well, are we still opposed to a democracy?

Jul 2013
1,428
1,905
U.S.A.
#82
Direct democracy...? Ugh, I've not been too terribly impressed with the results provided by representative democracy over the last decade or two or three. I shudder to think what sort of laws more direct democracy might bestow upon us. More Proposition 13 type popular initiatives...? No thanks.

Seriously, as others have already noted, our supposedly thoughtful and informed legislators cannot reliably be counted upon to fully read and completely understand many of the laws that are being voted upon these days. How is an everyday citizen likely to be better and more fully informed? They aren't. And creating a system that enshrines gridlock in the absence of informed participation by the majority isn't likely to be a workable or desirable solution.

I appreciate your passion here, and your dedication to communal decision-making and action. Really, I do. But there are limits to the wisdom of the crowd, eh? So, call me more of a Federalist and less of a Jeffersonian Democrat, if you like. Educated technocrats have their place. Yes, I believe that.

Anyway, I think we are more or less inexorably on a path toward less democracy rather than more. As the impacts of globalization, resource depletion, and climate change bite harder and harder and the inability of popularly-elected, populist governments to deal effectively with the crises that ensue becomes more pronounced, people will look to "caretakers" to make decisions and take action. At the same time, we'll be creating what will be perceived as "superior beings" though some combination of artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, and/or cybernetics. I fully expect that in 50 or 100 years the kind of democracy we here in the U.S. enjoy today will seem frightening and anachronistic to the people of that time, as will the sort of human-piloted transportation vehicles that we take for granted and even embrace as a symbol and manifestation of personal freedom.

Very like the way a "Mountain Man" of the 1840s would probably consider so many aspects of our modern lives to be intolerably structured and controlled by others... Times change, yeah?

For better and for worse...

Cheers.
 
Aug 2018
2,526
3,984
Vancouver
#84
Constitutional anything. What matters is that the law, as written, takes precedent over ANY one person’s wishes or ideology. Even when they’re elected and widely popular.
 
Jan 2014
16,291
6,211
south
#85
I think the inevitable result is that I convince 51% of voters that we take your house, your daughter, and all your stuff and split it between us. I win, and the police cone and take all your stuff. Putting you in jail if you resist the lawful democratic wishes of 51% of voters.

There must be a supreme written document protecting all peoples rights above and beyond the majority’s ability to abuse the minority.

That was established in Western thinking by Charlemagne, The Magna Carta, the US Constitution, and finally culminated in universal sufferage in New Zealand, and then throughout the West in civil rights / bill of rights legislations.

It’s the reason for the Western worlds continuing ldominance in global culture, economics, politics and philosophy. It’s our prescious birthright and we should be ready to die to protect it for each other. And it’s why the rest of the world is beating down our door to get in.

That’s also why the US can elect an odeous boorish thug gangster who doesnt know or understand anything about any of this, but other Western countries will STILL side with the US over Chinese or Russian rivals. When the shit ever hits the fan.

He’ll only last 4-8 years. Our more important bond goes back millennium to Ancient Greece.
understand. maybe I was unclear what I'm advocating. first, as stated, the form is a constitutional democracy - which has a constitution that protects the rights of the citizens. second, the term "absolute majority" is quite different than "simple majority" as the number of votes requited to pass legislation in an absolut majority is based on the number of registered voters, not on the number of votes cast. for example, if there are 220 million registered voters in the country, it would require 110+ million "yes " votes to pass legislation regardless of the actual number of votes cast. my mistake for not being crystal clear.
 
Jan 2014
16,291
6,211
south
#86
No. Democracy is mob rule and not the intent of the founders. It would allow a simple majority in a small overpopulated area to control and hold hostage other areas. And as populations continue to migrate? It will get worse for representation.

Constitutional Republics. All the way. It allows for the most fair representation of the most people.
post# 85 explains it more clearly.
 
Nov 2015
6,306
2,054
UK
#89
We have seen what we have now in it's most ugly form. Anybody ready to consider the benefits of a constitutional democracy yet? And no, it will not magically solve all our problems.
A democracy is just a legalised dictatorship. The only thing different is the structure of government, the result that comes out of it is the same.

As you said, it won't solve your problems but government shut downs will be a thing of the past.
 
Jan 2014
16,291
6,211
south
#90
A democracy is just a legalised dictatorship. The only thing different is the structure of government, the result that comes out of it is the same.

As you said, it won't solve your problems but government shut downs will be a thing of the past.
I've heard the "legalized dictatorship" comment before - in various forms. for me, it's matter of the dog wagging the tail or the tail wagging the dog.
 

Similar Discussions