on August 30, 2018, 09:22:31 PM

Quote from: Bitchef2112 on August 30, 2018, 08:44:14 AM

I'd say you're cotnradicting yourself a bit theymos... Monarchy is a system that gives way too much power into hands of one person, which is a danger in itself. As we know, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Then you say limiting the government is good, but a monarch would be able to rebuild the control with much more ease than democratically chosen government.

A democracy and a monarchy are equally capable of increasing the size of the state or refraining from doing so. If the members of the US congress all agreed to do so, they could turn the US into a communistic system where everyone was employed by the state. A monarch could, on the other hand, keep his government very limited. Just because a government is democratic doesn't limit its ability to grow, and in fact democratic institutions have a natural propensity to expand over time.

You are hoping for a benevolent dictator - sounds nice until he executes you and your family.

Democracy is bad, but it is the best form of governance we have at the moment.

Absolute power to a single entity will be always wrong - checks & balances is needed until humans themself change (which probaly wont happen).

bluefirecorp_

full member

Activity: 574

Merit: 152

Quote from: yoseph on September 27, 2018, 06:47:21 PM

Quote from: bluefirecorp_ on September 26, 2018, 07:16:01 PM

Democracy, both representative and direct are flawed in their own fundamental ways. Propaganda can drastically affect a democracy. If your citizens are idiots, your leaders will be idiots in a representative democracy.

Direct democracy doesn't really scale.

Liquid democracy is an interesting concept (combine direct democracy + representative democracy).

What's the other options for government?

Feudalism doesn't work.

Monarchy doesn't work.

Dictatorships don't work.

I should an anarcho-syndicate could work, where the elected leaders are the top of industrial fields, such as doctors, engineers, and other professions. But next we'll be talking about communism and democracy.

Democracy is definitely not for everyone and am talking about the Arabs here, these people need a firm hand or else they tend to misbehave as is evidence to when Saddam Hussein was in power and when he ousted. The country is in total chaos.

Yeah, when the majority of your people can't read and they're taught hate and violence, it's not going to go well.

Democracy requires a some-what educated, literate, peaceful population.

It's pretty scary how certain nations, like Mauritania, have literally outlawed atheism (punishable by death).

I really wish that Universal Declaration of Human Rights actually applied to all nations of this world. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf

yoseph

sr. member

Activity: 868

Merit: 266

Quote from: bluefirecorp_ on September 26, 2018, 07:16:01 PM

Democracy, both representative and direct are flawed in their own fundamental ways. Propaganda can drastically affect a democracy. If your citizens are idiots, your leaders will be idiots in a representative democracy.

Direct democracy doesn't really scale.

Liquid democracy is an interesting concept (combine direct democracy + representative democracy).

What's the other options for government?

Feudalism doesn't work.

Monarchy doesn't work.

Dictatorships don't work.

I should an anarcho-syndicate could work, where the elected leaders are the top of industrial fields, such as doctors, engineers, and other professions. But next we'll be talking about communism and democracy.

Democracy is definitely not for everyone and am talking about the Arabs here, these people need a firm hand or else they tend to misbehave as is evidence to when Saddam Hussein was in power and when he ousted. The country is in total chaos.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Democracy is not the government of the United States. But that's okay. Those of us who know how and why Libertarianism is the government of the USA, are happy that there are others who do not know.

It kinda works like this. People who believe in Democracy, allow crooks and criminals to run all over them and steal their property. Libertarians would like to have more property, but being libertarians keeps them from taking the property of others. So, what can the libertarians do? Use the libertarian laws of government to give them the property taken from those who like Democracy.

This way, libertarians can remain faithful to their libertarianism, believers in democracy become poorer in their democracy, and the libertarians wind up with the wealth of the democracy believers.

How does this work? It works through the laws of private property and right to contract. If you really want to know, watch the Karl Lentz videos here https://www.youtube.com/user/765736/videos.

Cool

bluefirecorp_

full member

Activity: 574

Merit: 152

Democracy, both representative and direct are flawed in their own fundamental ways. Propaganda can drastically affect a democracy. If your citizens are idiots, your leaders will be idiots in a representative democracy.

Direct democracy doesn't really scale.

Liquid democracy is an interesting concept (combine direct democracy + representative democracy).

What's the other options for government?

Feudalism doesn't work.

Monarchy doesn't work.

Dictatorships don't work.

I should an anarcho-syndicate could work, where the elected leaders are the top of industrial fields, such as doctors, engineers, and other professions. But next we'll be talking about communism and democracy.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4690

Merit: 1276

Quote from: Sagima on September 26, 2018, 04:55:42 AM

Yes Democracy is the best form of governance. I have seen many people prefer dictatoship but they need to know that in dictatorship, you can't question the ruler freely when he is taking a bad step. In democracy, you have complete freedom to question anyone regarding anything.

Apples and oranges. Democracy does not imply freedom of speech in theory or in practice. At best it says that if people vote to limit, say, 'hate speech' then the government has the full authority to implement such censorship.

Most 'normal' people can be easily convinced that it is wrong/bad/dangerous to speak out against the actions of their government and will gladly vote for political parties who champion such limitations. The U.S. itself is swirling down the drain here. Of course no thinking person believes that the U.S. was ever really a democracy and it certainly is not now, so mine is a bit of a flawed argument. That said, we did have unusually strong rights to freedom of speech, but as I say, they are slipping away at an exponential rate just over the last year alone.

Sagima

jr. member

Activity: 39

Merit: 1

Yes Democracy is the best form of governance. I have seen many people prefer dictatoship but they need to know that in dictatorship, you can't question the ruler freely when he is taking a bad step. In democracy, you have complete freedom to question anyone regarding anything.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: RameTesli on September 04, 2018, 02:45:11 AM

As Churchill said “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”

Churchill was right. Democracy is majority rule. What does that mean? It means that there are slaves that are ruled over... the minority. But it gets worse.

When Democracy has representation in the form of a few leader-officials in government, those leaders become a dictatorship over both, the majority and the minority.

The best form of government is small "l" libertarianism. Why? Because then the government only does two things. It sorts out real harm or damage among its citizens, and corrects it, and, it fights foreign enemies. That's it. Period. If there is no harm or damage, no enforcing of laws is needed. Laws become guides so that people know when they might be getting close to harming someone.

What is the result? The people are free... at least until one of them arms someone else. Then he is punished according to the harm he did.

No other government is as good as this one. It's a government of freedom where people have responsibility for their own actions.

Cool

RameTesli

newbie

Activity: 63

Merit: 0

Quote from: Shaftdel on August 29, 2018, 03:13:54 PM

Democracy as it's known the government of the people, by the people and for the people. In contrast to this simply definition, one begins to doubt if truly it’s the best option for governance.

The governments that supposed to protect the people, uphold the oath and defend the nation are the same contradicting the democratic acts of serving the people and the nation at large. The supposed servant becomes the master to the electorates, thinking the position is his inheritance. Where are the morals of the "so call" leaders, what a pity!

The geographical restructuring of the country, prudent management of national resources and providing for the people properly, the list been enormous, promised are better ideas to be imagine than been implemented.

Therefore, is democracy been truly practice?

As Churchill said “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”

Spiritless13

newbie

Activity: 12

Merit: 0

We all know that every form of government has advantages and disadvantages just like democracy, but for me democracy is the best option for governance since this kind of government give us freedom and we are not deprived on our rights as a human and as a member of our country..but this kind of government has a disadvantage also because other people abuse their freedom and power.. I can say that it will become the best depend on the political leaders who govern us and our country..

Topic: IS DEMOCRACY THE BEST OPTION FOR GOVERNANCE? - page 2. (Read 749 times)