Democracy Thread

[Vako]

So there is the America thread, the Communism thread, some really annoying Socialists, and lots of references to Fascism. So like... Lets talk about Democracy. I think it's kind of silly. What do you think? Have at it. I mean... what if they threw an election and no one voted? Wouldn't that be nuts ???

Every hippie from here to Seattle would scratch his filthy beard in shame and screach!

I just think that we have had it pounded into our skulls that Democracy is synonymous with freedom. People literally use both words like they are the same thing. Democracy does not guarantee freedom. Freedom guarantees freedom, and that is a result of force. Nothing else. Democracy is a process. It is the name of an ideology. Nothing more. People could use Democracy to vote my rights away or even to vote me out of existence. If properly used, it results in sociological balance. I feel that it is rarely used properly.

In order for Democracy to be used properly, the citizens must (or should) be very informed and aware. Here in fatass-land they usually are not. As we've all heard, "The tyranny of the majority".

No thanks, Amuuurica... I don't want the lot of them making decisions for me. I am my own leader.

Thoughts? Opinions? Ideas?

[KontanKarite]

I find that I wouldn't give a shit about what kind of government is in place so long as it doesn't threaten personal liberties and freedom as a whole.

I think even people in dictatorships can be free, so long as the dictator was a benevolent person.

[raggedyanne]

Many dictatorships have been highly productive, and even more have just been tragic.

[eternalcrimson]

I think Vako hit the nail on the head.

The biggest weakness in Democracy is the voters.

If I was ever dictator of America I’d allow people to vote under the following conditions.

1. Your I.Q. must be over 100

2. You have to take written test about politics and pass

3. You must know the names of all people in local government including what city or state they represent (Most people today don’t even know the name of their own mayor)

4. You’d have to take a written test on current events and pass. After all if you don’t even know what’s going on around you why should you deserve to vote.

To me voting is a privilege and not a right.

EDIT:
Oops I forgot to add that if you serve in the military than you automatically deserve the right to vote

[Splintered]

What are you going to put on the test? Who can measure politics and put it on an arbitrary scale.

Why the hell are you going to take the right away from the kid who has a 99 IQ, and really wants to vote? Why are you going to take away the vote from the guy who only wants to do the best he can for his country? Why are you going to take away the right to vote from the guy who thinks that his kid should get a good education, but somehow has managed to slip by the local mayor? Why the fuck do you have the right to take the right to vote from the guy who remembers World War II so clearly, and can see people ready to send themselves into the next Auschwitz, and yet doesn't know Lebanon from Libya.

No. I'm sick and fucking tired of people thinking that it's alright to treat the masses like they are their hypothetical bitch, and that they can kick them around just because they are the ignorant masses. I still value human life, and I still believe that humanity deserves to live. I still believe that just because a girl got the shitty end of the deal when she was born, and her parents didn't have enough to put her through private school, got into drugs, and doesn't give a shit about the world around her doesn't mean that she shouldn't get to vote. How do we know that she doesn't care enough to give her vote on the causes she believes will do the best?

I'm friends with kids who wouldn't make that cut you ask of them. I'm friends with people who can't make these artificial tests that you want to put to only let the intelligentsia rise up because you THINK it might help the world in long run. They're good people, and I believe that they deserve to vote.

Why? Because no, as much as you may think you know what is better for other people's lives, you don't. Democracy gives the last, little bit of life into a system which gives the masses, however dumb they may seem as individuals, a chance to fight back.

[raggedyanne]

The thing that most people like best about American democracy is that everyone can vote. Democracy is all about having a say in what will happen to you. What isn't right is males in power saying that they know what's best for the rest of the country. Personally, I'd like to be able to choose whether or not I have to carry a child to term or not. The sad fact is that in every type of government people with less popular views will try to rig votes and gain power just to get their way. In some cases this turns out okay, but with the current pattern of presidents we might as well give up democracy and go back to being ruled by England.

(disregard everything I say here, it's late and I'm sugarhigh)

[eternalcrimson]

Originally Posted by Splintered

What are you going to put on the test?

