Hey people - why NOT true democracy?

And is a benevolent dictatorship(sic), what you believe we in the West, live under now?

 

I don't know what we live under now. I suspect a kind of nouveau oligarchy (but meh, anything more than that is a bit tinfoil-hattish).

It would be a fairly loose confederation (the oligarchy that is) if it did exist. I can easily see the 1%'ers turning on each other if there was a dollar in it.

 

Of course they would!

They are dangerous and lacking in empathy, of course they would.

But why do that when they can make so much more from keeping Africa dependent, trading in blood diamonds, making money of the poverty of your own economy, and so on?

They do a good job keeping people distracted and divided, so that we don't notice that they are the biggest bastards of all.

 

We would've voted to nuke Saudi Arabia on 9/12 if we were a true Democracy.

 

Says who?

How do you KNOW that?

 

The Athenians had one, and we all know what they did to poor, undeserving Socrates. One week he was praised; the next, fed hemlock.

 

A true Democracy and Liberty is here: http://www.modelgovernment.org/en/

 

How about, instead of a democracy, MANY democracies? With competition, betterment always follows. If the democracy of Texas becomes unpalatable, vote with your feet (the one election you always win) and move to the democracy of Colorado. Allow choice within choice, and may the best democracy win. Decentralization is a necessary component of working democracy.

 

"So what is true democracy? Democracy is when the political system creates conditions for tolerant coexistence and productive collaboration is made possible through real competition between different political ideologies in the process of joint work within a single team, with the freedom for the citizens to choose between them." http://www.modelgovernment.org/en/which-of-the-ideologies-and-government-really-serves-for-people.html

 

That's what could happen in a true democracy. All rights are on the table for bargaining away by the tyranny of the majority.

 

What I'd like to know is why are proponents of pure democracy always such sore losers? They are all about giving power to the people until the people don’t vote for what they want. Then they get all mad and want the government to overrule it.

A pure democracy always means mob rule. Which means you have no stability and any rights you enjoy can disappear tomorrow with a change in the wind.

 

I am terrified of the majority. I am seventy-years old and have lived through times when the "majority" wanted horrible things like government-mandated racial segregation, foreign-born Americans locked into camps in the desert, and certain books and even words banned.

I find it hypocritical that the same people who promote direct representation are opposed to any sort of public input on things such as abortion, gun control, or property6 seizures.

 

Exactly. Pure democracy is fine with these people as long as they get their way. The minute they don't.....look out.

California, Prop 8? Nuff said.....

 

Exactly. The more centralized the power, the more people are left out in the cold as to representation. Spot on analysis. Too bad we are the minority. The powers that be want regional governments on top of national governments, and eventually, a world government on top of those. No one will be represented at that point.

 

The Republic formed under the United States Constitution has been the best answer for humanity. But even then, with human nature being what it is, many want what another has. There will always be those who want more but lack the skill, drive, talent to achieve what they want. What better way than to whittle away at the Constitution until we are nothing more than a Democracy with the attention span of a flea, the wisdom of a teenager and the mob mentality of an idiot.

All of us in the USA are still part of the great experiment of freedom. In its conception, there were no discussions on how to take care of freeloaders. Each had to make their own way or die trying. Then, freedom was worth any price. Today, freedom is diced up into special rights given out to those with special needs. Property rights are sliced up by taxes that are used to distribute wealth and rights to others who did not contribute to the effort. The mob of democracy has infiltrated our Republic and the 14T of debt is a clear sign that the mob shows no real care for being held accountable.

 

There is a very specific reason we cannot be a direct democracy in this country. It has to do with population distribution. Because we are a Republic and not a democracy... what state you live in starts to matter. If it were truly one man, one vote, then two or three states would always choose who the pres is, and get a majority of govt attention. Even if all of the other states got together and tried to counter something the other two or three wanted, they would never be successfull, they just do not have the numbers. If the population distribution accross the US was more or less the same.... then that might work out OK.....

