Arguements against democracy

[Jokeen]

and republic form of goverment. What is its weakness?

[Jokeen]

At 11/14/07 09:58 PM, SevenSeize wrote: You go first, or else I'll assume you want us to do your homework for you.

The greatest argument against a voting representative democracy is the voters them selves.

They want instant results and ask for unrealistic things and leaders in order to stay in must appease the dim witted peasants and sometimes end up making bad decisions because of it.

[BrotherJohn]

So should the "dim-witted peasants" be denied the right to actively influence their leadership? If not, then who has the authority to legislate, enforce and interpret the law of the region? Who, then, has the authority to dismiss a destructive leader? Utopian civilization is completely unrealistic and impossible to achieve under any form of leadership conceived throughout history. Democracy is certainly imperfect, but favorable to many of the alternatives. Perhaps the "dim-witted peasants" deserve the opportunity to influence their culture as it is THEIR culture to be influenced.

[Jokeen]

At 11/14/07 10:27 PM, BrotherJohn wrote:

:Perhaps the "dim-witted peasants" deserve the opportunity to influence their culture as it is THEIR culture to be influenced.

Hey I just wanted to see what your arguments were, I wanted to be the one to argue for it.

[BitchWeed]

Conflict of general interest among voters may result in the wrong decisions coming to fruition in times of war or civil unrest. That is to say, nations in the midst of these situations would be far better off to embrace socialism, or a system that allows their leader to make influential decisions as quickly as possible.

Curious, is it not?

[therealsylvos]

"Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something.
Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?"-Robert Heinlein

The mistake is assuming an absolute, that the majority is always right, it is very possible for a million men to not have the insight of one brilliant man. However it is the fairest.

[BitchWeed]

At 11/14/07 10:36 PM, therealsylvos wrote: The mistake is assuming an absolute, that the majority is always right, it is very possible for a million men to not have the insight of one brilliant man.

The idea behind democracy is rather to appease as many people as possible. That way, more people are satisfied, despite whether they're "right" or "wrong".

[reviewer-general]

At 11/14/07 09:45 PM, Jokeen wrote: and republic form of goverment. What is its weakness?

Oftentimes the populace is too stupid to know what the fuck it wants.

;

[BrotherJohn]

I'm not picking on you, Jokeen, I think that it's a valid question and a great topic to raise here. You are welcome to play the Devil's advocate - good to get the debates flowing.

Yes, I agree that the majority is PROBABLY not utilizing their right and influence to the best advantage of their society and that despite that, democracy offers a more fair (most fair?) solution to the wills of the society.

I don't think that terrible snap decisions by the voting masses are limited to wartime or establishment regimes. I think they happen often during all steps of the democratic process. What it does, though, is places these responsibilities on those who comprise the society rather than imposes them on the majority without their involvement. Good and bad decisions will be made no matter what. It seems more forgivable if an entire culture shoulders the burden of the results of all decisions rather than one person or even a select few.

[Boke]

most people are easily fooled, most people are stupid, most people are selfish and only think in the short term

[TonyTostieno]

At 11/14/07 10:05 PM, Jokeen wrote: The greatest argument against a voting representative democracy is the voters them selves.

They want instant results and ask for unrealistic things and leaders in order to stay in must appease the dim witted peasants and sometimes end up making bad decisions because of it.

Dim-Witted peasants? We have a (rather crappy admittedly) education system set up to make them not "Dim-Witted Peasants". And if politicians would be honest about how long something would take and be realistic themselves then the "peasants" wouldn't be so unrealistic with their demands. And in a Democracy/Republic they aren't "Peasants", they're people where everyone is equal as far as the law is concerned. Well supposed to be anyways.

Guess what Jokeen, Leaders are often the biggest dumbasses of all.

[TonyTostieno]

At 11/14/07 11:16 PM, Boke wrote: most people are easily fooled, most people are stupid, most people are selfish and only think in the short term

And that's where the problem lies, in the idiots and the easily led on, not in the people that are actually smart and realize what's going on.
THAT is the problem with Democracy, the same problem with Anarchy, there are too many stupid people in the world.

[bluedemonspeedracer]

Although democracy is the most practical form of government thats in existance, it does have weaknesses like all other forms of government, some of its weeknesses may include corruption, skewed poles, racketeering, intimidation of poles by militants and organized crime, erosion of rights, power imbalences, dissolving of parlament, and so much more. In order for a democracy to be strong and effective, it must have strong checks and balences and a well defined constitution that covers almost any scenario in which its democratic nature can be compramised. For example if you look at the US constitution you can try and come up with any possible way to corrupt our government and attempt any loophole and the constitution already has that scenario listed and has checks and balences against it. Not trying to sound nationalistic but that is why the US government is used internationally as a standard of comparison for modeling an effective democracy for new emerging republics. However there are some democracies like Venezuala or Lebenon that have very weak checks and balences and a poorly defined constitution which is allowing nations like Venezuala to have leaders like Chavez utilize parlamentary loopholes to dissolve parlament and slowly become a dictatorship through rigged and biased elections permitting more power to chavez through falsified poles saying that people are voting to hand power to him. So pretty much a democracies weakness is "loopholes". Such loopholes depends on how well its constitution is written and how well defined its checks and balences are and the balence of politcal parties (eg. as a democracy has obligations to respect all government idealisms, countries such as Russia could simply end its democracy by having fascist or communist majority vote in parlament.)

