Why I have fallen out of love with democracy.

[myrkul]

I have one major problem with democracy: Whoever can get 50%+1 votes, wins. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

[1714909388]

1714909388

[1714909388]

1714909388

[1714909388]

1714909388

[1714909388]

1714909388

[AyeYo]

I have one major problem with democracy: Whoever can get 50%+1 votes, wins. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

First off, that's completely incorrect unless we're talking about a 100% mob rule democracy, which doesn't exist anywhere.

Secondly, compromise is a fact of a life.  You cannot please all the people all the time, so there will always be a group of people complaining that things aren't completely how they would like them.  That's life.

[AyeYo]

I'd like to add one important aspect relating to transparency: you can't have it without independent media. If big corporates can manipulate both the politicians and the media the democracy is pretty much doomed at that point. Unfortunately that happens to be the case in most of the so called democracies. That can be counted as a shortcoming of democracy as way of governing, but to solve those problmes, no I wouldn't abolish government, I would fix the transparency-issue to stop corrupt decisions.

My thoughts exactly.  Government isn't the problem, the corruption of government and the people corrupting it are the problem.  These issues are fixable, and the fix is to not to abolish or castrate government, because all that does is remove the only collective bargaining the otherwise powerless populace has.

[Grant]

My thoughts exactly.  Government isn't the problem, the corruption of government and the people corrupting it are the problem.  These issues are fixable, and the fix is to not to abolish or castrate government, because all that does is remove the only collective bargaining the otherwise powerless populace has.

How exactly do you imagine fixing this problem (of corruption all the way to highest levels of government) ?

[Bind]

Anyone who owns media can say anything they want in their media. Thats IS the freedom of the press. You dont have freedom of the press unless you own the press. Someone sold it to them. ITs theirs and they can say whatever they want.

People constantly complain about the media. Someone sold it to them. They have rights just like you and me. In order to be free, we must let others be free, even if we disagree with them, including the media we hate. Stop watching it, or buy a controlling influence in their stock and change it, if you dont like it. Case closed.

The problem is we the people who are aparthetic, disinterested, and allow themselves to be affected by the media and other manipulation, indictrination, and change agents used by the insidious influence of the world.

We the people have the power, the ability, and the responsibility to defend and protect our freedom and liberty.

Self Rule.

The great american experiment.

Much like playing the lottery, you gotta play to win.

If you do not defend your freedom and liberty someone will take it from you.

[myrkul]

I have one major problem with democracy: Whoever can get 50%+1 votes, wins. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

First off, that's completely incorrect unless we're talking about a 100% mob rule democracy, which doesn't exist anywhere.

Secondly, compromise is a fact of a life.  You cannot please all the people all the time, so there will always be a group of people complaining that things aren't completely how they would like them.  That's life.

You know, It's funny. I don't see too many people complaining about the iPod they were forced to buy, when they really wanted a Zune. I don't see too many people complaining about the Pepsi they were forced to drink when they really wanted a Coke. But I do see plenty of people complaining about the Barak they were forced to follow when they really wanted a McCain. I wonder why....

[qbg]

Democracy is a reasonably effective way to implement group decision making. Adding elements of sortition to voting-based implementations may be useful.

Allowing free association among small units of governance would be nice, but then you are bringing the problems of international politics must closer to home.

[AyeYo]

I have one major problem with democracy: Whoever can get 50%+1 votes, wins. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

First off, that's completely incorrect unless we're talking about a 100% mob rule democracy, which doesn't exist anywhere.

Secondly, compromise is a fact of a life.  You cannot please all the people all the time, so there will always be a group of people complaining that things aren't completely how they would like them.  That's life.

You know, It's funny. I don't see too many people complaining about the iPod they were forced to buy, when they really wanted a Zune. I don't see too many people complaining about the Pepsi they were forced to drink when they really wanted a Coke. But I do see plenty of people complaining about the Barak they were forced to follow when they really wanted a McCain. I wonder why....

Probably because those situations are not even remotely comparable and it'd take someone with the brain of a four year old to even try to compare them.  There is no compromise when making INDIVIDUAL purchase decisions.

Go to a meeting where a group of twenty people have to decide between Coke and Pepsi for refreshments.  You're guaranteed to hear the people on the losing side of that decision bitching and whine just like you bitch and whine because you don't like what the COLLECTIVE of society has chosen for us all.

[Anonymous]

I have one major problem with democracy: Whoever can get 50%+1 votes, wins. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

First off, that's completely incorrect unless we're talking about a 100% mob rule democracy, which doesn't exist anywhere.

Secondly, compromise is a fact of a life.  You cannot please all the people all the time, so there will always be a group of people complaining that things aren't completely how they would like them.  That's life.

You know, It's funny. I don't see too many people complaining about the iPod they were forced to buy, when they really wanted a Zune. I don't see too many people complaining about the Pepsi they were forced to drink when they really wanted a Coke. But I do see plenty of people complaining about the Barak they were forced to follow when they really wanted a McCain. I wonder why....

Probably because those situations are not even remotely comparable and it'd take someone with the brain of a four year old to even try to compare them.  There is no compromise when making INDIVIDUAL purchase decisions.

Go to a meeting where a group of twenty people have to decide between Coke and Pepsi for refreshments.  You're guaranteed to hear the people on the losing side of that decision bitching and whine just like you bitch and whine because you don't like what the COLLECTIVE of society has chosen for us all.

It's funny how the collective is determined by only an addition of an individual plus 50%.

[AyeYo]

My thoughts exactly.  Government isn't the problem, the corruption of government and the people corrupting it are the problem.  These issues are fixable, and the fix is to not to abolish or castrate government, because all that does is remove the only collective bargaining the otherwise powerless populace has.

How exactly do you imagine fixing this problem (of corruption all the way to highest levels of government) ?

Functioning democracy requires an involved, informed, and educated populace - without that, it is doomed to fail.  We don't have that, which is why we also don't have a functioning democracy.  If we had it, we are still at the point that we could return to a functioning democracy.  We have not lost our voice, we're simply too fat, lazy, and busying fighting each other to use it.  

A democracy doesn't run itself and government has no default master or agenda.  If the masses abandon the policial process than the government will no longer be their tool to put themselves on an equal footing with the wealthy man, and will instead be a tool used by the wealthy man to rape and pillage the common man (which is the system we currently have).  Government will serve whoever controls it.  It first must be strong enough to rein in the rich man and also to prevent mob rule of the perpetually massive underclass, otherwise it is nothing but a paper dragon.  The trick is finding a balance.  

The US attempted to do it through the three branches, specifically the congress - the house (which represents the common man) and the senate (which represents the rich man).  The attempt failed because the rich and powerful will always find a way to control the common man.  They have managed to preoccupy us with a "keeping up with the Jones" society, distract us with entertainment that is more important to us than real life, mislead us with scripted propoganda passed off as "news", and misdirect us by making us point fingers at and fight each other over the 1% of the economic pie that they've left us while they walk away with the other 99%.  They've even managed to fire up these groups called conservatives and libertarians to push for further deregulation and power to the rich man.  As I've said before, the most amazing accomplishment of the modern capitalist machine is that it has persuaded the masses to not just support, but violently and fanatically advocate for policies that are greatly detrimental to them.  Why force people to give you what you want when you can manipulate them into handing it over to you and even make them love doing of it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Engineering_of_Consent

[AyeYo]

I have one major problem with democracy: Whoever can get 50%+1 votes, wins. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

First off, that's completely incorrect unless we're talking about a 100% mob rule democracy, which doesn't exist anywhere.

Secondly, compromise is a fact of a life.  You cannot please all the people all the time, so there will always be a group of people complaining that things aren't completely how they would like them.  That's life.

You know, It's funny. I don't see too many people complaining about the iPod they were forced to buy, when they really wanted a Zune. I don't see too many people complaining about the Pepsi they were forced to drink when they really wanted a Coke. But I do see plenty of people complaining about the Barak they were forced to follow when they really wanted a McCain. I wonder why....

Probably because those situations are not even remotely comparable and it'd take someone with the brain of a four year old to even try to compare them.  There is no compromise when making INDIVIDUAL purchase decisions.

Go to a meeting where a group of twenty people have to decide between Coke and Pepsi for refreshments.  You're guaranteed to hear the people on the losing side of that decision bitching and whine just like you bitch and whine because you don't like what the COLLECTIVE of society has chosen for us all.

It's funny how the collective is determined by only an addition of an individual plus 50%.

That's not funny, that's math.

[NghtRppr]

Go to a meeting where a group of twenty people have to decide between Coke and Pepsi for refreshments.  You're guaranteed to hear the people on the losing side of that decision bitching and whine just like you bitch and whine because you don't like what the COLLECTIVE of society has chosen for us all.

So you think morality is a popularity contest? If the majority of society says rape is acceptable then you just bend over and take it?

[billyjoeallen]

Democracy is the system whereby policy is effectively determined by the most indecisive, average intelligence swing voters. They are usually indecisive because they are ill-informed. Not surprisingly, the policies produced by this process tend to be sub-optimal.

[AyeYo]

Go to a meeting where a group of twenty people have to decide between Coke and Pepsi for refreshments.  You're guaranteed to hear the people on the losing side of that decision bitching and whine just like you bitch and whine because you don't like what the COLLECTIVE of society has chosen for us all.

So you think morality is a popularity contest? If the majority of society says rape is acceptable then you just bend over and take it?

And what do you propose differently?  You don't want there to be an FDA so you're going to tell the 95% of the population that does want it to get fucked because you're the only voice that matters and everyone is going to do things your way or else?

[Bind]

And what do you propose differently?  You don't want there to be an FDA so you're going to tell the 95% of the population that does want it to get fucked because you're the only voice that matters and everyone is going to do things your way or else?

