Democracy

[Pure]

Joe said, "that Democracy is as simple as the agreement of a people to subscribe to a minimalist form of governmental rule, based on the majority decision concerning those who would actually do it."

I believe this applies to Hitler's Germany, and Stalin's Soviet Union. Indeed, in the first case, there were elections in which the Nazis did best (if not quite a majority).

There is no doubt at all, that this applies to Castro's Cuba, at least up through the 60s (Bay of Pigs, etc.).

Indeed, those who complain about loss of 'democracy' (linked to 'freedom') under Bush, should note the majority support--in polls or Congress-- for such measures as the Patriot Act, invasion of [and staying in] Iraq, etc.

 

[gauchecritic]

Until 'democracy' includes making non-voting illegal, (not certain but I'm led to believe this to be the case in one of the Scandinavian countries) any country whose political system relies on 'one person one vote' will always elect a government representing those of the electorate who give a damn.

As it is, most governments rule by minority vote due to the ambivilence towards adopting a proportionate representation system of polling.

Witness the ludicrous situation in Presidential elections when one candidate may poll up to 75% of the popular vote but still lose because the end result is counted in states.

Gauche

 

[shereads]

Gauche is right about there being a minority who actually govern. Even if you disregard the effect of the electoral college in the U.S., people don't vote in sufficient numbers to have what could really be called rule by majority.

But if you could begin from scratch, and create a system where every adult voted in elections, you would still not have a rule by majority. You've only voted to decide who will rule. You've chosen to be ruled by an elite, whether it's a so-called representative government, or just one top man.

Suppose you had a pure majority rule, where you eliminated representative government and passed legislation by popular vote (forget the practicalities of that for a second) - the problem of democracy remains this: How can a ruling majority be prevented from abusing the minority?

Does there always have to be an underclass of "losers?"

 

[minsue]

Until 'democracy' includes making non-voting illegal, (not certain but I'm led to believe this to be the case in one of the Scandinavian countries) any country whose political system relies on 'one person one vote' will always elect a government representing those of the electorate who give a damn.

As it is, most governments rule by minority vote due to the ambivilence towards adopting a proportionate representation system of polling.

Witness the ludicrous situation in Presidential elections when one candidate may poll up to 75% of the popular vote but still lose because the end result is counted in states.

Gauche

I'd take a system of mandatory voting in which every vote was counted equally over our current electoral system any day, but my druthers would be 'one person, one vote' with voting being voluntary. Yes, the minority who give a damn would be voting by proxy for the apathetic majority, but the people who have any kind of grasp of the candidates and the issues would be those who give a fuck and actually bother to vote. I'd much rather have a small percentage of the population voting was made up of at least somewhat informed voters than the entire population picking a name out of their collective ass.

 

[Pure]

I think that, at an ideal level,
"government of the people, by the people (or their reps), and for the people" is a pretty good definition.

The problem is how to get it, implement it, realize it.

Voting and majority rule are quite other concepts [as Saul said in the initial quotation], and as gauche and sher say; relying on 'who turns up' can't be counted on to express what 'the people' as a whole, want and need.

Making voting a duty, or
not-voting a crime (making 'every person' turn up), has been tried with mixed success. It cannot answer the question, "Who are the people (which humans are 'persons able to vote'?) being compelled to vote?" I.e., in ancient Athens or early US, it wouldn't have addressed the women and slaves problem.

To get government 'of' or 'for' the people requires that the minority have influence or input on the collective decisions. In some small groups, this is achieved by NEVER voting, relying on everyone's 'sense of the meeting' or of the 'common will'. In larger groups, it's VERY tricky, and ideas like 'bicameralism' 'representation of estates' are attempts to move beyond simple majority rule.

 

[snooper]

Until 'democracy' includes making non-voting illegal, (not certain but I'm led to believe this to be the case in one of the Scandinavian countries) ...

It (almost) is in Belgium. If you don't attend the polling station (without a good, usually medical, reason) you get fined. Of course the ballot is secret, so if you just write an obscenity on the voting paper you have "voted".

 

[upfront]

Until 'democracy' includes making non-voting illegal, (not certain but I'm led to believe this to be the case in one of the Scandinavian countries) any country whose political system relies on 'one person one vote' will always elect a government representing those of the electorate who give a damn.

Aren't they the people who should be represented by a democracy?

I have no time for people not voting out of apathy, but for some people the decision not to vote is far more carefully thought through and reasoned than many people's choice of who to vote for. If voting was compulsory, maybe the Monster Raving Loony Party would poll record numbers, as those who don't wish to endorse any of the mainstream parties register their protest.

Suppose you had a pure majority rule, where you eliminated representative government and passed legislation by popular vote (forget the practicalities of that for a second) [...]

For many, this scenario (all legislation being voted on in a referendum) – the logical conclusion of a pure democracy – is the reason why they are sceptical of democracy in the first place. Who wants the masses, who are generally speaking disturbingly unintelligent, deciding whether we have capital punishment?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Who wants the masses, who are generally speaking disturbingly unintelligent, deciding whether we have capital punishment?

To be fair... we haven't sufficient evidence for the assertion that "the masses" are unintelligent; furthermore, their lack of intelligence isn't a rational must. Therefore, to generalize their intellect is fallacious.

It is certainly as possible that the public (the masses) are capable of deciding an issue like capital punishment.

That's just logic.

 

[Lisa Denton]

To be fair... we haven't sufficient evidence for the assertion that "the masses" are unintelligent; furthermore, their lack of intelligence isn't a rational must. Therefore, to generalize their intellect is fallacious.

It is certainly as possible that the public (the masses) are capable of deciding an issue like capital punishment.

That's just logic.

"The masses" intelligence only seems to encompass the critical issues such as who won the Survivor Show or the impact of the rulings delivered on Judge Judy's Court T.V. They lost more than intelligence, other trivial things such as morals, integrity, honesty, loyalty, and love also fell by the roadside as "the masses" became a "stampeding herd" in pursuit of the all-important dollar. So the masses elected officials who blindfold and handcuff the police. Judges who prosecute crime victims and protect suspected criminals at all costs, sentence those criminals convicted to probation or a few months of laying around and watching t.v. while complaining that the 3 square meals a day don't meet the requirements that their rape, robbery or murder should have earned them. "The masses" rush to buy an ex-presidents book not because he was a great leader but because he ejaculated on an interns dress when he missed her mouth.
I could go on............but WHY?
Just my humble opinion.

 

[rgraham666]

The problem with ruling be referendum is, in the words of Mr. Saul, that "the vote is the punctuation of the democratic sentence." Without the body of the sentence, the punctuation is meaningless.

The other problem is that society is now too large and complicated to be decided on a basis of referendums. Would any of us like to actually have to read the Federal Budget, spend the time required to discuss it, and then vote? I didn't think so.

Delegating the way we do, although not perfect, is the most effective way currently to keep our society running.

Now if we could just get more people to realise that a society is a necessary construct.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

"The masses" intelligence only seems to encompass the critical issues such as who won the Survivor Show or the impact of the rulings delivered on Judge Judy's Court T.V. They lost more than intelligence, other trivial things such as morals, integrity, honesty, loyalty, and love also fell by the roadside as "the masses" became a "stampeding herd" in pursuit of the all-important dollar. So the masses elected officials who blindfold and handcuff the police. Judges who prosecute crime victims and protect suspected criminals at all costs, sentence those criminals convicted to probation or a few months of laying around and watching t.v. while complaining that the 3 square meals a day don't meet the requirements that their rape, robbery or murder should have earned them. "The masses" rush to buy an ex-presidents book not because he was a great leader but because he ejaculated on an interns dress when he missed her mouth.

I don't think I can discuss the seeming intelligence of the very vague notion of "masses", as I do not believe there is any proof to the matter--unfortunately. It could be that they only care about the Survivor show or Judge Judy--or it could be that they care about human rights and economic development. It could be that they gave up on morals and loyalty--then again, it could be that they did not.

It seems you're making a lot of assumptions, here, without founding them--and, mind you, that isn't an insult (I really hope you don't consider it an offense). They're very well intentioned opinions, I think--I don't believe you'd make them to be malicious or contrary... but essentially, I do not know that they bring us closer to truth or knowledge.

 

[Lisa Denton]

I don't think I can discuss the seeming intelligence of the very vague notion of "masses", as I do not believe there is any proof to the matter--unfortunately. It could be that they only care about the Survivor show or Judge Judy--or it could be that they care about human rights and economic development. It could be that they gave up on morals and loyalty--then again, it could be that they did not.

It seems you're making a lot of assumptions, here, without founding them--and, mind you, that isn't an insult (I really hope you don't consider it an offense). They're very well intentioned opinions, I think--I don't believe you'd make them to be malicious or contrary... but essentially, I do not know that they bring us closer to truth or knowledge.

Oh, no offense taken whether it was intended or not. I don't believe it was, even though you left off where I said - just my humble opinion. As for my making assumptions without founding them, I think thats why they call them assumptions. As for my well-intentioned opinions not bringing us any closer to truth and knowledge, they do not, nor do yours.
I assume we were stating our opinions in an open air discussion in an attempt to gain some insight into others opinions and thoughts.
You and I are educated, intelligent and yes, this is what separates us from the masses, thoughtful people who care about human rights, economic development and global stability. To assume that most others feel as we do is an opinion, well-intentioned, I think, that could bring us closer to confusion and chaos.
To some people in this democracy the assumption or opinion that a hungry North Korean gives a damn about politics, democracy or even rational thought at all is ludicrous.
We cannot assume all people here in our democracy are well-intentioned, intelligent, and thoughtful people as they point a gun at our head and demand our money.
You seem way cool and well-spoken, nice discussing opinions with ya.

 

[upfront]

To be fair... we haven't sufficient evidence for the assertion that "the masses" are unintelligent; furthermore, their lack of intelligence isn't a rational must. Therefore, to generalize their intellect is fallacious.

I was, of course, being deliberately provocative in saying that the masses were "disturbingly unintelligent".

However, let's assume for the purposes of this discussion that IQ is at least a vaguely reasonable measure of intelligence (and I accept that it measures only a certain type of intelligence and aptitude). The average IQ is, by definition, 100. Now that seems an awfully low average IQ to me. That means for every person with an IQ above 100 there is someone who has an IQ an equal amount below 100.

It would be interesting to know what the average IQ is of people who contribute to this forum, but I would imagine it would be in excess of 120. (I haven't done an IQ test since I was at school, and I'm sure my brain has dulled over time, but I remember school mates who many of us thought were a bit slow scoring 115-120. It was at that point that I thought to myself, in typical adolescent fashion, "jeez, to score 100 you must be really thick!")

rgraham is of course quite right about delegation; but the principles of some issues (capital punishment being one) are very straightforward. If there was a referedum on that issue in Britain today, we would have capital punishment. Thank goodness we do delegate!

 

[Lisa Denton]

I was, of course, being deliberately provocative in saying that the masses were "disturbingly unintelligent".

However, let's assume for the purposes of this discussion that IQ is at least a vaguely reasonable measure of intelligence (and I accept that it measures only a certain type of intelligence and aptitude). The average IQ is, by definition, 100. Now that seems an awfully low average IQ to me. That means for every person with an IQ above 100 there is someone who has an IQ an equal amount below 100.

It would be interesting to know what the average IQ is of people who contribute to this forum, but I would imagine it would be in excess of 120. (I haven't done an IQ test since I was at school, and I'm sure my brain has dulled over time, but I remember school mates who many of us thought were a bit slow scoring 115-120. It was at that point that I thought to myself, in typical adolescent fashion, "jeez, to score 100 you must be really thick!")

rgraham is of course quite right about delegation; but the principles of some issues (capital punishment being one) are very straightforward. If there was a referedum on that issue in Britain today, we would have capital punishment. Thank goodness we do delegate!

I thought perhaps I missed it but no. While your curious, and stroke us by estimating an average I.Q. over 120, you failed to mention yours. Mine, while also hopelessly outdated and argueably inaccurate was 142. Now perhaps you will post yours as you have also got me curious.
Capital punishment, which I never got to earlier while discussing what I politely did not refer to as the "ignorant masses" is a neccesary evil. I have personally shot a rabid dog advancing on my neighbors children, held the reins and stroked a horse who trusted me as the injection to end the pain of a broken leg was administered, and stood between a madman and a loved one quite willing to take a life with my bare hands if it came to it. The fact that the madman later commited suicide in a gruesome manner did not change MY OPINION.
That opinion is that some human beings and animals are such a threat that they cannot be allowed to live. Until and/or when those who oppose capital punishment come up with the money to build the prisons and hire the guards and feed and clothe, for life, the hundreds of sick, vile creatures who deserve the death penalty.
While of course the act of taking an animal's life to save a child. Or taking an animal's life to end its pain, can in no way be compared to taking a human being's life. Those who oppose capital punishment cannot in truth say they oppose it until and after they have their own wife and children raped and slowly cut apart in front of them and then speak to spare that life. And also to be the guard who feeds him and protects other prisoners from him, for life.
Oh well, just my humble opinion.

 

[gauchecritic]

The reason why the death penalty is a gruesome, outmoded crime against humanity: Those who weren't guilty.

Gauche

 

[Guest]

Those who oppose capital punishment cannot in truth say they oppose it until and after they have their own wife and children raped and slowly cut apart in front of them and then speak to spare that life.

There lies the focus of revenge, not punishment or justice. Otherwise, Gauche has the best answer for being anti-capital murder (though I have another reason, which will not matter to anyone who seeks revenge).

Perdita

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

As for my well-intentioned opinions not bringing us any closer to truth and knowledge, they do not, nor do yours.

I would, essentially, disagree with that. Given that your position is one premised without fact or reason--a series of assumptions; it is one that does not carry us closer (whether through the elimination of possibilities or the assertion of impossibilities or necessities) to knowledge or truth. Mine, as simple as they are in rational doubt, assert possibilities that are founded in basic logic. As such, they do bring us closer to knowledge--deductively.

To assume that most others feel as we do is an opinion, well-intentioned, I think, that could bring us closer to confusion and chaos.

Such isn't my position. My position is that it is a falsehood to label them unintelligent or seemingly careless, as we haven't proof or logic backing us on that one. It may be that they /are/, I have no doubts that its possible. But to assert that they are, in the manner done thusfar, is not very helpful for attempts to know truths.

You seem way cool and well-spoken, nice discussing opinions with ya.

Sentiment entirely shared.

...............................

I was, of course, being deliberately provocative in saying that the masses were "disturbingly unintelligent".

...ah. My mistake.

...............................

Mine, while also hopelessly outdated and argueably inaccurate was 142.

Mine is below 100. I try not to be sensitive about it.

...............................

Those who oppose capital punishment cannot in truth say they oppose it until and after they have their own wife and children raped and slowly cut apart in front of them and then speak to spare that life.

They can, in and with truth, assert that... as it is not logically impossible for them to do so, even in absence of brutality.

 

[Lisa Denton]

I would, essentially, disagree with that. Given that your position is one premised without fact or reason--a series of assumptions; it is one that does not carry us closer (whether through the elimination of possibilities or the assertion of impossibilities or necessities) to knowledge or truth. Mine, as simple as they are in rational doubt, assert possibilities that are founded in basic logic. As such, they do bring us closer to knowledge--deductively.



Such isn't my position. My position is that it is a falsehood to label them unintelligent or seemingly careless, as we haven't proof or logic backing us on that one. It may be that they /are/, I have no doubts that its possible. But to assert that they are, in the manner done thusfar, is not very helpful for attempts to know truths.
#######################################
You continue to speak of the lack of facts and truths in my assumptions and opinions. I patiently wait for your facts on your opinions. Yet it seems the only opinion you are sure enough of to say, is that my opinions are wrong. I intend no insult, but how can you continually ask for facts while presenting none?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

You continue to speak of the lack of facts and truths in my assumptions and opinions. I patiently wait for your facts on your opinions. Yet it seems the only opinion you are sure enough of to say, is that my opinions are wrong. I intend no insult, but how can you continually ask for facts while presenting none?

Firstly, as you made the assertion that the "masses" were or were not a particular predicate... the burden of proof is on you. The burden of proof, in logic, is always on the asserter.

Secondly, I validated my position by saying, right there in my initial response, that there was a possibility (proof is by virtue of strictly logical possibility, premised by the fact that nothing in the assertion presents either contradiction, impossibility, or necessity... thus, making it possible) that "the masses" could care about the things you say they don't... or not care about the things you say they do.

We really must grant that you made an assertion, providing neither experiential evidence (which is pretty faulty all the way around and hard to rely on) nor rational congress (which is really a fairly basic arbiter of truths and falsehoods, by definition). My comment was in opposition to that assertion, pointing out that it declared something to be necessarily true that, by definiton, is not necessarily true.

What you said was emotive, that's granted. It was even persuasive, that's also granted. But it was logicall fallacious. It was toying around with fallacies like Prejudicial Language (on account of the some of your assertions attaching values or morals to the belief) and Style-Over-Substance (as the manner in which you're arguing is being drawn over the actual logical truth value of the conclusions).

Again, no offense.

 

[Lisa Denton]

There lies the focus of revenge, not punishment or justice. Otherwise, Gauche has the best answer for being anti-capital murder (though I have another reason, which will not matter to anyone who seeks revenge).

Perdita

Oh, dismay, I speak and constantly state that mine are opinions. I will discuss them with anyone and push my opinions upon no
one. Revenge, punishment, justice? If someone takes your life and the law says I should decide the punishment and justice for that crime I am at a loss. How could I decide the value of your life?
Should I forget your life and death and make sure that he does not suffer? As I offer my opinions I also ask for yours. Is there truly no revenge in punishment and justice? Alas, more important, who do you think should decide? I surely don't know which is worse, Capital Penalty Murder or Rape Robbery Murder, but my heart, mind and soul lean heavily towards whichever was first as the worse crime. I welcome your thoughts and opinions.
Just my humble opinion.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Firstly, as you made the assertion that the "masses" were or were not a particular predicate... the burden of proof is on you. The burden of proof, in logic, is always on the asserter.

Secondly, I validated my position by saying, right there in my initial response, that there was a possibility (proof is by virtue of strictly logical possibility, premised by the fact that nothing in the assertion presents either contradiction, impossibility, or necessity... thus, making it possible) that "the masses" could care about the things you say they don't... or not care about the things you say they do.

We really must grant that you made an assertion, providing neither experiential evidence (which is pretty faulty all the way around and hard to rely on) nor rational congress (which is really a fairly basic arbiter of truths and falsehoods, by definition). My comment was in opposition to that assertion, pointing out that it declared something to be necessarily true that, by definiton, is not necessarily true.

What you said was emotive, that's granted. It was even persuasive, that's also granted. But it was logicall fallacious. It was toying around with fallacies like Prejudicial Language (on account of the some of your assertions attaching values or morals to the belief) and Style-Over-Substance (as the manner in which you're arguing is being drawn over the actual logical truth value of the conclusions).

Again, no offense.

None taken. Actually I replied to your comment that the masses were not unintelligent. I contested your assertion by implying that they were idiots. There are no facts to present on either point of view and none are needed for me. I speak my mind, not of my mind. As always, none intended-just my opinions.

 

[cantdog]

It's not the idiot masses, nor yet the informed and disenchanted masses, nor any other masses, who have created the underclass of losers in our society. It is the superrich. Their accumulation of everything makes losers of the other ninety percent of us. No one consulted democratically nor representatively with the population to create that underclass. They just took it.

What makes the masses idiots is sitting still for it because someone on the teevee said to, or distracted them with The Bachelor or The Fear Factor.

Lotta new homeless this season because of the jobs going South. I see them in my church office, I feed them at the food cupboard. They blame the rich. They resent the government, especially the feds, for letting it happen and for refusing to help them shelte, protect, and feed their kids.

