i think democracy is overated

[Ree]

democracy is one of the worst forms of goverment that i can think of,....a system where the most popular person among laymen is elected as leader.... has obvious inherent flaws...let me give you an example.
..imagine you are walking in town...suddenly you feel dizzy and collapse.....would you prefer

A: a diagnosis from a proffesional experienced expert
B: a diagnosis from the crowd of curious onlookers

unless you are retarded,you would obviously prefer help from an expert.
not because they crowd of onlookers are bad people,they might very well be saints.
the reason you would not want their diagnosis is simply because they are simply not qualified to give an accurate one.
,one person will say you have malaria,another will say you are simply hungry,one will say you have been bewitched...my point is even if you tally their answers and pick up the most popular one,it is more likely to be wrong,than if you had simpy gone to an expert
allow me one more example
you are going on a road trip in a bus full of horny drunk campus girls,sudeenly your engine stalls,and the bus refuses to start again...what will you do
A:get a diagnosis from a qualified mechanic
B;ask all the passengers to vote on what they think the problem is

again,unless you are some sort of imbecile.
you can clearly see that whatever the majority agree on is really not better than what a single expert thinks

a random sample of any population will obvioulsy have very few experts and elites,majority of people are simply not qualified enough to warrant an opinion.
a sysytem that allows people to vote regardless of iq,education,biases,gender or qualifications is a silly system .
democracy is a silly system.
look at one dedicated individual.take your pick...hitler,stalin.fidel castro,gadafi....it is amazing that an individual can acomplish so much ...look at thes african quasi democracies...is it any wonder that so many people accomplish so litlle?

 

[Drck]

Interesting view. IMO democracy is good but only if people are in general smart and educated. Democracy doesn't really work when people are mostly selfish dumbasses.

It's similar to owing a weapon, gun. I do want to have the freedom to own gun, because I just know that I would only use it in extreme situations, and even then I would be quite hesitant because I am aware of all the consequences that come afterwords... At the same time, I would also train hard, just to make sure I can use it quite well. But I also know that there are lots of dumbasses who don't care. Because of freedom, they can also get a gun, and many are willing to use it in less extreme situations. They could care less about consequences...

So because of that,IMO the democracy and freedom in this sense doesn't really work as it was intended, we just have to - unfortunately - assume that large portion of population is composed of dumbasses, and as such they just don't deserve the right to own guns. Or freedom to freely express opinions and way of life...

 

[Ree]

true

 

[CaptainHenley]

Hmmm

I agree with you that when a problem arises you need a person with specific knowledge to solve it (mechanic...doctor etc.)



But what would you say makes you able to judge efficiently a political system like democracy?

 

[BlackBolt]

Social Democracy is the best form of government evidenced by what we see in the world today. Of course democracies require the four freedoms espoused by FDR, freedom of speech, worship, want and fear and of course a well educated population “In these nurseries of a free nation, no inequality must be
allowed to enter. Fed at a common board; clothed in acommon garb ... raised in the exercise of common duties ... in the exercise of the same virtues, in the enjoyment of the same pleasures; in the study of the same nature; in pursuit of the same object ... say! Would not such a race, when arrived and manhood and womanhood,work out the reform of society and perfect the free institutions of America?” America, despite its recent turn towards a more oligarchical type of political system, was founded on democracy, liberalism, republicanism, and today is the sole super power as well as boasts the title of the most powerful civilization in human history. Democracy is the greatest form of government, and social democracy is the greatest form of a democratic political system.

 

[Marty]

Ree:

Read Democracy: The God That Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Marty

 

[Chase]

Ree-

You know, at first, I want to agree.

I'm definitely fan of the republic of ancient Rome or the one America was prior to the 20th Century.

But like BlackBolt, I think culture is actually the defining determinant of a civilization's health. Are the people patriotic? Do they feel like they're part of one big supportive community? Is the family the crux of the society? Do people work hard and sacrifice to build and do great things to create a better world for their children, and their children's children?

Or is the society divided, nihilistic, and atomized? Once you get a society where men and women are at each other's throats, racial groups are at each other's throats, political parties are at each other's throats, it doesn't matter what sort of governance your country has. The country will decline and collapse.

Another major factor is corruption, which stems from culture. I can't think of too many governments that are not extremely corrupt right now. The EU might actually be a good example of a not-super-corrupt government. I do not agree with the EU's policies at all for the most part, but I don't see much corruption in it (Europeans who know this better correct me if I'm wrong). The government of Japan is another I hear of pretty much nothing corruption-related. The difference between the EU and Japan is the EU has low corruption but a nihilistic culture. Meanwhile Japan has low corruption and a unified culture. So you get the EU imploding while Japan trucks along. Even if Japan's economic numbers don't look impressive, I dare anyone to go spend a week in Tokyo, then go spend a week in Paris, and tell me the EU is doing better than Japan.

Corruption is always there. We've always had it in the States (see: Teapot Dome), although it seems to be a lot worse now than at any point in history. Most of Congress is essentially bought off. Even most of the people presidents can bring into their inner circles are. That's why Bush said no more foreign intervention, and Obama said he'd get us out of the Middle East, and instead we got more involved and did a lot more nasty stuff counterproductive to American interests over there anyway. Most of the folks they brought in to serve with them and whisper into their ears were corrupt.

There's a great deal of corruption in Latin America, Africa, much of Asia, etc. Only difference between these places and the United States is American government officials have sneakier ways to get their kickbacks. The folks in Brazil, etc., are very dumb and obvious about it (and their presidents keep getting caught). American corruption is an out-and-out art form.

So, if you ask me, the recipe for a successful civilization is:

Strong, united, supportive, family-centric society + low corruption

And the recipe for a chaotic, anarchic descent into madness is:

Divided, nihilistic, atomized society + high corruption

I think form of governance is actually largely irrelevant. Sweden did great as a socialist democracy until its culture collapsed. The policies the Swedes vote into power reflect their nihilism, and the country is crumbling as a result.

Moving from a democracy to a republic, say, or a democracy to a monarchy doesn't stop the people from influencing politics. It merely creates more of a lag effect*. The leaders still must do the will of the people, or risk being deposed.

Ultimately, no matter what kind of government you have, if corruption is low, and the society is healthy, the nation will be strong.

And if corruption is high, and the society is unhealthy, it doesn't matter who's in charge or how he got there. The civilization will decay and collapse.

Chase

* that said, the lag effect can be quite useful. Weird whims that sweep a country but don't last take hold more easily in democracies than other forms of government. So maybe form of governance does matter to an extent - that speed bump for the whims of the mobs serving as the main effect we're looking for. You don't want to stop the masses from influencing the direction of their country, you just want to put them in time out if they're being rash and give them the chance to have a think on whether they really want to vote for what they say they want to vote for.

 

[Ree]

Ree-

You know, at first, I want to agree.

I'm definitely fan of the republic of ancient Rome or the one America was prior to the 20th Century.

But like BlackBolt, I think culture is actually the defining determinant of a civilization's health. Are the people patriotic? Do they feel like they're part of one big supportive community? Is the family the crux of the society? Do people work hard and sacrifice to build and do great things to create a better world for their children, and their children's children?

Or is the society divided, nihilistic, and atomized? Once you get a society where men and women are at each other's throats, racial groups are at each other's throats, political parties are at each other's throats, it doesn't matter what sort of governance your country has. The country will decline and collapse.

Another major factor is corruption, which stems from culture. I can't think of too many governments that are not extremely corrupt right now. The EU might actually be a good example of a not-super-corrupt government. I do not agree with the EU's policies at all for the most part, but I don't see much corruption in it (Europeans who know this better correct me if I'm wrong). The government of Japan is another I hear of pretty much nothing corruption-related. The difference between the EU and Japan is the EU has low corruption but a nihilistic culture. Meanwhile Japan has low corruption and a unified culture. So you get the EU imploding while Japan trucks along. Even if Japan's economic numbers don't look impressive, I dare anyone to go spend a week in Tokyo, then go spend a week in Paris, and tell me the EU is doing better than Japan.

Corruption is always there. We've always had it in the States (see: Teapot Dome), although it seems to be a lot worse now than at any point in history. Most of Congress is essentially bought off. Even most of the people presidents can bring into their inner circles are. That's why Bush said no more foreign intervention, and Obama said he'd get us out of the Middle East, and instead we got more involved and did a lot more nasty stuff counterproductive to American interests over there anyway. Most of the folks they brought in to serve with them and whisper into their ears were corrupt.

There's a great deal of corruption in Latin America, Africa, much of Asia, etc. Only difference between these places and the United States is American government officials have sneakier ways to get their kickbacks. The folks in Brazil, etc., are very dumb and obvious about it (and their presidents keep getting caught). American corruption is an out-and-out art form.

So, if you ask me, the recipe for a successful civilization is:

Strong, united, supportive, family-centric society + low corruption

And the recipe for a chaotic, anarchic descent into madness is:

Divided, nihilistic, atomized society + high corruption

I think form of governance is actually largely irrelevant. Sweden did great as a socialist democracy until its culture collapsed. The policies the Swedes vote into power reflect their nihilism, and the country is crumbling as a result.

Moving from a democracy to a republic, say, or a democracy to a monarchy doesn't stop the people from influencing politics. It merely creates more of a lag effect*. The leaders still must do the will of the people, or risk being deposed.

Ultimately, no matter what kind of government you have, if corruption is low, and the society is healthy, the nation will be strong.

And if corruption is high, and the society is unhealthy, it doesn't matter who's in charge or how he got there. The civilization will decay and collapse.

Chase

* that said, the lag effect can be quite useful. Weird whims that sweep a country but don't last take hold more easily in democracies than other forms of government. So maybe form of governance does matter to an extent - that speed bump for the whims of the mobs serving as the main effect we're looking for. You don't want to stop the masses from influencing the direction of their country, you just want to put them in time out if they're being rash and give them the chance to have a think on whether they really want to vote for what they say they want to vote for.

awesome post chase....if soneone happens to find themselves in a corrupt(kenya is the third most corrupt country in the world)should they try and change it or try and escape

 

[Chase]

Ree-

awesome post chase....if soneone happens to find themselves in a corrupt(kenya is the third most corrupt country in the world)should they try and change it or try and escape

Ooh, that's a tough question. I don't know there's a good answer.

If you're interested in that question, I might read Plutarch. The lives of many great men are covered in there, and many of them were faced with exactly this choice. Some of them chose to remain and fight for reform - those men were sometimes successful, sometimes not. Sometimes they had happy endings and sometimes bad. Some chose to remain and just keep their heads down until the time is right. This is what Confucius recommends; Confucius says a moral leader in amoral (corrupt) times should focus on building up his skills and stay out of government until moral leadership begins to regain control of the government again.

Sometimes the men in Plutarch left their corrupt nations. Sometimes returning when called upon, or when the times had changed. Sometimes not. There are several guys who are basically chased into exile by corrupt countries, then begged to come back again and get to ride in on a white horse later. Of course there's also the risk that if you just go and don't look back, you get branded a coward or a traitor. But maybe you don't care because you build something better somewhere else.

Maybe the more pertinent question is, "If you go, is it to build up your power and skills to one day return and help your nation and your people? Or do you intend to ditch your nation and your people entirely and start anew somewhere else?" Again, no right or wrong answer here. The United States of America, for instance, is an entire country made up of the descendants of people who all said, "I'm leaving and I'm probably not coming back."

Very difficult question. At what point do you give up on your people? Do you go with the intention to build up your power elsewhere and return when you're most needed? Or do you go with no intention to ever come back?

There's probably some mental formula people use to make that calculation. Like how accepted they feel, how many community ties they have, how grateful they are vs. how excluded they feel, how resentful they are, etc. How the political winds are blowing when they leave. But it seems to be a fairly complex (and personal) decision.

Chase

 

[Drck]

Also, consider idealism vs reality: how things should be vs how they are...

USA is multi-culti now, people from different backgrounds, ethnicity, believes, religions, cultures.. Each group of people want different things. If I don't believe in abortions, why would I want pay taxes or healthcare that covers abortions? If I work hard and pay taxes, why would I want my health insurance to pay for alcoholics rehab for alcoholics who never contributed to society in expensive facilities twice a year, year after year, while I don't drink at all?

So ideally each group should be happy, but in reality that is virtually impossible, at least currently. If you pay high taxes, work your but off year after year, and then you see the waste and people who get various benefits, maybe you say enough is enough. Let them have their own believes - but let them pay for themselves too. I don't care if women chooses to have abortion, because condos are apparently expensive - just don't ask me to cover your bill. Let them have their rehabs but don't ask me to pay for it, because I was always careful not to smoke or drink in access..

I don't think I am a bad person, because I pay my own way through the system, I cover my own crap, and if I don't have money for something I simply don't demand it from other people as if I were entitled to it... That's the reality vs idealism...