Attitudes to Democracy
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-04-2012, 07:36 PM
Attitudes to Democracy
Something I find interesting is the varying attitudes we hold to the concept of democracy, even though most people here would claim to be staunchly in favour of it.

Most of us champion it in a political sense but do we really believe in the basic concept?

I don't think we do. When I look at society there are so many hierarchical structures but most of them are completely undemocratic. Examples include; families, classrooms, businesses, offices and more. This forum even is a perfect example.

My stance on democracy is that it is the best of a bad situation. I think it is a terrible idea but we have nothing better at the moment. I think dictatorships work far better provided you have a benevolent dictator and are (again, provided you have a benevolent dictator) far less susceptible to corruption. The only problem is that there is no way to guarantee a benevolent dictator which makes the whole concept far too big a risk.

Given my stance I can understand why people want democracy but I can't understand why people champion it as such an incredible system when it is inefficient and usually self-defeating.

What are anyone else's views on this?

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Hughsie's post
13-04-2012, 08:22 PM (This post was last modified: 13-04-2012 08:46 PM by NotSoVacuous.)
RE: Attitudes to Democracy
Democracy at its fundamental level is faulty. Having the majority of people—who have never earned the right to vote—elect others to a position where there only knowledge of it came from a news organization? No thank you. Democracy is a popularity contest. It will never place the person who is most qualified in the position. A prime example is our current elections in the USA. We have a two racists running, one thinks women don’t deserve as much rights, the other has no moral code—hint he cheated on his wives. Mitt, who keeps bashing “Obama care”, while having nearly the same fucking system in Massachusetts, is clearly lacking the ability to think critically. And let’s don’t go down the lane of Bach or Cain.

We have a country filled with brilliance that would make me feel like I’ve never read a book. These people that have a moral code that is unalterable. These people have intelligence unmatchable, but we manage to find these current candidates. These candidates I wouldn’t trust alone in front of a grill at Burger king.

New methods need to be explored, and Democracy is nowhere close to the best of the worst at the moment. I honestly fancy anything that aims to aspire to a type of utopia. A Technocracy doesn't sound bad at the moment. Scientist play the lead roles in "a form of meritocracy, a system where the 'most qualified' and those who decide the validity of qualifications are the same people." It just makes too much sense. Oh, and let's get rid of this capitalism shit too. I am tired of that also.

"We Humans are capable of greatness." -Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes NotSoVacuous's post
13-04-2012, 10:33 PM
RE: Attitudes to Democracy
I've always looked at democracy like instead of a dictator who makes themselves the dictator, the country can choose the dictator out of a handful of candidates.

I like NotSoVacuous's idea of an expert lead country. But then, what if someone felt the power of being an expert? And because everyone trusts they themselves are not the expert and that someone else's opinion is better, that still leaves room for misguided trust.

Sometimes I think about what if ALL people made decisions on ALL things? Every bill, law and decision, at least major ones, could be voted on bimonthly or something. Not sure if it'd work though, I haven't thought this completely through.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-04-2012, 11:13 PM
RE: Attitudes to Democracy
I totally agree with Hughsie - not a great system but it's the best we got currently

Humankind Dodgy (a total misnomer)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2012, 02:00 AM
RE: Attitudes to Democracy
An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.

A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled "Constitutions." Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts--next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.

It was in this connection that Jefferson, in his "Notes On The State of Virginia" written in 1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature in the years following the Declaration of Independence, saying: "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . ." (Emphasis Jefferson’s.) He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia Legislature, under the so-called "Constitution"--in reality a mere Act of that body:

"All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice."

This topic--the danger to the people’s liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative majority--is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jefferson’s above-quoted comments).

The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the "excesses of democracy" The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America--the people at large of that period--who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the "excesses of democracy," were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards--in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)--for the people’s liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy’s form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic. It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that:

"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period." (Text per original.)

Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:

"Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current."

It is correct to say that in any Democracy--either a Direct or a Representative type--as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949--indeed, it has power to abolish anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.

For a period of some centuries ago, some English judges did argue that their decisions could restrain Parliament; but this theory had to be abandoned because it was found to be untenable in the light of sound political theory and governmental realities in a Representative Democracy. Under this form of government, neither the courts not any other part of the government can effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in the legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian they might become in practice. The parliamentary system of Great Britain is a perfect example of Representative Democracy and of the potential tyranny inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by Omnipotent Majority. This pertains only to the potential, to the theory, involved; governmental practices there are irrelevant to this discussion.

Madison’s observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as follows:

"Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."

Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to--is the very antithesis of--the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only "just powers" (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals.

A Republic

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention--especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose--to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America’s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government--of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America’s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government. One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is an entry in June 1775 in John Adams’ "Autobiography" commenting on the framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:

"By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act."

