[ninurta]

It's mob rule, nuf said.

Well on second thought, it's really reckless to let the tyrrany of the majority rule a country. That's why there are libertarian republics. Libertarian republics are better.

But still, why are so many for democracy?

[TheRedMenace]

What exactly is a libertarian republic?

[Aesthetic]

But still, why are so many for democracy?

It's an excellent compromise between freedom and security with effective measures to limit tyranny and increase general welfare.

"nuf said."

[PBVBROOK]

Reason to be against democracy: You want someone else to run your life.

Reason to be for democracy: You want to influence your own future.

Reason to stop using the term democracy: Every splinter, right wing, whacko group tries to convice you that you do not live in one and that theirs is the only workable form of it.

[Grognonours]

Reason to be against democracy: Mob rule really sucks. I mean, it may work in an elementary school classroom but not too well in real life. That is why a republic is superior.

Reason to be for democracy: If you can get a majority to vote in your favor you can pretty much do what you want. In a republic, the rule of law decides.

Reason to stop using the term democracy: Every splinter, left wing, right wing, whacko group tries to convice you that America is a democracy due to changing the definition of the word. I guess the word republic jsut isn't that catchy.

[ninurta]

What exactly is a libertarian republic?

The way in which it differs from most republics (namely federal ones) is that the power is concentrated at the local levels. The people vote for representatives as we do in the united states, though the federal government has very little power at all.

[] But still, why are so many for democracy?[]
It's an excellent compromise between freedom and security with effective measures to limit tyranny and increase general welfare.

"nuf said."

Ummm.....how is democracy any less tyrannical than fascism? One thing the two have in common, is the assumption that what is good for the nation is good for all. We can get into why that is just horrid. It's not a compromise between security and freedom, nor does it limit tyranny and it definitely doesn't increase general welfare unless that's what the people are voting on (well....unless they vote for a ruler like they did in athens).

Reason to be against democracy: You want someone else to run your life.

Umm....no.

Learn what democracy is, then get back to me.

Reason to be for democracy: You want to influence your own future.

Wrong. In a democracy, the majority has more influence than you can hope to have.

Reason to stop using the term democracy: Every splinter, right wing, whacko group tries to convice you that you do not live in one and that theirs is the only workable form of it.

Reasons to stop using the term democracy: because you have no clue what it actually was meant to mean nor what it means.

P.S. I know republics are called by many democracies, but "communist" china is still called communist, that doesn't make it so.

Reason to be against democracy: Mob rule really sucks. I mean, it may work in an elementary school classroom but not too well in real life. That is why a republic is superior.

Very true.

Reason to be for democracy: If you can get a majority to vote in your favor you can pretty much do what you want. In a republic, the rule of law decides.

Though that can be an arguement for a republic too, as it will protect liberties even when the majority wants to throw them away.

Reason to stop using the term democracy: Every splinter, left wing, right wing, whacko group tries to convice you that America is a democracy due to changing the definition of the word. I guess the word republic jsut isn't that catchy.

haha.....so true. They want it to be a democracy because they want to vote on the civil rights of minorities.

[TheRedMenace]

The way in which it differs from most republics (namely federal ones) is that the power is concentrated at the local levels. The people vote for representatives as we do in the united states, though the federal government has very little power at all.

How is that different from democracy? I assume municipalities would be democratic too right? What prevents mob rule in local government?

Ummm.....how is democracy any less tyrannical than fascism?

Democracy is a good system because the majority are less likely to support tyranny.

[ninurta]

[]The way in which it differs from most republics (namely federal ones) is that the power is concentrated at the local levels. The people vote for representatives as we do in the united states, though the federal government has very little power at all. []
How is that different from democracy? I assume municipalities would be democratic too right? What prevents mob rule in local government?

What do you mean by democratic? People electing representatives? That's not mob rule because that's a republic. Local governments are not democracies, they are republic

[]Ummm.....how is democracy any less tyrannical than fascism?[]
Democracy is a good system because the majority are less likely to support tyranny.

Ummm.......the majority are often the source of tyranny. For example, proposition 8 in california, an example of the tyranny of the majority in soft form.

[PBVBROOK]

Umm....no.

Learn what democracy is, then get back to me.

You need to work on your maturity. This was a rude and ignorant comment. It casts your entire debate in a bad light. If you were concerned about manners you would apologize. But you won't.

Why don't you try to do a little more learning and a little less rambling.

[Dr House]

The majority of people are of limited intellectual power, have irresponsible political views, and aren't qualified to lead a country, or decide who can. In a representative democracy in particular, the ill-effects of this are magnified, as the most corrupt, power-hungry members of the establishment rise through the ranks by appealing to society's lowest common denominator. Meanwhile truly virtuous elites are weeded out of the system by their greedy peers.

[grassroots1]

I agree with PBV, ninurta, that was kinda rude and doesn't further the debate. I was excited to see your response, too.

The majority of people are of limited intellectual power, have irresponsible political views, and aren't qualified to lead a country, or decide who can.

^If anyone was wondering about the definition of cynicism.

[TheRedMenace]

What do you mean by democratic? People electing representatives? That's not mob rule because that's a republic. Local governments are not democracies, they are republic

If that's your definition of democracy then there are no democracies in the modern world. What's the purpose of criticizing a political system that doesn't exist?

It's true that most people use "democracy" to refer to systems that are really democratic republics, but it really doesn't matter because there are no democracies in the modern world. The ideological basis of both systems is the same - that all members of society have an equal right to participate in social decision-making.

Ummm.....how is democracy any less tyrannical than fascism?

Democracy is a good system because the majority are less likely to support tyranny.

Ummm.......the majority are often the source of tyranny. For example, proposition 8 in california, an example of the tyranny of the majority in soft form.

Example of fascist tyranny: The Holocaust
Example of democratic tyranny: Proposition 8

I'll let you decide which one is worse.

Meanwhile truly virtuous elites are weeded out of the system by their greedy peers.

Who are these "truly virtuous elites"?

[ninurta]

[]What do you mean by democratic? People electing representatives? That's not mob rule because that's a republic. Local governments are not democracies, they are republic[]
If that's your definition of democracy then there are no democracies in the modern world. What's the purpose of criticizing a political system that doesn't exist?

I mean democracy as in ruled completely by the people. And republic as in a governing system based on laws.
Either the people ruling directly or the Athenian style one.

It's true that most people use "democracy" to refer to systems that are really democratic republics, but it really doesn't matter because there are no democracies in the modern world.

I see your point. Fair enough.

The ideological basis of both systems is the same - that all members of society have an equal right to participate in social decision-making.

Republics are still better, and far more practical.

[]Ummm.....how is democracy any less tyrannical than fascism?

Democracy is a good system because the majority are less likely to support tyranny.

Ummm.......the majority are often the source of tyranny. For example, proposition 8 in california, an example of the tyranny of the majority in soft form.[]

Example of fascist tyranny: The Holocaust
Example of democratic tyranny: Proposition 8

I'll let you decide which one is worse. [/quote]
It's an obvious answer which is worse, but they are both equally tyrranical, as neither has any legitimacy in what they are doing. Though from a ethical standpoint obviously the Holocaust was worse. Though there is nothing stopping a holocaust if the majority want to cause one.

I agree with PBV, ninurta, that was kinda rude and doesn't further the debate. I was excited to see your response, too.

What of what I said was rude? If you would like, if it is truly rude and just not politically incorrect i will change it.

^If anyone was wondering about the definition of cynicism.

For the most part he was right.

[]Umm....no.

Learn what democracy is, then get back to me.[]

You need to work on your maturity. This was a rude and ignorant comment. It casts your entire debate in a bad light. If you were concerned about manners you would apologize. But you won't.

Why don't you try to do a little more learning and a little less rambling.

The irony isn't lost since your response lacks substance, and you ramble on against rambling. Please, if you want me to take you seriously, stop patronizing people (I am not the only one you do this to either).

Everyone else seems to debate just fine without patronizing the opponent in the debate.

[grassroots1]

What of what I said was rude? If you would like, if it is truly rude and just not politically incorrect i will change it.

No no, don't trip.

For the most part he was right.

I don't like the way this sounds: "limited intellectual power." It sounds as if the mental power is innate.

[Dr House]

Who are these "truly virtuous elites"?

The minority among elites who actually wanna make shit better, and possess the know-how to do it. Not rocket science.

I don't like the way this sounds: "limited intellectual power." It sounds as if the mental power is innate.

I'm not sure that we know enough about human intelligence to determine it's wholly innate, but so far the evidence seems to show that variability of intelligence is limited. Average people will likely always be average. Further, even if the average person has the potential to gain above-average levels of critical reasoning and knowledge, it still only makes sense to exclude from the political system those who yet haven't. Frankly, the thought of idiots having a say on who leads my country and how scares me.

[grassroots1]

And who determines who the idiots are?

[kaushik]

The best point in favor of Democracy was given in "Equilibrium". The people should be given the freedom, even if it is to destroy themselves...

It is true that "mob mentality" some times get better of common sense and what ensures is a chaos. But if a really dedicated fellow leads a democracy, then progress might occur.

The reason that people prefer democracy is that it is the best of all the "misfit" options that people have today... None of them are 100%, but democracy is nearest to 50%

[Dr House]

And who determines who the idiots are?

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

The best point in favor of Democracy was given in "Equilibrium".

the Equilibrium universe was horrible, but not because it was authoritarian. it was horrible because it eliminated human emption, thus eliminating the whole basis of human existence. It turned us into machines.

The people should be given the freedom, even if it is to destroy themselves...

Why should they?

But if a really dedicated fellow leads a democracy, then progress might occur.

Replace democracy with society. Democracy practically guarantees bad leadership, and dedicated, virtuous leaders are so whether they lead democracies or autocracies.

[ninurta]

And who determines who the idiots are?

While I wouldn't call them idiots, who gets the election because they are smarter and better at debating will get in power. Natural selection determines all that. If we put a person in charge, how would we know he's intelligent? so we let nature do its thing.

The last election is a good example. The dumb naive woman vs the smart college grad, guess who won? The smart geeky guy who is now our president.

[grassroots1]

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

Even psychologists and psychiatrists can become ideologues.