[Cartertonian]

Psychologists and psychiatrists seem to do a good job of it.

Spike Milligan once said, "If all the World think they are Napoleon Boneparte and you think you're not, YOU are the mad one."



But seriously, I haven't seen anything herein or elsewhere that rationally and sensibly submits an alternative to democracy that isn't more coercive, inflexible and potentially evil.

Is democracy so successful because for all its faults it is the least evil alternative?

[Dr House]

Your basic reasoning flaw is that democracy is successful. Every democratic country in the West has pursued irresponsible public policies, and most of them are facing the prospect of collapse in the medium term.

[ninurta]

Your basic reasoning flaw is that democracy is successful. Every democratic country in the West has pursued irresponsible public policies, and most of them are facing the prospect of collapse in the medium term.

What western nation is a democracy and not a republic? I know that we can get into the way its used in the common sense, but what i was refering to was the classical sense of the term democracy.

By the classical definition, we haven't had any democracies since the pirates roamed the carribean sea and then a long time before that.

[Dr House]

What western nation is a democracy and not a republic?

None, but they all have universal suffrage.

[Parvus]

For: You don't have it
Against: You have it but either it's limited and you have the potential to have a better one, or you think it's the source of all problems and want a dictatorship instead

[Dr House]

you think it's the source of all problems and want a dictatorship instead

Nailed it.

[ninurta]

I would be for democracy if that democracy was on the city level, but on the national level its just unhealthy and too big. There are too many people who just can't understand the issues of others to even do anything right at that level. That is also why I don't think that policy should be made at the national level unless there is no other way to do it.

[Cartertonian]

This is a thread to which I'd like to contribute - and from which I'd like to learn. However I would need to do a bit of the latter, before I could meaningfully achieve the former.

There appears to be an overarching assumption that 'democracy' means doing what the majority wish, yet there also seem to be those who suggest that that is not what democracy should, strictly speaking, mean.

There is a lot of talk about different styles of representation, all of which it seems to me would fall within the 'layperson's' definition of democracy.

Can anyone give a coherent precis of all the different 'variants' the lay public collectively regard as 'democracy' and explain why they are different?



Also, unless the pro-dictatorship types really DO want to create a world wherein the minority are empowered to inflict their odious and unreasonable will on the majority, perhaps one of them could explain why NOT having 'democracy' (as it is widely understood), could be in the interests of anyone other than those wielding power?

[ninurta]

A republic is a country ruled by laws, if you want the truest definition. Though the kind i would advocate for is where its set up to make it so you can live with liberty and so can everyone else how they please as long as it doesn't interfere with others rights to do the same. Also, there are many layers in a republic, and you elect representatives to represent you. However, I believe that like in america, you should be able to be one of those politicians.

[hannigaholic]

Arguments in favour of democracy:

1) The citizenry are more likely to know what their interests are than an unelected bureaucrat, and a democracy affords them the choice of candidate that best reflects those interests.
2) The alternative is an oligarcical or monarcical power base, in which the personal interests of the few in power can and will win out over the broad interests of the citizenry.
3) The citizenry prefer having a say, and thus are less likely to violently rebel than in other systems.

Arguments against democracy:

1) The citizenry contains a hell of a lot of people who either cannot understand or are simply ignorant of the way things actually work. Thus, elections can and do become popularity contests based on which party leader has the most charisma or who can explain their policies in terms that can be understood by the most people, rather than those who present the policies with the best actual chance of achieving their aims (See Obama v McCain - Obama didn't win because of his policies, he won because of his rhetoric)
2) The citizenry unreasonably expects instant results, and could oust a party before their reforms have had time to filter through to results. This could shift their success until the time when another party is in charge. You could improve education but not have noticable results for 10-15 years, once youngsters had gone through the system, but since another party was voted in, they may get the credit and distort future election results.
3) In order to stay in power, parties may have to pander to the transient whims of the citizenry, rather than their long term betterment. A tax cut right now may well be a vote winner, but if it results in an increase to the national debt and even higher taxes later to cover the interest charges, it would be better for everbody to pay more taxes now, but the short term gains of the tax cut might hold more sway at the election.

I think limiting the franchise through some sort of independantly-assessed exam and age restriction would go a long way to eliminating the downsides to democracy. Also the structure has to be right for the system to work. Personally I'd say STV Proportional Represntation is a must, there needs to be a system of checks and balances at work to stop any one person or group gaining too much power, and some sort of clear statement on the separation of powers, so that the citizenry know exactly what they're electing their officials to do.

Ultimately I think representative democracy is the best type of governmental structure, and that our efforts at reform should be channeled into improving that system, rather than adopting a completely different one.

[Cartertonian]

Personally I'd say STV Proportional Represntation is a must, there needs to be a system of checks and balances at work to stop any one person or group gaining too much power, and some sort of clear statement on the separation of powers, so that the citizenry know exactly what they're electing their officials to do.

I'd vote for that...

But, what I'd really like to do is clear up this 'tyranny of the majority' business. Surely, the only alternative to doing what most people want to do about any given thing, is to do what the least number of people - but those who coincidentally happen to be 'in power' - want to do, even if most people oppose it?

I mean, if there are ten of you on a sinking ship, and eight of you want to get in the lifeboat and row away, but two stubbornly insist on staying with the sinking ship, in the hope of rescue, it would be nonsense for the two opting to stay behind to force the other eight not to take the lifeboat and stay behind with them.

