Democracy

[Pure]

democracy.

What is it?

Is it essentially equivalent to, or resulting in mobocracy?

Is the US a democracy?

Are there countries with MORE democracy than the US? (name and explain)

What measures or indicies would you use to measure 'democracy'?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Mobocracy Is Right.

 

[rgraham666]

I always turn to John Ralston Saul for my definition of democracy.

DEMOCRACY An existential system in which words are more important than actions. Not a judgmental system.

Democracy is not intended to be efficient, linear, logical, cheap, the source of absolute truth, manned by angels, saints or virgins, profitable, the justification for any particular economic system, a simple of majority rule or for that matter a simple matter of majorities. Nor is it an administrative procedure, patriotic, a reflection of tribalism, a passive servant of law or regulation, elegant or particularly charming.

Democracy is the only system capable of reflecting the humanist premise of equilibrium or balance. The key to its secret is the involvement of the citizen.

From The Doubter's Companion: A Dictionary of Aggressive Common Sense.

My take is that democracy is a process rather than a system. It is in constant flux, just as the world is. So it can adapt more quickly than other forms of political organization.

Balance is the important fact of democracy. By maintaining a flux rather than being set in stone it is more likely to make sure that all the people under its aegis have the most opportunities to change their lives for the better and to make sure they don't suffer too much when life goes bad either through happenstance or bad decisions.

The biggest problem with democracy is that it is 'unnatural', it goes against human instinct. By nature we're apes. So we tend to organize ourselves into troops, do what our alphas tell us to do and plot to become alphas ourselves. This tribalism can overwhelm democracy if we aren't careful.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Democracy is a mob of half-wits simultaneously inflamed by radicals and whoopsters, and scared shitless by uplifters and wowsers.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

JBJ is right and that's why the founding fathers didn't create a Democracy, in their infinite wisdom the created a Democratic Republic.

And there really isn't a Democracy in existence in the world today.

 

[3113]

democracy.

What is it?

I have a much more important question. Why do the athletes in your avatar have clothes on? All these years, the theme has been naked athletics. What gives?

 

[DeeZire]

democracy.

What is it?

In this country: a joke.

If democracy relies on citizen participation, and over half of the citizens of a country don't bother to participate, you get a system controlled by moneyed interests, with those same moneyed interests dictating the national dialogue through their media outlets.

One antidote to this dilemma is NPR, which is, for the most part, listener-supported. Of course, one could say Rush Limbaugh is also listener supported, via his advertisers, but then we're back to the moneyed interests again, since Rush isn't there to inform but rather to entertain and make money.

Looking at the US model, democracy is very easy to subvert, which brings up the old quote: "we get the government we deserve" or something like that.

 

[SimonBrooke]

democracy.

What is it?

Is it essentially equivalent to, or resulting in mobocracy?

Is the US a democracy?

No, a republic, more or less controlled by an oligarchy.

Are there countries with MORE democracy than the US? (name and explain)

Many, probably most. But certainly as prime examples Iceland and Switzerland.

What measures or indicies would you use to measure 'democracy'?

Where the wealthy can buy influence (e.g. the US, the UK) there's clearly less democracy than where they can't.

Where there's a very limited range of political parties there's clearly less democracy than where there's a broader spectrum to choose from.

Where government is highly centralised there's clearly less democracy than where it's distributed.

Where there's a class of full-time, life long politicians (and particularly where there are political dynasties) there's clearly less democracy than where there isn't.

 

[Pure]

hi, 3113,

3113//Why do the athletes in your avatar have clothes on?//

i've not figured out yet how to photoshop their clothes off!

but surely, not everyone's interests, here, lean more toward the prurient, than the political?

 

[CharleyH]

democracy.

What is it?

Is it essentially equivalent to, or resulting in mobocracy?

Is the US a democracy?

Are there countries C (name and explain)

What measures or indicies would you use to measure 'democracy'?

Funny you should say ... Lauren and I were just recently (2 hours ago) laughing about what a farce democracy is and how pure democracy is about as possible as pure communism. We were laughing because under democracy corruption rules (to be fair, under communism corruption also rules). Democracy? Impossible. As much as we enjoy thinking there is democracy, there is no such thing. I would never call it mobocracy, though. The mob has never ruled. It cannot. The mob is not organized enough to rule.

Is the US a democracy? I'd say it is as much a democracy as any country in the world, which isn't saying much. I cannot name one country that is wholly democratic and therefore I cannot argue that the US is more or less democratic than any other country.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Demos, the people, are still as easily subverted as when the word was coined by the Greeks. Democracy, like capitalism, is far from perfect but is the best system we have developed.

Of course it is partially subverted by the rich and the powerful, but the intrinsic separation of the executive, the judiciary and the legislature gives a power to the plebiscite that no other system can do.

A cursory examination of the way the European executive is trying to eliminate vox populus by imposing repeat referendums and castrating countries' rights of opposition to central unelected diktat, would show that, probably alone in the world today, the US is keeping the ideal of democracy alive.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Jesus H. Christ!

The fucking people let Hitler herd them and their neighbors into the gas chambers. The only time people cooperate is at lynchings and looting.

 

[CharleyH]

Jesus H. Christ!

The fucking people let Hitler herd them and their neighbors into the gas chambers. The only time people cooperate is at lynchings and looting.

That's democracy for you.

 

[Stella_Omega]

3113//Why do the athletes in your avatar have clothes on?//

i've not figured out yet how to photoshop their clothes off!

but surely, not everyone's interests, here, lean more toward the prurient, than the political?

Isn't this a porn writer's forum? If I wanted a political forum, I would be here or someplace like it. A place for writers to talk about writing, that allows graphic talk about adult subjects, is a much rarer animal.


Whaddaya say we talk once more about requesting a politics forum here at lit?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

If someone shit a monster turd STELLA would be there, too.

 

[3113]

but surely, not everyone's interests, here, lean more toward the prurient, than the political?

Of course not. Now take your clothes off and we'll talk politics.

 

[Liar]

True democracy is as much a pie-in-the-sky utopia as true socialism or true lassies-faire capitalism. Something you can strive towards, but never achieve.

Democracy isn't the right to vote for who your leaders are going to be. That's an anti-democratic rationalization to make a somewhat democratic society work.

The way I define democracy, it is the right, the ability, the knowledge and the opportunity to, within different community domains (neighborhood, county, state, nation...) affect the issues that affects you, proportionate to a) the size of the domain (in a small town, your relative power should be bigger than in a country) and b) your personal level of engagement. People in general seems to forget the last four parts and only focus on the right to vote in free elections. Which is democratic-ish, but far from anything resembling real democracy.

Often, even in modern democratic nations, you only get to choose between This Here Turd Sandwich and Slightly Different Turd Sandwich. Furthermore, you only know heavily spun versions of what the candidates want. And lastly, there's not much hope that many of the issues that affects you are ever on their table anyway.

In most democracies, it's easy to delegate. To cast your ballot and go home. But it's a bitch of buerocracy, or merely a cultute crash, for the average citizen to participate. To raise relevant issues and bring new topics to the table.

Without that part, all you have is a democratically elected (hopefully) benelovent dictatorship. Which is better than nothing, I guess.

 

[Boxlicker101]

True democracy is as much a pie-in-the-sky utopia as true socialism or true lassies-faire capitalism. Something you can strive towards, but never achieve.

Democracy isn't the right to vote for who your leaders are going to be. That's an anti-democratic rationalization to make a somewhat democratic society work.

The way I define democracy, it is the right, the ability, the knowledge and the opportunity to, within different community domains (neighborhood, county, state, nation...) affect the issues that affects you, proportionate to a) the size of the domain (in a small town, your relative power should be bigger than in a country) and b) your personal level of engagement. People in general seems to forget the last four parts and only focus on the right to vote in free elections. Which is democratic-ish, but far from anything resembling real democracy.

Often, even in modern democratic nations, you only get to choose between This Here Turd Sandwich and Slightly Different Turd Sandwich. Furthermore, you only know heavily spun versions of what the candidates want. And lastly, there's not much hope that many of the issues that affects you are ever on their table anyway.

In most democracies, it's easy to delegate. To cast your ballot and go home. But it's a bitch of buerocracy, or merely a cultute crash, for the average citizen to participate. To raise relevant issues and bring new topics to the table.

Without that part, all you have is a democratically elected (hopefully) benelovent dictatorship. Which is better than nothing, I guess.

Actually, there is pure democracy in the USA, but not on a national level. Small local governments, such as school districts and villages can practice pure democracy; on higher levels it is too unwieldy.

Because of checks and balances and other factors, it's unlikely the USA will ever become a dictatorship, benevolent or not, although we have been close to it many years ago. We seem to be trending that way now, but still have a long way to go.

 

[Liar]

Actually, there is pure democracy in the USA, but not on a national level. Small local governments, such as school districts and villages can practice pure democracy; on higher levels it is too unwieldy.

It gets more difficult the bigger the

But although it's certainly more democratic than most national goverments, I wouldn't call school boards, community councils and the like pure democracy either. Because there's always tresholds for active participations. Civics knowledge, social power within the community, p2p relations...

Because of checks and balances and other factors, it's unlikely the USA will ever become a dictatorship, benevolent or not, although we have been close to it many years ago. We seem to be trending that way now, but still have a long way to go.

I think you missed the point there. The checks and balances is for moderating different competing factions within the "dictatorship" (the elected body, plus the unelected buerocracy they preside over), much like there are many different political opinions within the Chinese Grand Buerocracy.

The difference is that in a representativeand/or parlamentary democracy like yours and mine, The People get to change the composition of the Grand Buerocracy with regular intervals (what we can choose to replace the incumbent elected body with, is often pretty limited though)

And also that citizens and media people don't get jailed in the meantime for saying that the current composition of the Grand Buerocracy sucks. Which is kind of neat.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
Actually, there is pure democracy in the USA, but not on a national level. Small local governments, such as school districts and villages can practice pure democracy; on higher levels it is too unwieldy.

But although it's certainly more democratic than most national goverments, I wouldn't call school boards, community councils and the like pure democracy either. Because there's always tresholds for active participations. Civics knowledge, social power within the community, p2p relations...

I'm not sure what you mean by that. School boards are usually elected by direct vote and important issues are put before the electorate. Obviously, some persons will be more involved than others, but even that is a matter of personal choice, not lack of democracy. I have not taken much interest in the local schools so far but, with two grandchildren attending, maybe I will in the future.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
Because of checks and balances and other factors, it's unlikely the USA will ever become a dictatorship, benevolent or not, although we have been close to it many years ago. We seem to be trending that way now, but still have a long way to go.

It gets more difficult the bigger the

I think you missed the point there. The checks and balances is for moderating different competing factions within the "dictatorship" (the elected body, plus the unelected buerocracy they preside over), much like there are many different political opinions within the Chinese Grand Buerocracy.

The difference is that in a representativeand/or parlamentary democracy like yours and mine, The People get to change the composition of the Grand Buerocracy with regular intervals (what we can choose to replace the incumbent elected body with, is often pretty limited though)

And also that citizens and media people don't get jailed in the meantime for saying that the current composition of the Grand Buerocracy sucks. Which is kind of neat.

I have always thought that the checks and balances are to prevent any one branch of the government (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) from getting too powerful. Each branch has some measure of control over either of the others.

 

[xssve]

It's real enough - equality is not possible in a diverse, dynamic, and competitive world - so you keep it simple: freedom of speech and expression backed by the rule of law - it's about as close as you can get in an imperfect world.

In a democracy, you have the freedom to express your opinion; if anyone can arbitrarily take that from you, you have something other than democracy.

