Bitcoin Forum

Hi

A joke first:
Chinese student: hey I am Chinese. I came to your country to study and learn about your propaganda.
Democratic people: There is no propaganda here!!!
Chinese student: See, this is exactly why I came to study it here.

Got it???  :D

1,2,3 let's begin...

I'm new here and kind of like the discussion sections.
After reading plenty of posts, I want to share with you my thoughts about democracy and why I think it's dead.

I was born and raised in mmm, let's say an almost dictatorship and mmm, a civil war later etc etc, we got mmmm, some kind of democracy, but I never felt it is really suitable for my country and my people.
Fast forward, I studied and lived third of my life in western countries and the other third in communist and pseudo socialist countries like China,there I got an aha moment and kind of understood why China lifted around 800 millions people from poverty (United nation Numbers) and became a huge economic and technological player in just 30/40 years.
Fast forward, after plenty of researches about unique party countries, I found this AHA MOMENT VIDEO:

youtube. com/ watch?v=s0YjL9rZyR0

The guy in the TED talk explain very well how the Chinese one party works and how people are selected, and man, that sound so logical and realistic to me and that explains a lot of what I've seen and heard while I was in China.

So, take 20 minutes, watch the whole video and tell me.

Is democracy dead?
When you have just the powerful and rich who reach the top.
When corporation and banks sponsor them all.

Does it really work?
When you always have like 50% of the population unhappy after each vote.
When terms last 4 or 5 years only... come on, you can not even build a damn big highway in that period.
Basically, candidates spend 2 years to prepare for the vote, get elected, spend 2 years changing laws and making projects, then spend the other 2 years preparing for the next vote!!!
You see what i mean, no president has the realistic time to do anything serious for the long term.

Let's keep this clean and respectful.
Thank you for your insights.

there is no such thing as democracy, if you look closer you will realise that all democracies where either plutocratic, oligarchic, or even monarchic.

there is always a financial elite with advantages.

Democracy really exist and is working very well in some developed country of the world no doubt about that fact. Op, why are afraid of mentioning your the name of your country so that one will be able to make a good analysis of what is happening in your country.

Just to see, can you give us the name of the countries you are talking about ?
Because for me democracy is a good concept and some countries are closed to it, but in mine (France) I don't think everyone will agree if we said "democracy is real here ! "

After regarding the vote problem, a lot of people don't care about politics and just follow the medias.
If I play devil's advocate, should everyone have the right to vote ? I mean when you don't care about politics.

not really democracy is destroying there very important fundamentals

Before one can even address your question, you're going to need to clearly define what you're talking about. What most people think of as "democracies" are representative democracies. Where the people vote for a representative and not for policies etc directly. In addition, the issues you raise have nothing to do with the system but the lack of laws, regulations and the like that would prevent/minimize those problems.

I must admit that the chinese system is interesting. What they can accomplish in short amounts of time is impressive and is certainly the reason they will most likely become the dominant power one day if the US and them don't go to war at some point which is far more likely (and historical). But the problem with those systems is that they are able to abuse the people in order to achieve their goals. There can be a working balance but no current system seems to work well in achieving it (except in times of major upheaval when everyone rallies around a common goal). Besides, I think it can easily be argued that the flaws you've outlined exist there as well.

Bottom line, all the current systems have flaws and no one has the will to fix them. And that especially includes the people themselves in the "democracies" where they do actually have some power to force the changes needed.

On the outside of it, democracy is only dictatorship by a bigger group (the majority) over a smaller group (the minority).

Then, the bigger group delegates its authority to a tiny group, or maybe to one person. This tiny-group/one-person never implements the wishes of the bigger group properly... or maybe at all.

What this means is that a democracy is simply a dictatorship in disguise.


The USA is not a democracy or dictatorship. In the USA, the local jury can nullify any law for a man/woman of that locality. If juries nullify a law for enough people of a locality, the law can be nullified for the whole locality. If enough juries of enough localities nullify a law, the law can be nullified for the whole country.

Britain, Canada, Australia, India (with a few differences), and some other countries act the same way.

8)

The United States has a lot of problems. However it's the most powerful country in the world and it is a democracy.

Greece is also a democracy and despite the shitty economy the quality of life there probably rivals any other country, it's just awesome.

With some changes towards a better democracy it's the best system there is. I think the biggest thing we need is an incentive to voting.

$200 dollars for federal elections and smaller amounts for every other election.  The only problem is that people aren't passionate enough about politics and also corruption.


I'd rather not live in China. I don't want my country to try and block my connection to the world. I'd rather not be watched with cameras 24/7 and sanctioned for wearing pyjamas in public. I'd rather not eat sewage oil in my street food. I don't believe people of certain religions should be jailed and have their organs harvested.