Yet the first proposal in 1778 of a Constitution for Massachusetts was rejected for the reason, in part, as stated in the "Essex Result" (the result, or report, of the Convention of towns of Essex County), that it had been framed and proposed not by a specially chosen convention but by members of the legislature who were involved in general legislative duties, including those pertaining to the conduct of the war.

The first genuine and soundly founded Republic in all history was the one created by the first genuine Constitution, which was adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for their consideration by a specially chosen Constitutional Convention. (As previously noted, the so-called "Constitutions" adopted by some States in 1776 were mere Acts of Legislatures, not genuine Constitutions.) That Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts was the first successful one ever held in the world; although New Hampshire had earlier held one unsuccessfully - it took several years and several successive conventions to produce the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people’s consideration and then ratified by the people of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few.

This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only "just powers," limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the "snob-rule" of a governing Elite and the "mob-rule" of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The Individual’s rights--to endanger the people’s liberties.

With regard to the republican form of government (that of a republic), Madison made an observation in The Federalist (no. 55) which merits quoting here--as follows:

"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another." (Emphasis added.)

It is noteworthy here that the above discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label "Republic" has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused--for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling--having essential characteristics of--a genuine Republic. Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to "the ancient republics," but in any such connection the term was used loosely--by way of contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy--often using the term in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government; as indicated, for example, by John Adams in his "Thoughts on Government" and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39. But this is an incomplete definition because it can include a Representative Democracy, lacking a written Constitution limiting The Majority.

--from The American Ideal of 1776: The Twelve Basic American Principles

[Image: 0832984001338019225.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Quidsane's post
14-04-2012, 02:49 AM
RE: Attitudes to Democracy
Very nice post Quidsane, clearly written Smile

Question: why the split between Legislative, Judicial and Executive? I know they're supposed to balance each other out and prevent abuse. Would you mind elaborating (at some point, it must take quite some time to write posts as long as that!) on what the three branches do and how it works - they're supposed to be completely independent aren't they, so e.g. Executive should have no say in who becomes a judge, judicial should have no say in what becomes Law etc? Where does the army fit in to government? Under executive?

Also, what is the position of president/governor? He signs things into law, he's the commander of the armed forces, he can pardon people - seems to have powers of all three branches - is that not a bit of a violation of the whole principle? Does he not also appoint supreme court judges?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2012, 03:28 AM
RE: Attitudes to Democracy
Nice idea, shame we dont live in one, Democracy or rule by the people is a thing of ancient history. What we refer to as Democracy is in more accuratly in the most optomistic of terms representative autocracy.

And really its not all that representative.

Shame is for the first time since the city states, we're actually capable of being democratic, probably why why we're running full tilt int despotism.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2012, 06:48 AM (This post was last modified: 14-04-2012 06:54 AM by NotSoVacuous.)
RE: Attitudes to Democracy
(13-04-2012 10:33 PM)LadyJane Wrote:  Sometimes I think about what if ALL people made decisions on ALL things? Every bill, law and decision, at least major ones, could be voted on bimonthly or something. Not sure if it'd work though, I haven't thought this completely through.
I could see a huge problem with gay marriage rights, atheist rights, and ANY foreign policy act with this system. Sorry, but with a 70% Christian vote, I will pass on the vote coming down to everyone.
(14-04-2012 02:49 AM)morondog Wrote:  Very nice post Quidsane, clearly written Smile
(14-04-2012 02:00 AM)Quidsane Wrote:  --from The American Ideal of 1776: The Twelve Basic American Principles


"We Humans are capable of greatness." -Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2012, 07:22 AM
RE: Attitudes to Democracy
The bigger picture goes well beyond "politics"..... its just a sham.

The only way people think "democracy" exists to them is when they vote.......HA!!!!!

So you vote, you go into a private booth and you tick a box...... what does it change????

Wars are still fought for bullshit reasons that you have ZERO say in.
Legislation is still passed that protects the huge corporations that you have ZERO say in.
The global market get manipulated and then apparently "crashes"...... this profitering and manipulation that you had ZERO say in.
Huge cuts in spending..... that the major majority just accept and dont even begin to question who, why and when...... that you have ZERO say in.

So whilst you pin your hopes and dreams on the next elections....... that you feel that this could be different the next time around....... that the people who spout bullshit manifestos that they have no accountabilty to actually follow through........... next time you actually go and "tick the box" remember thats as far as it goes........ other than that you have absoloutly ZERO fucking say on how your country and the world is run. Sad

You all know that im right........

I feel so much, and yet I feel nothing.
I am a rock, I am the sky, the birds and the trees and everything beyond.
I am the wind, in the fields in which I roar. I am the water, in which I drown.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2012, 07:53 AM
RE: Attitudes to Democracy
(14-04-2012 06:48 AM)NotSoVacuous Wrote:  
(14-04-2012 02:00 AM)Quidsane Wrote:  --from The American Ideal of 1776: The Twelve Basic American Principles
Heh Tongue Didn't spot that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: