democracy, is it really such a good thing?

[XJ Flyer]

davepoth said:

XJ Flyer said:

bhstewie said:

XJ Flyer said:

The relevant bit is 'the freedom to choose' which government policy you want to live under just as you can do exactly the same thing under the democratic system.The difference being that no one has the right to then remove that 'choice' just because there are a greater number who choose one policy as opposed to less people who choose another.

So could I have the freedom to choose the policy which benefits me the most whilst having the freedom to reject the policy that costs me the most?

How would you balance the books?

The choices between all the policies of all the different parties are there anyway regardless under the democratic system.As I've said what gives anyone the right to remove the choice of which of those anyone prefers just because there are more people who choose one type of policy as opposed to less who choose another.

Because the alternative is anarchy, and then whoever has the biggest stick will get their way.

In which case that would obviously mean that those same choices are still anarchy based on a big stick when those same choices are offered under the democratic system.

The fact is democracy just removes the freedom of choice to be governed by whichever policies we choose to vote for.All depending on the totally irrelevant criterea of who voted for whichever choice of policies in the largest numbers.

[otolith]

davepoth said:

Because the alternative is anarchy, and then whoever has the biggest stick will get their way.

Which is what we have, in the sense that the majority view gets to wield the stick. In a dictatorship, the leader gets the stick. It's ultimately down to the practicalities of power, and there is always a stick.

[davepoth]

otolith said:

davepoth said:

Because the alternative is anarchy, and then whoever has the biggest stick will get their way.

Which is what we have, in the sense that the majority view gets to wield the stick. In a dictatorship, the leader gets the stick. It's ultimately down to the practicalities of power, and there is always a stick.

The size of the stick is directly proportional to the number of people who wield it. Alternatively you could have a situation such as that in Iraq where a very big stick was held by a very small number of people. That would be less fair, wouldn't it? Fewer people having a share of the stick?

[otolith]

Not really commenting on fairness, just pointing out that there's always a stick.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Democracy is great. Why should a dictator get to fk up the country without our consent when democracy allows us to choose who we want to fk up the country.

[XJ Flyer]

davepoth said:

otolith said:

davepoth said:

Because the alternative is anarchy, and then whoever has the biggest stick will get their way.

Which is what we have, in the sense that the majority view gets to wield the stick. In a dictatorship, the leader gets the stick. It's ultimately down to the practicalities of power, and there is always a stick.

The size of the stick is directly proportional to the number of people who wield it. Alternatively you could have a situation such as that in Iraq where a very big stick was held by a very small number of people. That would be less fair, wouldn't it? Fewer people having a share of the stick?

Any form of system that relies on using a stick as part of the political process really can't call itself a system based on 'freedom'.Regardless of how big the stick is or how many people hold the stick.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 21st September 20:24

[XJ Flyer]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Democracy is great. Why should a dictator get to fk up the country without our consent when democracy allows us to choose who we want to fk up the country.

Especially when the choice is between a Socialist Federalist party calling itself a Nationalist party.Or a Unionist Party calling itself an anti Federalist Independence Party allying itself to a Federalist Socialist Party to create a vote in favour of Socialism and Federalism.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 21st September 20:27

[lamboman100]

vanordinaire said:

Wouldn't it be better if we only let clever people vote?

Humans vote with their "head" or "heart", or a mix of both.

Cleverer (and older) people tend to vote with their head.

Dumber (and younger) people tend to vote with their heart.

If modern society lasts long enough, it is likely by the 22nd century that neurotracking software will be able to monitor a voter's emotions at elections, filter them out, and cast a vote based on what is inside the head rather than the heart / gut.

Edited by lamboman100 on Sunday 21st September 20:31

[otolith]

XJ Flyer said:

Any form of system that relies on using a stick as part of the political process really can't call itself a system based on 'freedom'.Regardless of how big the stick is or how many people hold the stick.

There aren't any which don't. It's human nature, I'm afraid.

[NicD]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Democracy is great. Why should a dictator get to fk up the country without our consent when democracy allows us to choose who we want to fk up the country.

ROFL!

actually with the unequal electoral boundaries, the latter isn't quite true.

[XJ Flyer]

otolith said:

XJ Flyer said:

Any form of system that relies on using a stick as part of the political process really can't call itself a system based on 'freedom'.Regardless of how big the stick is or how many people hold the stick.

There aren't any which don't. It's human nature, I'm afraid.

At least then don't try to call it 'freedom'.

[VeeDubBigBird]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Democracy is great. Why should a dictator get to fk up the country without our consent when democracy allows us to choose who we want to fk up the country.

During the Scottish Referendum this was one of my work colleague’s only point on why he wanted independence. That when it all goes wrong at least it’s our mistake and not Westminster’s. To be fair he is a Scottish version of Joey from TOWIE though.

Democracy I feel is the most stable of all the options. I would have included Churchill’s comments on the subject but that’s probably already been done.

In many ways circumstances will always force governments down certain roads (recession / wars / population / etc.), it’s just which side of the road we’re on that really gets chosen.

[davepoth]

XJ Flyer said:

At least then don't try to call it 'freedom'.

I'm pretty sure that you are the only person who has.

[Randy Winkman]

lamboman100 said:

Humans vote with their "head" or "heart", or a mix of both.

Cleverer (and older) people tend to vote with their head.

Dumber (and younger) people tend to vote with their heart.

Edited by lamboman100 on Sunday 21st September 20:31

But as Otolith has said, there is no "right" answer. So clever people would probably just vote for who suited them, not who was best for everyone.

[XJ Flyer]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19372177

[otolith]

XJ Flyer said:

At least then don't try to call it 'freedom'.

A truly free existence would be pitiable, because it implies solitude. As soon as you form a community freedom is limited.

[otolith]

It does raise the question of whether in order to produce the optimal government in utilitarian terms everyone should vote entirely selfishly - after all, the disadvantaged have votes of their own.

[XJ Flyer]

My point is just that when a number of different prospective politicians stand on different policies which inevitably suit different people.We shouldn't then just be left with one of those choices and denied all the others just based on the relative number of respective votes for the different policies.

[CrutyRammers]

Aristotle (and others) were having all of these arguments 2 or 3 thousand years ago. He described the major forms of government and how they form and collapse over time. And what he wrote still looks right, all this time later. We've still not solved the problem, and still not really come up with anything different.
Interestingly he considered true democracy (ie not what we have) as a perverse, impure form of government, because of the whole "tyrrany of the majority" thing.

[Countdown]

lamboman100 said:

Humans vote with their "head" or "heart", or a mix of both.

Cleverer (and older) people tend to vote with their head.

Dumber (and younger) people tend to vote with their heart.

If modern society lasts long enough, it is likely by the 22nd century that neurotracking software will be able to monitor a voter's emotions at elections, filter them out, and cast a vote based on what is inside the head rather than the heart / gut.

Edited by lamboman100 on Sunday 21st September 20:31

I'm not sure why "cleverer" people are more likely than "dumber" people to vote with their head.

Everybody votes for the Party that most offers them what they want. Everybody votes rationally / selfishly.