Is Democracy really the answer?

[anti-Democracy]

In Democracy:

You pay tons of taxes and spend hours filling out archaic forms.

You vote on issues to affect a faraway state

Your representatives pander to rich interest groups and spend tax money on nice sports cars

You are only allowed to say things insofar they don't offend innocent secular humanists or whiny christians

You vote for people who only car about expanding their wealth or power

You go to war to defend a foreign nation

You provide tax money in the form of aid reaching the billions a year to said nation.

You lose your right to own guns because they look mean and mean things are evil. Objectively.

You lose the right to defend yourself.

You haved to worry about getting sued because you said something a lawyer or corporation didn't like.

You have to deal with incompetent banks and insurance companies

You can't eat fish from the rivers because the rivers are polluted

...

Given all of this.....

Does anyone still think that Democracy is the answer?

(This is in philosophy since it is political philosophy and does not DIRECTLY deal with individual contemporary political issues)

[Soapy Sam]

How strange. I read the title as "Is Necromancy really the answer?"

I suppose it depends on the question.

[AnotherSillyAlias]

You can't eat fish from the rivers because the rivers are polluted



This is the worst part of democracy in my opinion, the pollution.

Look at China, a good communist nation and not even the tiniest hint of pollution anywhere.

I also blame democracy for the speed at which the tyres on my care wear out.

[Ladewig]

I'll agree with Mr. Churchill.

Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the other forms that have been tried from time to time.

There are days when I look around the U.S. and conclude that it is too easy to get a voter registration card in this country.

[anti-Democracy]

I'll agree with Mr. Churchill.

Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the other forms that have been tried from time to time.

There are days when I look around the U.S. and conclude that it is too easy to get a voter registration card in this country.

Democracy inherently relies on MASS rule, thus people being low quality as a whole will result in low-quality leadership.

Authoritarian forms of government tend to rely on the abilities of leaders. Bad leaders still means you're ********** but at least you have the potential for CAPABLE LEADERS THAT DO NOT COME FROM DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS.

[delphi_ote]

When trolling:

You make tons of posts spend hours starting cryptic threads.

You say nasty things to affect people in a faraway state

Your posts pander to the lowest common denominator and because nobody likes you, you'll never spend any money on nice sports cars

You only open your mouth to say things to deliberately offend innocent secular humanists or whiny christians

You annoy people who only car pool to work

You start flame wars to get attention

You provide nothing of interest at all wasting billions of seconds a year.

You lose your right to say anything intelligent and basically become evil. Objectively.

You can't possibly to defend the stupid things you say.

You haved to worry about getting flamed because you said something nobody liked.

You have to deal with your incompetent self when you wake up in the morning

You can't eat fish from the rivers because you spend too much time hanging out under a bridge

...

Given all of this.....

Does anyone still think that trolling is the answer?

(This is pointless since it is nonsense philosophy and does not DIRECTLY deal with any relevant issues at all)

[JamesDillon]

My responses are going to get redundant, but here goes:

In Democracy:

You pay tons of taxes and spend hours filling out archaic forms.

How does the form of government affect the amount of taxes you pay? Monarchs level taxes, too-- the people just have less control over the degree of taxation in a monarchy.

"Endless forms" are more a symptom of a complex bureaucracy than of a democratic government. Maintaining any kind of organizational structure over millions of people is going to require quite a bit of paperwork.

You vote on issues to affect a faraway state
In a representative democracy (i.e., republic) like the United States, you rarely vote directly on issues at all. If you are voting directly on an issue, it's in a state referendum. The issues in national elections are generally those effecting the entire nation (or, to use a somewhat archaic but more descriptive term, "commonwealth"), and are of interest to everyone.

Your representatives pander to rich interest groups and spend tax money on nice sports cars

Is this worse than the aristocracy getting rich off of taxes and levies imposed on the common people, who have no influence whatsoever? At least corrupt representatives can be voted out of office.

You are only allowed to say things insofar they don't offend innocent secular humanists or whiny christians
This is simply not true. And a monarchy is hardly more likely to protect freedom of expression better than a republic.

You vote for people who only car about expanding their wealth or power
Again, this is a sort of high-school cynicism that bashes the "establishment" with too broad a brush. And to the extent that it is true that some (certainly not all, probably not a majority) elected officials are primarily interested in their own gain, at least you get to vote for them. What's the alternative?

You go to war to defend a foreign nation
Again, how is this a criticism against democracy/republicanism in general? The United States makes a bad decision, therefore the whole form of government is illegitimate?

You provide tax money in the form of aid reaching the billions a year to said nation.
Again... so what? Elected representatives make decisions on how to spend the national wealth. Would it be better to have a monarch, not accountable to anyone, make these decisions? Would that lead to wiser or more responsible decisionmaking? History suggests that in most cases, it would not.

You lose your right to own guns because they look mean and mean things are evil. Objectively.
1. Do you think you would have any "rights" at all under an absolute monarchy?
2. This is simply not true. The last time I checked, the Second Amendment has not been repealed.
3. Opposition to gun ownership might also have something to do with the fact that guns are frequently used to kill people, aside from looking mean.

You lose the right to defend yourself.
1. Once again, where do you think "rights" come from? Do you think that your rights would be more secure if they were entirely dependent on the whim of a dictator?
2. This is also not true. I don't know of a single state that does not recognize the right of self-defense in appropriate situations.

You haved to worry about getting sued because you said something a lawyer or corporation didn't like.
What does this have to do with the democratic/republican form of government?

You have to deal with incompetent banks and insurance companies
Incompetent banks are a consequence of a democratic system of government? You were really running out of ideas toward the end, weren't you?

You can't eat fish from the rivers because the rivers are polluted
I really can't even think of an intelligent response to this one. How does a democratic system encourage pollution?

As an aside, I think that some of your objections are more applicable to capitalism than to democracy, and they may be to some degree legitimate in that context. But, whatever Ronald Reagan would have you believe, capitalism and democracy are not synonymous.

Does anyone still think that Democracy is the answer?

Personally I'm not a great fan of democracy (/republicanism, because there really is no such thing as a pure democracy). It's messy, inefficient, and tends to break down unless the voting population is sufficiently engaged in the process, which has not been the case in the United States for some time now. It also rests on the irrationally egalitarian assumption that every citizen's opinion is as valid as every other citizen's, and that the will of the majority will be correct in most cases. However, it's a more risk-averse strategy than monarchy. A good monarch can rule much more effectively than a democracy, to the greater benefit of all the population. However, a bad monarch can be really, really bad. You're also stuck with a monarch for a long time, generally a matter of several decades, and there's no error-correcting mechanism short of bloody rebellion. Democracy avoids these extremes by keeping society drifting in the doldrums of mediocrity where change, either for good or bad, is more difficult to bring about. On balance, I suppose I prefer the latter approach, but the ideal situation would be to be ruled by an intelligent, benevolent monarch who was actively engaged in the business of government and genuinely concerned with the best interests of the people. If only God were real.

[Ducky]

In Democracy:

You pay tons of taxes and spend hours filling out archaic forms.

This would be a problem with beaurocracy, not democracy. Though they do rhyme, I can see where you were confused.

You vote on issues to affect a faraway state

Such as?

Your representatives pander to rich interest groups and spend tax money on nice sports cars

Sounds like someone doesn't have a sports car. Poor baby.

You are only allowed to say things insofar they don't offend innocent secular humanists or whiny christians

Really? Democracy says that eh? Or were you projecting your own frustration? I seem to remember soemthing about free speech... What was that again?

You vote for people who only car about expanding their wealth or power

I don't, but then that doesn't matter to your strawman, does it? (nice spelling error, by the way)

You go to war to defend a foreign nation

Which conflict are you talking about? Is the notion of going to war to defend europe in WW2 wrong somehow? Or were you lumping all wars into your strawman?

You provide tax money in the form of aid reaching the billions a year to said nation.

Hey, you provide tax money to provide medicaid to those in need of health care and also to educate children up to age 18! That sucks too, doesn't it? :boggled: But you're right, you should never clean up your own mess, and obviously you can't vote to change anything, can you? Whatever.

You lose your right to own guns because they look mean and mean things are evil. Objectively.

I would love to see the law that used the term "because they look mean and mean things are evil." Last I checked you could still own a gun in the US.

You lose the right to defend yourself.

No you don't.


You haved to worry about getting sued because you said something a lawyer or corporation didn't like.

You're right, libel doesn't exist. Perhaps you should inform SCOTUS.

You have to deal with incompetent banks and insurance companies

I don't see where this is the fault of democracy.

You can't eat fish from the rivers because the rivers are polluted

Again, not the fault of democracy.

...

Given all of this.....

Does anyone still think that Democracy is the answer?

(This is in philosophy since it is political philosophy and does not DIRECTLY deal with individual contemporary political issues)


You're a trolling twat with alot of strawmen. Go learn some critical thinking skills and get back to us.

[CriticalThanking]

Is democracy the answer? ABSOLUTELY. But to which question? Troll?

[RandFan]

Does anyone still think that Democracy is the answer? Oh, absolutely yes! Democracy is arguably one of the greatest contributions to humankind. It has liberated and empowered humans to a degree that truly is not comprehensible. No, it's not perfect nor is it always fair. Dynamic systems composed of hundreds of millions if not billions of people with conflicting goals, needs and desires simply can't meet everyone's needs absolutely.

There will always be some degree of bureaucracy, inefficiency, crime, pride, envy, graft, corruption, hatred, jealousy, want, etc.. These things can't be eliminated they can only be managed and reduced.

Democracy does a damn good job of it. The question isn't whether there should be Democracy the question has to deal with the details.

Let me recommend The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1586482610/103-5784239-5211021?v=glance&n=283155).

[RandFan]

Does anyone still think that trolling is the answer?Oops, I guess I got snookered again.

[Skeptic]

In Democracy:

You pay tons of taxes and spend hours filling out archaic forms.

As opposed to a dictatorship, where the government just takes anything it wants from you without any redress or rule of law.

You vote on issues to affect a faraway state

As opposed to a dictatorship, where your leader does things that affect faraway states without bothering to even ask you.

Your representatives pander to rich interest groups and spend tax money on nice sports cars

As opposed to a dictatorship, where you have no representatives at all and your unelected leader does the same thing (and far worse) without you having any power to replace them.

You are only allowed to say things insofar they don't offend innocent secular humanists or whiny christians

Not true, of course, but even if it were, it would still be better than a dictatorship, where you are not allowed to say anything that offends the leaders--and the penalty is not merely shutting you up, but usually killing you.

You vote for people who only car about expanding their wealth or power

As opposed to a dictatorship, where the leader doesn't need to care about expanding his wealth and power any more because he already has absolute power and, in practice, owns everything since he can take anything from anyone without redress if he feels like it.

You go to war to defend a foreign nation

As opposed to a dictatorship, where you go to war for that same reason--or any other reason the dictator invents--without having anybody ask you or require your approval.

You provide tax money in the form of aid reaching the billions a year to said nation.

As opposed to a dictatorship, where the same thing happens (e.g., the USSR's military support of numerous governments) but, again, without you having the least control over it or any ability to change it.

You lose your right to own guns because they look mean and mean things are evil. Objectively.

As opposed to a dictatorship (e.g., Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia) where there is no right to own a gun in the first place, since that would endanger the dictator's thugs control of power.

You lose the right to defend yourself.

As opposed to a dictatorship, where that right is not lost because it doesn't exist--nobody but the leaders have any rights to defend themselves or, for that matter, to do anything. (Or do you suppose you could have argued with the Gestapo if they came to arrest you on the Fuhrer's orders?)

You haved to worry about getting sued because you said something a lawyer or corporation didn't like.

As opposed to a dictatorship, where you have to worry about ketting killed and/or sent to Siberia for having said something the leader doesn't like, even in the privacy of your own home, as you never know if any of your family members might not be in the pay of the secret police.

You have to deal with incompetent banks and insurance companies

No such problems in dictatorships, thank God, since almost everybody apart from the leaders has any money or property worth insuring, and besides, it can just be taken away at the leader's whim without any insurance being able to do anything about it.

You can't eat fish from the rivers because the rivers are polluted

As opposed to dictatorships, such as the USSR and the eastern block, which were so notoriously enviormentally friendly... one word: Chernobyl.

Given all of this.....

Given all of this...

Does anyone still think that Democracy is the answer?

Does anybody still think dictatorship is the answer?

(This is in philosophy since it is political philosophy and does not DIRECTLY deal with individual contemporary political issues)

(This is in philosophy since the writer reponded to shows clearly what happens when logic and rational thought are abandoned.)

[DSE]

Anti-dem has a point. Maybe it would be better if we were all ruled by trolls...

[Correa Neto]

YEAH!!! Democracy sucks. We should return to feudalism. No nations, only small patches of land ruled by land-lords that have prima notte rights. And a ruler appointed by God must be a competent one!

You pay tons of taxes and spend hours filling out archaic forms.
No forms. Just a percentage of you crops arbitrarily stabilished by the land lord.
You vote on issues to affect a faraway state
No voting about anything.
Your representatives pander to rich interest groups and spend tax money on nice sports cars
No representatives.
You are only allowed to say things insofar they don't offend innocent secular humanists or whiny christians
You are allowed to say "Yes sire". While bending, of course.
You vote for people who only car about expanding their wealth or power
You don't vote, peasant. Go back to you field now or you'll be sent to the dungeon.
You go to war to defend a foreign nation
You will go to war whenever your landlord decides. And it will not be to defend any foreign nation...
You provide tax money in the form of aid reaching the billions a year to said nation.
Your landlord pays taxes only to Rome and eventually to another nearby landlord that can kick his butt.
You lose your right to own guns because they look mean and mean things are evil. Objectively.
You have the right to own bows, clubs, spears, axes, daggers, forks, etc. You will not have money to afford a sword.
You lose the right to defend yourself.
You can't loose it. You just don't have it...
You haved to worry about getting sued because you said something a lawyer or corporation didn't like.
Don't worry about lawyers. Your landlord, possibly with the help of some priests, will judge you and decide your punishment. It's simple, it's direct, no expensive and lenghty tribunals.
You have to deal with incompetent banks and insurance companies
In feudalism, you don't. There are no banks, insurance companies and no money. At least for you, peasant.
You can't eat fish from the rivers because the rivers are polluted
No pollution other than the sewage from the castle and peasant's houses. However, the landlord may decide peasants are not alloed to fish in his rivers or hunt in his forest. A minor issue.

Troll happy now?
Now, go back to your cave or sunlight will turn you in to stone...

[Roadtoad]

I note AntiDemocracy's been suspended.

Anyone got the odds on when he'll be banned?

[strathmeyer]

Hmmm... yet another person who doesn't understand what Democrary is. (I mean, if you're going to harp on it, at least try to understand the concept.) What's scary is some of these people are in government.

[Mid]

YEAH!!! Democracy sucks. We should return to feudalism. No nations, only small patches of land ruled by land-lords that have prima notte rights. And a ruler appointed by God must be a competent one!
...snip...


Well you've convinved me feudalism's the way forward as long as I can be a feudal lord :D (and I don't have to give up modern medical technology etc.)

[Manny]

Anti-dem has a point. Maybe it would be better if we were all ruled by trolls...I, for one, welcome our new... aw, forget it.

[JamesDillon]

I note AntiDemocracy's been suspended.

Anyone got the odds on when he'll be banned?

What did he do to be suspended? I thought his arguments were misguided, but it never hurts to articulate defenses to the republican system of government once in a while. Could have led to an interesting discussion, had he bothered to respond with a reasonable argument to anyone who criticized his first post.

[Belz...]

Ugh.

You pay tons of taxes and spend hours filling out archaic forms.

In monarchy, what little money you have is litterally beaten out of you.

You vote on issues to affect a faraway state

In a dictatorship, you don't get to vote. Only mourne.

Your representatives pander to rich interest groups and spend tax money on nice sports cars

Isn't that the SAME thing you get in EVERY system ?

You are only allowed to say things insofar they don't offend innocent secular humanists or whiny christians

In mornachies, you're not allowed to have an opinion.

You go to war to defend a foreign nation

In tyrannies, you're always at war.

You lose your right to own guns because they look mean and mean things are evil. Objectively.

You lose the right to defend yourself.

No you don't. You just don't have the right to murder your neigh...

Wait a minute. Don't you STILL have the right to buy guns in the US ?

You haved to worry about getting sued because you said something a lawyer or corporation didn't like.

Beats getting your head chopped off by the local priest.

You have to deal with incompetent banks and insurance companies

How does this relate to democracy ?

You can't eat fish from the rivers because the rivers are polluted

Same question, but with the eyebrow even MORE raised.

Given all of this.....

Does anyone still think that Democracy is the answer?

Nope. I don't like democracy, because the majority, that is, less-than-smart people, make decisions. Unfortunately, the only other alternative seems a single (or small group of) leader(s) with the good of the people in mind. Yeah. Right.

[Belz...]

suspended ? Why ?

[Correa Neto]

Well you've convinved me feudalism's the way forward as long as I can be a feudal lord :D (and I don't have to give up modern medical technology etc.)

You might also want to bring some other not-so-modern suff such as soap... Standard practice in the Midlle Ages was about 1 bath every six months.:eek:

[Roadtoad]

You might also want to bring some other not-so-modern suff such as soap... Standard practice in the Midlle Ages was about 1 bath every six months.:eek:

If at all. Elizabeth I only had two in her entire life.

[rharbers]

I'll take a Contitutional Republic everytime.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I prefer Prostitutional Repubics.

[Roadtoad]

Have you forgotten Congressman Cunningham? That's what we have now.

[Pauliesonne]

Democracy is the tyranny of the majority.

Communisim is the tyranny of the educated.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Tyranny is the tyranny of the tyrants.

[hgc]

I would bet dollars to donuts that if the threadstarter voted in 2004, it was for Badnarik.

[Roadtoad]

You mean, Shanek is running a sock?

[Earthborn]

In monarchy, what little money you have is litterally beaten out of you.

In mornachies, you're not allowed to have an opinion.There are quite a few monarchies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy#Current_nation_monarchies) in the world where this is not true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy).

[IllegalArgument]

Democracy inherently relies on MASS rule, thus people being low quality as a whole will result in low-quality leadership.

Authoritarian forms of government tend to rely on the abilities of leaders. Bad leaders still means you're ********** but at least you have the potential for CAPABLE LEADERS THAT DO NOT COME FROM DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS.

I was willing to play along, till this tired argument. The usual, people are sheep and can't be trusted to govern themselves, all we need is a strong man, priest-king and everything will be put right.

Boring zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Roadtoad]

There are quite a few monarchies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy#Current_nation_monarchies) in the world where this is not true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy).

I believe the reference was intended to mean Absolute Monarchies. (Although there's a few supposedly Constitutional Monarchies where this might apply as well.)

[Correa Neto]

If at all. Elizabeth I only had two in her entire life.

No wonder she was "the Virgin Queen":eek:

[Sushi]

I happen to know this guy; I certainly don't agree with a lot of what he says, much of what he says has not been defended (relationship between democracy and pollution? what?) and is poorly thought out but the "omg troll" bandwagon is stupid and many of you resort to strawman attacks as well (feudalism? what?). Also, when responding to his undefended generalities some of you make undefended generalities as well (albiet ones that fit in with what someone pro-democracy would be for).

Also, Roadtoad, he was suspended due to the information thing. You think he was going to be banned because you two disagree? He has dumb ideas, but that's no grounds for banning someone (I can name many people here that would have been banned a long time ago for that
I guess it's a good thing YOU aren't an admin. The truth is, you do want to see him banned, because he emotionally upsets you.

Personally, I hate democracy because it appeals to the lowest common denominator(republicanism is just a version of the same thing, I think). As to what the best government is, I suppose it all determines what you define as "best". Personally, I don't think any real good form of government is possible--not that the alternative (pure anarchy) is any good either. Democracy/Republicanism probably allow for more freedoms, but then again "best" does not necessarily mean it's "good" in the sense of what a utopia (of course, an unattainable prospect, but I have to say this because the general attitude on the forums here is to nitpick at everything someone says and contort it to find meaning that isn't there).

Also, is it Democracy/Republicanism that gives us freedom, or the attitude and mindset of the people in the nation? Of course, the attitude and mindset (maybe you could say culture) of the people in the nation also help determine which goverment comes about...

After all, many democracies restrict freedoms of speech (France, Germany, Canada). Likewise, it wasn't a democracy (the USA) that voluntarily got rid of the slaves, that was a result of the civil war.

Why does a "good" solution even have to exist? I propose that there is no good solution.

Also, he hates libertarianism.

[Roadtoad]

Possibly, Sushi, but there's been precedents set by guys like him, who open up with the same sort of strange misassociations. Far too often, guys like him are hit and run posters, and you almost never hear from them again after their first few posts, save for a few "...you people are so nasty!" remarks.

Hell, I'm willing to give him a shot. I've been in that same position, so I think I owe him that much. Let's see what he has to say.

[Sushi]

I"m pretty sure he is sincere. From what I've heard him say a lot of his ideas ARE poorly thought-out though.

[Roadtoad]

Ah, must be he ran into goat-fisting ninjas, hired by nuns wearing doilies who were selling marital aids...

(Damn. This isn't the Top Ten list...)

[delphi_ote]

Hell, I'm willing to give him a shot. I've been in that same position, so I think I owe him that much. Let's see what he has to say.
I would advise against it. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1510052#post1510052)

See also:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1203381#post1203381
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1203345#post1203345
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1203423#post1203423

This is a textbook example of a troll.

[Ducky]

So what was he suspended for, and why isn't there an announcement in the forum management section?

[Roadtoad]

I would advise against it. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1510052#post1510052)

See also:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1203381#post1203381
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1203345#post1203345
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1203423#post1203423

This is a textbook example of a troll.

Hooo, boy. Spoke too soon.

Someone pass the Mothersills. Or the Stugeron. Something. I'm feeling queasy here.

[delphi_ote]

Hooo, boy. Spoke too soon.

Someone pass the Mothersills. Or the Stugeron. Something. I'm feeling queasy here.
The last post there was a real winner. He's just trying to stir up trouble, nothing more.

[RandFan]

Also, Roadtoad, he was suspended due to the information thing. I'm curious, how do you know?

Personally, I hate democracy because it appeals to the lowest common denominator(republicanism is just a version of the same thing, I think). ?

To quote Dean Vernon Wermer "...stupid is no way to go through life son."

I'm not talking about your opinion of Democracy. I could really not care less. I'm talking about ignorance of the subject.

Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic)

...in its broadest sense the idea of a Republic can include almost any form of government that is not a Monarchy.

Democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy)

...a system where the population of a society controls the government

So no, they are not the same. Bear in mind the framers of the American Constitution were students of history and understood very well the problems inherent in governments. They knew that they couldn't make a perfect system but they believed that could devise a pretty damn good one. And they did. It's called representative democracy.

Here, check it out.


Representative democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy) is a form of democracy founded on the exercise of popular sovereignty by the people's representants. It is a theory of civics in which voters choose (in free, secret, multi-party elections) representatives to act in their interests, but not as their proxies—i.e., not necessarily according to their voters' wishes, but with enough authority to exercise initiative in the face of changing circumstances. (emphasis mine).

So no, it doesn't necessarily appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Hey, do yourself a favor, take a moment and look up the concepts and terms you want to discuss. Heed Dean Wermer's advice.

Why does a "good" solution even have to exist? I propose that there is no good solution. Well, for thousands of years the majority of people floundered in poverty, ignorance, lack of dignity, no redress and tyranny yearning for freedom. If their masters so chose the humble masses could be killed, tortured or starved without any saying or input on their part. Their lot in life was to a large degree beyond their control. If they were intelligent or gifted but not favored my those in power their talents were unrewarded. If they were industries and wanted to work hard to get ahead they had to hope for the favor of those in power.

I guess you could argue that "good" is relative and I would be inclined to agree. However compared to solutions of the past this solution is DAMN good.

Also, he hates libertarianism.In the end who cares?

[Ducky]

Sushi, you wouldn't happen to be a sock of anti-Democracy, would you? This smacks of someone who wanted to "good cop, bad cop" a forum for fun.


ETA:

This (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1512296#post1512296) is the first announcement on the forum I can find that says why anti-Democracy was suspended, but your post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1511804#post1511804)explaini ng to Roadtoad was roughly three hours earlier. How did you know the reason he was suspended?

[delphi_ote]

Sushi, you wouldn't happen to be a sock of anti-Democracy, would you? This smacks of someone who wanted to "good cop, bad cop" a forum for fun.


ETA:

This (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1512296#post1512296) is the first announcement on the forum I can find that says why anti-Democracy was suspended, but your post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1511804#post1511804)explaini ng to Roadtoad was roughly three hours earlier. How did you know the reason he was suspended?
Sushi has been around for a year longer (October 2004 vs. Sept 2005,) he seems to have contributed quite a bit (though mostly in politics... I'm not sure if that constitutes "contributing" ;) ) always leaps into threads about democracy and the constitution (they seem to be something he's interested in,) and he posts in a very different style than our troll. That would be one HELL of a setup for a good cop routine!

I think his post about the suspension was probably just a lucky educated guess.

[Ducky]

Sushi has been around for a year longer (October 2004 vs. Sept 2005,) he seems to have contributed quite a bit (though mostly in politics... I'm not sure if that constitutes "contributing" ;) ) always leaps into threads about democracy and the constitution (they seem to be something he's interested in,) and he posts in a very different style than our troll. That would be one HELL of a setup for a good cop routine!

I think his post about the suspension was probably just a lucky educated guess.



Point taken, but it would not be unheard of to use a proxy program and post as someone else, even evading posting style. As for socks and join dates, Tai Chi would be evidence the two don't have much to do with each other.

I'd like to see the answer to how he knew about the suspension.

[Sushi]

Sushi, you wouldn't happen to be a sock of anti-Democracy, would you? This smacks of someone who wanted to "good cop, bad cop" a forum for fun.


ETA:

This (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1512296#post1512296) is the first announcement on the forum I can find that says why anti-Democracy was suspended, but your post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1511804#post1511804)explaini ng to Roadtoad was roughly three hours earlier. How did you know the reason he was suspended?

His name was added to the thread about people who have not put in their information before that.

[Sushi]

Sushi has been around for a year longer (October 2004 vs. Sept 2005,) he seems to have contributed quite a bit (though mostly in politics... I'm not sure if that constitutes "contributing" ;) ) always leaps into threads about democracy and the constitution (they seem to be something he's interested in,) and he posts in a very different style than our troll. That would be one HELL of a setup for a good cop routine!

I think his post about the suspension was probably just a lucky educated guess.

2004? Been here a bit longer than that! This is not my first account; who I really am is not a secret either.

[Beerina]

This is the worst part of democracy in my opinion, the pollution.

Look at China, a good communist nation and not even the tiniest hint of pollution anywhere.


As both Ayn Rand and Julian Simon suggest, care to look at the life expectancy differences between clean China and filthy west?

To be filthy, you have to have industry.

[Silly Green Monkey]

I think what Silly Alias meant to illustrate was that China is very polluted, just see the recent spill into a major river.

[RandFan]

As both Ayn Rand and Julian Simon suggest, care to look at the life expectancy differences between clean China and filthy west?

To be filthy, you have to have industry.And never mind the polution and environmental disaster of the Soviet Union.

[Sushi]

So no, they are not the same. Bear in mind the framers of the American Constitution were students of history and understood very well the problems inherent in governments. They knew that they couldn't make a perfect system but they believed that could devise a pretty damn good one. And they did. It's called representative democracy.

Here, check it out.

(emphasis mine).

So no, it doesn't necessarily appeal to the lowest common denominator.


Rude patronizing tone aside:

Politicians are elected on what they say they are going to do to issues; the majority doesn't understand the issue and thus at the very least it causes significant problems.

I don't recall saying a republic and a democracy were exactly the same; I said they are similar enough--my basis is that the majority, or some majority, will elect the leaders who will campaign on silly "hot-button" issues that most people are not educated enough to know about (i.e. evolution). Different from having the masses vote on things, of course, but obviously a strong parallel.

