The problems with democracy and alternatives

Phoenix Vidensia wrote:

Manu wrote:

Phoenix Vidensia wrote:

Uzima Moto wrote: The West is HIGHLY propagandized.. but that's the only way to steer democratic societies. Manipulation of public opinion, "Pop culture"..

... and now you know why I detest democracy. It results in... this.

Detesting something is easy. What's your alternative to democracy?

Empire.

I was quite surprised at the idea of democracy not being the most feasible and desirable system in this day and age. After Phoenix’s comment, I decided we could post here rather than derail the other thread.

What are the pitfalls of democracy? Are there feasible alternative to it? How would that work?

To me , that’s like asking are there pitfalls to free will?!
The only alternative I’ve seen in the real world to democracy is not having it. Where I’m at right now , I have freedoms. Freedoms I have used and have taken on a daily basis. I’ve seen hundreds of folks see the freedoms I’ve taken and from just seeing them in practice say.. I didn’t know I could do that. I’ve done the same thing. It’s not till I started to actually use em that I relived how different life ( my life) could be. Truthfully most discussions and arguments are what democracy means to people and their interpretations of it and how their view is best and we should all understand how it benefits best ... I use mine. I don’t argue about my freedoms - I use them. I don’t argue about my democracy - I use it.

I don't think it's a question of what's the best method to control society.. I think it's should we be trying to "control" in the first place..

I'm not sure if justice implies dictation as well. Democracy has its place, but as long as it could be used to assault and oppress peaceful individuals. It might as well be a dictatorship..

As long as a govermnent keeps the peace between free individuals. It could take on many forms. Although, I think a govermnent created explicitly by the consent of the governed will naturally have democratic processes of some kind.. and a court of equity..

Personally, I think the natural evolution of govermnent will see progressively more free societies..

So... I see my comment begged debate... Why?

First, I highly doubt anyone here has the ability or dedication, either singly or as a group, to change the current system into something else. Since that's the most likely reality, I don't see the benefit of this discussion. From what I'm looking at, it's a bunch of nobodies, sitting in a circle, making themselves feel smart by philosophizing about politics. How about this? I'll be blunt. You're not, you won't, and your opinions are worthless outside of whatever intellectual masturbation this is.

Furthermore, for the Americans here. You live in a Republic, not a Democracy. Why is this so quickly forgotten by so many people?

Phoenix Vidensia wrote: First, I highly doubt anyone here has the ability or dedication, either singly or as a group, to change the current system into something else. Since that's the most likely reality, I don't see the benefit of this discussion.

Name two discussion topics you have participated in on TOTJO or equivalent forums elsewhere, that were different in this regard, please. Also, if there is no benefit to discussions that are like this, why did you waste any time with any of them before?

From what I'm looking at, it's a bunch of nobodies, sitting in a circle, making themselves feel smart by philosophizing about politics. How about this? I'll be blunt. You're not, you won't, and your opinions are worthless outside of whatever intellectual masturbation this is.

Your point being? I'm sure you have something interesting/productive to contribute. What's stopping you?

You live in a Republic, not a Democracy. Why is this so quickly forgotten by so many people?

Possibly because it's a distinction without much of a difference, in principle.

Phoenix Vidensia wrote: Empire.

An Empire is not an alternative system to Democracy.

The British Empire (ie the largest Empire in history) was still a democracy at the national level in Britain.

The Roman Empire fluttered between Democracy and Dictatorship, but was still Democratic, at the local level in Rome, for a signification period of its history.

But thats kind of getting off topic.

The main methods of governing are Democracy, Dictatorship, and Anarchy.

Democracy works best for giving the people of a nation/region a say in how they are governed, and generally does a good job of preventing the people of that nation/region from being oppressed. however, it tends to make the 'State' weaker.

Dictatorships tend to do a great job of increasing a nations apparent 'strength' with impressive army's and immense levels of wealth amongst its top tier of society, however it traditionally results in larger amounts of corruption and nepotism within the 'State' and the oppression and persecution of large percentages of its people, particularly minorities and political opponents/activists.

Anarchy effectively removes all forms of structured rule and relies on people to mobilise themselves into a working society without any directives from a singular source. I can't actually think of a single example where this has been implemented, let alone succeeded. Even in primal tribes there is usually some kind of command-chain type hierarchy. But many people still promote the idea, so who am i to judge?

Personally I'm 100% in favour of Democracy as I think its the closest to a 'fair' system that we've been able to develop. Though it only works when you have a well informed electorate, which most countries seem to lack these days.

