Do you believe in the idea of Democracy?

[Cantousent]

The Athenian Democracy sentenced Socrates to death, which he almost gleefully accepted. There's a lot more to the story, but for the purposes of this thread, you're right.

 

The Athenian Democracy also voted in favor of the Sicilian expedition. That was another blunder.

 

The Athenian Democracy made it a practice to commit blunders.

 

...But the Athenian Democracy gave to the world a history disproportionately rich in thinkers, writers, philosophers, and artists of all kinds. From the example set by Athens, Enlightenment thinkers actually had hostile feelings towards Democracy. The fools.

 

I'll take my chances with the Democracy, win or lose.

 

Folks who complain that we don't have a "real democracy" because Bush won the election make me shake my head. First of all, nothing proves the lie behind their words more than the fact that they are given free reign to speak those words in the first place. Furthermore, a good democracy is one in which the people have a voice. You are guaranteed a voice in the United States of America. You are not, however, guaranteed that others will listen, nor should you expect to be heard. If your words are true, then others will hear them, even if not right away.

 

It is not a good democracy because your side wins. It is not a bad democracy because your side loses. It is a good democracy because the people have spoken, for better or for worse.

 

An excellent example of this sort of short sighted thinking lies in our higher education in the United States, where the students complain about the very democracy that supports their education. ...The democracy that leaves them in comfort to pursue their studies and allows them to speak out against the evils of the very system that gives them power. Folks are just too stupid to appreciate something good even when they owe virtually everything to it.

[Azarkon]

As long as there is government, there will be people who strive to, and inevitably succeed in, controlling the keystones of power.

 

There will always be government.

 

It doesn't matter if we're talking true secret ballot, president by lottery, or utopian communism. Inevitably there are holes in the system. Inevitably there will be those who can and will exploit the holes for personal gain. Inevitably, then, there will be a political elite who controls the reins of power. It's not necessarily one oligarchy - could be several factions vying for dominance, actually, but that's still nowhere close to true democracy.

 

I remember one of the letters Thomas Jefferson wrote concerning the goal of the Constitution, in which he touted that the system's true purpose was to, in fact, distinguish the "natural born leaders" from the rest (men were not born equal, he argued; rather, by pure biological nature, there are those endowed with more natural leadership than others, and those are the ones that should rule). It's not so much that he was after democracy, you see, but a better selection process for an oligarchy. Europe's decadency was a result of its heritage-descent process, which made no obligations to select the "best" leaders, simply the ones born under those who ruled before. Jefferson's idea was that America's system was better because it allowed for those who really had the qualities of leadership to rise instead of some son of kings. Of course, the person had to also *want* to be a leader - and therein lay the political elitism inherent in the system.

[cewekeds]

The Athenian Democracy sentenced Socrates to death, which he almost gleefully accepted.  There's a lot more to the story, but for the purposes of this thread, you're right.

 

The Athenian Democracy also voted in favor of the Sicilian expedition.  That was another blunder.

 

The Athenian Democracy made it a practice to commit blunders.

 

...But the Athenian Democracy gave to the world a history disproportionately rich in thinkers, writers, philosophers, and artists of all kinds.  From the example set by Athens, Enlightenment thinkers actually had hostile feelings towards Democracy.  The fools.

 

I'll take my chances with the Democracy, win or lose.

 

Folks who complain that we don't have a "real democracy" because Bush won the election make me shake my head.  First of all, nothing proves the lie behind their words more than the fact that they are given free reign to speak those words in the first place.  Furthermore, a good democracy is one in which the people have a voice.  You are guaranteed a voice in the United States of America.  You are not, however, guaranteed that others will listen, nor should you expect to be heard.  If your words are true, then others will hear them, even if not right away.

 

It is not a good democracy because your side wins.  It is not a bad democracy because your side loses.  It is a good democracy because the people have spoken, for better or for worse.

 

An excellent example of this sort of short sighted thinking lies in our higher education in the United States, where the students complain about the very democracy that supports their education.  ...The democracy that leaves them in comfort to pursue their studies and allows them to speak out against the evils of the very system that gives them power.  Folks are just too stupid to appreciate something good even when they owe virtually everything to it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Are you saying these people should be happy with what they have and shut up?

