The debate "Democracy not the best form of government" was started by
September 12, 2019, 10:27 am.
77 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 71 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Batman posted 2 arguments, DanielCartagena posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 3 arguments to the disagreers part.
Aiyaz, Batman, lolopopo, Lind, DanielCartagena, dinosaurrawr, Lynn, CastLight and 69 visitors agree.
Ambassador_Chess, codyray16, Anabelle_Granger, YEET, Nemiroff, Nikhilsoni, Shrivali_16, benedict, K1VK2DF, Mice, bitchimaqueen, Anonymous42, tyler0300 and 58 visitors disagree.
i agree that a limited democracy (with constitutional protections for minorities) is best, but communism isnt in contrast to democracy. communism involves community involvement and mass participation, i can see no other form that can take besides voting.
however i am scared of laissez faire capitalism. the no money utopia may be a fantasy, but unrestrained greed focused capitalism with no societal limitations or direction will result in a dystopian nightmare. capitalism must be carefully regulated and guided in the direction that best servers society, like not paying 3rd world wages in a developed society. 3rd world countries have much lower rent, math has to make sense for workers.
yes perfect government is only utopia. but democracy will benefit more people.
not republic and democracy makes laws that are sovereign, and punishes those that break them. the difference is who makes them.
in ancient rome they had a republic that did not care about the people and past rules that served them and those that help them. a republic has many many flaws.
whats great about our system is that it is a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. which has the strenths of BOTH. although still slow to act, which is the weakness of any deliberative body.
democracy is popular rule, that means the minority will never get what they want. that means democracy will always lead to conflict and there will 100% always be people who are unsatisfied. your complaint of socialism is just as much a problem with democracy.
socialism is an economic model that opposes capitalism, not democracy. original socialism did not mention anything about how we choose leaders or enact laws.
democracy is the fairest system since people gets what they deserve. bad people will have bad government, good people gets good government. socialism would always lead to conflict since there will 100% always be people who is not satisfied.
Democracy is: the sovereign of the people, but surprise! the people don't always take good decisions
Republic is: The sovereign of the Law, whosoever don't fullfil it will pay, that who obey it will be praised
Democracy can lead to the Tirany of the masses, that's what post-modernism is making in the western world
nothing is really the best form of government.
well, once a democrat becomes president and brett kavanaugh gets removed from the bench for lying under oath, then you have a supreme court that might be willing to overrule that.
IIRC donations for campaign advertising are legally seen as forms of 'free speech' so it'd be difficult to change that.
I see your point. But if you are limited to getting money from individuals and the government controlled the amount that each individual had control of, we could effectively cap political spending. So you wouldn't have enough money to run attack adds in every state.
Additionally, that doesn't need to be the only change to elections. You could also add requirements to get on the ballot paper. For example requiring all candidates to fully describe in writing their positions on specific issues.
i think your terms and limits might be good, but i think a better solution needs to be found for campaign funding.
perpetual funding metropolitan and nationwide ad coverage is insanely costly for now reason. especially when the ads themselves are often not helpful. 45 seconds isnt enough for a policy, but its plenty of time for an attack.
instead we should find a way to replace ads as the primary source of voter information.
no one is saying abandon democracy in practice, but it is inferior in ideal terms. it will never be as swift or decisive as a singular will. assuming you get someone like the fabled solomon, or maybe king arthur (short on actual details on both tbh), it is the ideal government.
realistically speaking ill take slow and chaotic democracy any day, dont get me wrong.
I also think it is critically important to change how politics is financed. It costs millions and millions to run for office. This means politicians spend a large percentage of their time pandering for money from people. This makes them reliant on rich and powerful people to fund their campaigns which also stifles progress and keeps politicians from doing what is actually in their constituents best interest. I think a plan something like what Andrew Yan suggested should be implemented. All political contributions by companies and private individuals should be illegal. Instead, the government would provide an amount of money to each citizen which they can give to whatever politician they want. It would not be possible to spend this on anything else, they can only use this money for a political contribution. This would mean that all political funding would be coming from constituents and not billionaires. It would prevent a tiny part of the electorate (the ultra wealthy) from controlling all the political influence. It would mean that only those politicians who have real political support would be able to fund their campaigns. You would see considerably less fringe candidates as they are almost entirely funded by rich assholes and don't actually have much real support.
