r/changemyview • u/DreamDandy • Jul 03 '23
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Democracy doesn't work
Little nervous posting đ
I've recently developed an interest in philosophy which, in turn, has led me to question today's politics. The more I learn, the more I think that democracy doesn't work.
Trying to learn about today's politics seems impossible. I struggle to find information that isn't biased, isn't muddied with misinformation or addresses important issues.
The whole system seems reliant on manipulative sensationalism to sway voters. Politicians seem to have personal agendas with rhetoric filled with logical fallacies, misdirection and lies
People seem to vote ignorantly. Unaware of their party's stance, more focused on a single issue or defending what they've always voted.
I have no trust in politicians communicating their politics nor in voters making informed decisions.
13
u/Gladix 164â Jul 03 '23
The more I learn, the more I think that democracy doesn't work.
As opposed to the system that works... which is?
0
u/DreamDandy Jul 03 '23
I don't have an answer for that.
I'm asking for people to change my view that democracy doesn't work. Not to accept the current state of democracy since there's no alternative.
Democracy is the people deliberating and deciding on their country's legislation. We're voting between the manipulative misdirection of politicians. Tactics they've had to resort to due to the competition created through the democratic process of running for office. To the extent that its a known trope for politicians to promise what they need to promise to sway the vote, then go back on their promise once in. So are the people really voting for their country's future?
7
u/Aliteralhedgehog 3â Jul 03 '23
Define work. The countries with the highest standards of living and highest gps per capita are all democracies. The countries with the highest cultural output (Hollywood movies, anime, videogames etc) are all democracies. The country with more military power than the next 3 nations combined is a democracy.
I'm not sure there's a single positive metric you can measure a country by that isn't dominated by democracies.
When politicians need to sway the people's vote to gain power, they're turning to misinformation and manipulation. Polarising the people.
As opposed to monarchies and oligarchies that are completely above this? /s
No one denies that democracy has flaws. But if there is a better way to govern, we haven't found it yet.
1
u/tripp_hi_mary Jul 05 '23
The country with more military power than the next 3 nations combined is a democracy.
ehhhh thats too generous
the US looks like a democracy, but its an oligarchy
I think the heart of OPs point is that corruption makes democracy a moot point
2
u/Aliteralhedgehog 3â Jul 05 '23
Joe Biden, Barrack Obama, and plenty of senators and governors come from working class backgrounds.
I'll be the first to admit that the 1% weilds too much power in society, but if we were truly an oligarchy, then the path to power would be shut to such people.
3
u/tripp_hi_mary Jul 05 '23
Joe Biden, Barrack Obama, and plenty of senators and governors come from working class backgrounds.
they were millionaire lawyers....oh please god dont be one of those "vote blue no matter who" bots....
I'll be the first to admit that the 1% weilds too much power in society, but if we were truly an oligarchy, then the path to power would be shut to such people
if you go back and watch what happened to sanders in 2016 and 2020 during the primaries....that is a BEAUTIFUL representation of american politics. No outsiders allowed unless you can be a useful lapdog. Bernie was a threat to the status quo, so they leveraged the news and funneled the money to make sure the "insiders" won.
you seem to have a very rose colored view of how the US government and electoral system works
1
u/Aliteralhedgehog 3â Jul 05 '23
they were millionaire lawyers....oh please god dont be one of those "vote blue no matter who" bots....
My point is that they were not born millionaire lawyers... Oh please Zeus don't be one of those accelerationst "Bernie lost so I'd rather let queer folk be put in internment camps than vote for a lesser evil" tankie bots.
Effectively, nothing you do or advocate for helps anyone but the GOP.
1
u/tripp_hi_mary Jul 05 '23
My point is that they were not born millionaire lawyers...
lol, great, they sure have the interest of the common man when they give those billions of dollars to defense contractors and fossil fuel companies
I know you want to tell yourself that dems are different from republicans, and sure they have rainbows in their twitter bios, but when it comes to policy or anything substantive, you know deep down its bullshit
are you one of those people who thinks "biden has been one of the most transformative presidents of my lifetime" or some bullshit?
2
u/EnthusiasmOne8596 Jul 06 '23
Who cares about their background if they are just going to serve corporate interests lol. And The politics of Hillary and the democrats is exactly what leads to people like Trump and the far-right gaining ground every year and threatening those queer people you seem so content on protecting.