[Azarkon]

It is not a good democracy because your side wins. It is not a bad democracy because your side loses. It is a good democracy because the people have spoken, for better or for worse.

 

You're talking two different topics here. Democracy is not the same as freedom of speech. Yes, freedom of speech is often an attribute of democracy, but it does not equate a democratic system.

 

Being able to speak is not the same as being heard. You could be allowed to speak in a tyrannical dictatorship, but if anyone who tries to act on the speech is executed, I doubt your speech will have much weight or would make much of a difference.

 

This applies to both actual speech and political speech - ie voting. If the government controls the avenue of how you may vote, you're really just making the choice between two different oligarchies. Sure, there's always the third candidate option, but with the political culture as stratified as it has become, most people have simply given up on ever really affecting anything beyond which party rules.

 

An excellent example of this sort of short sighted thinking lies in our higher education in the United States, where the students complain about the very democracy that supports their education. ...The democracy that leaves them in comfort to pursue their studies and allows them to speak out against the evils of the very system that gives them power. Folks are just too stupid to appreciate something good even when they owe virtually everything to it.

 

It's not at all short-sighted. Students denoucning the very democracy that supporsts their education is what keeps said democracy healthy and progressive. If the youth did not take the opportunity to do so, then I'd worry that there is something wrong with the system in its control of information.

 

Though, in truth, students don't really have much power, at least not in my university experience in what is supposedly one of the top liberal campuses in the US (UC Berkeley). The days of university activism have passed and student protests have become enough of a cliche that the nation is just happy to ignore them nowadays.

[Cantousent]

Are you saying these people should be happy with what they have and shut up?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Of course not. Ignorance must always be heard in order to be answered.

 

This applies to both actual speech and political speech - ie voting. If the government controls the avenue of how you may vote, you're really just making the choice between two different oligarchies. Sure, there's always the third candidate option, but with the political culture as stratified as it has become, most people have simply given up on ever really affecting anything beyond which party rules.

Am I to feel sympathy for people who have voluntarily relinquished their voice. Indeed, I say "voice" in a larger sense. I hope that it is clear at this point. I might have just as easily said, "effected their will" and it would have meant the same thing only using a different idiom. You could have, just as easily, made the claim that some people are powerless because they've become jaded. Why should weep for those who have willingly given away not only their power in our democracy but also their obligation to it?

 

Though, in truth, students don't really have much power, at least not in my university experience in what is supposedly one of the top liberal campuses in the US (UC Berkeley). The days of university activism have passed and student protests have become enough of a cliche that the nation is just happy to ignore them nowadays.

 

If the student population had better arguments, then the overall population would listen. The failing arguments of the students are the cause of their insignificance.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

People take democracy for granted. You only have to look at the low turn out. If people did actually care then it would be much higher. Of course low turnout and apathy is also a sign that people are content with the safeguards regardless of who is actually in power.

[Cantousent]

Of course, I think everyone has failed to identify the real weakness of democracy. (let's just understand democracy by its common use as the spread between true democracy and representative democracy)

 

Democracy is overly reliant on rhetoric. ...But the best speaker is not always the best administrator.

[cewekeds]

I don't think people take democracy for granted I think people have just lost hope and/or misguided. I don't think the presidential election is the most important. He can't represent everybody and the chances of you actually talking to him about your problems is slime. However your state and local repersentives will more likely listen to your concerns and be able to address them. I think we also except that politicians will only say what will get them the most votes and only few things are different between the two big parties. I also think its hard for people who need to win to progress their careers to take chances and do the right things. However they have to make the people they hope will donate to them also happy. It would be very hard to be objective as politicians. People know this and have very little power to change the system.

 

Whats really sad is we have the same problem we had 20 years ago. To many people without heathcare. Too many people living on the street. The education system keeps falling behind the rest of the world. The budget never get balanced.

[WITHTEETH]

I do not like the republican version of democracy - Small.

If we have a small goverment then it can have outside influences, like oil tycoons or really any top business with enough money to get away with whatever they want. if they have influence then the people lose that much power. is it really the peoples goverment anymore? No. we need to keep it big. Look what roosevelt did with his growing goverment, he built airports and highways.

 

Ceweked, I will complain as much as i want to strive for a perfect society the best i can. You can call me a fool but, Do you really think keeping silent when your goverement fails you is being a patriot?

[cewekeds]

The Athenian Democracy sentenced Socrates to death, which he almost gleefully accepted.  There's a lot more to the story, but for the purposes of this thread, you're right.

 

The Athenian Democracy also voted in favor of the Sicilian expedition.  That was another blunder.

 

The Athenian Democracy made it a practice to commit blunders.

 

...But the Athenian Democracy gave to the world a history disproportionately rich in thinkers, writers, philosophers, and artists of all kinds.  From the example set by Athens, Enlightenment thinkers actually had hostile feelings towards Democracy.  The fools.

 

I'll take my chances with the Democracy, win or lose.

 

Folks who complain that we don't have a "real democracy" because Bush won the election make me shake my head.  First of all, nothing proves the lie behind their words more than the fact that they are given free reign to speak those words in the first place.  Furthermore, a good democracy is one in which the people have a voice.  You are guaranteed a voice in the United States of America.  You are not, however, guaranteed that others will listen, nor should you expect to be heard.  If your words are true, then others will hear them, even if not right away.

 

It is not a good democracy because your side wins.  It is not a bad democracy because your side loses.  It is a good democracy because the people have spoken, for better or for worse.

 

An excellent example of this sort of short sighted thinking lies in our higher education in the United States, where the students complain about the very democracy that supports their education.  ...The democracy that leaves them in comfort to pursue their studies and allows them to speak out against the evils of the very system that gives them power.  Folks are just too stupid to appreciate something good even when they owe virtually everything to it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Are you saying these people should be happy with what they have and shut up?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was asking Eldar is he thought people should shut up and not complain about the system that gives and gave them so much.

 

I glad people complain because that means people are thinking whats even better is when people act.

[metadigital]

I remember one of the letters Thomas Jefferson wrote concerning the goal of the Constitution, in which he touted that the system's true purpose was to, in fact, distinguish the "natural born leaders" from the rest (men were not born equal, he argued; rather, by pure biological nature, there are those endowed with more natural leadership than others, and those are the ones that should rule).  It's not so much that he was after democracy, you see, but a better selection process for an oligarchy.  Europe's decadency was a result of its heritage-descent process, which made no obligations to select the "best" leaders, simply the ones born under those who ruled before.  Jefferson's idea was that America's system was better because it allowed for those who really had the qualities of leadership to rise instead of some son of kings.  Of course, the person had to also *want* to be a leader - and therein lay the political elitism inherent in the system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, the traditional monarchy (and by extension, the nobility) derives the genetic traits of existing leaders (whenever a dynasty is surplanted, there is a natural born leader), with a conducive environment for hot-housing leaders, to hopefully produce the best leaders of the next generation.

 

Even Lenin, with all his attributed credibility was just a bourgeois who wanted to replace the decadent monarchy of Russia with a government with him in charge. Ditto for Mao Tse Tung (who was born into a moderately prosperous peasant farming family in Hunan Province).

 

I once read an anthropologists study on the political structure of a large tribe of chimpanzees. He noted that the next-generation males of the middle ranks would form bonds in order to topple the existing power structure and replace it with themselves. It seems we share more than just 98% of our genome with them.

[metadigital]

I do not like the republican version of democracy - Small.

If we have a small goverment then it can have outside influences, like oil tycoons or really any top business with enough money to get away with whatever they want. if they have influence then the people lose that much power. is it really the peoples goverment anymore? No. we need to keep it big. Look what roosevelt did with his growing  goverment, he built airports and highways.

 

Ceweked, I will complain as much as i want to strive for a perfect society the best i can. You can call me a fool but, Do you really think keeping silent when your goverement fails you is being a patriot?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't agree with big governments. Group responsibility equals no responsibility.

 

In the UK at the moment the New Labour government has been trying to increase productivity in the bloated public sector (millions of new middle managers since 1997) by issuing rafts of targets, to everyone. It is so bad that teachers and police spend more time writing reports about their jobs than actually doing them. (The UK has -- for the most part -- a particularly antiquated public IT infratructure.) For example, there was an edict that all patients had to be seen by a doctor within 48 hours. The result was that doctors' surgeries refused to make bookings more than 48 hours ahead, to meet the target!