95% of the people never wanted the FDA. Propaganda media campaigns of contrived and overblown tragedies meant to cause public outrage, panic and fear is what advance draconian, oppressive, andtyrannical legislation meant to steal your wealth, freedom, and liberty. To control you.

We lived for thousands of years without the FDA with a healthy population and public food sources and supply chains.

Preventative legislation does nothing but assault and punish people for things that maybe might happen in the future.

If someone does something harmful to others, then they should be put to task for it. Not before they do it.

[AyeYo]

We lived for thousands of years without the FDA with a healthy population and public food sources and supply chains.

Yea man, everything was totally rosey back in the day.  Nothing like some rewriting of history to prove your point.

[Anonymous]

We lived for thousands of years without the FDA with a healthy population and public food sources and supply chains.

Yea man, everything was totally rosey back in the day.  Nothing like some rewriting of history to prove your point.

I am willing to argue it was a lot less mysterious. The FDA fails to actually inspect products everyday and illness has resulted from it. At least people didn't have to put blind faith in a regulatory monopoly that may or may not do its job.

[AyeYo]

We lived for thousands of years without the FDA with a healthy population and public food sources and supply chains.

Yea man, everything was totally rosey back in the day.  Nothing like some rewriting of history to prove your point.

I am willing to argue it was a lot less mysterious. The FDA fails to actually inspect products everyday and illness has resulted from it. At least people didn't have to put blind faith in a regulatory monopoly that may or may not do its job.

No one has to put blind faith in it and no one said it was 100%.  Nice strawmen though.  Now back on topic.

[billyjoeallen]

We lived for thousands of years without the FDA with a healthy population and public food sources and supply chains.

Yea man, everything was totally rosey back in the day.  Nothing like some rewriting of history to prove your point.

I am willing to argue it was a lot less mysterious. The FDA fails to actually inspect products everyday and illness has resulted from it. At least people didn't have to put blind faith in a regulatory monopoly that may or may not do its job.

No one has to put blind faith in it and no one said it was 100%.  Nice strawmen though.  Now back on topic.

Now yer just stealing my lines.

[Grant]

Functioning democracy requires an involved, informed, and educated populace - without that, it is doomed to fail.  We don't have that, which is why we also don't have a functioning democracy.  If we had it, we are still at the point that we could return to a functioning democracy.  We have not lost our voice, we're simply too fat, lazy, and busying fighting each other to use it.  

A democracy doesn't run itself and government has no default master or agenda.  If the masses abandon the policial process than the government will no longer be their tool to put themselves on an equal footing with the wealthy man, and will instead be a tool used by the wealthy man to rape and pillage the common man (which is the system we currently have).  Government will serve whoever controls it.  It first must be strong enough to rein in the rich man and also to prevent mob rule of the perpetually massive underclass, otherwise it is nothing but a paper dragon.  The trick is finding a balance.  

The US attempted to do it through the three branches, specifically the congress - the house (which represents the common man) and the senate (which represents the rich man).  The attempt failed because the rich and powerful will always find a way to control the common man.  They have managed to preoccupy us with a "keeping up with the Jones" society, distract us with entertainment that is more important to us than real life, mislead us with scripted propoganda passed off as "news", and misdirect us by making us point fingers at and fight each other over the 1% of the economic pie that they've left us while they walk away with the other 99%.  They've even managed to fire up these groups called conservatives and libertarians to push for further deregulation and power to the rich man.  As I've said before, the most amazing accomplishment of the modern capitalist machine is that it has persuaded the masses to not just support, but violently and fanatically advocate for policies that are greatly detrimental to them.  Why force people to give you what you want when you can manipulate them into handing it over to you and even make them love doing of it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Engineering_of_Consent

That makes sense, but i'm very skeptical about that ever happening. Most people are too lazy (or too buzy with their own stuff) to "participate" in a democracy, the result is "That guy promised taxcut, what a good man, he didn't say that this taxcut will acccelerate inflation, increase our deficit and our debt but right now i just need a taxcut thats awesome he's got my vote!", or "That guy promised 'free' health care, i'll vote for him!".

Ithink the ONLY way for a significant enough amount of people to properly participate in a democracy is through a great civil disorder. For example, Greece right now is a proper democracy, people get out to the streets and demand. But what will happen some months/years from now when the economy over there has stabilized ? They'll go back home and go on with their lazy (or buzy) lives and put politics aside (except for voting for the santaclauss which promises them the most surreal things).

As for your note on deregulation i disagree, the big business want tougher regulation for small/mid businesses, so they maintain their dominance. To give you an example:

In 2008, the annual cost of federal regulations was above $1.75 Trillion (thats equal to $15,586 per US household), and to break this down see who it hurts most....
For small businesses this regulation is equal to a cost of $10,585 Per Employee! (36% higher than it is for large companies).

This is exactly what prevents small businesses from growing big. But yes as you say the liberals and conservatives are playing a dirty ball game, conservatives always promote deregulation and less taxes (for large companies and people with very large income) while liberals promote more regulation for everyone, the consensus out of this ballgame is obvious, the very richest win on this you and i get the bill.