It is taught to us in school as one of the most fundamental thoughts and most unquestionable of truths that democracy is the creator and upholder of civilisation - Letting people vote by whom they want to be ruled is as fair it can be and anyone questioning this is an ignorant heretic. Now, let us - for a moment - be that "ignorant heretic" by raising the question whether "majority rule" really is the optimal way of organising society, what do you think? Basis for discussion: - Is democracy desireble? Why/why not? - Is democracy fair? - What, if anything, makes democracy superior? - Are there any other forms of government that would be more beneficial for society?
The United States of America is not a democracy. We are a Republic. We are ruled by law and not by the will of the masses, which is what a Democracy does. Democracy is not fair because it does not protect the rights of the weak or minorities. Our Republic works fine, and our rights are protected by our laws written under rules established by the US Constitution which stresses individual freedom.
I think democracy is desirable in a very limited form. Only people who actually understand the issues and care about the country should be allowed to vote.
I actually do not even believe in the nation, not if you want democracy to work at least. My view is that of a Hoppe-ian one where democracy can only - on it's height - work in very small-scale societies. Afterall, it makes no sense being ruled from the capital if you live on the other side of the country. Regionalism/Confederatism is the success melody, where each region handle their own questions and issues through democratic elections and where the only sense of nationhood is that there is a common military. It is important that the power proceeds from the people and therefore the government ought to be closer to the people.
That's why I'm in favor of both local government, as well as countries being small. Even if America actually did value states' rights, it's still too big for the people to have control over the federal government.
The strength of democratic processes is it gives the people a voice, and so is more likely to serve at least a large segment of society. There is less risk of a detached, clueless leader out of touch with the masses. That said, I do not think it is the best possible way to make decisions because it relies upon the judgement of average people who, perhaps understand some things very well but how large societies and policies function are not usually among them. Overall a system that selects the smartest people in the business of understanding society and policy would be the best. A technocratic republic. Specialized testing would be necessary to identify them. Another useful feature that we already do have at least a version of is a constitution that limits power.
If you ask most folks they will say yes of course it is without question. The real question is ... Is democracy necessary? Again most would say yes but in reality it isnt. As long as folks are comfortable they really dont care. So in that light ... democracy is NOT desirable. The child is grown, The dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb.
Democracy is mob rule. We don't want mob rule. We want to be ruled by law made by thoughtful men and women.
Everything can been in Democracy even some dude in east World will nothing of Nationalism will to have there. But western World will have Nationalism so long the people wants this fine even restistence not want same thing.
You are not the first person to come up with your idea. In Ancient Greece only men over the age of 25 who owned property could participate.
Small regional states led to centuries of war. It encourages war if you are just a little bigger than your neighbor and no one is willing to stop you.
What's important is a government that is limited, and that protects human rights. The best way to maintain that seems to be a representative republic.
That was certainly the experience in Ancient Greece wasn't it. Small city states sometime ruled by democracies would go to war with other city states. Sometimes a group of city states would ally themselves with others to thwart more aggressive city states, ie. Sparta...Athens. Then when a large foreign invader threatened the entire peninsula all of the Greek states (or most of them) would band together to fight the invader (Persia). If the question is, did the democracies work, then the answer is either "probably" or "as good as anything else". If one asks if democratic government produced the most contented citizens, then the answer is, "It depends". It depends upon the nature of the threat and the quality of the ruler, if there is one, as in the case of Pericles. So there you are....it's a crap shoot.
Quite the opposite actually. If every state is only a small, regional confederation, there are no incentives to go to war simply because it is not worth it and because a small state cannot mobilise as large troops as a bigger state. San Marino, Lichtenstein, Andorra and Monaco are examples of small states that are stuck between large superpowers, yet no one is ever trying to attack them. Small states are more dependent on one and other, a world of small states encoyrages co-operation over war. It would make no sense for Michigan to go to war with Florida, for example.
I'm a Republican first and Democrat second, not the way the Americans understand it (with their two party system) but to me a democracy is a bit unstable, I hate the class system of a monarchy, despise elitist oligarchy and dictatorships and the equal but corrupt inequality of communism would smother me until I'm but a husk.
Pure democracy, (one citizen, one solid - meaningful vote) like pure Communism, (Communalism) are pipe dreams. Ego, greed, lusts, all what makes mankind... Anything but kind, all contribute to make the purist elements of these ideologies unattainable.
A country governed by a landed aristocracy is far and away the ideal situation. Assuming one is part of that landed aristocracy.
Yes democracy is desirable. But you need money for democracy, you need educated people, you need independant newspapers and you absolutely need to have no starving people because they would become soldiers for any dictatorship who will promise them food. But their is diversity in democracies, and I let you guess their is a huge difference between a central america rooted democracy and the swiss example. Anyway, imperfection is the nature of humanity, any system will create pain and problems because the human is imperfection. The only thing you can seek for is the less imperfection possible.
Every buddies has right to Think different and nobody can cares about other species or religion's. Facts is every humanity are different even they is same species for example: Racist or Communist or otherwise. Why were an enemy to other species ?
Democracy is with Capitalism for rich people 2 most normal states system. Nazism are in third Place. Nazism have problem in WW2 there them killing time how is left wing but Nazism is right wings. Liberty I never know.