 

There is only so much management that can be achieved centrally. And only so much that people will achieve working procy for someone else's interests.

 

The problem is that there are entrenched lobbies of special interest groups (like, but not limited to, all those inefficient public sector workers). And when a new government gains power, it has to re-imburse the backers in some tangible fashion, whether its allowing more coal power stations or giving a big tax break to a foreign car manufacturing plant to keep it in the country.

 

And there are also a lot of people who think that modern society is some sort of free handout, where they don't have to work their share. (Witness the cult of celebrity, which gives the little people the hope that they can be famous for being famous, like the vacuous Hilton child.)

 

Also, an interesting ethical issue not touched on yet is the principle that a democracy has to deal with parts of it that would cause its downfall in decidely undemocratic ways, whilst still maintaining the democracy. Like keeping a free press, but preventing incitement to riot and hate crimes. (Individual privacy is a very recent development, only in the last two hundred years.)

 

People aren't votiong because they're complacent; they're actually voting for "none of the above".

 

I suspect there's another major global adjustment about to happen. We're about due.

[WITHTEETH]

Sorry Ceweked! i was reading through post and had yuour name mixed up sith another!

[Azarkon]

Am I to feel sympathy for people who have voluntarily relinquished their voice.  Indeed, I say "voice" in a larger sense.  I hope that it is clear at this point.  I might have just as easily said, "effected their will" and it would have meant the same thing only using a different idiom.  You could have, just as easily, made the claim that some people are powerless because they've become jaded.  Why should weep for those who have willingly given away not only their power in our democracy but also their obligation to it?

 

That's how democracy dies. Does it really matter what came first, the chicken or the egg? Political jadedness or powerlessness? Cynicism or the inability to effect change? All are attributes of a failing system, and it won't be long before this all culminates as all political/economic problems culminate: in one big collapse, preferrably brought on by war.

 

If the student population had better arguments, then the overall population would listen.  The failing arguments of the students are the cause of their insignificance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The students must not be heard because they have failing arguments. How do we know that the arguments are failing? Because they're not being heard. Nice argument. Really convincing there .

 

Wonder where you were when they burned people at the stake for saying the earth revolved around the sun.

 

EDIT: One last note. Modern democracy is dependent on skill in rhetoric? Then how the hell did Bush get elected?

[Oerwinde]

EDIT: One last note.  Modern democracy is dependent on skill in rhetoric? Then how the hell did Bush get elected?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Modern Democracy is a popularity contest. Gore/Kerry were the nerds, Bush was the jock. The nerds are mentally more capable of leading, but while the jocks usually aren't as smart as the nerds, they tend be better at telling people what they want to hear.

[Azarkon]

Yeah, but skill in rhetoric implies something beyond the ability to repeat keywords, which is essentially what Bush did in most of his talks, when he's not inventing new words and making grammatical mistakes, that is.

 

Course, we all love to make fun of Bush, but one should definitely keep in mind that there are probably thousands of people whose rhetoric skills are far beyond that of Bush and whose political ambition is no less, but who would've never had a chance to compete for the position of presidency.

 

Instead of the golden-tongues that might theoretically rule a democratic system, we get a bumbling keyword repeater who just happens to be the son of a politically powerful family. Coincidence? I think not. America has most definitely leaned closer to an oligarchy as of late.

[Oerwinde]

But the grammatical mistakes and inventing new words is what got him elected. He seems like just an average joe who you could bump into at the local pub. The less educated prefer someone who isn't their intellectual superior, that got him a huge chunk of votes. I figure Bush got his votes from 4 groups. The rich, the stupid, the religious right, and the people who just plain thought Kerry/Gore was worse. Yes, there are people who seriously thought they were worse that don't fit in with the stupid group.

[Laozi]

Democracy depends on something else. Democracy depends on how the rich and priviledged of our society learn some other leason, like for instance the lessons being taught by the Mayans in Mexico. Though they among the most impoverished peoples of the worlds they maintain a rich and vibrant tradition of liberty and democracy, and its up to the people of America and other countries to heed these leasons, for a state like this in the third world is truely rare.

