jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (14 posts)

Rah Rah Democracy!

  1. 0
    Sooner28posted 3 years ago

    George Bernard Shaw claimed, "Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few."

    Whether liberal or conservative, everyone has observed incompetent or corrupt politicians.  In addition to them, there are many people who are vastly misinformed or uninformed.  For example, there are people who believe Obama is the antichrist and that shape-shifting lizards are taking human form to control our society. 

    And, many of these people vote.  Unfortunately, their decisions are anything but rational, and yet their votes count the same way as those who are more informed and don't believe in religious superstition or sheer unsubstantiated nonsense.  So combine bad politicians with insane voters, and disaster is destind to result.

    We all know the famous Churchill quote about democracy, but I often wonder if there is a better way.

    1. Silverspeeder profile image60
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
      Winston Churchill

      Take away peoples right to vote for whatever reason and you will be going down the road to dictatorship.

      1. 0
        Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Why assume more authority is the answer?  We could move towards more decentralization, so uninformed voters are not making decisions for the other 290 million.

        1. Silverspeeder profile image60
          Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Isn't that what already happens with state and local government?

          Here in the UK we vote for local councils to govern locally.

          The main problem with democracy as i see it is that most political parties are undemocratic yet expect to operate a democratic system of government.

          1. 0
            Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I mean radical decentralization.  Concentrating more power in state and local governments doesn't solve the problem of the irrational voter, though it does reduce their power.

            1. Silverspeeder profile image60
              Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I see your point but what if the state you live in has a large number of irrational voters?
              Wouldn't that exasperate the problem? And allow radical parties and politicians to take control of individual areas more easily?

              1. 0
                Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                That's why I am in favor of restructuring business so the government's power can decrease.  Turn everything into co-ops.

  2. innersmiff profile image79
    innersmiffposted 3 years ago

    Democracy is the ad-populum fallacy writ large. The only appropriate solution is to revert to a system of self-government.

    1. 0
      Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I wrote that in a paper once, and the professor told me I needed to explain myself.  I wondered whether she understood what the fallacy was.

    2. GA Anderson profile image85
      GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      What level of self-government?
      By state?
      county,
      city,
      town,
      village,
      group,
      family (clan),
      individual?

      That is how we started. Then, starting from family/clan, and up, folks got tired of living by the "might equals right" standard, and stepped up to the next level of government. Ans so on. Until we have our present form.

      So what level of self-government do you have in mind? And how would you guard against the issues that caused it to be abandoned the first time around?

      GA

      1. 0
        Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Fair question.

        Maybe people need the right to form their own governments in neutral territories (like not building a nation right over an oil field), and then people can choose what kind of government they want to live under (socialist, capitalist, mix, etc) with free travel among them, just in case an individual changes his/her mind.

        I'm just thinking out loud though.

        1. GA Anderson profile image85
          GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I understand what you are saying, but ...
          It is something we have already tried, but human nature interfered.
          What happens when one group succeeds, and it's neighbor - not so much so.
          You are right back to the "might makes right" problem.

          Or what happens when a prosperous group  practices isolationist policies, which for whatever reason, is to the detriment of it's neighbors? There goes the "free travel" choice.

          and using your thought about neutral territories - who determines what's neutral?

          Reality dictates that, (on a contiguous landmass), an expanding union is the ideal concept for the growth of its people.
          It is our management of that union that is the problem - not the concept.

          So for now, and probably the foreseeable future, I think Churchill nailed it. It is not the system that needs to change - it's human nature.

          GA

          1. 0
            Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Human nature doesn't interfere.  Greed does, and that is the basis of capitalism.  Though I guess you have a point, since people living in the society they wish would mean some were capitalists and would turn imperialistic.

  3. 0
    Sooner28posted 3 years ago

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/10/r … -man-made/  Here's an example of someone not qualified for office (he's also the one who apologized to BP).

 
working