Poll of the Day > Is Democracy really worth defending

(+) Yeah! (+)

I mean i am all for opinions and all.

But seeing as how weird some people are and legislations...

I dont know. Sometimes i wonder if i even care. Just saying, sometimes i wonder. Is it even good to give humans so much freedom?

There's nothing better, so sure.
---

There should be substantive democracy rather than procedural democracy.
---

If democracy keeps heading in its current direction I fear that most political thought is going to start favoring something like the Chinese system, and you can't really blame them. Even if democracy is the fairest there's no reason that it would work the best.
---

Scloud posted...

I mean i am all for opinions and all.

But seeing as how weird some people are and legislations...

I dont know. Sometimes i wonder if i even care. Just saying, sometimes i wonder. Is it even good to give humans so much freedom?

How do you know the people giving commands arent flawed? Because they were selected by a majority of the flawed people who are too flawed to make meaninful decisions for themselves?
---

democracy is dead
---

I would be ok with a benevolent monarchy. The problem would be keeping it benevolent.
---

Democracy sucks. Not everyone should be allowed to vote.
---

slacker03150 posted...

I would be ok with a benevolent monarchy. The problem would be keeping it benevolent.

2nd Ammendment
---

If you're talking about the USA being a democracy, uh... there's nothing left to defend. It's a very successful authoritarian setup that creates the illusion it's completely free when nobody actually has any say. Most "democracies" are like this though. There are enough luxuries and rights that nobody really cares. Therein lies the trick.
---

As an ideal, sure. History provides countless examples of the awful things that develop in societies that don't involve some sort of democratic process, though it's also clear that a pure democracy isn't a very practical system either.
---

slacker03150 posted...

I would be ok with a benevolent monarchy. The problem would be keeping it benevolent.

A constitutional monarchy is fine. The 19th century kind, not the pansy-ass post-WWI versions.

funkyfritter posted...

As an ideal, sure. History provides countless examples of the awful things that develop in societies that don't involve some sort of democratic process, though it's also clear that a pure democracy isn't a very practical system either.

Switzerland.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

If you're talking about the USA being a democracy, uh... there's nothing left to defend. It's a very successful authoritarian setup that creates the illusion it's completely free when nobody actually has any say. Most "democracies" are like this though. There are enough luxuries and rights that nobody really cares. Therein lies the trick.

Yea... No. Not by a longshot. Want to see a democracy that really has become an authoritarian set-up? Look at China. This... is just bellyaching that you didn't get your way.

Anyways, as a certain famous quote goes 'Democracy is the worst form of government barring all others'. It's really true. With both regular re-elections and term limits on at least some positions (which REALLY needs to become universal) it's very difficult to establish the long-lasting legacies which turns Democracy's into D.I.N.O.'s (Democracy In Name Only) in which a single person or political party has seized an overwhelming amount of power making it impossible to oppose them and for them to silence dissenters. Imagine if the Democrats got so powerful that you basically had to vote democrat or have your entire reputation tarred and feathered until you submitted. That wouldn't be a democracy; that would be an oligarchy.

It's nice to think that a benevolent dictator could gain absolute authority and then proceed to not use it. After all, if you look at the Kim's it seems like an easy bar to hurdle past since you just have to do BETTER than that; right? Well... It's not that easy. How would you approach America's obesity problem in a manner that wouldn't tick off a lot of people? If you choose to do 'what's right' can you really say that it's what's right for the nation and/or world, or what's right for YOU? Even if you manage to pull it off and become a truly beloved leader and good ruler (and they certainly existed); what's to prevent your successor from being a tyrant who launches nukes at Canada and rounds up all the Bronies to be sent to 'Brony Re-Education Camps'?

There is a great photo I recall seeing that I can't link now due to Google losing a certain legal battle; but it showed a grocery store in America side by side with a Russian grocery store. The American store is stuffed full of thousands of goods of multiple varieties while the Russian one had, like, three loaves of bread on otherwise-empty shelves. Just look at Venezuela as well for what happens when Socialism takes over.
---

Unbridled9 posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

If you're talking about the USA being a democracy, uh... there's nothing left to defend. It's a very successful authoritarian setup that creates the illusion it's completely free when nobody actually has any say. Most "democracies" are like this though. There are enough luxuries and rights that nobody really cares. Therein lies the trick.

Yea... No. Not by a longshot. Want to see a democracy that really has become an authoritarian set-up? Look at China. This... is just bellyaching that you didn't get your way.

Oh my fucking god....... If one more person assumes I give a fucking fuck about Hillary or Trump or that bullshit I'm going to fucking punch something until my hand bleeds. I stopped reading right there, because I am so sick and fucking tired of everyone having their little closed-minded box of a brain that concludes "if you don't like this, you automatically like that." FUCK. I'm done.
---

This topic reminds me of Voltaire
---

I've always said we're one candidate away from a dictatorship.
---

Yes because as dumb as some voters are, the alternative is far worse. Because imagine those same voters, except they are in charge and have absolute authority.

