Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Democracy y/n?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Democracy y/n? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Democracy y/n? - 5/11/2010 9:25:01 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

I would have thought you two would be the first to be restricted.

But that's just my humble opinion.


Well, I guess we know on which side of the "authoritarian divide" you lay now.

You claim to be a "liberal", dontcha?

Figures.

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Democracy y/n? - 5/11/2010 9:25:20 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub


It has worked...yes really worked as no other system or country has in the past. With all its faults and warts it is the best we have come up with in our few millions of years of existence.

Strive for something better sure but don't look down on a system that has giving you a life of freedom and the ability to complain about it.



I love the smell of blind patriotism in the morning.

(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Democracy y/n? - 5/11/2010 9:26:49 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

I would have thought you two would be the first to be restricted.

But that's just my humble opinion.


Well, I guess we know on which side of the "authoritarian divide" you lay now.

You claim to be a "liberal", dontcha?

Figures.

Firm



Yes we do, because I wasn't the person that suggested the restriction.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Democracy y/n? - 5/11/2010 12:48:53 PM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline
Gold- silver and platinum up today.

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Democracy y/n? - 5/11/2010 12:50:21 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Due to the TARP for Greece et al.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to pahunkboy)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Democracy y/n? - 5/11/2010 12:51:39 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: OrpheusAgonistes

That said, I don't see a better solution than to try to work within the structure of a democratic republic.  The key is to instill some kind of respect and veneration for rational thought and intelligent discussion in as many people as possible.  To some degree, this answer begs your question.  You say "Do Americans deserve a democracy?"  I answer "They do if they can start to take their obligations in a democracy more seriously."  Candidly, I think this is the only solution.  I think the American experiment is probably worth continuing, which means everybody who takes it seriously has an obligation to be reasonably informed and reasonably reasonable.


It is not an experiment It is our daily lives and the lives of our progeny. I know the phrase is meant as a salute to what may be the best form of government yet devised, but when you say we need to take our obligations seriously you ignore the long history of competing interests. Each constituency has an obligation to its own interests, so our democracy is a free marketplace of competing needs, wants and ideas. Kinda messy.



quote:

That doesn't mean debates won't get heated. There's the famous occasion on which, at some dinner or another, Hamilton had finally heard enough of Jefferson's nasally ejaculations about the "will of the people" and began to pound on the table yelling "Your people, sir, your people is a great beast!" A generation's finest minds will not always be able to disagree civilly. But I think any discussion of "the death of democracy" is really a discussion of "the death of discourse" and I think if people who disagree honestly reach the point at which they stop tweaking each other for the sake of tweaking each other and start listening to each other then something can be salvaged. This will be a long, awkward process and it may even be doomed to failure, but it beats the alternatives.


Well, Hamilton was a lousy shot as it turns out and a bit too passionate for his own good. And the Federalists, however horrified by the bloodletting reported from France, lost the election to Jefferson. The final blow to elitism came with the election of Jackson.

I can't really agree with your solution that "something can be salvaged" if people would start listening to each other. Are you suggesting we be polite and civil to opponents? Where has that ever happened? No sir, it is the passion of self-interests and group interests which drive the dynamics of our democracy. We have never been a civil debating society nor are we likely to become one. We place high priority in our Constitution on freedom of speech not freedom of listening. Messy it is but it is what it is.

The OP holds up Napoleon as an exemplar because he "stabilized" France. She ignores the disaster that befell the nation from his dictatorship, much as saying Mussolini made the trains run on time but oh, too bad he wrecked havoc upon Italy.



< Message edited by vincentML -- 5/11/2010 12:53:18 PM >


_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to OrpheusAgonistes)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Democracy y/n? - 5/11/2010 1:27:16 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

I'm having serious issues with the concept of democracy. What happens to rule by the people when the people are unfit to rule? Are democratically elected politicians supposed to lead the people, or are they supposed to represent the will of the people?

After the Revolution, France was a disaster. Napoleon Bonaparte stabilized it. He was a tyrant...and probably the best thing that could have happened to France at that time.

I hate to say this, because it makes me sound like an elitist, but looking at what's happening in the US, I wonder whether the people deserve a democracy. I don't mean people with unpopular opinions, I think they should always have a right to vote their conscience, but rather people who say things like "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" - I read somewhere that only 2 out of 5 Americans can name the three branches of federal government.

That means the majority of Americans are able to vote for something they are wholly unqualified to make decisions about. And that bothers me.

I don't know where I'm going with this post, I just want to get a bit of feedback. I'm not advocating for tyranny, I just wonder, what justification IS there for democracy, when the people aren't living up to their part of the bargain?



Have you been reading de Toucqeville.....he observed that the United States was destined to elect average leaders.

Democracy can only possibly work where people exercise their stake in the nation which includes being involved in public affairs as opposed to watching the news every now and again with the express purpose of having ill-conceived notions reinforced.

I'd agree with you - it's far from perfect.

But then you'd have to weigh it up against the options - better to have the choice however ill-informed - or better to have no choice and hope and pray the state will have your best interests at heart - and as we know the state will decide what's in your interests in and lie to you where they deem it is in your interests - then surely the former is the better option of the two?

Edited to add: and where you're arguing for the latter - then on what basis? social cohesion? and what would you lose? a whole lot of creativity I'd imagine.

< Message edited by NorthernGent -- 5/11/2010 1:48:24 PM >


_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Elisabella)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Democracy y/n? - 5/11/2010 1:37:24 PM   
OrpheusAgonistes


Posts: 253
Joined: 3/29/2010
Status: offline
quote:

It is not an experiment It is our daily lives and the lives of our progeny. I know the phrase is meant as a salute to what may be the best form of government yet devised, but when you say we need to take our obligations seriously you ignore the long history of competing interests. Each constituency has an obligation to its own interests, so our democracy is a free marketplace of competing needs, wants and ideas. Kinda messy.


How do I ignore this?  My contention is that through rational discussion and compromise these competing interests can come to agreements that maximize the good, or at least minimize the damage, for all parties.  This can only happen if all sides are as informed as possible and take the process seriously rather than simply engaging in vapid sniping at each other.  Rightly understood self-interest is the basis for rational action and rational decisions, arrived at through dialogue (however messy that dialogue may become) form the basis for the American experiment.  I don't think we disagree on this point--or if we do I still don't see how since nothing you've said so far has clashed with anything I've said.

quote:

Well, Hamilton was a lousy shot as it turns out and a bit too passionate for his own good. And the Federalists, however horrified by the bloodletting reported from France, lost the election to Jefferson. The final blow to elitism came with the election of Jackson.


It takes a pedantic jackass to quibble with throw-away historical snark, and I am that pedantic jackass.  There's a pretty good chance Hamilton chose to waste his shot, and assumed Burr would do the same.  He was neither the first nor the last person to underestimate Burr's venal mendacity.  At any rate, you seem to have misread my post, in that the success or failure of the Federalist Party isn't a major concern of mine.  I brought up Hamilton and Jefferson to point out that it's a given that not even brilliant and passionate statesmen are going to be able to always remain civil and rational in their disagreements.  But even when passions run high, the only way the democratic experiment is going to succeed is if all parties remain committed to the process of deliberation and compromise.

Incidentally, I find the contention that Jackson's election dealt a death blow to elitism extremely odd.  I wonder what you mean by "elitism" in this case, if you think that it's dead in America.

quote:

I can't really agree with your solution that "something can be salvaged" if people would start listening to each other. Are you suggesting we be polite and civil to opponents?


I meant to be fairly clear that I didn't mean this at all.  If I was unclear, let me clarify.  The deliberative process won't always be a model of decorum and civility.  But all parties have to remain fundamentally committed to the idea of give and take and the possibility of persuasion through some combination of rational argument and rhetorical flourish.  If there is no exchange of ideas and no possibility of persuasion, then the democratic experiment is dead.

quote:

We place high priority in our Constitution on freedom of speech not freedom of listening. Messy it is but it is what it is.


I don't really understand what this means.  I think you probably mean "not the duty of listening."  It's true that there is no law on the books that says "All American citizens must be informed, rational, and committed to the democratic process."  If people choose to (continue to) be irrational, irascible, flaky, vapid, shallow, slow to compromise, quick to be inflamed by blind partisanship, informed by prejudice, and more interested in irritating the "other tribe" than in arriving at the best possible position on an issue then the American citizenry will grow more and more to resemble Hamilton's great beast.

We undeniably have the Constitutional right to thumb our noses at each other, swing our dicks like we just don't care and jeeringly piss the whole thing away. 

Democracy can work if there is a commitment to dialogue, to the possibility of persuasion, and to rational behavior.  Otherwise, the American ideals really are nothing more than fairy tales.


_____________________________

What I cannot create, I do not understand.--Feynman

Every sentence I have written here is the product of some disease.-- Wittgenstein

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Democracy y/n? - 5/11/2010 1:39:18 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

Well, to start we have a republic, not a democracy. That is intended to keep ignorant massess from doing whatever strikes thier fancy, at least quickly.

It also keeps the power in the hands of the monied aristocracy by stating that the masses are ignorant.

Originally also only people who had property or other stakes in society got to vote.

That the illiterate rabble and deranged (look at the bizzare ideas positied by some of the posters on here----Infant mortality is irrelevant is the most recent one to make me laugh my ass off)get the same vote as I makes me wonder about the future of the West.

Do you believe that those who disagree with you should not be allowed to vote?


(in reply to luckydawg)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Democracy y/n? - 5/11/2010 1:57:39 PM   
domiguy


Posts: 12952
Joined: 5/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

I'm having serious issues with the concept of democracy. What happens to rule by the people when the people are unfit to rule? Are democratically elected politicians supposed to lead the people, or are they supposed to represent the will of the people?

After the Revolution, France was a disaster. Napoleon Bonaparte stabilized it. He was a tyrant...and probably the best thing that could have happened to France at that time.

I hate to say this, because it makes me sound like an elitist, but looking at what's happening in the US, I wonder whether the people deserve a democracy. I don't mean people with unpopular opinions, I think they should always have a right to vote their conscience, but rather people who say things like "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" - I read somewhere that only 2 out of 5 Americans can name the three branches of federal government.

That means the majority of Americans are able to vote for something they are wholly unqualified to make decisions about. And that bothers me.

I don't know where I'm going with this post, I just want to get a bit of feedback. I'm not advocating for tyranny, I just wonder, what justification IS there for democracy, when the people aren't living up to their part of the bargain?


In all of your posts I would never consider you to be an elitist....Uneducated and closed minded, maybe. Elitist, no.

< Message edited by domiguy -- 5/11/2010 1:58:03 PM >


_____________________________



(in reply to Elisabella)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Democracy y/n? - 5/11/2010 2:14:42 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

I'm having serious issues with the concept of democracy. What happens to rule by the people when the people are unfit to rule? Are democratically elected politicians supposed to lead the people, or are they supposed to represent the will of the people?

After the Revolution, France was a disaster. Napoleon Bonaparte stabilized it. He was a tyrant...and probably the best thing that could have happened to France at that time.

I hate to say this, because it makes me sound like an elitist, but looking at what's happening in the US, I wonder whether the people deserve a democracy. I don't mean people with unpopular opinions, I think they should always have a right to vote their conscience, but rather people who say things like "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" - I read somewhere that only 2 out of 5 Americans can name the three branches of federal government.

That means the majority of Americans are able to vote for something they are wholly unqualified to make decisions about. And that bothers me.

I don't know where I'm going with this post, I just want to get a bit of feedback. I'm not advocating for tyranny, I just wonder, what justification IS there for democracy, when the people aren't living up to their part of the bargain?


What would you replace it with?  A theocracy of the religious right?  Perhaps a true socialist government?

You cant make people vote.  That is the problem, too many people complain about the government not doing what it is supposed to do and the complainers are not voting.  After all why should they?

I vote because it is my duty as a citizen.  The problem with Americans is that too many dont see that.  They have the right to complain about something they are not willing to change.