Phoenix Vidensia wrote: First, I highly doubt anyone here has the ability or dedication, either singly or as a group, to change the current system into something else. Since that's the most likely reality, I don't see the benefit of this discussion. From what I'm looking at, it's a bunch of nobodies, sitting in a circle, making themselves feel smart by philosophizing about politics. How about this? I'll be blunt. You're not, you won't, and your opinions are worthless outside of whatever intellectual masturbation this is.

Interesting. You criticised a system, and then presented an alternative, yet you now criticise others for doing the same?

Presumably you are also a nobody (in the global sense) and also lack the ability or dedication, either singly or as a group, to change the current system into something else? And yet you saw benefit in stating your own philosophising about politics.

Are we therefore to assume that your opinions, in someway, hold more worth outside of whatever intellectual masturbation this is? And if so, why is your intellectual masturbation more worthy than anyone else's?

For clarity, I'm not attempting to have a dig, this is a genuine line of inquiry.

Phoenix Vidensia wrote: So... I see my comment begged debate... Why?

That's how forums works. Your comment in the other thread was off-topic, so a new thread was warranted. And the comment itself was rather asinine, so I wished to explore if there was something more to it before coming to a definitive conclusion.

Aside from the cool edgelord dark vibe in which it is written, there is nothing of value there. Shame.

Phoenix Vidensia wrote: I highly doubt anyone here has the ability or dedication, either singly or as a group, to change the current system into something else. Since that's the most likely reality, I don't see the benefit of this discussion. From what I'm looking at, it's a bunch of nobodies, sitting in a circle, making themselves feel smart by philosophizing about politics. How about this? I'll be blunt. You're not, you won't, and your opinions are worthless outside of whatever intellectual masturbation this is.

You mean the world will not change by discussing things in an internet forum? shocking! :lol:

Gisteron wrote: Name two discussion topics you have participated in on TOTJO or equivalent forums elsewhere, that were different in this regard, please. Also, if there is no benefit to discussions that are like this, why did you waste any time with any of them before?

I’ve done the thing I’ve criticized some here of doing. I don’t deny my hypocrisy, though I’ve expended effort to avoid it as much as possible.

However, my responses and posts here have mostly been personal expression, opinion sharing, disagreeing and such. I’ve not proposed government systems in any detail, much less did more than state my dislike for an existing system that people seem to almost worship.

I may even choose to rant about my dislike elsewhere but that’s still not the same thing as an armchair discussion, filled with pseudo intellectuals, going on like they are in class.

Gisteron wrote: I'm sure you have something interesting/productive to contribute. What's stopping you?

Interesting? Maybe. Productive? No. Useful? Not at all. Why do I not participate in this circle jerk? Waste of time.

Manu wrote:

Phoenix Vidensia wrote: So... I see my comment begged debate... Why?

That's how forums works. Your comment in the other thread was off-topic, so a new thread was warranted. And the comment itself was rather asinine, so I wished to explore if there was something more to it before coming to a definitive conclusion.

Aside from the cool edgelord dark vibe in which it is written, there is nothing of value there. Shame.

Phoenix Vidensia wrote: I highly doubt anyone here has the ability or dedication, either singly or as a group, to change the current system into something else. Since that's the most likely reality, I don't see the benefit of this discussion. From what I'm looking at, it's a bunch of nobodies, sitting in a circle, making themselves feel smart by philosophizing about politics. How about this? I'll be blunt. You're not, you won't, and your opinions are worthless outside of whatever intellectual masturbation this is.

You mean the world will not change by discussing things in an internet forum? shocking! :lol:

“Edge lord”...

Grow up. Please, just mature to the point you stop using asinine internet slang or whatever that is.

Quick clarification... “Empires” can be democratic to their citizens. I should have said I disagree with democracy and prefer autocratic rule, for the most part. That or just full anarchy.

Phoenix Vidensia wrote:

Gisteron wrote: I'm sure you have something interesting/productive to contribute. What's stopping you?

Interesting? Maybe. Productive? No. Useful? Not at all. Why do I not participate in this circle jerk? Waste of time.

As you can see, I didn't ask why you wouldn't participate in the discussion. But even if I had, is this a sincere response? Whether you find it a waste of time or not, you do take some of your time for the wasting to snark on about how ridiculous the rest of us are being, so clearly a shortage of spare time is not a problem you have. What I did ask was, if you are going to waste your time one way or another, why not in any way that would contribute something worth reading to the thread in place of the non-childish finger pointing at all the childish folks.

Granted, I'm not exactly one to talk with all the lack of useful contributions I have made to this thread in particular thus far...

Gisteron wrote:

Phoenix Vidensia wrote:

Gisteron wrote: I'm sure you have something interesting/productive to contribute. What's stopping you?

Interesting? Maybe. Productive? No. Useful? Not at all. Why do I not participate in this circle jerk? Waste of time.

As you can see, I didn't ask why you wouldn't participate in the discussion. But even if I had, is this a sincere response? Whether you find it a waste of time or not, you do take some of your time for the wasting to snark on about how ridiculous the rest of us are being, so clearly a shortage of spare time is not a problem you have. What I did ask was, if you are going to waste your time one way or another, why not in any way that would contribute something worth reading to the thread in place of the non-childish finger pointing at all the childish folks.

Granted, I'm not exactly one to talk with all the lack of useful contributions I have made to this thread in particular thus far...

Snarky remarks don’t take much time and I enjoy them? Going on about political science would require sources, research, and half a day worth of writing. I’ll just stop and stay out of this thread.

I’ll also reconsider how I interact in public threads. Perhaps my journal is better suited. Pardon my semi trolling.

Actually Phoenix is correct. The USA is not a democracy. It is a republic. Things like the Electoral college make it a republic. If the USA was a democracy then Clinton would be president right now. Thank Goddess we are not a Democracy, right!

I thought functionally we were an Oligarchy ruled by the biggest pocket books.

rugadd wrote: I thought functionally we were an Oligarchy ruled by the biggest pocket books.

Families and money, actually. However, that’s the “unseen” part.

Truthfully - where I am in my life at the moment - our goal is homesteading- and very off grid type of thing. Plans for land and such are in the works but a few friends of mine and some family are just gonna all pool together and see what happens with all that! Currently - it’s a not a far away idea but me personally - the less some one can rely or even ... count on Government or things the sooner one can become independently able the better and I don’t mean wealthy or money - just less dependent of a lot of things. That’s my plate though - the less I ask for the more I can do for myself. That’s what I try to do with the cops and government where I live. I try not to let it dictate my every move. I don’t think that’s what it’s for.
I made a joke with by lil brother “all these people talking about right they’ve never used” maybe it’s a good moment to practice them rather than argue about them. What the alternatives for me in real life is to use them actually. I get to teach my son at home any curriculum I choose in my state and all he has to do is a few exams for a homeschool status. Too easy. I’m free as well as any one here to do the same. That’s my solution to my own problems though, wish the world could take a free education about some stuff.

rugadd wrote: I thought functionally we were an Oligarchy ruled by the biggest pocket books.

Nope, If that was the case we would not have the powerful political parties that we have. Countries like Russia or North Korea or China are Oligarchy in nature.

Phoenix Vidensia wrote: Grow up. Please, just mature to the point you stop using asinine internet slang or whatever that is.

Never! :laugh:

VixensVengeance wrote:

rugadd wrote: I thought functionally we were an Oligarchy ruled by the biggest pocket books.

Nope, If that was the case we would not have the powerful political parties that we have. Countries like Russia or North Korea or China are Oligarchy in nature.

IMO each of you (VixensVengeance and rugadd) have a point here.

In American's origin, it was not set up as a democracy (where popular public will determines every policy) but a republic (where representatives are elected, to represent segments of the public in a structured way). I don't quibble about that much with people as when the term "democracy" is applied to the United States, it's more from an undisciplined use of language than a belief that we really have a democracy; I think those who use that term actually understand that our national decisions are made by senators, representatives, and the President.

That said, rugadd's assertion that we are, today, a functioning oligarchy - despite our embattled political parties - seems pretty much the case. A study from Princeton University four or five years ago concluded as much; former U.S. President Jimmy Carter has explicitly made the same claim. Our political parties in the modern era are very heavily influenced by the demands of their corporate donors, and ownership of those corporations is fairly concentrated in the hands of a relatively small number of people. It's why some political observers focus so much on the influence of the Koch brothers on the right, and George Soros on the left; they represent individuals whose influence over the political process is all out of proportion to their status as American citizens.

We see the results in our national policies. Polls show that the vast majority of Americans want some form of universal health coverage (even 53% of Republicans), yet we don't have it. A Reuters poll shows that 70% of Americans - including a majority of Republicans - want the government to take aggressive action to combat climate change, but we're expanding offshore drilling and fracking instead. Our structure of taxation continues to evolve in ways that predominately benefit large businesses and a relatively small number of wealthy individuals. Those aren't the outcomes you'd expect in an authentic republic or democracy, but fit the expectations from an oligarchy pretty well.

I hope that doesn't sound harsh or edgy. I'll admit my emotional stability can get uncentered during discussions about our unfolding reality. My hope is to add some insight to the discussion, or inspire some illuminating content if I am in error.