Democrazy

Remove all ads!

Funny that you chose my comment, but not Snook's.

 

Yours was just the most recent. Don't worry, I was replying to both.

 

As a social science teacher I quite often encounter pupils who question democracy and I have done my fair share of it as well but the issue is quite simple and Churchill expressed it best: Democracy is the worst kind of government, except all others that has been tried.

Simply put, no matter how flawed democracy is all other ways of governance are even more flawed.

 

I repeat: not being a clairvoyant, I cannot reply to the intention of your question. The only thing I can respond to is the question itself, put in a certain context by the title of your thread.

Now, however, it is you who is missing my point (and me who should have explained it more clearly). I was not criticizing your example alone. What I am critical of is the fact that you used such a question to prove majority systems are not right, when:

a) 'numerous abuses against the individual' are possible occurences in each and every political regime,

b) every kind of law supported by a form of government introduces various prohibitions, thusly - it restrains the freedom of an individual (to quote yet again: 'Whether these rights be to land, the fruits of your labour, freedom of speech, to bear arms, to own a dog, to inject drugs, etc.')

Again, not only majority systems are flawed in such a way. Both 'closed' and 'open' societies, potentially, allow the 'abuses against the individual' to happen. If that is your main point against democracy, I will say yet again: non sequitur. It does not follow; for it is a flaw of every political system that exists in the real world, not only democracy.

Axiology, ethics and political systems? Normally, I refuse to put them all together, but very well: for a moment, I shall play by your rules. Which political system is not morally bankrupt, then?

And one last question - I do not mean it as an insult or mockery; I am asking to clarify, not to go ad personam - are you, perchance, a Randist?

 

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Democracy tends to mitigate the impacts of corruption (and to some degree the temptation of it) the most, but also the efficiency of government. It's the least risky, but also the least effective. An absolute dictatorship, on the other hand, is the most risky, but also the most effective.

Looking at history, all the most grandeous and most successful periods of any nation's history have been dictatorships, usually under a monarchy. At the same time, all the worst abuses and swiftest falls have been as well.

 

I wouldn't let them kill me and my family; I'd kill my family myself and then commit suicide.

I believe in democracy, *****es.

 

I can't imagine anybody's actually going to vote "yes". This is a wasted thread, in my opinion.

 

Only if that 51% were all members of my family...

 

... How extended do you count your 'family', Splunge? After all, we're all related somehow.

 

I'll extend it as far as I need to in order to ensure that, if they're going to take me down, they're going with me (or at least make them think twice about it).

 

Let me add a yes and no to that.

Dictatorships can be amongst the most wasteful governments in the world. A dictatorship puts control of many resources in the hands of a few if the few make bad choices then money (and other resources) can go down the drain at an extremely high rate.... though that may be what you were thinking of with your comments about corruption.

Note that putting so many resources under the control of so few means they can use them to accomplish a short list of goals. For example, Stalin (a harsh dictator to say the least) was able to move much of Russia's industrial capacity East or the Ural Mountains during WWII so Nazi's were less of a threat to it.

But the list of problems this small group of people (in a dictatorship) can tackle is also a lot smaller than a democracy can with its multiple and continual points of interaction with members of the population that are capable of recognizing the need for dealing with these tasks.

Thus a dictatorship can accomplish massive projects, but suffers from a long list of things it fails to do that a democracy will likely be better at dealing with.

 

Awesome point, Splunge.

By the way, I'm looking forward to my invitation to Christmas dinner.

 

Consider it given. This year, we're hoping to have roast raven.