_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to Elisabella)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Democracy y/n? - 5/11/2010 2:44:21 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

They have the right to complain about something they are not willing to change.



Well.....yeah....but democracy is an ideal that is underpinned by the notion of people exercising their stake in the nation. There is far more to democracy than simply choosing to do as you please....it's an ideal complete with certain core assumptions.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Democracy y/n? - 5/11/2010 3:12:38 PM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Due to the TARP for Greece et al.



That is odd.  Since the US TARP brought the prices down.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Democracy y/n? - 5/11/2010 3:28:43 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

You cant make people vote. That is the problem, too many people complain about the government not doing what it is supposed to do and the complainers are not voting. After all why should they?


When offered your choice between a shit sandwich and a shit pie...if you choose one or the other you have, by your choice, agreed that you want to eat shit.
When we vote for a public official we are given a choice between who they want us to vote for.
It is not until you get down to who is running for the school board or dog catcher that there is even a semblance of an open election. Not a whole lot different than Russia. The government in both cases says here are the people you may vote for.
Yes you are allowed to write in anyone you wish but it wont matter and never has.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Democracy y/n? - 5/11/2010 3:31:44 PM   
DomYngBlk


Posts: 3316
Joined: 3/27/2006
Status: offline
X, that is only true if you stay home and sit on your hands. If you involve yourself in the process then it isn't about who "they" decide but about which person you work hard for to get a certain nomination.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Democracy y/n? - 5/11/2010 3:32:38 PM   
Elisabella


Posts: 3939
Status: offline
quote:

This adoption of this concept is why the U.S. has been called the "Great Experiment in self government." The People govern themselves, while their agents (government agencies) perform tasks listed in the Preamble for the benefit of the People. The experiment is to answer the question,

"Can self-governing people coexist and prevail over government agencies that have no authority over the People?" The citizens of the United States are totally subject to the laws of the United States (See 14th Amendment of U.S. Constitution).


What do you mean by 'government agencies that hove no authority over the People'?

I don't know how well the frontier mentality works these days, independent self governance. Self reliance is a bit more difficult, we are specialists, not jacks of all trades. The citizens, the non citizens, the corporations, the government, we're all intertwined and we need to come to some sort of accord.

The Constitution is supposed to guard the Republic - but it's not the answer to every problem. Take legalization of gay marriage - is it a states' rights issue, or is it a minority rights issue? I have my own opinion that it's the latter, but that could just be because I think it should be legal and I'm more inclined to agree with the side that supports me. Either way, I can see the justification for both sides. So what do we do?

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Democracy y/n? - 5/11/2010 3:33:54 PM   
Elisabella


Posts: 3939
Status: offline
quote:

It has worked...yes really worked as no other system or country has in the past. With all its faults and warts it is the best we have come up with in our few millions of years of existence.

Strive for something better sure but don't look down on a system that has giving you a life of freedom and the ability to complain about it.


It's not the system I'm taking issue with.

(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Democracy y/n? - 5/11/2010 3:35:34 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

X, that is only true if you stay home and sit on your hands. If you involve yourself in the process then it isn't about who "they" decide but about which person you work hard for to get a certain nomination.


How many times in the history of our country has the government been run by other than those selected by the major parties?

(in reply to DomYngBlk)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Democracy y/n? - 5/11/2010 3:36:18 PM   
DomYngBlk


Posts: 3316
Joined: 3/27/2006
Status: offline
Are you saying the common man is an idiot?

(in reply to Elisabella)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Democracy y/n? - 5/11/2010 3:38:45 PM   
DomYngBlk


Posts: 3316
Joined: 3/27/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

X, that is only true if you stay home and sit on your hands. If you involve yourself in the process then it isn't about who "they" decide but about which person you work hard for to get a certain nomination.


How many times in the history of our country has the government been run by other than those selected by the major parties?



I don't have a count for  you but will give you that it isn't very many. However, that is far different than sayiing you've no voice in any party. You do. Bennet in Utah wouldn't be out on his ear today if the "Party" decided everything. Check your local party out sometime. There are not that many people there. A few people putting time into the party can make a major major difference

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Democracy y/n? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094