So here we have an area where
they USED to make paper
thet USED to make shoes
they USED to make furniture
they USED to make shirts
and they used to have some thriving community businesses.

Now they have McJobs, if that, rents are insane, and the paper is being made out of the country, the shoes are being made by slave labor ion China and sweatshops in Latin America. WalMart and Irving and companies like them own everything the banks don't, and they own the insurance companies, too. They're downsizing.

So we know what makes them losers, we know what makes them mad. Who gives a shit how smart they are? They're people, they're us! They're not doing well, and more and more people are falling out of the middle class all the time.

Whatever happens to redress this will smack of democracy.

cantdog

 

[hotchkiss]

It's not the idiot masses, nor yet the informed and disenchanted masses, nor any other masses, who have created the underclass of losers in our society. It is the superrich. Their accumulation of everything makes losers of the other ninety percent of us. No one consulted democratically nor representatively with the population to create that underclass. They just took it.

What makes the masses idiots is sitting still for it because someone on the teevee said to, or distracted them with The Bachelor or The Fear Factor.

Lotta new homeless this season because of the jobs going South. I see them in my church office, I feed them at the food cupboard. They blame the rich. They resent the government, especially the feds, for letting it happen and for refusing to help them shelte, protect, and feed their kids.

So here we have an area where
they USED to make paper
thet USED to make shoes
they USED to make furniture
they USED to make shirts
and they used to have some thriving community businesses.

Now they have McJobs, if that, rents are insane, and the paper is being made out of the country, the shoes are being made by slave labor ion China and sweatshops in Latin America. WalMart and Irving and companies like them own everything the banks don't, and they own the insurance companies, too. They're downsizing.

So we know what makes them losers, we know what makes them mad. Who gives a shit how smart they are? They're people, they're us! They're not doing well, and more and more people are falling out of the middle class all the time.

Whatever happens to redress this will smack of democracy.

cantdog

You hit the nail square on the head there, sounds as if your country is just as screwed up as ours. Add the lack of investment in the basics education/health/policing/transport etc. and the shipping of manufacturing and now office jobs to the far east to maximise profits and you describe the U.K. perfectly

RGDS

HK

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

None taken. Actually I replied to your comment that the masses were not unintelligent. I contested your assertion by implying that they were idiots. There are no facts to present on either point of view and none are needed for me. I speak my mind, not of my mind. As always, none intended-just my opinions.

Actually, if you look back, I didn't say they were unintelligent or not unintelligent... just that we haven't evidence sufficient or rational congress to make those sorts of assertions. Which, yeah, we don't.

Mine is a rationally safe position as its not actually asserting anything positive, but rather pointing out where others cannot.

 

[rgraham666]

It's not the idiot masses, nor yet the informed and disenchanted masses, nor any other masses, who have created the underclass of losers in our society. It is the superrich. Their accumulation of everything makes losers of the other ninety percent of us. No one consulted democratically nor representatively with the population to create that underclass. They just took it.

What makes the masses idiots is sitting still for it because someone on the teevee said to, or distracted them with The Bachelor or The Fear Factor.

Lotta new homeless this season because of the jobs going South. I see them in my church office, I feed them at the food cupboard. They blame the rich. They resent the government, especially the feds, for letting it happen and for refusing to help them shelte, protect, and feed their kids.

So here we have an area where
they USED to make paper
thet USED to make shoes
they USED to make furniture
they USED to make shirts
and they used to have some thriving community businesses.

Now they have McJobs, if that, rents are insane, and the paper is being made out of the country, the shoes are being made by slave labor ion China and sweatshops in Latin America. WalMart and Irving and companies like them own everything the banks don't, and they own the insurance companies, too. They're downsizing.

So we know what makes them losers, we know what makes them mad. Who gives a shit how smart they are? They're people, they're us! They're not doing well, and more and more people are falling out of the middle class all the time.

Whatever happens to redress this will smack of democracy.

cantdog

There's that damned sound again. The sound of people knitting.

(If you don't get this metaphor, watch The Tale of Two Cities.)