(Also, as a sarcastic aside, my high school government teacher said it was so people didn't have to vote on every single issue. People today have the mentality that that's true up to the point that it's taught in schools!)

Anyway, nowadays "democracy" usually includes what a republic is in the common vernacular. These semantic games are boring.


Hey, do yourself a favor, take a moment and look up the concepts and terms you want to discuss. Heed Dean Wermer's advice.


Shut up and stop with the name-calling, troll. You've got a very clever way of calling someone stupid, but it doesn't entertain me. I say you are a troll because of how you try to dig insults while trying to act polite...

Well, for thousands of years the majority of people floundered in poverty, ignorance, lack of dignity, no redress and tyranny yearning for freedom. If their masters so chose the humble masses could be killed, tortured or starved without any saying or input on their part. Their lot in life was to a large degree beyond their control. If they were intelligent or gifted but not favored my those in power their talents were unrewarded. If they were industries and wanted to work hard to get ahead they had to hope for the favor of those in power.

I guess you could argue that "good" is relative and I would be inclined to agree. However compared to solutions of the past this solution is DAMN good.

Cause =/= correlation; we have natural scientific progress unaccounted for, and shifting ideologies may have been a factor (after all, how can a democracy/REPUBLIC/WHATEVER itself arise; shifting thought in what is acceptable and what isn't is necessary).

I"m not saying that democracy/whatever doesn't contribute or help to this; I think it does--just that not all improvements in society are due to democracy, not exactly a startling proclaimation.

Freer industry, freer people are pretty much beneficial for everyone. Democracy however does not necessarily mean either of those two, though there is a strong historical link.

But I don't think that, just by comparison alone I think it deserves to be called "good".
In the end who cares?

I was responding to other people's comments.

----

As for anti-Democracy, he is sincere. That doesn't mean he isn't intentionally... what's the word, flamboyant?

[Sushi]

As for why this is in Religion/Philosophy, beats me. a-D linked me to this topic.

[delphi_ote]

2004? Been here a bit longer than that! This is not my first account; who I really am is not a secret either.
C'mon! I try to stick up for you, and my thanks is your complaining that I didn't search every detail of your profile? I thought I did a bit of good detective work there! :D

[Sushi]

C'mon! I try to stick up for you, and my thanks is your complaining that I didn't search every detail of your profile? I thought I did a bit of good detective work there! :D

Looking under my username is not detective work :P

[delphi_ote]

Looking under my username is not detective work :P
Reading through about 50 of your and anti-Democracy's posts was!

[JamesDillon]

Sushi,

You raise some interesting points, but what solution do you propose? I'm going to paste in the last bit from my response to anti-Democracy, as it's relevant here and may have been overlooked above.

Personally I'm not a great fan of democracy (/republicanism, because there really is no such thing as a pure democracy). It's messy, inefficient, and tends to break down unless the voting population is sufficiently engaged in the process, which has not been the case in the United States for some time now. It also rests on the irrationally egalitarian assumption that every citizen's opinion is as valid as every other citizen's, and that the will of the majority will be correct in most cases. However, it's a more risk-averse strategy than monarchy. A good monarch can rule much more effectively than a democracy, to the greater benefit of all the population. However, a bad monarch can be really, really bad. You're also stuck with a monarch for a long time, generally a matter of several decades, and there's no error-correcting mechanism short of bloody rebellion. Democracy avoids these extremes by keeping society drifting in the doldrums of mediocrity where change, either for good or bad, is more difficult to bring about. On balance, I suppose I prefer the latter approach, but the ideal situation would be to be ruled by an intelligent, benevolent monarch who was actively engaged in the business of government and genuinely concerned with the best interests of the people. If only God were real.

What's to be done about the fact that turning over ultimate authority from the public to a monarch or small aristocracy greatly enhances the risk to society? It probably is true that a good monarch could govern more effectively than a republic, but a monarch remains "good" only so long as she puts the interests of the public above the interests of herself and her close associates; history suggests that that is a quite uncommon situation.

I agree with you that a representative system is vulnerable to populist manipulation, and that resting ultimate political authority in the hands of the public, which on the whole lacks sufficient expertise to hold informed opinions on most complex issues, is not generally likely to produce the best policy decisions from an objective viewpoint. I disagree, though, in that I democracy/republicanism does seem more likely to protect individual liberties than any other system I can imagine. If the exercise of political power is usually dictated by the self-interest of the group wielding power, it seems to follow that the public itself will be more likely to preserve individual liberties than would any smaller group of elect lawmakers.

You said a while ago that perhaps there is no good choice of a form of government-- fine, but surely some choices are better than others? Which would you suggest as the least bad?

[Iacchus]

Yes, if we can accept the need for structure which, is what a Republic represents.

[RandFan]

Politicians are elected on what they say they are going to do to issues; the majority doesn't understand the issue and thus at the very least it causes significant problems. Yes, candidates are elected based on their stated positions on issues but the candidates are not proxies. Please understand the difference. We hope for and except our leaders to study, discuss and debate the issues and not simply run to us to ask us for our opinion as to how to vote. Sure our opinion is important to them but it is not the end all be all. Otherwise we could elect representatives by lottery. We don't do that for a reason.

I don't recall saying a republic and a democracy were exactly the same; I said they are similar enough... They demonstrably are not similar enough. I'm sorry if I'm being rude but your statement reveals an ignorance of the facts. I posted the definitions. You could read and discern the differences. As concepts they are as similar as baseball bats and aluminum. You could have a baseball bat and you could have aluminum or you could have an aluminum baseball bat.

Different from having the masses vote on things, of course, but obviously a strong parallel. No Sushi, no "strong parallels" (see above). Please read the links I posted above.

Shut up and stop with the name-calling, troll. You've got a very clever way of calling someone stupid, but it doesn't entertain me. I say you are a troll because of how you try to dig insults while trying to act polite... Life is tough. I can be diplomatic and I can be accommodating but I don't suffer willful ignorance very well. I know you have been on the forums for some time now so you really shouldn't be making such uninformed statements.

Look, I honestly don't care about your ideology. I can respect a difference of opinion. What I can't respect is a willful disregard for the history of civilization and government. To say you hate democracy because it appeals to the lowest common denominator is to be ignorant of the current state of democracy. If you mean a pure Democracy then perhaps I could agree but that is not real world.

There is a reason Western Democracies are representative Democracies and it isn't to save time. It was done in large part to avoid fickle public opinion and the lowest common denominator. Those who founded modern Democracies learned from the mistakes of the past. Democratic governments have actually evolved to avoid the types of problems you raise.

Cause =/= correlation; we have natural scientific progress unaccounted for, and shifting ideologies may have been a factor (after all, how can a democracy/REPUBLIC/WHATEVER itself arise; shifting thought in what is acceptable and what isn't is necessary). Your thoughts are disjointed. I don't understand the question. I don't know what natural scientific progress is. I know that when scientists, inventors, innovators and entrepreneurs are free we get -

1.) Advancements in medicine.
2.) Advancements in technology.
3.) Advancements in food production.
4.) Advancements in food storage.
5.) Advancements in knowledge.

We went to the Moon. We went to the bottom of the ocean, We conquered polio and eradicated many diseases. We are feeding a planet. The life expectancy is growing at an unprecedented pace. And here you are, communicating through a decedent western invention that is currently democratizing the world and you use it to bemoan the appeal to the lowest common denominator.

It's true that the Communists got to space before us. But they did it at a terrible cost to them and had to give up the race. The also were not as able to exploit the technology developed the way the West did.

I will concede that Democracy is not perfect. I will concede that Democracy comes at a cost that some, you I presume, are not comfortable with. I concede that the advancements that I speak of bing their own set of problems.

I"m not saying that democracy/whatever doesn't contribute or help to this; I think it does--just that not all improvements in society are due to democracy, not exactly a startling proclaimation.No one is claiming that ALL improvements in society are due to Democracy. This is just a straw man. The claim is that Democracy is far more likely to contribute to freedom.

Freer industry, freer people are pretty much beneficial for everyone. Thank you, I agree.

Democracy however does not necessarily mean either of those two, though there is a strong historical link. There are no guarantees. Democracies can fail. That is not the claim. The claim is that Democracies are far more likely to free and empower citizens than non-Democratic ones.

But I don't think that, just by comparison alone I think it deserves to be called "good". Why not? What other standard is there?

[Roadtoad]

Sushi, let me get this straight: You are calling RandFan a troll? RandFan?

Let's see: RandFan, with far more respect than you deserve, offered up definitions and explanations. He provided evidence and data. You, on the other hand, are the one name calling, and insulting people like DO and Fowlsound.

Hmmm. If you're looking for a troll, you might check a mirror.

NOBODY attacks my friends.

[RandFan]

Sushi, let me get this straight: You are calling RandFan a troll? RandFan?

Let's see: RandFan, with far more respect than you deserve, offered up definitions and explanations. He provided evidence and data. You, on the other hand, are the one name calling, and insulting people like DO and Fowlsound.

Hmmm. If you're looking for a troll, you might check a mirror.

NOBODY attacks my friends.Thanks Roadtoad, I was a bit bit strong. I get my buttons pushed especially when it comes to Democracy. Not that everyone has to like it.

[Skeptic]

Democracy is the tyranny of the majority.

Communisim is the tyranny of the educated.

I think you mean, "Marxism is the opium of the intellectuals".

[Correa Neto]

You know, I bet the apologists of "strong governments" never actually lived under the umbrella of an authoritarian regime.

They would benefit from the experience.

I remember Brazil's right-wing millitary governments. Very good if you are part of the ruling elite or a no-brainer.

[Sushi]

Yes, candidates are elected based on their stated positions on issues but the candidates are not proxies. Please understand the difference. We hope for and except our leaders to study, discuss and debate the issues and not simply run to us to ask us for our opinion as to how to vote. Sure our opinion is important to them but it is not the end all be all. Otherwise we could elect representatives by lottery. We don't do that for a reason.

Whomever we have in office is ultimately dependent on some majority. Since there is no real "ruling class". Yes, representative democracy (which is of course different from democracy but similar enough in my eyes, and I don't think I've suggested otherwise.


Life is tough. I can be diplomatic and I can be accommodating but I don't suffer willful ignorance very well. I know you have been on the forums for some time now so you really shouldn't be making such uninformed statements.

You are neither diplomatic or accomodating; you are rude, ignorant, and presumptious. And probably pretentious.


Look, I honestly don't care about your ideology. I can respect a difference of opinion. What I can't respect is a willful disregard for the history of civilization and government. To say you hate democracy because it appeals to the lowest common denominator is to be ignorant of the current state of democracy. If you mean a pure Democracy then perhaps I could agree but that is not real world.

I don't care what you think about my opinion; I threw it in to clarify my stance and seperate myself from a-D.

When I say it appeals to the lowest common denominator, it is because that is who politicians appeal to to get the necessary votes--a sarcastic remark on the education of the populace, of course. If we had lived in some fantasy world with philosopher kings making all the right decisions, in my opinion we wouldn't be having these silly debates over such things like evolution in schools or pornography, which the answers are already there but the ignorance of the public only causes problems.

If you want a good idea at the state of our government, look at the last election.