It would free up politicians from having to make constant fund raising calls and throwing fundraising parties to try to make sure they have the money to win their next election. Some stats I have seen say that most members of congress spend at least half their time fundraising. That is at least half the time they should be spending trying to represent their constituents wasted on trying to get the money to protect their own job. This would allow them to refocus their time on actually doing their job as there is no point doing calls and throwing parties as they can't give them large sums of money.
I think it would be better to try to iron out some of the issues with democracy rather than try to replace it with another form.
I think having terms that are a bit longer, but strict term limits would be helpful. One of the main issues politicians have is the constant pandering to short term goals. If it takes, say 10 years, to complete a project then there is little incentive for politicians to make it a priority because they have to worry about the election a few years away. People don't rally behind stuff until they can see it and benefit from it. This causes politicians to constantly be looking for a short term win, even if it comes at the expense of longer term success. For example, it took years longer to build a light rail system in my city than it needed to because every election the new city council would mess with the plan and cause delays. They wanted to be the ones to design the LRT so they got the political win, but that just made things worse. Giving politicians a longer chance to try to make the changes they want would reduce the back and forth and hopefully give them more incentive to think longer term.
I'd also like to see firm limits to how long they can serve for. People serving in parliament for decades should not be allowed. Being the incumbent gives you some stability and it is hard to get them out if they want to stay. This stifles new ideas. It makes politicians want to make the "safe" choice because they want to keep winning elections so they just don't do very much. if they knew they only had so long to make the changes they wanted, hopefully it would motivate them to accomplish what they set out to do. It would also keep politicians anchored in the present and not in the past. The Democratic party has been stuck in a neo-liberal loop for decades because it is being run by people who have been there for decades. People like Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are super outdated in their thinking and completely out of touch with their constituents, but they continue to push for policies that do not resonate with anyone. Term limits would force them to get out of the way so people with ideas from this century can actually try to implement them.
the benevolent dictator has one more issue you forgot to.mention, succession.
maybe an economoc dictator while the people, or a representative body, retain the military... just in case.
not really deeply thought through but this may be an excellent brainstorming opportunktu.
It is inefficient, corrupt, unstable, oppresses minorities, elects confidence over competence, elects wealth over competence, polarises the population, favours marginal regions over definite regions, has short-term tunnel-vision, vulnerable to external manipulation by foreign governments or MNCs, caters to the false whims of the population, appeals to the lowest common denominator, is prone to mob rule, and oversimplifies complex issues.
Is it the best political ideology? Depends on your values.
The best of all Governments would be a Benevolent Dictatorship. However, that is only the case if the leader is truly benevolent, well informed, has the resources to fix the problems he identifies, is free from corrupting influences, etc... In other words, it is an ideal that will never be reality.
If we are dealing in the real world, democracy is superior to other forms of government because it is the only system that is self correcting. It allows for corrupt leaders to be easily replaced; ineffective legislation to be replaced; etc.... It is arguable a little slow to respond to crisis, however, the trade off is well worth it.
Democracy is certainly not the most efficient form of government. But what alternative is better?
Can you convince voters to support things that are bad for them? yes. But if you didn't have a democracy then the leaders would still do terrible things, they just wouldn't have to go to the trouble of hiding it. They would just go about their corruption and terrible policies without anyone else having a say.
Democracy is messy. it is loud and often has mixed or outright bad results. But history has proven that if you concentrate power in fewer hands, then those people will only look after themselves and everyone else suffers.
I am not aware of a better system. If you think you know of a better system, then by all means tell me what it is.
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others that have been tried from time to time..
To know whether democracy works or not you have to talk to the average voter.
In democracy, the trees vote for the Axe because it's handle is made up of wood but the owners of the steel are profited..
I would argue that a constitutional republic coupled with capitalism is one of the best, if not the best, form of government and economy
That depends on your definition of best. It is certainly not the most efficient form of government. If democracy isn't the best, then what do you consider to be better?