[JudgeDredd]

The biggest problem with yer "modern" democracy is the detachment of vast majority of the voting public from everyday decision-making process, coupled with imposition of nationwide laws which afflict citizens in unjust or overzealous ways. Both of which could be fixed by more frequent use of regional online referenda and surveys, allowing politicians a more accurate use of zoning for trial-testing regulations via comparritive methodology.

.

[Elfer]

The biggest problem with democracy is that the general population is stupid, poorly informed, and easily tricked. The vast majority of voters are too dumb, too apathetic, or both to be able to make a competent, informed decision.

Another major problem is the fact that a majority rules system encourages the consolidation of smaller parties into larger ones, so that people are forced to vote for a party that they aren't really happy with. Essentially, people start voting for a bad party to make sure that a worse party isn't in control. This could be solved somewhat by a proportional representation system, but the real issue here is the attitude that if you vote for a small party that you actually agree with, you're "throwing your vote away"

Note that the "throwing your vote away" thing is technically true, but only because everyone believes in it.

[Jokeen]

Elfer, I cannot argue against that cause that is exactly how I feel.

I mean if you go to a restruant and actually order what you like, you not throwing your money away right?

Then how come we do the same thing at the polls. I mean do you wait in line at Burger King to see which Burger is the most popular? It doesnt makes sense, it goes against American I'll get what I want comsummerilsim.

[LordZeebmork]

And that's why I don't like the party system. It makes it a lot easier to not think.

[Jokeen]

At 11/15/07 05:54 PM, LordZeebmork wrote: And that's why I don't like the party system. It makes it a lot easier to not think.

Ever noticed those who are the now thinking, unsensible, extremist masses are the ones getting up off their duffs more often to change things then the sensible people who often end up as the victim and in the middle?

[JerkClock]

At 11/14/07 10:05 PM, Jokeen wrote:
The greatest argument against a voting representative democracy is the voters them selves.

They want instant results and ask for unrealistic things and leaders in order to stay in must appease the dim witted peasants and sometimes end up making bad decisions because of it.

Thank fuck someone in this country finally agrees with me. I don't believe in democracy either. Because it doesn't work. It just makes rhetoric into a method of excusing yourself for oppressing the people, it certainly doesn't prevent tyranny like people think it does.

[oligarch]

Presidential and parliamentarian republics are not real democracies as they do not accurately represent the working class.

[Imperator]

The weakness has always been in the ability to sway people.

Intelligence actually doesn't matter all that much. Even smart people can be swayed away from smart decisions.

Ex;
Athens voted themselves out of democracy and into a repressive oligarchy.

[EmperorQuintana]

Democracy makes me as mad as hell!!!

My point is, democracy is useless; it is always controlled by the people at the expense of law. They are willing to undergo lobbying, just so that they could sacrifice longevity in the interest of the government itself! That is the reason why I'm a proud Fascist.

Hail Quintana!

[JerkClock]

At 11/16/07 01:30 AM, Imperator wrote: The weakness has always been in the ability to sway people.

Intelligence actually doesn't matter all that much. Even smart people can be swayed away from smart decisions.

Not really, not if they're actually smart anyway.

[Imperator]

At 11/16/07 03:57 PM, JerkClock wrote: Not really, not if they're actually smart anyway.

If they're "actually" smart then they're the ones doing the swaying.

[Jokeen]

If that is true then who persuaded the American people it was a good idea to go to Iraq.

Its the more intelligent who are more easily swayed then the dumb and witless.

[JerkClock]

At 11/16/07 05:30 PM, Jokeen wrote:
Its the more intelligent who are more easily swayed then the dumb and witless.

Sorry but you're trying to tell me that smart people are somehow going to not be able to think for themselves, you'll have to forgive me for not buying into that.

[GronmonSE]

At 11/16/07 05:30 PM, Jokeen wrote: If that is true then who persuaded the American people it was a good idea to go to Iraq.

Its the more intelligent who are more easily swayed then the dumb and witless.

Then I must be stupid cause that's just bullshit. The intelligent can reason better and debunker false claims and arguments, whereas the dumb and witless tend to follow the masses because they don't know what they're being told and are naive.

[Jokeen]

No, its because the more intelligent people are more emotional and have imagination, and more able to deceive themselves despite evidence to the contrary. When I was a kid and wanting to rule the world, I did a lot of reading on persuasion and cult mentality, you know, so I would figure out how to make my own cult. Its the idealistic and more educated that are the ones who ends up in such followings faster then the ones who cannot imagine a better world, much less (if talking about cults) the idea of heaven.

Its the same with politics.

[JerkClock]

At 11/16/07 08:09 PM, Jokeen wrote: No, its because the more intelligent people are more emotional and have imagination,

No, you might wish to keep telling yourself that because you are emotional and have imagination, but that isn't the case.

[Shaggytheclown17]

This is a simple question for which doesnt need an answer because ur own imagination can run wild I see.
In my mind if Democracy were taken out of America, this wouldn't be America anymore, this would be either an imperial or a dictatorship country. If this were to eve happen think about it, the American people outnumber the army and the government people 3billion to one, there would be unmeasurable riots on the white house where the army would be used to defend but would provide little protection even with full force, common everyday people can and will prevail and the country would be turned back into a democracy after every last person who had not surrendered whom had power were killed, we will not stand for any act of enslavement on ourselves, and as i said we would easily correct it if it ever happened, so it goes the saying "where the people fear the government,there is tyranny, where the government fears its people, there is liberty."