 

Direct democracy is a great model--provided on a small enough scale (maybe a thousand people). The problem is without an emphasis on rule of law and protection of human rights, a democracy is the worst form of mob rule.

I look at my own state, and the referenda to change the Florida Constitution. A recent one (passed about 4 yrs ago) was a school class size amendment, limiting the number of students in a classroom. Good idea on paper, but the problem is it was passed without deliberation on the unintended consequences of it. For example, many schools stopped offering advanced courses in high school. Why? The classes had too few people, and the schools couldn't afford it. The only economical way to set up classes is to max out every one. In addition, when the amendment first passed, there wasn't a high enough supply of qualified teachers. This meant that unqualified teachers had to be hired in order to meet class size. IMHO, a class of 40 with a qualified teacher is better for students than two classes of twenty with unqualified teachers. Again, this was because the citizenry hadn't contemplated all of these potential pitfalls. The real solution to much of the problems of representative democracy is a higher turnover of elected officials.

 

If an idea seems appealing yet is enslaved by a system, then eliminate the system that is enslaving it, and stopping it from happening.

It is absurd that any system should be set up to give people less say in their affairs.

That said, my idea was not US specific, so different things would apply to different countries.

Btw.

There would be no 'President', no leader, no parties and most of all, no career politicians.

 

Yes, I imagine the logistics are less of a challenge, with a smaller population, although I feel that if 1000 were able to show that they could make it work, and better than what we have (not too hard), then more would want to follow the model, and it could work with larger numbers.

Of course, there would still be laws, and there would still be a recognition of human rights.

Indeed, I am citing one right there - the right not to be represented by men and women who don't really act on our behalf.

Just their own, and a few connected pals.

 

Where does it say that people in your own community can't be as corrupt and self-serving as anybody else?

 

True. The Ancient Athenians proved your point on numerous occasions.

 

There may well be some.

However, I have faith that if a community were to be free, and saw that it was working for them, that the majority would not wish to do anything to damage it.

At the moment the minority are in control, you can vote them out, but they will be replaced by men who are from the same system, and, therefore, still serve the same masters.

 

A system that protects our individual rights and freedoms and otherwise leaves us free to pursue our own interests can work. This would require an effective mechanism for protecting individual rights and freedoms and a way to resolve conflicts when the exercise of individual rights and freedoms cause conflicts between people.

Direct democracy could work if it was limited so that it couldn't choose to oppress some people for "the greater good", if there is a system in place to insure equal treatment under the law, maximum liberty of the individual, limited only by the equal rights of others and to protect people from the predations of each other, foreign countries and our own government, a direct democracy might work.

Of course in the actual implementation of such an idea there would be a myriad of details and problems to work out and resolve but I think it could work as long as the protection of individual liberty remain paramount.

 

I true democracy is know as 'mob rule' the idea which is poular is that which is done. Say everyone looked at a rich guy and said.

"give us your money because we need it more, no we have not doen anything to earn it but we need it" if the majority agreed this man would be stripped of rights liberties and freedoms simply because the masses said it must be done.

America is a land of the law. It does not matter if you are big or small the law applies equally to everyone. Sure the system is by no means perfect but it is better than hanging a group of girls because 20/10 of them thought they were witches.

Yes the system of government is tangled and confused. Some belive that electives are bought off before they can ever get a chance to make a choice, but I would rather have that than a true democracy where one man is not equal to another simply because the majority says so.

 

Of course.

The present sysytem, corrupt and undemocratic that it is, has made it so that it would be very difficult to remove the present system, and replace it with another. That is done to protect the interests of the minority who benefit most from the status quo.

But wouldn't it be rather exciting, working out those details, being a part of the new way, rather than just having more of the same BS presented to us, under a differnt wrapper, time and again?

There is a lot of wealth in the Britain and the UK, to use two example nations.

That may seem a surprising thing to say, in the middle of the present economy, but the wealth is there, it's just that a VERY small % control it, the nations money, and misappropriate it. And when there is a recession, or the economy is failing, these self same people actually make MORE profit from that.

Not a lot there which is v paltable, imo.