Democracy - A fragile thing

Sept 15 was international democracy day. For many of us living in mature democracies it is easy to forget how fragile a system it is

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45853&Cr=democracy&Cr1=#.UjfedpYY8zs

And he is absolutely right - no matter what your politics, the maintenance and growth of democratic principles are critical removing much of the conflict in our world. It's a lot harder to send the youth of a nation to war when you have to answer to the voice of that nation

 

Democracy is massively overrated.

We have such a doublethink in this (Western I guess) society, where we simultaneously want liberty, and decision making to reside in the individual, and democracy, and decision making to reside with the collective.

In reality the vast majority of people are indifferent towards politics, and of those that aren't, the vast majority of those can't list substantial policy or their justification behind it. I don't think it's outrageous to propose that most people simply vote for whoever will give them the most free stuff. I'm not saying that this is a partisan thing, far from it - the mainstream left wants their penalty rates and their welfare, the right wants their social security, medicare, and ~3% less taxation, but it's all pretty much the same stuff: subconscious calculation of the utility differential between the two parties, and an automated vote for the one with a higher mark.

It is, in this way, extremely destructive. Look at the 'principles' of most Republics - the people give up a few of their rights to protect the remainder - can anyone honestly say this is being fulfilled? The people make horrible decisions, if they can be called decisions at all - we go every 3 or 4 years to pick between the two parties that we equally hate. Even if you don't acknowledge that democracy is junk, surely this is closer to tyranny than democracy.

In my opinion people would be much better off if they abandoned this false notion that there's some sort of collective decision making system here, and focus on their own actions. That's all they're ultimately doing - they only have control of their own decisions, after all. Come up with some values and fulfill them.

 

Democracy with leaders and people who need to have their voices respected yeah right.
There is no such thing as representative democracy , democracy can only by direct and leaderless .

 

So you will limit what the people can do with their democracy - how did you decide this, did you let them have a vote?

 

Either you have comprehension issues or my English is really bad , direct democracy = citizens decide everything on their own directly without representatives.

 

So why can't their choice be to elect sovereign representatives to rule them?

 

Is this a joke?
representation is not direct democracy

 

So you've established rules for what the people can choose, under what authority? Certainly not theirs. If they vote for the proposal then who are you to argue?

 

Stop trolling me .

 

I'm not trolling you, the whole point of direct democracy is that what the people say goes, period. At least in the current system people have something resembling control over what these restrictions are, in the form of the amendment process.

 

However what of the people who do not even have that option?

 

I think your English is fine. However the concept you are supporting seems more akin to the old anarchist viewpoint. Which I believe with the exception of some brief periods in very localized areas of Spain a completely untried form of government

 

I am not an anarchist and this is the way things are going , if nobody is happy with any government maybe the problem is systemic .
Untried is new and we are evolving into doing new things .
Actually direct democracy was tried in old Athens and 16th (or 17th) century Madagascar by pirates .

 

I was referring to the old school definition of anarchists. Where there are no directly elected officials or government body. Simply the masses make decisions. I'd be interested in information about your Madagascar example, I have not heard of that

 

Yes i know to what you are referring and i believe that we are about to take some steps towards the limiting of the government to a ceremonial role
Madagascar story It is in Johnson's General History of Pirates book , for some a myth for others not .

 

I have considered the USA to be a representative plutocracy. That means it's like representative democracy, but instead of the people being represented, it's the corporations.

And yet, I thought of a dilemma just today.. This isn't really true. Because if they represent the corporations, they are representing us, because we voted them into office to do that, and then re-elected them. So our will is the corporate will.

It's like they said we represent you, what do you want us to do, and we said, while pointing to the corporations, "do whatever those guys want you to".. And they do. Then the next election, we go to the ballot box and cast our ballots for those same guys we asked to do the corporation's bidding, and then they say, well we did that last time, you liked it so much you voted for us again, so we'll just continue that.

At the end of the day, we the people must take responsibility for the mess we helped create.

 

The United States is not a democracy and the Constitution guarantees to the states that we never will be one. Article 4 section IV.

 

Democracy removes much of the conflict? You mean like Hitler who was elected democratically? You mean like Mubarak who was elected democratically? Come to think of it, the US Congress has only a 14% approval rating and falling, much like Mubarak's approval rating, yet turn over in the former USSR politbureau was more than in the US Congress every election cycle.

Come to think of it, the US has brought peace in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc.

So let me get this straight, stopping a nation from attacking Syria that has troops in over 70 countries around the world is a success?

You know, you are right. Having troops in 71 countries would have crossed our collective red line.

 

I always think of it as corporate socialism. The number of large corporations that run the country keep getting smaller and smaller as corporate America becomes increasingly centralized, just like the US government.

I guess the goal of the Occupy Wall Street crowd is to reduce the top 1% to 1/2% and then maybe 0.005%. Then maybe later they will crown Obama king and make them all happy.

 

On this day, let's have our deepest condolences for those who still suffer the tyranny of the egalitarian mob-rules.

 

Feel free to move to North Korea and enjoy the luxury of not having to vote, not having to bend to the will of the mob, and not having to bother with any of the silliness associated with democracy

 

The government shutdown is a prime example of how democracy can render itself ineffective.

 

Had north koreans been able to vote, would you be surprised that the Kims got elected again?

Had Grecian slobs been able to vote, would you be surprised that they vote for someone that promises 3 hours of work everyday, everyone be given a villa by the sea, and 4 month long holiday?

Oh wait, but they can vote, can't they?

 

Kims will be elected in no time as the N.Koreans are brainwashed to believe they are gods on earth since they day they are born.

Democracy has never been truly tested. Even in ancient Greece only MALE landowners were allowed to vote. Moreover the system was so corrupt that Themistocles (arguably the savior of Athenian Democracy) was exiled to Persia due to inner rivalries and jealousy.

 

Absolutely, and people from all walks of politics agree with you. That is reflected in the many poles that showed the amount of anger and blame attributed to all parties involved in the issue