Democracy/dictatorship

[The Master]

a 2 party system works...we are as bad as the italians....2 many smaller parties, you vote either one.....not rocket thingy.....
ive voted in every election since i could, if you dont vote you shouldnt bitch when the country is going down the jacks, we r very lucky here, ive been in 2 hell holes if u vote u better vote 4 the rite guy or on way out of polling station, bang bang!!!!

[Cable87]

I think the central issue raised here about whether or not we live in a 'democracy' or not can be answered this way:


We don't technically have 'democracies' in the world today, we have 'Democratic Republics'-- basically that is a form of 'representative' democracy. a 'pure' democracy would require the consent of EVERYONE in it to function or take any collective action, which is difficult enough even in the form we have now! Take a look and see what you lads think:

Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[bigladdub]

Cable,

My view on that is that there is no possibility of a "democracy" by your definition. If we go back to political philosopy from the 18th and 19th century, the philosopers of the time talked about "the greatest good for the greatest number" and that the individual was much less important. I think it is instructive to take that on board because to think about a democracy as being a situation where there was universal agreement is probably unreachable...

It is (in my opinion) similar to the ethos of communism, i.e. that each individual is equally important. If that were the case, no decisions could be made without universal agreement, Therefore, the comrades had a committee who were charged with making decisions on behalf of the general populace. It didn't work....

No political philosophy or system of government is perfect, nor can it be. So we have to make the best of what we have. The trouble is that we have to try to balance utopia against self interest. The natural output from that is that those in society who work hard would have to support those who didnt want to work. That generates resentment... so the system starts to break down..

No system is perfect, not capitalism (which leaves the weak behind) or communism (which necessarily concentrates power amongst a few as representatives, which naturally encourages corruption) or social democracy which requires total buy in (which, by virtue of human nature will not happen)....

So.... we have to make the best of what we have...

BLD

[texas]

No system is perfect, not capitalism (which leaves the weak behind)

sounds fine to me
captialism works fine
the weak are supposed to fail thats why their weak its called natural selection
survival of the fittest.

[Cable87]

Cable,

My view on that is that there is no possibility of a "democracy" by your definition. If we go back to political philosopy from the 18th and 19th century, the philosopers of the time talked about "the greatest good for the greatest number" and that the individual was much less important. I think it is instructive to take that on board because to think about a democracy as being a situation where there was universal agreement is probably unreachable...

It is (in my opinion) similar to the ethos of communism, i.e. that each individual is equally important. If that were the case, no decisions could be made without universal agreement, Therefore, the comrades had a committee who were charged with making decisions on behalf of the general populace. It didn't work....

No political philosophy or system of government is perfect, nor can it be. So we have to make the best of what we have. The trouble is that we have to try to balance utopia against self interest. The natural output from that is that those in society who work hard would have to support those who didnt want to work. That generates resentment... so the system starts to break down..

No system is perfect, not capitalism (which leaves the weak behind) or communism (which necessarily concentrates power amongst a few as representatives, which naturally encourages corruption) or social democracy which requires total buy in (which, by virtue of human nature will not happen)....

So.... we have to make the best of what we have...

BLD

Well BLD, I don't think that I've expressed any specific opinions as you say in any part of my previous post regarding what I think is right, wrong, what works/doesn't work, etc.

All I was saying, in keeping with the theme of the thread, was that democracy, as many understand it, and what some of the other posters were saying, is more of the idea of a pure democracy, where everyone participates, and is equally able to participate (and presumable DOES).

I've attempted to put out there the idea that in practice, we have 'Democratic Republics', which is to say, a form of 'Representative Democracy'. Think of what had been said a few pages back on this thread about how few people actually participate in the 'democratic process'. I KNOW that full 'democratic rule' with 100% (or close to it) participation would be essentially impossible, even in the most ideal of circumstances. I've only put out the basic info on Democratic Republics and the link for those inclined to have a look to help them form their own ideas.

I've expressed no opinions, nor made my own definitions of democracies or democratic republics.

[An don]

I don't vote because I KNOW it wont make a difference.

I sorry now but if everyone adopted this atitude nothing will ever change.

[anitasizzle]

Even when u get a "democratically " elected goverment how democratic is it? u get may be a 65% turnout a party will prob be elected with 40% of that so that works out at 26% of the people that voted. Seeing as 35% never voted plus all the people
under 18 that would deff be half the population or more ,so now we are down to half of 26% which is 13%
Now we would with those figures be after having what would be called a landslide victory when i reality about 1 in 8 people support
that goverment by voting for them. Not so democratic now is it?
We have a tendency to blame the people for voting the goverment in when in reality only a tiny minority have

Several years a survey showed that 50% of 18-25 year olds don't think politics effect their lives; how then wondered how can a group of people who live in a country called the 'Republic of Ireland' not think politics effects their lives

[anitasizzle]

Even when u get a "democratically " elected goverment how democratic is it? u get may be a 65% turnout a party will prob be elected with 40% of that so that works out at 26% of the people that voted. Seeing as 35% never voted plus all the people
under 18 that would deff be half the population or more ,so now we are down to half of 26% which is 13%
Now we would with those figures be after having what would be called a landslide victory when i reality about 1 in 8 people support
that goverment by voting for them. Not so democratic now is it?
We have a tendency to blame the people for voting the goverment in when in reality only a tiny minority have

Several years a survey showed that 50% of 18-25 year olds don't think politics effect their lives; I then wondered how can a group of people who live in a country called the 'Republic of Ireland' not think politics effects their lives

[anitasizzle]

sounds fine to me
captialism works fine
the weak are supposed to fail thats why their weak its called natural selection
survival of the fittest.

Capitalism use to work fine, but we're not dealing with 'capitalism' anymore, it's calledhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

[anitasizzle]

sounds fine to me
captialism works fine
the weak are supposed to fail thats why their weak its called natural selection
survival of the fittest.

Capitalism use to work fine, but we're not dealing with 'capitalism' anymore, it's called Corporatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia