Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I case you have read some of my earlier threads you can probably guess that I am have some bad things to say about democracy in the past. But generally these have just been thoughts or sometimes suggestions on how it can be improved. But I am now at a point where I have just given up on the idea completely. I will just say this outright: I think democracy is a piece of crap that should die in a fire. I think its a terrible, extremely overrated system that doesn't deliver on most of it's promises and in fact creates many of the evils it claims to stop.
I think probably the biggest lie we are told about democracy (or republics, before anybody brings up the democracy vs republic argument) is that it is better than autocracy because unlike the evil autocracy which we are told is anti-individualist and collectivist, democracy generally is pro-individualist and pro-liberty. Well, this is giant load of ass.
For starts, let's take a look at how the individual can make his voice be heard in a democracy. He does this by voting. Either a leader (republic), or specific policy (direct democracy). But the thing is, an individual's vote doesn't matter in the bigger scheme of things. You can be the smartest person in the world, but your voice/vote will always only be one out of countless others, and once smart votes and dumb votes have balanced each other out every voting result will be some kind of a mediocre average. You as an individual and what you think, doesn't matter. There is no democratic will of the individual, only the will of the collective. This is anti-individualist.
But it isn't just anti-individualist, it's also anti-rationalist as well. Not everybody is as good at making a educated guess at what would be good for society. Some voters are smart, others are dumb, and some or so so. But the end result is always the same: Once all voter groups have balanced each other out the end result is the mediocre average of all groups aka mediocrity.
I know what some of you may be thinking. "Who are you to talk about others being dumb, are you so much smarter eh?". Yes. Call me elitist all you want, but the fact of the matter is I actually care about the world I live in. I won't claim to be the smartest person in the world or that my opinions are always correct, but even if nothing else I at least try to stay reasonably informed about economic and social issues, which is more than what can be said about most people it seems. Most people just don't give a ****...
But ok, so democracy may be anti-rationlist and anti-individualist, but at least it does well when it comes to protecting liberty and property right? Nope.
It has come to my attention that the people who scream the most for moar democracy are generally the same people who lust for other peoples stuff. For the greedy, democracy is a trojan horse which they use to justify the stealing of other peoples wealth and property without justification other than pure greed. And even in a society where democracy isn't direct, it's always very tempting for politicians to buy voters with other people's wealth. The end result, is that it really sucks to own decent property or wealth in a democracy, and that fiscal policy becomes very very bad. Democracy eats itself from within in the long term as the mob gets more and more greedy and people see a less of a reason to build wealth and property for themselves knowing it will just be taken away.
I know this might sound extreme to some, but I honestly think strong property rights are more important than a democracy. In a literal sense. If my society decided right now to abolish private property but make everything 100% democratic instead, I would rather just move to China. The reason for this, is that political freedom without economic freedom is worthless. Why be a slave to the collective in a collectivist democracy when I could be more free in a individualist dictatorship? Property rights matter more than political rights.
This is the moment in time where someone will come and say "well if democracy sucks so hard what do you want instead? Dictatorship? Democracy may be flawed but it's the best thing we have!". This is a logical fallacy. Yes, it's the best thing we have RIGHT NOW. But we seriously need a third alternative. If we don't find one, then democracy will suicide itself.
What I want, is a hybrid between democracy and dictatorship where organization is autocratic since it makes it less likely that populist politicians or greedy mobs will ruin everything with bad fiscal policy and greed, but still feature some kind of separation of powers and individual accountability for bad leaders.
I case you have read some of my earlier threads you can probably guess that I am have some bad things to say about democracy in the past. But generally these have just been thoughts or sometimes suggestions on how it can be improved. But I am now at a point where I have just given up on the idea completely. I will just say this outright: I think democracy is a piece of crap that should die in a fire. I think its a terrible, extremely overrated system that doesn't deliver on most of it's promises and in fact creates many of the evils it claims to stop.
I think probably the biggest lie we are told about democracy (or republics, before anybody brings up the democracy vs republic argument) is that it is better than autocracy because unlike the evil autocracy which we are told is anti-individualist and collectivist, democracy generally is pro-individualist and pro-liberty. Well, this is giant load of ass.
For starts, let's take a look at how the individual can make his voice be heard in a democracy. He does this by voting. Either a leader (republic), or specific policy (direct democracy). But the thing is, an individual's vote doesn't matter in the bigger scheme of things. You can be the smartest person in the world, but your voice/vote will always only be one out of countless others, and once smart votes and dumb votes have balanced each other out every voting result will be some kind of a mediocre average. You as an individual and what you think, doesn't matter. There is no democratic will of the individual, only the will of the collective. This is anti-individualist.
