What happens to Democracy when more than 50% of the population can't cooperate o

1. 70

   Don Fairchildposted 12 years ago

   What happens to Democracy when more than 50% of the population can't cooperate or make decisions?

   replyreport
2. 0

   Old Empresarioposted 12 years ago

   In ancient Athens, they floundered for a while and then begged for a dictator.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Don Fairchildposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Humm, an answer not hoped for.

      replyreport
3. 60

   cjhunsingerposted 12 years ago

   I am not quite sure what you think democracy is or for that matter what promise it may hold  that it should be maintained or even attempted.
   Some great mind somewhere once said that, 'democracy is the least desireable political structure to maintain anything for any length of time'. The men who wrote our Constitution understood that, thus " an experiment".
   Obviously that experiment has failed and with it an add on called the Bill of Rights---freedom.
   If 100% of the people were involved in a democracy 51% have the option of destroying the other 49 %. If 49% or 26% of that population were involved; 51% of that can destroy whats left. It does not matter how many are involved; what matters is the integrity of the people towards the concepts that founded that nation. In this case the United States
   "Democray is not freedom." "Democracy is the only road to socialism." Translated to dictatorial, totalitarian  Marxist rule.
   The fellow who spoke of Greece was right.
   
   Best
   Charles J. Hunsinger

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Don Fairchildposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I can't agree with your characterization that "The experiment has failed".  The US has been under attack for decades perhaps centuries by outside forces bent on controlling their fiefdom. We are being destroyed from within by pitting one on another.

      replyreport
4. 73

   d.williamposted 12 years ago

   Then it is no longer a democracy.  As, is the USA today.  Decisions are made by a very small percentage whether the "people" like it or not.  In this case it has become a plutocracy.  The wealthy rule all.  The old saying:  "money talks" is true.  It not only talks, it demands and dictates.

   replyreport
   1. 73

      d.williamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/14011 … -democracy
      Here's an article that will answer your question better.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      cjhunsingerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      What is lost here is individual freedom and yes plotocracy, dictatorship, socialism or whatever you wish to call it-rules. My previous response was not a question.

      replyreport
   3. 73

      d.williamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      cj; and my previous comments were not directed at you. Commwealth is the ideal concept, democracy is the best working one. Additional laws that prevent the majority from removing basic human rights from minorities helps maintain it.

      replyreport
   4. 70

      Don Fairchildposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting observation in truth-out.  Even as a slight conservative myself, I have always felt helpless at all the antics going on with the "rich business" community.  This would explain how the tea people are fed up with dems and repubs.

      replyreport
5. 85

   My Esotericposted 12 years ago

   American "demoncracy" is a relatively new phenomenom; it really isn't what the writers of the Constitution had in mind.  In fact, they were scared to death of it.  Several of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention argued strenuously against a popular vote for members of the House of Representatives; instead, they preferred the State Legislatures do the elections.
   
   Their view didn't prevail for the House, but all agreed neither the Senate nor the President should be elected by popular vote.  Further, they did not believe slaves, women, free-blacks, laborers, and other non-property owning citizens.
   
   So, as far as our founders are concerned, it didn't really make much difference if more than 50% of the population can't cooperate or make decisions; they weren't suppose to vote in the first place.  Further, save for the direct election of the House, democracy was the furtherest thing from their minds because of the dangers mentioned by other commenters.

   replyreport