Democracy - a problem

[WVBRY]

I was posting in the thread "national defense authroiztaion act" and it occured to me that this measure is a means for the US government to at least maintain its country's freedom from radical islamic terrorists. Im not saying that this paranoia is the right way to do this at all, but maybe the US government thinks it is the lesser of two evils. But thats not the whole picture.

The problem starts with the US being a democratic nation - represtants to the government are democartically elected. This creates a problem that they have to please the people, or else they wont get elected. When it doesnt interfere in foreign matters, the US governements gets blamed for letting cruel despots take "democracy" and capitalism out from the hands of innocent citizens. When it does interfere, it arms people who then become a threat to their own country - and to the rest of the world. Case in point: the US government armed Afghanistan to reistst against Russian communism and the armed Afghans became the Taliban. Other examples would include Egyptian Presidant Ossni Mubarack, Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, and Libyan dictator Muammar Khaddafi being thrown over in favor of democartically elected governments. And when democratic elections in these countries are organized who wins the elections? Islamic parties. This is the heart of the problem. The middle east is just filled with Islamists who are just waiting to take over and impose their ideals through politics. They relish the throwing over of Islamic moderates like Khaddaffi, because this allows them to seize power where a stable governement originally created and put in place by the US was taking their place.

Democracy is supposed to be the great liberator of mankind. But what is it doing in the wolrd now? Democratically elected governements are ruining everything because it allows the rule of the fool(the fool = the greatest majority) to have power, not the wise, the few, the intelligent.

What do you think? Has democracy reached the end of its rope? Is its tip now burning away to ashes? Is it time for some new form of government to be favored over democracies? What about a meritocracy a group of people who select who gets to rule and make decisions, such as the anceint Roman senate during the Roman empire did, rather than (though I beleive they were democratically elected too, not everyone in Rome was allowed citizenship. In fact, most werent) everyone being able to make a "difference" by voting? Or is complaining about the government that your right to vote grants you worth too much? Do we just want a society comprised of upset complainers, rather than contributors? What power does democracy allow the average person to have in the end, and is the average really worth being given the final say?

[FDG]

No, because I wouldn't want - for example - niffweed in such meritocracy (even if he's smart), and he wouldn't want me, and countless numbers of smart people would not want each other in such meritocratic elite for a countless number of reasons. I can only see bloodbath as a result.

[WVBRY]

No, because I wouldn't want - for example - niffweed in such meritocracy (even if he's smart), and he wouldn't want me, and countless numbers of smart people would not want each other in such meritocratic elite for a countless number of reasons. I can only see bloodbath as a result.

LOl Niffweed...I guess thats the biggest problem in a meritocracy is getting it started...like who is worthy and who isnt? It shouldnt just be based on intelligence though, I never said that. Im not sure myself how such a thing would work, but it has in the past in numerous societies, I see that as a better alternative to deomcracy than the state cults of the early 20th century were, though.

[Creepy-bg]

maybe maritsa has rates for presidential selection.

[Pa3s]

I don't think the problem is that democracy doesn't work, it's just not used consequently enough. I personally regard the typical "democratic" states of the world like the USA, Germany, and the rest of Europe as rather undemocratic. We all have a chance to vote for someone (or better: just a amorphous party which chooses its own leaders) once in four years, or a similar, relatively long time. But that does actually just change the faces and not the way the country is ruled. The politicians are not even compelled to support a certain cause, they may have been elected for by the majority of their voters (speaking specifically of Germany here). They're much more likely to please the larger corporations, because the state (and therefore we as the citizens) is dependent on the cooperation of those companies.

I also don't see a good and fair alternative to democracy. Councils of skilled experts can definitely help to find solutions, but this shouldn't be confused with the ability to rule. A meritocracy, even with good intentions of the "experts" has a high chance of transitioning into a oppressive system. In my opinion, any state system which doesn't include the citizen as an individual, who is able to vote (or somehow include their opinion ect.) is unfair. We can't judge about the people and give some the right to vote and deny others to do so. Intelligence and skill can also used for unethical causes, we shouldn't forget that. If a state exists, it's either all or no one. Any other form (dictatorship, oligarchy, rule of the elite, ect.) is bound to fail or rule in an unfair way. That's what I'm thinking.

[consentingadult]

I was posting in the thread "national defense authroiztaion act" and it occured to me that this measure is a means for the US government to at least maintain its country's freedom from radical islamic terrorists. Im not saying that this paranoia is the right way to do this at all, but maybe the US government thinks it is the lesser of two evils. But thats not the whole picture.