 

 

 

Noam Chomsky has been all over their asses for their democracy for year

[Cantousent]

If the student population had better arguments, then the overall population would listen.  The failing arguments of the students are the cause of their insignificance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The students must not be heard because they have failing arguments. How do we know that the arguments are failing? Because they're not being heard. Nice argument. Really convincing there .

 

Wonder where you were when they burned people at the stake for saying the earth revolved around the sun.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Great way to intentionally misunderstand my statement. You've obviously heard my arugment, but you didn't find it compelling enough to listen to it. The students have the right to speak, but if the general public doesn't find their arguments convincing, they won't listen. That's not a circular argument. Your attempt to make it so doesn't change that one, vital fact. So, I repeat, if the student population had better arguments, then the overall population would listen. The students are insignificant because their arguments are faulty. As are yours.

 

Finally, as to your edit, rhetoric doesn't mean using ten syllable words to convey a thought. Bush, and the Bush campaign, had to convince the voters by means of rhetoric. The proof that they succeeded is simple, he is currently in his second term. Since virtually every American adult has the right to vote, and since he did not gain and keep office due to military power, he won by means of rhetoric. Undoubtedly, he argued through a variety of surrogates who provided arguments tailored to different segments of society.

 

In fact, the fact that Bush is so wrong in your eyes and yet won re-election only reinforces my main point: Democracy depends on the ability to convince others. Just because a man is convincing doesn't mean that he is right.

[metadigital]

But the grammatical mistakes and inventing new words is what got him elected. He seems like just an average joe who you could bump into at the local pub. The less educated prefer someone who isn't their intellectual superior, that got him a huge chunk of votes. I figure Bush got his votes from 4 groups. The rich, the stupid, the religious right, and the people who just plain thought Kerry/Gore was worse. Yes, there are people who seriously thought they were worse that don't fit in with the stupid group.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you're all misunderestimating Dubya.

[Child of Flame]

Social Anarchy and Polygamy are the only way, now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to launch some rocks at the Earth.

[WITHTEETH]

Here is a great link that gets underneather the meaning and outlook of democracy.

 

Parascience.org Democracy, what a great idea!!!

[metadigital]

Interesting.

 

Those who say all men are equal speak the greatest truth if they mean that all men have equal right to Liberty, to the possession of their goods, and to the protection of the Laws - but, equality is at once the most natural thing and the most chimerical thing in the world; natural when it is limited to rights, unnatural when it attempts to level goods and powers - not all citizens can be equally strong - nor can they be equally wise - but they can be equally free. To be free is to be subject to nothing but the Laws!

Voltaire

 

I agree that the flaw of our modern democracies is treating everyone as equally important. Yes,everyone is equally free: that's a given. But just as their are heores in battle, physicists and chemists in science, charismatic leaders in politics, and even down-to-Earth people in the local pub, everyone has different gifts and talents.

 

Voting should be more structured. The only saving grace for the existing system is that an extreme swing in public opinion will vote a party out of office; but all the governments in the countries I have lived in have been long, multiple terms (from the left and right of politics) that only ended when the public were thoroughly sick and tired of the incumbents.

 

Perhaps a portion of the electorate could be elected (or randomly selected) to the task of being "voters", and their job is to be as informed as the politicians, like some sort of expanded professional jury. There is still opportunity for corruption, of course (I don't think any system would remove that): normal checks and balances would need to be added to ensure no systemic flaws were exploited by unscrupulous politicians.

[Oerwinde]

All men are created equal... but some are more equal than others.

[cewekeds]

We already have people that suppose to be well informed and thats congress. We vote for them then they vote in the house for suposely whats best for the people. We also have the elector collage for the president race which was designed to have a small group of people who vote for the president.

 

I don't see the law being fair when it comes down to how talented the lawyers are.

 

Another flaw or advantage with limiting voting rights to less people is a smaller group to please. How would you select these groups? I don't think the U.S. goverment was designed with the people in mind but more to keep the weathy people in control. White, male and land owner where the only people allowed to vote for a long time. Other groups where added only when it was gave whoever incharge the advantage in the election.

 

The reason that students are ignore its not because their argument is weak its because most don't vote. Your only going to give lip service and try to please the people who will vote or give you money. Unions, elders and rich people. Since the person who spends the most money wins it very important to keep the rich happy.