Democracy: Ideal or not?

[Grandiagod]

You want to know why the govt. is shity?

Human error and corruption. The human factor is the most destructive force on this planet.

[aperson]

Originally Posted by trillobyite

My favorite paradox (and I guess an argument against democracy) is that if the people vote in a totalatarian government, which proceeds to, legally, amend and destroy democratic priviledges, then the democracy doesn't work in the end and the only way the people can achieve their will of liberty would be in revolution. That's why it's always important for checks and balances and the like, but even that can go awry.

Of course, what you said is right. Whatever government is decided upon by the general culture of the people, without democracy already in operation, will kick off and others will follow.

You are assuming that the society in which this regime is built will execute non-meritocratic authority. This is the case in our society, but this is not the case in all societies.

In radically different societies it is very possible that communism or totalitarian rule would be the optimal form of government.

[trillobyite]

Originally Posted by aperson

You are assuming that the society in which this regime is built will execute non-meritocratic authority. This is the case in our society, but this is not the case in all societies.

In radically different societies it is very possible that communism or totalitarian rule would be the optimal form of government.

I can't agree with that. Like grandiagod said, there is a human factor. If one man has too much power he will create a rigid social structure at his leisure if it means preventing non-supporters from attaining government jobs and positions. In fact, I'd say the USA is pretty meritocratic, while most nations that experimented with totalatarianism, like Cambodia, Germany, USSR, N Korea....usually had no good come out of it. The only exception I can think of is China, in regards to which you may be right.

[aperson]

Originally Posted by trillobyite

I can't agree with that. Like grandiagod said, there is a human factor. If one man has too much power he will create a rigid social structure at his leisure if it means preventing non-supporters from attaining government jobs and positions. In fact, I'd say the USA is pretty meritocratic, while most nations that experimented with totalatarianism, like Cambodia, Germany, USSR, N Korea....usually had no good come out of it. The only exception I can think of is China, in regards to which you may be right.

Uhh what? You can't agree with it because you can't conceptualize any societal model outside of the western mentality. And, uhh, the US is not very meritocratic. If you take a few glances at congress, you'll realize that all they want is money and power, not what is good for the nation. Also, as an example of a successful dictatorship, just go look at Singapore.

[Shashakiro]

I'm pretty cynical when it comes to this. Personally, I believe that in most cases, people are too dumb to make the right decisions for themselves, so in my opinion no, democracy is not ideal.

But AP is right--it totally depends on the country, and that country's people.

[trillobyite]

Originally Posted by aperson

Uhh what? You can't agree with it because you can't conceptualize any societal model outside of the western mentality. And, uhh, the US is not very meritocratic. If you take a few glances at congress, you'll realize that all they want is money and power, not what is good for the nation. Also, as an example of a successful dictatorship, just go look at Singapore.

Meritocratic means the society is based on promoting individual achievement. Work ethic and economic advancement have been an ideal in American culture for centuries (though that right was denied to many- so I'm talking about modern times). Singapore, China....these are exceptions, albeit major exceptions. The ones I listed, and most other countries that rode the path of totalatarianism, ended with nothing more than millions dead and civil wars...

[aperson]

Originally Posted by trillobyite

Singapore, China....these are exceptions, albeit major exceptions. The ones I listed, and most other countries that rode the path of totalatarianism, ended with nothing more than millions dead and civil wars...

They're not exceptions you retard. They're examples of other forms that can succeed with a different harmony between the ruling and the working. All you're doing is casting aside counterexamples to your crappy hypotheses as 'exceptions' rather than trying to understand why they actually work. You shouldn't be in critical thinking, you should be in elementary school.

[trillobyite]

Originally Posted by aperson

They're not exceptions you retard. They're examples of other forms that can succeed with a different harmony between the ruling and the working. All you're doing is casting aside counterexamples to your crappy hypotheses as 'exceptions' rather than trying to understand why they actually work. You shouldn't be in critical thinking, you should be in elementary school.

The majority of totalatarian countries, fundementalist or secular, in which the right of the people to actively participate in government is restricted, historically are filled with horrid corruption, mass-murder, and ethnic conflict. Very, very few countries do actually succeed, the ones you mentioned in particular because the people's culture historically tolerated that type of rule and the leadership is not oppressive enough or following twisted ideals. Singapore is a Parliamentary republic, and the least corrupt one in Asia (and on the lowest 10 of the TR international corruption index). True, it has a one-party system, but laws to restrict freedom of speech are intended not to halt criticism of the government but to stamp out racism. The goals and culture of Singapore make it very fit for an active government, but when a powerful government is plagued with corruption, seeks to destroy all dissension, and promotes twisted policies that ultimately lead to genocide (which occurs much of the time), then that powerful government is NOT optimal. Your personal attacks don't affect me. I know more about myself than you do, so shut up.

[Kles]

"Democracy is four wolves and a sheep voting on dinner." - Robert Heinlein

I don't like it, but it's the best we've got for our purposes.

But it sucks to fall in the minority in almost everything, as I do.

[glone]

I really think that the problem isn't so much the form of government (democracy in this case) as it is the people within it. As the US has progressed, it has gone through it's stages of improvement and decline, but with the technology boom in the past 100 years (and more recently the past 30 years), I really feel like it's going through those stages at a far more accelerated rate than in the past and it won't remain the way it is much longer. People in this country are becoming more ignorant, stupid, apathetic, and lazy overall compared to other nations like Japan, Sweeden, and Germany to name a few. Not to say they don't have their own problems, but the US's state is degenerating rapidly.

If I'm coming off as anti-US , believe me, I'm not. I would love nothing more than to see the political and social conflicts associated with this country ended and new measures taken to restore the US to contendable power on nearly all fronts. Not just military and monetary as seems to be the trend as of late.

Somewhat off topic: I really am not looking forward to seeing the next candidates for office come election time. This is going to be one hell of a turning point is US history as most Americans are now in disapproval of Bush's decisions and would like to see someone more on the opposite end of the political spectrum take over. This doesn't mean it's the correct train of thought however, it's just the opinion of the masses tends toward a self centered mindset.

That's my 2¢.
- Glone