The problem starts with the US being a democratic nation - represtants to the government are democartically elected. This creates a problem that they have to please the people, or else they wont get elected. When it doesnt interfere in foreign matters, the US governements gets blamed for letting cruel despots take "democracy" and capitalism out from the hands of innocent citizens. When it does interfere, it arms people who then become a threat to their own country - and to the rest of the world. Case in point: the US government armed Afghanistan to reistst against Russian communism and the armed Afghans became the Taliban. Other examples would include Egyptian Presidant Ossni Mubarack, Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, and Libyan dictator Muammar Khaddafi being thrown over in favor of democartically elected governments. And when democratic elections in these countries are organized who wins the elections? Islamic parties. This is the heart of the problem. The middle east is just filled with Islamists who are just waiting to take over and impose their ideals through politics. They relish the throwing over of Islamic moderates like Khaddaffi, because this allows them to seize power where a stable governement originally created and put in place by the US was taking their place.

Democracy is supposed to be the great liberator of mankind. But what is it doing in the wolrd now? Democratically elected governements are ruining everything because it allows the rule of the fool(the fool = the greatest majority) to have power, not the wise, the few, the intelligent.

What do you think? Has democracy reached the end of its rope? Is its tip now burning away to ashes? Is it time for some new form of government to be favored over democracies? What about a meritocracy a group of people who select who gets to rule and make decisions, such as the anceint Roman senate during the Roman empire did, rather than (though I beleive they were democratically elected too, not everyone in Rome was allowed citizenship. In fact, most werent) everyone being able to make a "difference" by voting? Or is complaining about the government that your right to vote grants you worth too much? Do we just want a society comprised of upset complainers, rather than contributors? What power does democracy allow the average person to have in the end, and is the average really worth being given the final say?

There is a small but important error in your assumptions: that Western countries are democracies, that democracy is the defining characteristic of these countries. But they aren't democracies. What is essential about Western countries, is that first and foremost, they are governed by constitutional law, which in turn embody ideas of the Enlightenment. Democracy just serves these principles. This also explains why democracy as the western world knows it, doesn't work in Islamic countries, and isn't a universal liberator of mankind, because the rest of mankind doesn't really understand the concept of Western constitutionalism. In a sense, democracy can actually be a potential risk, because democracy can be used to abolish the constitutional state.

However, political scientists and other social scientist are currently in debate about the future of democracy or the lack thereof. The main problem for democracy is what is called "horizontalization" in Dutch, which is a phenomenon which has occurred throughout the Western world since the sixties: a change in the power-relationships between (social) institutions and citizens in favor of the citizens. To put if differently: everyone is an authority nowadays. The solutions you are mentioning in effect mean going back to the past, and would be contrary to the current trend, so these are not really viable options. No one can know for sure what the future will have in store, but if the current trend is to continue, it will be largely about monitoring democracy (instead of the current representative democracy).

The following video, in which a number of influential political scientists discuss your question, might be of interest to you. Most of it is in English, some of it in Dutch:

http://tegenlicht.vpro.nl/afleveringen/2009-2010/meeste-stemmen-gelden/na-de-democratie.html

ETA: I found another version with English subtitles for the Dutch-spoken parts of the commentator:

http://www.youtube.com/vprointernati.../8/7EBFLXCyM0I

[WVBRY]

There is a small but important error in your assumptions: that Western countries are democracies, that democracy is the defining characteristic of these countries. But they aren't democracies. What is essential about Western countries, is that first and foremost, they are governed by constitutional law, which in turn embody ideas of the Enlightenment. Democracy just serves these principles. This also explains why democracy as the western world knows it, doesn't work in Islamic countries, and isn't a universal liberator of mankind, because the rest of mankind doesn't really understand the concept of Western constitutionalism. In a sense, democracy can actually be a potential risk, because democracy can be used to abolish the constitutional state.

Very, very good - I didnt see this Ill admit. However true this is though, it doesnt seem to be something that people in general are aware of. I was getting my own assumptions from public opinion which beleives democracy to be the liberator or western countries, when it is, in fact, theories of the enlightment and its constiutional state which creates the freedom we have in western countries. It needs to be screamed from the rooftops, though I guess the reason it would fall on deaf ears is that most people do not have enough historical sense to know what the enlightenment even is in detail at least in this context.

However, political scientists and other social scientist are currently in debate about the future of democracy or the lack thereof. The main problem for democracy is what is called "horizontalization" in Dutch, which is a phenomenon which has occurred throughout the Western world since the sixties: a change in the power-relationships between (social) institutions and citizens in favor of the citizens. To put if differently: everyone is an authority nowadays. The solutions you are mentioning in effect mean going back to the past, and would be contrary to the current trend, so these are not really viable options. No one can know for sure what the future will have in store, but if the current trend is to continue, it will be largely about monitoring democracy (instead of the current representative democracy).

The following video, in which a number of influential political scientists discuss your question, might be of interest to you. Most of it is in English, some of it in Dutch:

http://tegenlicht.vpro.nl/afleveringen/2009-2010/meeste-stemmen-gelden/na-de-democratie.html

ETA: I found another version with English subtitles for the Dutch-spoken parts of the commentator:

http://www.youtube.com/vprointernati.../8/7EBFLXCyM0I

Im not sure if there is a difference between the 1960s and before in terms of the freedom's people have in society. "Everyone's an authority" is a mental concept that may have emerged in the sixties, but revolution didnt. It began way before the sixties. Im not sure individuals have more authority since then than before - or if its something that is perceived that way. I would like to know what makes you say that this is the case exatcly?

Also Ive started watching the video its a bit long, (49:36) but Ill see how far Ill get. Thanks for the link.

[consentingadult]

However true this is though, it doesn't seem to be something that people in general are aware of.

They aren't. And this is why the Western world is in danger. Populist tendencies with no regard for the constitutional state or the 'contract social' (Rousseau) is what threatens our 'civilization' from within, and not so much outside threats such as Islam.

[Aquagraph]

****** was elected.

I believe in forced asceticism to positions of political power. They shouldn't receive payment, they'd only be sustained like they were monks. After their term their possessions and credits should be public information. They should be also dressed in a silly uniform so they can't keep up the cryptic facade of professionalism.

[consentingadult]

****** was elected.

I believe in forced asceticism to positions of political power. They shouldn't receive payment, they'd only be sustained like they were monks. After their term their possessions and credits should be public information. They should be also dressed in a silly uniform so they can't keep up the cryptic facade of professionalism.

You have just described the populist tendencies of the monitory democracy perfectly!

[Aquagraph]

You have just described the populist tendencies of the monitory democracy perfectly!

By what I say or by how I say? Should I be insulted or complimented?

[krieger]

in ancient China, the country was ruled for long periods of time by euneuchs: ministers who were forcibly sterilized so they could not found their own Imperial dynasty.

[Aquagraph]

Or maybe just having a functional dick correlates with being like one.

[consentingadult]

By what I say or by how I say? Should I be insulted or complimented?

It would be too difficult to explain in a post, but let me suffice to say that power trends in especially European countries (but I have been told it also applies to the US) involve a conflict between professionals (those who think they are well informed and thus better equipped to make decisions than others) and the common people (those who, in this modern day and age, demand instant gratification and fulfillment of all their wishes, and are not bothered by fact-free politics and demand transparency). Some other parties are also involved (especially pro-market capitalists and bureaucrats).

Personally I don't think what you want is a good thing (so you could take it as criticism, not so much as an insult), but I do think it's what is going to happen in the next few years, perhaps even for quite a period of time (so in a way, you're on the right track, i.e. if you are serious).

[Aquagraph]

I wanted to assure that it wasn't a "you're stupidity reflects the stupidity of the common voter." sorta thing.

I am free and willing to debate for my views if anyone's up for the sport.

[WVBRY]

I am free and willing to debate for my views if anyone's up for the sport.

Im probably game, though not right now because I have freinds coming over and stuff but Ill get back to this later.

[WVBRY]

Ok. Im back. A little buzzed but they didnt stay enough time for me to have too many screwdrivers, lol. Anyways,

I believe in forced asceticism to positions of political power. They shouldn't receive payment, they'd only be sustained like they were monks. After their term their possessions and credits should be public information. They should be also dressed in a silly uniform so they can't keep up the cryptic facade of professionalism.

I dont see the logic in this. Who would impose these standards? And wouldnt they actually be the ones in power if they do? And logically shouldnt the ones who enforce this also be forced to live to monks and then wouldnt everyone be forced to live in asceticism?

I do like the last sentence though. People in positions of power dress up too much, for the most part. Silly outfits would be convenient, though one might argue they already have them.

[Gilly]

Its weird, Ashton. When I read the stuff you say about your beef with the system, almost everything resonates; you seem to hold almost the exact core views that I do about essentially how shit should be, but we always approach it from opposite angles, and I think our respective locales of upbringing have heavily influenced the color, if you will, that our proposed methodologies take.

[Gilly]

Mostly because I just see so many things that would go wrong.

[mu4]

[Gilly]

All things being equal, would you rather stick with something that you already know doesn't work?

Well it's not that simple. We know dictatorship doesn't work, and has historically caused more death and been responsible for less technological and social progress, and yet you advocate it over democracy, so forgive me if I hesitate to take your criticisms seriously; I can see the ways in which it is clearly more effectual in affecting necessary drastic changes in its operation, but unfortunately that is hardly the only factor worth considering.

I'm not saying that anarchy doesn't have its merits, and I can see it functioning under certain conditions, and I can see how the modern US might fit some of those criterion and could clearly reap massively on some of the benefits inherent to anarchy, but when I think about everything that the lack of a central government implies, I can't help but feel like people aren't ready for that kind of responsibility.

[LauriesCrusador]

Anyone ever read "They Thought They Were Free The Germans, 1933-45" by Milton Mayer? It's worth reading and definitely now more relevant than it was when is was published. Here's an excerpt

[Absurd]

What about a meritocracy a group of people who select who gets to rule and make decisions, such as the anceint Roman senate during the Roman empire did, rather than (though I beleive they were democratically elected too, not everyone in Rome was allowed citizenship. In fact, most werent) everyone being able to make a "difference" by voting? Or is complaining about the government that your right to vote grants you worth too much? Do we just want a society comprised of upset complainers, rather than contributors? What power does democracy allow the average person to have in the end, and is the average really worth being given the final say?

This isn't meritocracy at all. Heh, to say ancient Rome was a meritocracy is pretty hilarious although I'm sure slaves were allowed to vote in yout version of history.

Wrong terminology ye Sunday intellectuals.

[WVBRY]

This isn't meritocracy at all. Heh, to say ancient Rome was a meritocracy is pretty hilarious although I'm sure slaves were allowed to vote in yout version of history.

Wrong terminology ye Sunday intellectuals.

You dont understand what I wrote. I never said the ancient Roman empire was a meritocracy. I simply compared the roman senate to a group of people whoc ould potentially make decisions rather than have everyone elect represantatives.

And no, you're an idiot because I clearly said only roman citizens were allowed to vote in ancient Rome, I did my research though, and turns out only certain type of citizens were allowed to vote, so clearly slaves were not allowed a vote in my version of history.

Nice try, though.

[mu4]

Problem of meritocracy, how does one determine merit? Examination? Money? Property? Force? Birth? Caste?

Also, it's impossible to efficiently determine merit objectively and thus tyranny of some sort of occur. Democracy is just a system where people are given the opportunity to prove their merit via multiple means, it is certainly not the most resource efficient system, since it attempts to protect all it's members and not only a small group.

All systems fail, because of many reasons, but not all societies can thrive as democracies can and utilized as fully the productive capabilities of all its citizens. I believe if one democracy falls, another will rise. The tyranny and the brutality of man is ever present, but man's desire for freedom, justice, benevolence is still worth fighting for.

What do most meritocrat really ask for, it's simple, the tyranny of a test, money, property, force, birth and/or caste or any number of vague disputable proclamations. There is no true meritocracy, maybe just the Peter Principle.

Hey it's not that bad, you can still have money, education, property, titles, etc. Why not just enjoy that.

[Absurd]

You dont understand what I wrote. I never said the ancient Roman empire was a meritocracy. I simply compared the roman senate to a group of people whoc ould potentially make decisions rather than have everyone elect represantatives.

And no, you're an idiot because I clearly said only roman citizens were allowed to vote in ancient Rome, I did my research though, and turns out only certain type of citizens were allowed to vote, so clearly slaves were not allowed a vote in my version of history.

Nice try, though.

You did shit research. Know what meritocracy means, it's not even about voting you very smart person you and it is. It's simply egalitarianism as opposed to aristocracy so any claims to ancient Rome being a meritocracy is fucking hilarious. Same goes for the U.S - it was tried on U.S soil but failed miserably.

Go back to school.

What do most meritocrat really ask for, it's simple, the tyranny of a test, money, property, force, birth and/or caste or any number of vague disputable proclamations. There is no true meritocracy, maybe just the Peter Principle.

Haha!

