Should we have Democracy...?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Spectrum, Apr 21, 2009.

?

Should we have democracy...?

  1. YES!

    70.8%
  2. NO!

    29.2%
  1. Spectrum Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    459
    To decide whether we should in fact have democracy, or not, I propose a national vote! Voters think there should be democracy, and non-voters are against democracy. But how are we to measure such a contest without records of how many voted for each side? We shall have to have yes and no votes, but then all voters are expressing their views democratically. If I do not vote, then the laws should not apply to me.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Even pirates voted for who was going to be the captain of their ship!
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    No. We should have a free market.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    We don't have a democracy and never have, and it would be the worst of mistakes to become one.

    We are rapidly losing our Republic and that is the problem, Dr. Frainklin warned of this in 1787;

    “A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.”
     
  8. visceral_instinct Monkey see, monkey denigrate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,913
    Norse!! When are you going to see the free market in realistic terms?

    A free market will degenerate, because in such a situation people can do what the hell they like, including rape or kill people.
     
  9. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,383
    The only prayer of even having anything approaching a free market is to have an improved democracy. Kings and dictators will always take other peoples earnings.

    Even if you have a good dictator like the dictator of Singapore what is the chance that his son or other successor will also be good?

    Free markets are not a form of government. If you want to know what humans would be like without government study Chimpanzees. The crime rate among Chimpanzees is very high.
     
  10. River Ape Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,148
    If democracy is rule by the people, please each of you ask yourself:
    How much governing did I do today?
    How much governing do I expect to do tomorrow?
    If democracy is the right of the majority to enforce its will over the minority,
    I'm agin it.
    If democracy is just a pretence,
    I'm for reality.
     
  11. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Dont even argue norsefire, he doesnt know the first thing about economics let alone government and politics.
     
  12. jps Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,872
    What do you mean? "Free market" as a system of government would seem to mean anarchy.
     
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,336
    Democracy just doesn't work ... unless ....

    Raw, unfettered democracy bears serious exposure to self-contradiction. Look at American history. Despite appeals to democracy and states' rights, the Republic has moved toward the protection of minorities against arbitrary cruelty by majorities. We see this in race and sex relations on a regular basis. Just look at the three-fifths rule. And then look at the Fourteenth Amendment. Equal protection should have been in place from the outset, but it wasn't. Rather, arbitrarily-based inequality was originally enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. And even with the Fourteenth Amendment, there wasn't really equal protection; we had to pass the Nineteenth Amendment before women were allowed to even participate in the "democratic" process. Quite clearly, democracy, left to the caprices of the majority, is capable of severe injustice.

    Furthermore, the topic post—

    —proposes not democracy but the unknitting of civilized society in and of itself. This goes well beyond even Anarchism. Rather, it proposes that one abstain from voting, be exempt from the law, but enjoy the benefits of the public endeavor. It is simply an appeal to enjoy the benefits of society while bearing none of the responsibilities.

    The basic problem, from a philosophical standpoint, is that people are not perfect. Communism, capitalism, Anarchism ... any system we apply will function best if (A) the people consent and, most importantly, (B) they are educated enough to understand what they are consenting to.

    Yet, to the other, trying to impose an educational standard on people is often reviled as undemocratic.

    In a society where ignorance is considered a God-given right, raw democracy will not function properly.
     
  14. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    He also doesnt know anything about human nature
     
  15. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    Actually, your marxism is what is idealistic and fails at understanding human nature. You can argue against the free market, but I need no argument. History has pointed it out very clearly: communism fails. East Germany vs West Germany? I'd rather live in West. Soviet bloc countries or western european countries? Western european. Capitalism is the single greatest system at providing and advancing. Socialism has failed. You can deny history, but ....whatever


    And nirakar, free markets are NOT a form of government...you're right. A free market is anarchist in nature because there is no central authority to command you

    Democracy, thus, is not freedom; it is simply a more free government, but it is still slavery by the majority.
     
  16. jps Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,872
    Isn't democracy, in a sense, the application of free market principles to government?

    Pure anarchy wouldn't last very long. A few would quickly accumulate too much to protect on their own, and have to pay others to protect them. These others would have to be kept from robbing their employer themselves, so punishments would need to be established for transgressors....etc.
     
  17. Naturelles Future Scientist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    214
    No, we should have a government based on Science and Logic

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Over here, politicians give out free stuff to the people to get voted.
     
  18. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    As I said, it doesn't have to be actual anarchy. A libertarian government would be something I could settle for.

    Science, logic, and the free market
     
  19. Naturelles Future Scientist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    214
    What do you mean by the free market?
     
  20. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    Good question. People often assume that free market means private market, which isn't the case; and free market and "state capitalism" or "corporatism" are also not the same


    Free market means individuals are able to interact without a coercive establishment forcing anything on them
     
  21. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Like rules? What prevents cheating?
     
  22. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,460
    that argument has been tried on him and failed.
     
  23. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    The problem is your idea of "cheating". There is no "cheating"; there is theft, there is murder, and so on, and those are crimes not cheating. You think people being rich is "cheating"

    Realize that I am proposing a libertarian gov't not anarchy. Anarchy is only what I believe in in theory, although I understand that any true anarchy would likely never occur.


    And it isn't a battle between left and right; those are simply ideologies people hold. In a free market BOTH sides can act as they please....without forcing the other to do anything. Therefore a libertarian gov't doesn't mean that people can't still be socialists.
     

Share This Page