[luke warm]

sceptic, on Aug 16 2006, 07:01 AM, said:

Quote

Democracy is the lesser evil because if you don't like what the government is doing, you can fire them after 4 years. In other government systems you have to put up with bad management for longer times, and that's bad

I have to disagree here, in America, if you dont like the idiots in power, you only have a choice of another rich bunch of idiots to take their place

and it is pretty much the same in England

what are you disagreeing with? that democracy is the lessor of evils? which evil is relatively 'better'?

[jtfanclub]

sceptic, on Aug 16 2006, 07:01 AM, said:

Quote

Democracy is the lesser evil because if you don't like what the government is doing, you can fire them after 4 years. In other government systems you have to put up with bad management for longer times, and that's bad

I have to disagree here, in America, if you dont like the idiots in power, you only have a choice of another rich bunch of idiots to take their place

and it is pretty much the same in England

That's because we don't live in a Democracy.

We live in a Republic, which is kinda, sorta, a little like a Democracy. Back in the low-tech days, you couldn't really have a Democracy in an area bigger than a city. Nowadays, it isn't out of the question to have a real, honest-to-God Democracy, but I don't think anybody's going to do it.

[barmar]

jtfanclub, on Aug 16 2006, 10:07 AM, said:

We live in a Republic, which is kinda, sorta, a little like a Democracy. Back in the low-tech days, you couldn't really have a Democracy in an area bigger than a city. Nowadays, it isn't out of the question to have a real, honest-to-God Democracy, but I don't think anybody's going to do it.

While we may have the technology for this, don't fool yourself into thinking that this would really produce a true democracy. Just as in most other areas of life, it's necessary to delegate work. We can't all vote on everything, any more than we can all build our own homes, sew our own clothes, or grow our own food. Running a state or country is a full-time job, so we can't all participate in it and also do our regular work. Even most small towns that used to govern by Town Meeting have given up on this -- my town now uses a Representative Town Meeting system, which I think means anyone may speak at the meetings, but only the representatives can vote.

And even if this weren't a problem, could anything really get done if it involved debates among millions of people? Talk about "too many cooks"!

So a representative system is likely to be the closest that's possible to get to a democracy. As someone pointed out, the problem is that we don't really get a good choice of representatives -- you're often choosing the lesser of evils, rather than electing someone who really represents your views. Nothing in the world really measures up to its ideals, so why should government be any different? But I still think that this is the only form that at least has a shot at coming close. At least we get to choose the LESSER evil -- in any other form, you're stuck with whatever evil is in power (or if he gets sick you get his brother).

Who was it who said "this is the worst form of government, except for all the rest"?

[whereagles]

barmar, on Aug 17 2006, 06:14 PM, said:

Who was it who said "this is the worst form of government, except for all the rest"?

Winston Churchill

[barmar]

whereagles, on Aug 17 2006, 02:19 PM, said:

barmar, on Aug 17 2006, 06:14 PM, said:

Who was it who said "this is the worst form of government, except for all the rest"?

Winston Churchill

Oh, that idiot

[whereagles]

You can call me an idiot as well, but first gimme the nobel prize

[barmar]

BTW, voting on American Idol is a "true democracy". Enuf said?

[DrTodd13]

The danger to both democracies and republics is that people learn that they can vote themselves money (or vote for people who will give them money). So, the level of theft is somewhat constrained by the fact that past some point people will stop working and then there won't be any money to steal. If you had a 100% tax rate past a certain amount of money then everybody would try to avoid earning more than that much and would try to get perks that were still non-taxable. So, it seems at some point you will always reach a point where the tax policy is to extract the maximum amount of money from the citizens. For the US, that is going to come in the midst of the baby-boom retirement.

In response to luke warm, there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits certain types of changes. You can go through a constitutional process that would remove the bill of rights. You could go through a constitutional process to make this country a dictatorship or a monarchy. It is _possible_ but not probable. The only constraint on what can happen is what the majority of people are willing to do. If the majority decided they were sick of the minority, there is nothing that could stop them from changing the constitution to oppress the minority. It isn't likely in a country that currently likes to respect the minorities' rights but with a change in attitude it is possible.

In response to barmar, your knee-jerk reaction to anarchy is just an element of endoctrination by the state. The term has been coopted to mean chaos when it just means lack of a government. There was a period in Icelandic history where they essentially functioned as an anarcho-capitalist society.

About the ability to vote the bums out of office, I agree that we really don't have a choice. Dems and Reps only appear quite different because there really aren't any alternatives. The system is rigged everywhere to stop third parties from having any effect. At a minimum, we need a system where plurality voting is replaced by Condorcet so people can express their true preferences and we need some portion of the seats in the legislatures to be based on proportional representation so that the points of view of all americans can be heard. Our miserably low voter turnout is a reflection in part of people realizing it doesn't matter who they vote for.

[mgoetze]

whereagles, on Aug 16 2006, 11:02 AM, said:

Democracy is the lesser evil because if you don't like what the government is doing, you can fire them after 4 years. In other government systems you have to put up with bad management for longer times, and that's bad

Yeah, those 4 years, that's the problem. There is no long-term accountability for politicians, indeed no incentive whatsoever for them to make decisions which won't ruin the country 10 years down the road. I think monarchy has some clear advantages over representative democracy...

I think some real democracy (yes, Condorcet and such) could be worth a try, and add in more direct democracy while you're at it please... this is the internet age, after all. However, it's probably too late. The days of thinking people are numbered, and media-controlled drones are probably the majority already.

[barmar]

DrTodd13, on Aug 18 2006, 12:58 PM, said:

In response to luke warm, there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits certain types of changes. You can go through a constitutional process that would remove the bill of rights. You could go through a constitutional process to make this country a dictatorship or a monarchy. It is _possible_ but not probable.

I'd say it's damn near impossible. The constitutional amendment process is deliberately made very difficult, with several checks and balances. It took decades of protests by suffragettes to get the 19th amendment passed to give women the vote. The 22nd amendment, limiting the president to two terms, took 4 years from being passed by congress to being ratified by the states. The equal rights amendment has been stuck in limbo for decades. If these amendments, which don't really make any radical changes to society or government, are so hard to pass, think about what it would take to totally overhaul the system.