 

[Pure]

notes on democracy.

i find myself most in agreement with liar's view, above. a society is democratic if the governing persons are protecting and furthering the people's interests and, as far as possible, given diversity, responding to their desires. *for the people.* this generally entails that governing persons, or at least some of them, be chosen, in a specified way, *by the people*, who also [directly or indirectly] can remove a corrupt governor. and there must be enough 'freedom of expression' to allow people to push for and accomplish this.

a system of voting, or 'universal suffrage', then, may or may not result in democracy. if the public, panicked by the press, apparently call for war, and it happens, that is not necessarily 'democracy' as i've defined it. it's a mob or 'public hysteria' situation, where voting is simply an instrument towards the goals desired.

i like the examples of Iceland, and, so far as i know, Norway. if one wants a more 'diverse' example, Holland is quite exemplary. and often, the State of Oregon! (and maybe Vermont!)

---
note to jbj. note that my definition, above, is neutral, in many ways, as regards reactions to dissent and tolerance of differences, though obviously to deal with people's desires, requires that their views be aired and communicated. whether government critics, non violent anarchists, and jehovah's witnesses go to jail, is somewhat of a separate issue (degree of liberty or tolerance).

 

[Liar]

Many, probably most. But certainly as prime examples Iceland and Switzerland.

I kind of like Iceland, and the rest of the Nordic countries' version of democracy. It's a combination of strict parliamentary election (if 5% of the people vote for Liar's Party, Liart's Party gets 5% of the seats in the parlament), and regional representation (every party who gets people into the parlament must occupy their seats with people representing the regions in which they have the most support).

One positive thing IMO is that we elect parties, not people. It's the political program, ideas and ideologies that take centre stage, not the image of the politicians. Which means there's less mudslinging and more focus on ideas in the debate than there is on character. This makes it easier for people to understand what they are voting for, in terms of practical things that affect them. I think that's one of the reasons that vitong turnout is generally high. The debate is not muddled by irrelevant issues like "is Obama a family man?" or "was McCain a war hero?". We just don't give a shit. So passive participation is easy.

The drawback is that we elect parties, not people. So you don't have any independent candidates, everyone who wants in on the power and change stuff must rise in the ranks of a major political party first. Which means So active participation could be better.

Switzerland has a problem. They have a very limited legislative branch, and put up most major proposition for public referendum. The idea of direct demcracy is interresting, but the factr of the matter is that very few Swiss (Switzers? Switzerlandians?) vote in the referendums. Because it raises the bar on how active, informed and vigilant each and every citizen have to be. And people have other stuff to do with their lives.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Democracy is never about equality of natural endowments because Evolution by Natural Selection opposes such equality.

When we speak of democracy we're talking about how government policies are formed and applied. But, again, Natural Selection rears its head and most people are not competent to shape public policies because of bounded rationality, bounded motivation, and unbounded appetites and prejudices. Let the mob run the nation and we'd be a nation of starving, naked, dry-alcoholics once every beer keg was tapped and drained. Gold and jewels would lose all value because there would be nothing to buy.

So we must be speaking of how government policies are applied. Can you attend a school or ride a bus you support with your taxes? If the government starts a war do you and Chelsea Clinton have an equal probability of serving in combat?

 

[Pure]

note to jbj

jbj When we speak of democracy we're talking about how government policies are formed and applied. But, again, Natural Selection rears its head and most people are not competent to shape public policies because of bounded rationality, bounded motivation, and unbounded appetites and prejudices. Let the mob run the nation and we'd be a nation of starving, naked, dry-alcoholics once every beer keg was tapped and drained. Gold and jewels would lose all value because there would be nothing to buy.

P: does 'the mob' run the US right now?

if you're suggesting direct democracy leads to mob rule and disaster [as your post #2 suggests, also], why don't we see this in the most obvious cases, i.e. small towns? do they keep voting 'free liquor'?

vote 'free liquor on every corner' and someone has to pick up the tab. town councils are NOT, in fact, liable to vote for such proposals. indeed town councils debate 'pave mainstreet' because of the costs. their voting does not, in general, reflect 'unbounded appetites.'