"What about a one party system?"

If anything we need more parties, the ability to vote in a way that allows for 2nd and 3rd and 4th preferences so that people can vote for more fringe candidates, breaking the 2 party system.

One of the big embarrassments of our system is the devolution to a 2 party system. A one party system is garbage.

Term limits are a good thing. Otherwise what's to stop a politician from accruing vast amounts of power or doing whatever the hell they want?

^^^ The USA absolutely is NOT a democracy. It has democracies of all kinds within it. But it, itself, is not one of them.

8)

I agree to an extent. It'll be hard to find a society without no inequality.

I would say we should be judging societies primarily on social mobility, property rights, and freedom of expression, etc. No point trying to better your life if everything can be taken from you out of a whim.

I disagree about the one party system, you basically just have a mafia running the country. A multi-party system, for all its flaws at least keep each other in check, since they tend to undermine each other and fight over voters.


China: One Party System, check. No term limits, check.

What else can they take?

Democracy works because it gives you a false sense of having something to say, being able to influence and shape the world around you. Everything is still done as it would be in a monarchy with that small difference that now you have this show for the public where people are being engaged in the process. They are asked for their opinions, allowed to interact with the government and the government buys votes and tries to look good before the elections and forgets all the promises after.
What democracy does is it gives us bread and circuses.

even ultra communist soviet union was unequal, there where the directors, and the state officials that where the rich of the society.

Honestly except small villages and old tributes, I don't think you will find an example of a true Democracy.
For many people when a country is not a dictatorship​ or a a monarchy... Then it's a democracy.

Or maybe we need to define the word "democracy " to start on the same level

Since we all seemed to skip it. The idea behind the Chinese government is that it's a meritocracy. The people go through a career path and the people with the best evaluations end up governing larger areas in bigger roles.

Having worked in a company I understand that favoritism can quickly take over. So I don't buy the meritocracy crap. Democracy can cut through that kind of shit. I don't buy it. I'm not a dumb dumb. Not to that extent at least.

how about germany becoming holy roman empire again

https://i.imgur.com/7SxFf43.jpg

in my opinion monarchies are fundamentally not different to dictatorships, except for their theistic character

That's why I never take their word that they are pro-equality. During Mao's Great Famine he and his cadres wined and dined while the peasants in the countryside either die or are reduced to eating grass. Nothing ever really comes out of these Utopia Projects. Several small-scale attempts have been tried in America and pretty much all folded.

comparing china of today with china of the past (100 years ago china was still using wooden ships)

china developed quite a lot, and human life expectancy grew a lot

china dont have a "one party" system.
as thats tyranny

china are less and less communist and becoming more capitalist/socialist as time goes on

they have semi-autonomic area's and places like hong kong that follow different rules.

i think that there should be a system which has independant states/zones/area's. and when there is a basic law that all states agree on. then that is a national law

take for instance the UK where at the moment its everyone votes, and whatever  the 650 area's is voted on. then stupidly all 650 area's have to follow the rule of the majority.

instead what could be done is whatever vote each of the 650 area's get. that individual area's policy follows of that area's vote. for instance cities will obviously be more conservative(capitalist) and rural area's would be more labour(socialist)

its kind of like usa.. where for instance NY is capitalist. and florida(the retirement state) is more socialist
but where the national government(unlike usa) is not their to govern/override the area's laws. but instead support them

that way taxes can be more aimed at the area's that mean alot to the people in that area
the reason i say this is because 'federal' taxes(in usa case) end up just going to buy mansions for politicians in washington rather than being a back-up for individual states

in recent history. usa feds have used FEMA to buy up PEOPLES land on the cheap. sell it at profit to their rich buddies and then use the profits for activities not related to the state that they made profit from.

technology does make it possible to make a more decentralised democracy work. but a 'one party' system is just ripe for abuse

I think it depends on which kind of monarchies. In England it's not a dictatorship (or a meritocracy if some of you prefer)  like in China but it is a monarchy on the paper ...
In Europe a lot of monarchies are just "democracies" with a King or a Queen.

In England, even the monarch is overruled by the 12-person jury.

8)

Democracy is when you vote, paying someone (Politician) to vote for you is not a Democracy as he sometime does and sometime does not cast the vote you would have done.

Now why are only 50 percent of the people happy with the vote at the end of this? I'd have to say it's probably because of the fact that that percentage of people that turn out to vote on Presidential years is typically only in the realm of 52-55 percent. Which you could take that and say wow -- 45 percent or so of people don't even vote during a time when the two most hated people are running for President (Trump and Clinton)

But this is for presidential election years, that's when people turnout. But when you look at the midterm election years, or regular election years (the ones inbetween the midterms) less and less people come out. Obviously, they're angry -- they didn't even get to pick the people that they elected. Even when they did, they mostly still suck.

In France you have 3 official choices :

1) Candidate A
2) Candidate B
3) "White" which mean you don't vote for A or B

But you also have the number 4

4) Don't vote.

In the past "white" was counted, but many years ago we said "ok now we will not count it".
So many people are not voting because if they vote "white" or if they don't vote at all, the result is the same.
In France when you want to vote you need to go the place where you were "born" (usually).
Why should I moove to vote "white" if it will not count ?

Many people including myself are asking the government to count "white" as a vote.
But why the government is against it ?

Because like you said you need at least 50% to elect someone, with the "white" vote, we don't have them...

We should use a system where the last candidate is eliminated  and do it over and over (like TV show).

You should not worry about inequality, worry about poverty (lack of wealth) instead. You can have a very unequal society where no one misses a meal, and a place where everyone is equally living in misery.

Usually there is always an elite ruling over the impoverished masses, and that elite has everything while the masses have nothing. They change the names, the colors, but the end result is the same thing, an almighty State that squashes individual freedoms. What different makes a president that can never be voted out than a Monarch? Its all a facade.

But there are systems that won't even let you out, you are condemned to poverty by being born there, and this is something people can't choose: where they are born. Sometimes people can choose where to live, but the State is always preventing you, some for you to leave, and some for you to come. Some people attack immigrants, but ignore the root cause of it.

Do you make the system, or the system makes you?

The system you're referencing is known as instant run off system. Some countries use this on a district / provincial level, other use this on a full country level. People say that this is the best way to fix the issue of the two party system dominating all the votes because if you don't vote for one of the big parties your vote is -- essentially -- worthless.

The way to fix this would be to setup IPV, and to allow people to show their support for the smaller parties with their secondary votes (2nd ballot, 3rd ballot, etc.) A good system, but the people who would I have to set this system up would be people that current benefit from the system not being this way. So they're not going to vote for this to change.

1) Number of parties doesn't say anything about freedom, democracy or whatever. You can have one party state with all signs of civilized country, like religious and political freedom. The opposite is also correct, see Iran for the most notorious example.

2) There is no such thing as single-party system because party members don't share their brains. You may have it de jure, but it's merely an illusion. Each alive party has a set of factions with different agenda, sponsors and interests, which are effectively acting as different parties. Chinese Communist Party is not uniform, it has a moderate faction, liberal clowns and radical leftist idiots among its members. Same is correct for almost every political party in the world. Just compare Biden, Hillary and Sanders and you'll see the point.

It only exists in the minds of those individuals, whose brains were consumed by the mass media. Having the people spending few minutes to fill their voting bill once every few years is not a democracy.

The point is that even a fairest implementation of civil society and electoral process is not a sign of democracy at all. Though the quality of imitation may vary, it would be correct to say that all modern "democracies" are just republics with some imitative democracy on top of their real decision making institutions. There are no exceptions, simply as that.

To have a real democracy, not imitative one, you need to have somewhat closer to 80% of population working for your government machine. Instead of "electing" either clown #1 or clown #2 they have to make decisions on all levels of power. Greek democracy worked exactly in this way, that's why it was a real democracy. It was normal for any citizen to dedicate some part of his life to work in the government institutions. Some of them have had combined two or three positions simultaneously, and were rewarded for their hard work. Serving terms were quite short, ranging from 1 month to 1 year, candidates for position were chosen randomly. Those who refused to do their work after being elected were labeled as "idiots".

P.S. If you need an example, then consider learning details of trust system on this forum. It's really similar to democracy in its original sense.

small corection.
france has blanc.. which although does english translate to white. it also references BLANK

they leave the vote blank, not white (in modern english terms)

Small correction... They're leaving vote blank to let some member of commission fill it.  :D

Don't rush to conclusions, think well, do you really think that democracy once existed in modern society? We are given the choice of what will be beneficial to them. Behind-the-scenes structures rule the whole world, and all we can do is stop playing their game. And play the game according to our own rules. You can start by taking responsibility for what is happening in your life and with your relatives. Start acting conscientiously, start doing good deeds. And after a while, the space around you will become better, and other people will be inspired by your example and begin to act in the same way. Peace revolution!

Yes you are right it's Blank mybad, thanks for the correction.


In some countries maybe but not in mine or yourse I hope  :D


After it's funny how some people react when you ask them what they think about their country.

When I was in Slovakia, I asked people about their government and I was surprised when 95% were honest and called it a false democracy because of the corruption and murders ...
But it was sad at the same time because when I asked them "Hi guys when do you vote for your next president" the answer was : " Honestly I don"t know the date. No point of paying attention to it because the mob will put someone to help them".

 

Well, Scotland independence referendum was the most notable example. There were a lot of videos on YouTube showing how commission members have filled dozens of bills. However, nobody cares for that because it's not some kind of extraordinary scenario. That's a natural way of counting in the so-called democratic regimes. It's even more funny that so-called autocratic regimes would never allow such a blatant manipulation.

Yeah ok so for you guys what is the country closest to the real democracy ?

Based on the democracy index the top 10 on 167 is :

1     Norway    9.87    
2     Iceland    9.58    
3     Sweden    9.39    
4     New Zealand    9.26    
5     Finland    9.25    
6     Ireland    9.24    
7     Denmark    9.22    
         Canada    9.22    
9     Australia    
10      Switzerland

UK: 14
France : 20
Slovakia : 42
China : 153

And the last one is North Korea  :D

Switzerland of course. Unfortunately, it's too small to be actually independent.

The truth is that in the modern international community no country may be democracy. Well, at least not while the big pseudo-democracies such as China, USA and Russian Federation are controlling everything.

You may have a pseudo-democracy, absolute monarchy or even a totalitarian regime and nobody will care about your country. But any attempt to establish an independent direct democracy will lead your country to sanctions and other aggressive actions by the pseudo-democracies, including military intervention.

Democracy works when everybody agrees ahead of time, that they will obey whatever the majority decides, even if they are in the minority.

8)

Our democracy isn't perfect, but it's the only system, which is suitable for the USA. If democracy doesn't work, can one party system like communism be better? No, Soviet Union as the world's first nominally communist state proved its inefficiency. 

USA isn't a democracy, it's a republic. The word "democracy" is not even mentioned in its constitution. I bet that most of US citizens have no idea about that simply because they have no time to read the constitution and its amendments.

http://www.whatwouldthefoundersthink.com/a-republic-if-you-can-keep-it

Exactly like modern two-party system works in the US. It would be hard to deny that these two parties are merely a formality created to split the public opinion in order to make manipulations easier and cheaper. This approach isn't unique, a lot of regimes are acting this way. Regular members may even believe that their parties are real, but top officials of both parties are directly linked to each other and their agenda is amalgamated to the point of indistinguishability. Even if one of parties would disappeared tomorrow, the system will continue to work as if nothing happened.

However, it's neirher good nor evil, it's just how the system works. Especially if you remember that parties are not uniform.


Each party has a set of factions as well as opposition for them.

You may be surprised, but joining the CPSU wasn't obligatory to run for office. In fact, councils of all levels had independent MPs and their share was ranging from 30 to 40 percent. Don't you think that these independents have acted like a second party? From the logical point of view, there is no difference between big party vs. independents and one big party vs. another big party. In fact, the second is even worse because elites of both parties may negotiate to form a unified agenda, effectively betraying their voters as the result.

The point is that number of parties is irrelevant. The only thing matters is a compromise between continuity and adaptability. If the system is balanced then everything will be fine, no matter how many parties are there. Shifting the balance to continuity will result with absence of changes, both "good" and "bad", leading to degradation and corruption on all levels of your state. As the result, its competitors will tear it apart. In opposite situation, shifting the balance to adaptability, the system will eventually destroy itself from within through the civil war or another violent scenario.

democracy works only related to how the money payed by the tax payers are going to be spend.

outside of that there will always be an informal economic sector that spends money controlled by private groups

I don't think democracy is dead It is usually completed by voting. Many people say many things before voting, but then these things do not happen. They handle everything according to their rules In that case, the party system should act according to its rules and think carefully before voting.

I will say right away that this is just my opinion. But I think that my opinion is close to the truth. But I don't force you to agree with my opinion.

In my opinion, modern democracy (Europe, USA, Australia, New Zealand) is a political system in which it is forbidden to prohibit immoral actions. Modern developed countries where we live have advantages, such as: openness of people, etc.
But let's ask ourselves: in what world do we want to live, what kind of culture should people have, how should we live so that everything is good for everyone?
For myself, I answer like this:
- We need to understand what unites us all: we want peace, we want good and prosperity for ourselves and everyone in the world.
- Laws are just a set of rules that do not work in practice, because they have no basis.
- Conscience and justice. If everyone will act according to conscience and justice, then no laws are needed, because everyone has the same conscience, and it is from birth. Conscience comes from the heart and leads to the prosperity of man and society as a whole. Therefore, this can no longer be called democracy. After all, we have a conscience according to which each of us acts.
I think this is ideal.