There is a reason Western Democracies are representative Democracies and it isn't to save time. It was done in large part to avoid fickle public opinion and the lowest common denominator. Those who founded modern Democracies learned from the mistakes of the past. Democratic governments have actually evolved to avoid the types of problems you raise.


Don't make the mistake that I think the public holds the reins directly; the "system" (I hesitate to use that phrasing due to its connotation with lesser thinkers) is far more complex than that. After all, the public cannot know everything a politician will do, for one.

But at the core it is some majority that has the power; that and the prison of habit of the two "ruling" political parties.


Your thoughts are disjointed. I don't understand the question. I don't know what natural scientific progress is. I know that when scientists, inventors, innovators and entrepreneurs are free we get -

Scientific progress that, naturally, occurs over time.


1.) Advancements in medicine.
2.) Advancements in technology.
3.) Advancements in food production.
4.) Advancements in food storage.
5.) Advancements in knowledge.

We went to the Moon. We went to the bottom of the ocean, We conquered polio and eradicated many diseases. We are feeding a planet. The life expectancy is growing at an unprecedented pace. And here you are, communicating through a decedent western invention that is currently democratizing the world and you use it to bemoan the appeal to the lowest common denominator.

It's true that the Communists got to space before us. But they did it at a terrible cost to them and had to give up the race. The also were not as able to exploit the technology developed the way the West did.


Do not confuse me for an apologist for communism; Communism in all its forms, idealized or not, is the exact opposite of what I stand for and is far worse than what we have today.

And again, while some of this may be due to democracy, it may not be. The fact that we are in another age of scientific revolution and we also have a revolution in rights (relative to the past!) does not mean one caused the other. It could be that due to some facet of human psychology, increased technological application may lead to us seeking democracy or getting more freedoms, for example.


I will concede that Democracy is not perfect. I will concede that Democracy comes at a cost that some, you I presume, are not comfortable with. I concede that the advancements that I speak of bing their own set of problems.

I take a purely individual take on rights and how to live; as such I do not believe in personally following an unjust law or enforcing injust laws. So to me, it does not matter if the laws come from a monarch or the masses. I'll take whatever offers me the freedoms I want (again, not talking anarchy) even if it includes subverting democracy (within what little means I possibly could) because the masses the politicians play to (or are played by, in a sort of reciprocal determinism) make a decision anathema to what I find acceptable.

I see no solution to this problem, either; too often we expect there to be a solution when there isn't one at all.


No one is claiming that ALL improvements in society are due to Democracy. This is just a straw man. The claim is that Democracy is far more likely to contribute to freedom.

Well, not all improvements; I was addressing what you listed as improvements democracy supposedly gives us, which was quite broad.


Why not? What other standard is there?

As a standard of governance? None, of course, but my personal standard is what I find acceptable and damned on how many other people view otherwise.

Again, I am taking an individual stance: I am powerless and will be ruled by the norms and dogmas of society (or a central ruler, in a dictatorship) whether I agree with them or not. I'll take whatever makes me freer or appeals to my sensibilities.

Not really a revolutionary or different philosophy; I doubt any of us support laws regarding the selling of sex paraphenalia, and I hope none of us would enforce the law even if were were obligated to, such as working in law-enforcement. I, however, do not personally accept "well, the people voted on it..." or "well, the politicians voted on it..." as valid ways to live my life.

I suppose some of my views are echoed in Thoreau's Civil Disobedience, for reference.

---

I'll admit that I do have some problems... elaborating what I think.

[Sushi]

Sushi, let me get this straight: You are calling RandFan a troll? RandFan?

Let's see: RandFan, with far more respect than you deserve, offered up definitions and explanations. He provided evidence and data. You, on the other hand, are the one name calling, and insulting people like DO and Fowlsound.

Hmmm. If you're looking for a troll, you might check a mirror.

NOBODY attacks my friends.

And thus the circus begins. Rudetoad, ever so habitually biased and blind beyond belief. Are you a troll (hah)? I suspect so, as I don't see any name calling to DO (?) or fowlsound. The name calling started with Randfan's presumptious and insulting response to me.

The circus of "troll" name-calling here on this forum is quite amusing; it is like reading fundamentalists on a Christian website accusing someone of being a "liberal." Of course, though, anyone who disagrees with you on something that stirs the emotions is a troll, on the internet.

And again, as for a-D, he is not so much a troll (here, that is; he does "serious" trolling on the side, I do not suspect he is really doing it here however) in the sense that he believes what he writes, though he may be extra-expressive about it given that he knows he will run into some disagreement here.

[delphi_ote]

The circus of "troll" name-calling here on this forum is quite amusing; it is like reading fundamentalists on a Christian website accusing someone of being a "liberal."
Have you posted in other forums? What you're describing is actually extremely common these days no matter where you go.

[emperorchaos]

Hey I'm anti-democracy too but that's just because I think I should rule absolutely. I think I'd assign the whole of the JREF as my royal advisors.

[Sushi]

Have you posted in other forums? What you're describing is actually extremely common these days no matter where you go.

I know... :(

"Of course, though, anyone who disagrees with you on something that stirs the emotions is a troll, on the internet."

[Sushi]

Hey I'm anti-democracy too but that's just because I think I should rule absolutely. I think I'd assign the whole of the JREF as my royal advisors.

Sounds good to me! Of course, the "I" I am quoting really refers to "I" I.

[Sushi]

Also, here is a criticism of our democratic system that I'm sure at least most of us can agree with:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/George-W-Bush.jpeg/250px-George-W-Bush.jpeg

[Roadtoad]

If you think RandFan is rude, pompous, and offensive, I would suggest you re-read some of your posts. Pretend someone else wrote what you did, about you. Then tell me how "rude" RandFan has been.

I know the man. You know nothing about him, and that's too bad. Because you'd probably be a better person for it.