But it isn't just anti-individualist, it's also anti-rationalist as well. Not everybody is as good at making a educated guess at what would be good for society. Some voters are smart, others are dumb, and some or so so. But the end result is always the same: Once all voter groups have balanced each other out the end result is the mediocre average of all groups aka mediocrity.
I know what some of you may be thinking. "Who are you to talk about others being dumb, are you so much smarter eh?". Yes. Call me elitist all you want, but the fact of the matter is I actually care about the world I live in. I won't claim to be the smartest person in the world or that my opinions are always correct, but even if nothing else I at least try to stay reasonably informed about economic and social issues, which is more than what can be said about most people it seems. Most people just don't give a ****...
But ok, so democracy may be anti-rationlist and anti-individualist, but at least it does well when it comes to protecting liberty and property right? Nope.
It has come to my attention that the people who scream the most for moar democracy are generally the same people who lust for other peoples stuff. For the greedy, democracy is a trojan horse which they use to justify the stealing of other peoples wealth and property without justification other than pure greed. And even in a society where democracy isn't direct, it's always very tempting for politicians to buy voters with other people's wealth. The end result, is that it really sucks to own decent property or wealth in a democracy, and that fiscal policy becomes very very bad. Democracy eats itself from within in the long term as the mob gets more and more greedy and people see a less of a reason to build wealth and property for themselves knowing it will just be taken away.
I know this might sound extreme to some, but I honestly think strong property rights are more important than a democracy. In a literal sense. If my society decided right now to abolish private property but make everything 100% democratic instead, I would rather just move to China. The reason for this, is that political freedom without economic freedom is worthless. Why be a slave to the collective in a collectivist democracy when I could be more free in a individualist dictatorship? Property rights matter more than political rights.
This is the moment in time where someone will come and say "well if democracy sucks so hard what do you want instead? Dictatorship? Democracy may be flawed but it's the best thing we have!". This is a logical fallacy. Yes, it's the best thing we have RIGHT NOW. But we seriously need a third alternative. If we don't find one, then democracy will suicide itself.
What I want, is a hybrid between democracy and dictatorship where organization is autocratic since it makes it less likely that populist politicians or greedy mobs will ruin everything with bad fiscal policy and greed, but still feature some kind of separation of powers and individual accountability for bad leaders.
OP, Can you come up with a reasonable alternative to Democracy??
Before people can start working on alternatives, people must first must be made to understand that the pre-existing system is bad. Trying to create a working alternative before that is a futile exercise. First people need to accept the existence of the problem, and only afterward can we seek a solution to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life
That is why the constitution is so important, it is a document that is supposed to limit the power of government and limit the power of the majority.
No democracy can ever limit the power of it's people in the long term. The moment the greedy mob realizes it has the power to expand it's own power via democratic means it will continue to do so. Democracy is like a cancel cell that grows until it has consumed it's entire host body, at which point the host dies as well as the cancer as there nothing left for it to eat.
Before people can start working on alternatives, people must first must be made to understand that the pre-existing system is bad. Trying to create a working alternative before that is a futile exercise. First people need to accept the existence of the problem, and only afterward can we seek a solution to it.
And this is exactly what's wrong with your stance.
Exactly *who* is going to be making me - or anyone - understand this? Your august personage perhaps? No thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hakkarin
No democracy can ever limit the power of it's people in the long term. The moment the greedy mob realizes it has the power to expand it's own power via democratic means it will continue to do so. Democracy is like a cancel cell that grows until it has consumed it's entire host body, at which point the host dies as well as the cancer as there nothing left for it to eat.
I think that American-style democracy - with its internal checks and balances - has worked well enough. Far from perfect, but well enough. At any rate, I'll take it over any kind of dictatorship any day.
I think that American-style democracy - with its internal checks and balances - has worked well enough. Far from perfect, but well enough. At any rate, I'll take it over any kind of dictatorship any day.
American democracy is working? Really? So this system of yours where 2 parties dominate politics and special interest can just buy everybody is working just fine?
American democracy is working? Really? So this system of yours where 2 parties dominate politics and special interest can just buy everybody is working just fine?
I don't especially love the 2-party system, but it is an inevitable consequence of the winner-take-all system instituted by the founders (it's simple arithmetic). The founders wished to avoid ineffective government, so they rejected a proportional representation system like England's. I think it's 6 of one and half-dozen of the other - political parties are human organizations, after all. I believe it was Winston Churchill who said that democracy was the worst form of government ever invented, except for all the others.
I would like to find a way to control the influence of money over our system, but I don't see that this problem is unique to the US or to democracy. I especially don't delude myself that some kind of dictatorship would be better in this regard.
I've always thought the "Libertarian" movement was really a trojan horse movement to establish a military dictatorship by and for the moneyed elite.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's an impressive screed