It would be a “General” political test. Some questions might be….

What is a democracy?
Which political party believes in the idea of “Common Ownership”?
What’s are the differences between Fascism and Nazism?

Stuff that anybody with a 9th grade education would be able to answer.

Originally Posted by Splintered

Who can measure politics and put it on an arbitrary scale.

Anybody. It’s not that hard to do.

Originally Posted by Splintered

Why the hell are you going to take the right away from the kid who has a 99 IQ, and really wants to vote?

Because a democracy is only as strong as it’s weakest link.

Originally Posted by Splintered

Why are you going to take away the vote from the guy who only wants to do the best he can for his country?

It’s all about intentions. The road to hell is paved full of them……

There are plenty of ex-cons who would like to vote who have good intentions in this country that can’t.

Originally Posted by Splintered

Why are you going to take away the right to vote from the guy who thinks that his kid should get a good education?

That’s not the point. Most “kids” as you call it that has graduated from high school have an I.Q. of at least a 100. 100 is the average score on a I.Q. score.

Originally Posted by Splintered

………. but somehow has managed to slip by the local mayor?

Local Mayor? It’s the most basic piece of political knowledge. If you can’t name the mayor of your city then you don’t deserve to vote. It’s not that difficult to remember.

Originally Posted by Splintered

Why the fuck do you have the right to take the right to vote from the guy who remembers World War II so clearly, and can see people ready to send themselves into the next Auschwitz, and yet doesn't know Lebanon from Libya.

JESUS CHRIST! For one thing don’t take me so seriously. This is just a hypothetical situation. Two, It’s basic knowledge that all people intellectually are not created equal. It doesn’t mean that they are bad people it just means they are not smart enough to vote IMHO especially if they can’t even remember who the mayor of their fucking city is. Also like I said anybody that serves in military defiantly deserves the right to vote.

Originally Posted by Splintered

No. I'm sick and fucking tired of people thinking that it's alright to treat the masses like they are their hypothetical bitch, and that they can kick them around just because they are the ignorant masses.

Are you saying that there aren’t ignorant people in any population? It’s just a sad fact in life and I didn’t make it up. The problem with people in America especially lately is The populous is easily influence by shiny things and bells and whistles as oppose to looking at facts. Most people today would rather watch the 11:00 P.M. nightly news as oppose to finding and researching information on their own. I’m sick of it. I want people that vote not only to be passionate and give a shit but also be knowledgeable about the fucking issues.

Originally Posted by Splintered

I still value human life, and I still believe that humanity deserves to live. I still believe that just because a girl got the shitty end of the deal when she was born, and her parents didn't have enough to put her through private school, got into drugs, and doesn't give a shit about the world around her doesn't mean that she shouldn't get to vote. How do we know that she doesn't care enough to give her vote on the causes she believes will do the best?

You got to be kidding me. You’re serious right? Because according to the statement you just made you can do anything in life and not be accountable for it. She has been self-destructive for many years and as oppose to doing something positive with her life she gave up on herself and this is somebody that you trust with our country. How do we even know she even gives enough of a shit to vote at all which is another issue. If I remember correctly the turnout for the last election was somewhere around 40% which already proves that most people don’t give a shit and it’s even much lower than that for state and local elections.

If this girl was as great as you claimed she was she would have took that turd that life gave her and turned it in to a candy bar. I’m sick and tired of people whining and bitching how all of their problems in this country is caused by the government. Take some responsibility be in charge of your own happiness as a matter of fact one of things we are entitled to in this country. As a matter of fact it’s in the Declaration Of Independence we are all entitled to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Happiness is a choice.

Originally Posted by Splintered

I'm friends with kids who wouldn't make that cut you ask of them. I'm friends with people who can't make these artificial tests that you want to put to only let the intelligentsia rise up because you THINK it might help the world in long run. They're good people, and I believe that they deserve to vote.

Once again I’m not saying that they are bad people. I’m saying their should be accountability in terms of voting. The test would be simple actually and it’s all based on “common sense”. Something that’s slowly disappearing from this country.

Originally Posted by Splintered

Why? Because no, as much as you may think you know what is better for other people's lives, you don't

You don’t either but I am passionate and if you think that the democratic process in this country is perfect you are wrong. As a matter of fact if we are not careful it could be easily over toppled.

Originally Posted by Splintered

Democracy gives the last, little bit of life into a system which gives the masses, however dumb they may seem as individuals, a chance to fight back.

That’s not true these days. If that were true the voting turnout would be 100%, no less.

[Splintered]

I probably shouldn't have written that last night. (I was extremely emotionally charged at other things, took it out here. My apologizes for that).

However, I'm still standing by my position.

I disagree with political tests. These are the same things that were used to keep black people from voting when the 15th amendment gave them permission too. Democracy may only be as strong as it's weakest link, but the weakest link can be fixed by teaching people; not by holding back their ability to vote. This can be used to to vote on issues like eugenics, and cause people with an IQ under 100 to be executed without a way to protect themselves.

I never said the man who remembers World War II served in it. Millions of Jews served in World War II, and if they are still alive, I doubt they have so forgotten. Your basic information is irrelevant to me. My local mayor can't do anything for me. He's not going to be the guy spearheading pro-civil rights legislation, and he's not going to be the guy who is going to do anything above managing a small portion of my taxes. Sure he's a basic part, but he's not a significant part.

I'm sick of people not researching too. Trust me, I am sick of it, because if people did research the things they vote on, I'd be in a position to gain. With that said, I'm not going to take away their right to vote. As soon as you take away someone's right to vote based on artificial tests, you open the door take away their right to vote based on gender, then on race, and then on income. Progression towards liberty means that you afford more and more people rights. This was the entire spirit that the Deceleration of Independence was written in. The right to vote is a very, very basic right.

You talk about how the turnout was 40%. How does it make sense then, to restrict the ability to vote? Wouldn't that simply decrease the ability for more and more people to come to vote? By your reckoning, this would be a bad thing.

Some of the problems in life are caused by the government. Drug prohibition is a failed policy which only jails more and more people. Horrible education systems are stifling the children of the nation. A failed war in Iraq is dragging down the economy, and 3,000 lives with it. The failed war in Vietnam took even more. Not every problem is due to the government. However, the government is not squeaky clean.

The education system is poor. That is why I mentioned she didn't go to private school because her family couldn't support it. The government could fix that by transferring funds from the grossly over-spent military towards programs like education. Good school systems are possible; take a look at Finland. The government could have fixed that.

The drug prohibition does more damage then it does good. That is why I mentioned that she was on drugs. In 2005, 12 Billion dollars were spent maintaining a failed war on drugs. This could have easily been spent on urban programs, better education, etc, which would have reduced the likelihood for her to get into drugs. The government could have fixed that.

The government is seriously screwed up. Knowing her, I believe that's shes one of the few people who would know what works, and doesn't work because she's the effect of these programs. Taking away her ability to vote would stop this valuable input from reaching into the polls. Voters should be encouraged. Not stifled.

I don't even think common sense in a political term exists. For some people, it's "common sense" that Communism is too idealic. For others it seems like it's only a few years out of grasp. For some people, it is "common sense" that the poor are dumb and stupid. For others, they are the poor who can fathom both Neitzsche and Kierkegaard, and can differentiate the two.

The democratic process is not perfect. I'll be the first to admit this. However, I do not believe that because the system is flawed, means there is anything better. A benevolent dictator must die, and when they do the lives of their followers may be handed over to an egotistical bastard who wants only to kill people. Maybe you won't get 100% voter turn out. Maybe not 90%, 80%, 60%, 50%, 40%. But when people start feeling the pinch of other people's choices, they need to have that option to vote. Otherwise that pinch will kill them off.

[raggedyanne]

technically, the united states is a democratic republic, not a democracy. A democratic republic is A political system in which a country is ruled by law, has representative government, and is democratic in nature. A democracy is described as the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives. Democratic republics have a bit more distance between the voters and the vote-d.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by raggedyanne

technically, the united states is a democratic republic, not a democracy.

It's a federal republic, not a democratic republic.
Americans do not even vote for their president. They elect representatives to cast a vote for them.
Democracy blows. Plato knew it; Aristotle knew it; Machiavelli knew it; the forefathers knew it.
A federal republic is much better. It is a meritocracy with the power of limited socialism and the voice of a democracy.

[Drake Dun]

Democracy isn't about assuming that people in general can make smart decisions. It's about dispersing power.

Show me a country in which white people can vote and black people can't, and I'll show you a country in which black people get kicked around by the government. Show me a country in which people with an IQ under 100 can't vote and people with a higher IQ can, and I'll show you a country in which people with low IQ get kicked around by the government. Never forget that politics is driven by interest first, and philosophy second.

No legally ensconced elites.

To answer the original question, my opinion on Democracy is that it is preferable to any other presently practiced form of government, perhaps less preferable than certain theoretical forms of government, and certainly less preferable than no government.

Drake

[raggedyanne]

True, true, Drake. Jillian: Blame my history teacher for the misinformation. I think that the U.S's form of democracy blows right now because I just found out I cant ride on my cousins bike till he's 19.
(I know I'm whining, but it's whining about politics!)

[Splintered]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

It's a federal republic, not a democratic republic.
Americans do not even vote for their president. They elect representatives to cast a vote for them.
Democracy blows. Plato knew it; Aristotle knew it; Machiavelli knew it; the forefathers knew it.
A federal republic is much better. It is a meritocracy with the power of limited socialism and the voice of a democracy.

You see, I don't really agree.

If a federal republic was a meritocracy (Based on Merit), then what can explain the abundance of failures by individual people (Alberto Gonzales's firing scandal for example), and the lack of reactions? Surely a meritocracy would retain an intrinsic property which would surely deal with this.

I also don't agree that because Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, and the 'forefathers' (By which I assume you mean George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Paine, etc. thought it was bad, inherently makes it bad. Sure, I will give to them that they are brilliant people, but we also have to realize that these were people who 1.) Came before the renaissance (Aristotle, Plato), 2.) Came before the industrial revolution (To my knowledge, all of them did), 3.) Came before the Cold War, the first and second World War, the information age, the automotive age, the Anarchist movement, etc.

[CptSternn]

I think we must first define what exactly are we talking about when we are arguing about what is Democracy?

Are we talking about the current American form of government? If so, it's by no means a true democracy.

Also, I agree with Drake on the testing issue. Once you designate a group of people as ineligible to participate in the government for ANY reason, you now create a group of people who become second class and will be trampled by the government as well as society. Think slaves.

Splinter -although I agree with some of your earlier statements, you or way of on your assertation that Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, etc. failed to realise anything because it was before their time.

Have you ever read The Republic by Plato? It's one of his best pieces of work and goes into great detail about setting up a proper government and how to keep it honest. It's very detailed, and could work anywhere - provided people themselves stay honest.

On the other end of the spectrum you have The Prince by Machiavelli - which oddly enough is more inline with the current form of American government, which speaks of war, creating a false enemy to help brind the people behind the administration, which talks of using the media to your advantage, and other political techniques.

I don't think by any means that those works are dated merely because they came before the days of a plane, tank, or TV broadcast. If anything, they are more pure than current manifestos and memoirs written by those still alive.

Thats like saying the proverbs in the Bible don't or can't be applied merely because we no longer till the fields with donkeys or drink wine at every meal.

That being said, I do agree with Drake that a meritocracy is much better than a republic democracy, but that being said, also agree with you that the current form of democracy in America, and also in the other nations which call themselves democratic, are by no means meritocracies by any extent of the imagination.

Which brings me back to my first statement about are we discussing democracy here OR the current American government? Because both are two very different things.

From a mathematical standpoint, American democracy is like a rectangle while democracy is a square. A square can be a rectangle, but a rectangle can never be a square.