Wouldn't it?

[DanDaMan]

This video educates you as to why America was founded as a Republic and you do not find the word democracy in the constitution...

[youtube]DioQooFIcgE[/youtube]

[Julian]

there are two issues here

- whether democracy is the best form of Government

yes. it provides everyone with an equal opportunity to the decisions of government

- should democracies respect diversity and seek to provide individual rights

yes - and many mature democracies do (unlike other forms of government which usually don't)



i don't know what the OP means by libertarian republic. however my guess is that if its claims to be libertarian and its not democratic its on a fast track to dictatorship

[ninurta]

The OP was referring to democracy as a direct democracy, and republic as representative democracy.

What I meant was simply a republic based on libertarian principles.

[Kapanda]

Democracy is the best we've had thus far, but people's passion for it is misplaced. For one, the pursuit of freedom is irrational, because it can never be achieved. Only if we discuss levels of freedom can any pursuit of it be meaningful. Then the question is, how much freedom is enough, or too much?

The majority quite often does not know best. We ought to look at democracy as the best system yet, but be ready to move beyond it.

Reasons to be for democracy, I think can boil down to "it's the best we've had thus far"

Reasons to be against democracy can boil down to "it allows ignorance and rhetoric to be influencial in what should otherwise be a processes of logic - lawmaking and leadership selection."

[Kman]

Democracy = direct mob rule on the issues like in ancient Athens, the problem with this is that mobs are often irresponsible and driven by their emotions in the moment and not what is the best solution long term. This form of government also makes it much easier for 51% of the population to bully and oppress the other 49%.

Republican representative democracy = what they had in ancient Rome and in the United States now, which is the people electing representatives for a certain amount of years that then vote on the issues, this system better protects against the irrational decisions which emotionally inflamed mobs of people sometimes do, while still ensuring that the people have a good degree of power over their leaders.

Republican representative democracy is not a perfect system but it is still the best form of government that has yet to be invented, some of the weaknesses of republicanism has been very well explained by the french 19th century philosopher Tocqueville.

From wikipedia on Tocqueville:

Tocqueville's work is often acclaimed for making a number of predictions which were eventually borne out. Tocqueville correctly anticipates the potential of the debate over the abolition of slavery to tear apart the United States (as it indeed did in the American Civil War). On the other hand, he predicts that any part of the Union would be able to declare independence. He also predicts the rise of the United States and Russia as rival superpowers (which they did become after World War II with Russia as the central component of the Soviet Union.)

American democracy was seen to have its potential downside: the despotism of public opinion, the tyranny of majority, conformity for the purpose of seeking material security, the absence of intellectual freedom which he saw to degrade administration and bring statesmanship, learning, and literature to the level of the lowest. Democracy in America predicted the violence of party spirit and the judgment of the wise subordinated to the prejudices of the ignorant.

[ninurta]

thanks kman. Interesting article

[Julian]

A republic is a country ruled by laws, if you want the truest definition. Though the kind i would advocate for is where its set up to make it so you can live with liberty and so can everyone else how they please as long as it doesn't interfere with others rights to do the same. Also, there are many layers in a republic, and you elect representatives to represent you. However, I believe that like in america, you should be able to be one of those politicians.

As I live in the the UK and I wouldn't use the term republic because we are in theory a constitutional monarchy. A country with a monarch who agrees to be ruled by law. We would I think describe your arrangement as a liberal democracy.

[DanDaMan]

Republican representative democracy is not a perfect system but it is still the best form of government that has yet to be invented, some of the weaknesses of republicanism has been very well explained by the french 19th century philosopher Tocqueville.

From wikipedia on Tocqueville:

Quote:
Tocqueville's work is often acclaimed for making a number of predictions which were eventually borne out. Tocqueville correctly anticipates the potential of the debate over the abolition of slavery to tear apart the United States (as it indeed did in the American Civil War). On the other hand, he predicts that any part of the Union would be able to declare independence. He also predicts the rise of the United States and Russia as rival superpowers (which they did become after World War II with Russia as the central component of the Soviet Union.)

The war to abolish slavery is not a weakness of Republicanism.
It is it's highest achievement, IMO.

[Rei Murasame]

Funny though, how a Republic wasn't necessary to abolish slavery.

• In 1807, The Abolition of the Slave Trade Act was passed in Britain.
  
  
• In 1833, The Abolition of Slavery Act was passed and came into force on 1 August 1834 with Royal Assent. This Act abolished slavery through a graduated method of apprenticeship, and compensated all slave owners with the whopping sum of £20million to keep them from rebelling.
  
  Exceptions were:
  • Its application to the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope (now the Cape Province of the Republic of South Africa) was delayed for 4 months.
  • Its application to the Colony of Mauritius (now the Republic of Mauritius) was delayed for 6 months.
  • section 1 of 5 & 6 Vict c 101 was enacted which prohibited certain officers of The British East India Company from being involved in the purchase of slaves, but it did not actually abolish slavery in India.
  
  
• In 1860, the Indian Penal Code was amended to make possession of slave by anyone in that territory a crime.

Thus, by 1860, Slavery was completely abolished in the British Empire, and this was without having to go through a civil war to do it.