[WVBRY]

You did shit research. Know what meritocracy means, it's not even about voting you very smart person you and it is. It's simply egalitarianism as opposed to aristocracy so any claims to ancient Rome being a meritocracy is fucking hilarious. Same goes for the U.S - it was tried on U.S soil but failed miserably.

Go back to school.

I never said any of that. Fuck off.

PS/ you're not worth debating.

[Absurd]

I never said any of that. Fuck off.

PS/ you're not worth debating.

Okay, think about education when you're up for a debate, namely:

1) Candidate of Science
2) Dr of Science
3) Corresponding Member of The Academy of Science (note it is more than a professor)
4) Academician.

The above is what remained of meritocracy you speak about in many countries. Don't have to mention it is and was highly competitive. And that's exactly what meritocracy encouraged and most importantly enabled everybody to participate in.

Next time you throw your technobabble on the walls of this mental asylum, make sure you're actually using the correct one.

I'm so smart, I can debate, oh look at me. Bwahaha.

[WVBRY]

The above is what remained of meritocracy you speak about in many countries. Don't have to mention it is and was highly competitive. And that's exactly what meritocracy encouraged and most importantly enabled everybody to participate in.

So because meritocracy in these countries is this way, it means this is the only form of meritocracy that ever existed?

[Absurd]

So because meritocracy in these countries is this way, it means this is the only form of meritocracy that ever existed?

There is no meritocracy in those countries, just pieces of it, left for, say, historians to write a book about it. I think you know how a book looks like.

In case you know any other forms of egalitarianism give me a call.

[WVBRY]

There is no meritocracy in those countries, just pieces of it, left for, say, historians to write a book about it. I think you know how a book looks like.

Just because it doesnt exist anymore doesnt mean it cant be brough back. Thats all I was advocating. It will take time, alot of time, centuries maybe, to rebuild something worthwhile from the ashes of today's mediocraticy into a society like ancient Egypt, Greece, Mesopotamia, or Rome, but society must be set on different vector if humanity wants to avoid the horrors which lie ahead for our species.

In case you know any other forms of egalitarianism give me a call.

Straw man.

[Absurd]

Just because it doesnt exist anymore doesnt mean it cant be brough back. Thats all I was advocating. It will take time, alot of time, centuries maybe, to rebuild something worthwhile from the ashes of today's mediocraticy into a society like ancient Egypt, Greece, Mesopotamia, or Rome, but society must be set on different vector if humanity wants to avoid the horrors which lie ahead for our species.

You can bring it back anytime you want, I'm not going there.

Anyhow, what's mediocraticy? Don't you mean mediocrity? If yes, then I think one of us is properly drunk and it is not me.

Straw man.

Snow man.

[WVBRY]

You can bring it back anytime you want, I'm not going there.

You can go to the moon then.

Anyhow, what's mediocraticy? Don't you mean mediocrity? If yes, then I think one of us is properly drunk and it is not me.

No, I didnt mean mediocrity. Put the new word 'mediocracity' in its proper conetext and understand.

[Absurd]

You can go to the moon then.

Krig, help me. Typhoon is supervising me.

No, I didnt mean mediocrity. Put the new word 'mediocracity' in its proper conetext and understand.

Alright, I'm going to conetext it now.

[WVBRY]

Krig, help me. Typhoon is supervising me.

What the fuck are you even talking about dude?

Edit: I get it now. Krig thinks you're ILI.

[WVBRY]

.



Alright, I'm going to conetext it now.

Absurd is playing dumb by mocking my spelling.

Its terribly upsetting.

[Absurd]

What the fuck are you even talking about dude?

Edit: I get it now. Krig thinks you're ILI.

Duh!

Absurd is playing dumb by mocking my spelling.

Its terribly upsetting.

Alright, I'm going to leave you alone. Best of luck bringing meritocracy back.

[WVBRY]

Best of luck bringing meritocracy back.

Thanks.

[Gilly]

When and where did I advocate dictatorship? I don't believe I ever said that.

You didn't advocate it, but you claimed it was preferable to democracy.

That's a cognitively dissonant premise, or at least it should be. If people can't handle the responsibility of governing themselves, what makes you think they can handle the responsibility of governing others? Are the competent adults supposed to rise to the top and do the governing? Because that obviously isn't happening.

Well the illusion worked for a while...

[Pa3s]

Nah, I just mentioned that a guy named Hans-Hermann Hoppe wrote a book explaining how democracy is a fundamentally awful form of government for a variety of reasons...

Thanks for the Link!