Democracy is a paradox. It's inherently chaotic, yet citizens want to continually pile on heaps of inane laws and bureaucracy. Which obviously deforms it into no longer a democracy.

Suppose we do get a tyrant president. And suppose we also vote to repeal the tenets of the constution that forms the basis of our democracy. See, that's the irony. Was it the president, or the people, who eroded the citizenry's rights? In other words, who is the worst oppressor: the leader or the masses.
---

"My opinion is the right one and I'm going to force everyone to do as I say for their own good because nobody deserves choice if they have different opinions than me".

And the U.S. isn't really democratic, it's corporatocratic, that is, it's a system controlled by corporations and corporate interests.
---

Give over 300 million people the idea that each and every one of their trash opinions matter and instill in each of them the idea that opinion of theirs is entitled to be heard and they can spout it anywhere and everywhere and anyone who tries to stop them is the bad guy...

What could possibly go wrong?
---

Unbridled9 posted...

what's to prevent your successor from being a tyrant who launches nukes at Canada and rounds up all the Bronies to be sent to 'Brony Re-Education Camps'?

This may surprise you, but decent parents can mold and guide their children.
---

Unbridled9 posted...

Imagine if the Democrats got so powerful that you basically had to vote democrat or have your entire reputation tarred and feathered until you submitted.

If? That's already pretty much reality.

A benevolent dictatorship could be better, but good luck establishing one of those. Dictatorships are too easy to corrupt.
---

A democracy would be nice... republics are garbage
---

DrYuya posted...

Give over 300 million people the idea that each and every one of their trash opinions matter and instill in each of them the idea that opinion of theirs is entitled to be heard and they can spout it anywhere and everywhere and anyone who tries to stop them is the bad guy...

What could possibly go wrong?

What a trash opinion.
---

Anything would be better than this corporate oligarchy on the verge of dictatorship.
---

shadowsword87 posted...

There's nothing better, so sure.

A benevolent dictator?
---

Democracy isn't the problem; allowing stupid, selfish, and corrupt people to have power is.
---

DrYuya posted...

Give over 300 million people the idea that each and every one of their trash opinions matter and instill in each of them the idea that opinion of theirs is entitled to be heard and they can spout it anywhere and everywhere and anyone who tries to stop them is the bad guy...

What could possibly go wrong?

Nobody ever said freedom of speech makes for a peaceful community.
In fact, the founders KNEW it was a war declaration in every line they wrote down on the constitution against every authoritarian that ever was or would be.

I would rather live in a world filled with skirmishes to reach absolute truth and bask in the glory of that knowledge even breifly than live to old age completely taken care of by others like a pet with no knowledge of why anything was happening around me.

You only get to see your freedoms when you actually use them. They people who dont care about their freedoms shouldnt care what people who use their freedoms do to them as they have given up on pursuing their desires usually and just shamble through life for the brief reward their brain gives them for consumption of food or media.

These people are already slaves. They choose to be thinking others decisions are their own as questioning the logic, and fighting/rejecting the system are the same to them.

These are the people who assume if you attack their side of politics it means you ascribe to the teachings of another, because how could you possibly use your independant thought and assume it holds more truth than this collective statement on truth compiled by a group that wants to tell you how to live your life?
---

Nichtcrawler X posted...

A benevolent dictator?

No such thing.
---

Zareth posted...

Nichtcrawler X posted...

A benevolent dictator?

No such thing.

Mustafa Kemal Atatrk of Turkey
Charles de Gaulle of France
Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia
Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore
Abdullah II of Jordan
Paul Kagame of Rwanda
France-Albert Ren of Seychelles
Qaboos bin Said al Said of Oman
---

Nichtcrawler X posted...

shadowsword87 posted...

There's nothing better, so sure.

A benevolent dictator?

Right, and how do we confirm that they are truly benevolent?
---

shadowsword87 posted...

Nichtcrawler X posted...

shadowsword87 posted...

There's nothing better, so sure.

A benevolent dictator?

Right, and how do we confirm that they are truly benevolent?

If they are benevolent could they even be desribed as a dictator?
---

bulbinking posted...

If they are benevolent could they even be desribed as a dictator?

Yes, it's a form of government.

Also, see video why dictatorships are rarely benevolent:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
---

Humans are flawed, no government created by them will be anything other than trash.

We need to further advance A.I. technology and finally step into the future of a controlled and automated utopia.
---

Dreaming_King posted...

Humans are flawed, no government created by them will be anything other than trash.

We need to further advance A.I. technology and finally step into the future of a controlled and automated utopia.

Is the purpose of life really that difficult to understand?

Utopia doesnt exist, nor should you be striving for it. You will mever be happy in the now that way.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Unbridled9 posted...

what's to prevent your successor from being a tyrant who launches nukes at Canada and rounds up all the Bronies to be sent to 'Brony Re-Education Camps'?

This may surprise you, but decent parents can mold and guide their children.

Why do you think your successor will be your child? Besides, even if, how long until it eventually breaks?
---