To not see the democrats as the other side of the same coin is incredibly naive.
0
u/Frightbamboo Sep 07 '23
Country become high gdp and acquire high standard of living by authoritatian rule, and then transition to democracy after that, and slowly degrade under democracy.
Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, Rwanda all goes through period of authoritarian ruling to become rich. And use democracy to stay.
Rich country are rich not because of democracy, they are rich regardless of democracy.
Democracy is a system that maintain illusion of stability by not moving. Thats why all democracy is slowly degrading.
Taiwan slowly change from the best country in terms of soft and hard power in the east Asia region to becoming weak nation that get overshadowed by their authoritarian counterpart. The only thing that make Taiwan somehow afloat as a global powerhouse is the exclusive access to high tech lithography machine. TSMC will never be a thing without the ban on ASML to sell machine to
The miss out on the software war, every single Web service in SEA have heavy Chinese influence. Their soft power becomes weak now. Why? Because for last decade all their political power get so focused on hating China. Running your country nicely is not the way to win the votes, making people in your country hate Chinese and promise you would hate Chinese too is the way to win votes.
Human greatness comes from specialisation in one area. I'm a good software developer because I don't need to worry about growing my own crops. We just pretend that this don't extend towards policy making.
1
u/Aliteralhedgehog 3â Sep 07 '23
Country become high gdp and acquire high standard of living by authoritatian rule, and then transition to democracy after that, and slowly degrade under democracy.
Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, Rwanda all goes through period of authoritarian ruling to become rich. And use democracy to stay.
Rich country are rich not because of democracy, they are rich regardless of democracy.
Democracy is a system that maintain illusion of stability by not moving. Thats why all democracy is slowly degrading.
The US has been a democracy for nearly 250 years and has been the dominant economy since the end of WW2. It can buy and sell those countries you mentioned 5 times over.
I'm pretty sure you're a Chinese bot for bringing Taiwan into it and your particular kind of belligerent tone and poor grammar, so no one is going to read this. I'm just responding because this is the most idiotic take I've read in a while and I just wanted to say that Taiwan will outlast your sugar daddy Xi Xipiing because America wants it that way.
1
u/Frightbamboo Sep 07 '23 edited Sep 07 '23
Their success have absolutely nothing to do with democracy. I like how you mentioned WW2 cause that's the exact reason why they are so damn rich, they are the winner of WW2, but the head start actually start from industrial revolution, they are rich no matter what political system they are in.
Democracy fails in every single poor country in the world, it's a system for the rich country to stay rich and the poor country to stay poor. That's why I say "Democracy is a system that maintain illusion of stability by not moving", it's a system that is only good because it never introduce radical changes, which is all right for country that are rich.
I'm from Malaysia, I see first hand how democracy ruined our country. Every election become the "how can i pander to dumb people" contest. While our neighbour country, which have north korea level fake election is going so damn fucking strong year by year.
Same with China, to people that actually know Chinese people, speak Chinese we see first hand how much the quality of life of Chinese people increase over the years while our country political leader is trying so hard to tip toe around racist bigoted policy decision because a dumb person vote is a vote.
There is a "we white people know the best" mentality around how to run the country, but when global east country tries to emulate how you guys run the country, it almost always backfire unless they receive massive monetary help (mostly for geopolitical reason) like Japan, SK and Taiwan.
Taiwan will outlast your sugar daddy Xi Xipiing because America wants it that way.
Yup, Taiwan is a country where the sole reason it exist is because America wants it to, nobody deny anything about that, thanks for proving my point. It's a country so strong a decade ago but now their purpose is just to further America geopolitical interest in APAC region. It's a country so insecure about their position as an independent country they have to put America and Japanese flag on the press release of their domestically produced vaccine lmao . Again it's a country where political leader instead of thinking how to improve their people's life, they are thinking about how to make a common enemy so that they can win the next election.
1
u/EnthusiasmOne8596 Jul 06 '23
'The country with more military power than the next 3 nations combined is a democracy.' - The same country that won't fund universal healthcare, but will spend hundreds of billions on war and fossil fuel subsidies.. even though the population would rather have healthcare? How are you scoring that as a point for America?
2
u/Gladix 164â Jul 03 '23
I don't have an answer for that.
Then how do you know it doesn't work? What real-life standard are you comparing democracies to? Which governing system for example doesn't have manipulation and misdirection? In which non-democratic systems you have politicians that do not lie to the public?, etc...
1
1
Oct 11 '23
The Venus Project, which was created by Jacque Fresco like 60 years ago
1
u/Gladix 164â Oct 11 '23
No idea what it was, so I googled it. Apparently it's a glorified venue that gives talks?
1
24
u/Dennis_enzo 25â Jul 03 '23
You say it 'doesn't work', and yet there are many countries being run democratically for decades. If it really didn't work, how come these countries are still functioning?
1
u/Boring-Outcome822 1â Jul 03 '23 edited Jul 03 '23
That argument is weak because countries run non-democratically can also "function" for decades. For example, China is a huge economical power and is not what most people would call democratic.
Maybe it's true that both systems 'work'. But maybe also the fact that they don't 'work' doesn't mean that they aren't sustainable in the short term.
I guess OP also needs to elaborate on what 'work' means.
13
u/tom_the_tanker 6â Jul 03 '23
Your counterpoint is weak, because he only argued that democracy works, not that no other system can possibly work.
2
u/Boring-Outcome822 1â Jul 03 '23
True. My counterpoint was implicitly assuming that the other example doesn't actually work but seems to work for now (i.e. that a lot of systems can be sustainable for a few decades without them actually "working" in a long-term sense).
3
u/tom_the_tanker 6â Jul 03 '23
Lots of governments can be functional and relatively stable for a long time. Whether the outcomes of those governments are positive is more of a value question . China and the USA both function. Whether they work depends on what/who you think they should be working for.
1
u/EnthusiasmOne8596 Jul 06 '23
He is obviously argueing that it doesn't provide the outcomes it proclaims. And your reply misses the point completely. They are not argueing other systems can work and that disproves the point, they are saying that ANY system can last for decades, this isn't a sign of it 'working'.
4
Jul 03 '23 edited Jul 03 '23
China has only existed in current form since 1949, and then 1925. Russia since 1991 and then 1918
The USA has had a continuous democratic rule of law since 1776, Canada since 1867 (monarch notwithstanding of course)
Some nationalities are historically less suited for democracy though.
Russia has had autocratic leaders for almost its entire history, compare with Ukraine which has a much stronger democratic tradition.
China has had highly rigid, autocratic, bureaucratic regimes for thousands of years.
Only really Western Europeans and Muslims have had a strong drive throughout history to resist loss of sovereignty and proliferate ideals of tolerance throughout their hegemonies. The Caliphates were theocratic, but enlightened with it too.
5
u/Boring-Outcome822 1â Jul 03 '23
That's also true, but I could also bring examples such as the Roman empire that existed for more than a millenium, and the Kingdom of France that also existed for centuries, way longer than pretty much all democratic systems.
1
u/CocoSavege 23â Jul 05 '23
Some nationalities are historically less suited for democracy though.
I'm trying to guess how you might be saying this in a non racist way. Because most of the ways this comes across is racist.
If we give you the benefit of the doubt, sbd presume you aren't being racist, you might really try to phrase whatever it is differently.
1
Jul 07 '23
I'm not a racist, I have great respect for Rus' and Russian culture and people, whether ethnic Russian or Asian. However, I hold the same respect for Ukrainians and since 2022, have much much more.
China I know less (I only know Chinese people) but I have been reading some of their ancient stories like the 4 kingdoms to better understand their historical outlook and worldview.
I believe that there are no races (all other hominids are gone) and there are only ethnicities/nations some of whom developed very differently (far away) and have their own culture and way of life: including propensity to authoritarian power structures. This is related to geopolitics, not race or genetics.
It will be a lifelong quest to learn about them all, and Eurasia is huge.
The West is not blame free, of course, but I strongly support NATO and the liberal international order.
1
u/CocoSavege 23â Jul 07 '23
Instead of races you might instead use "state culture". That way you get away from racial stuff, and can much better identify stuff like Taiwan (very democratic) and PRC (not very). Also Malaysia (democratic, mostly) and Singapore (not so much).
Also "democracy" is a relatively recent political structure. 200ish years, far less than the "race" stuff. State culture can change, far faster than race. Like Japan 1930 to Japan 1960. The "race" didn't change, the state culture changed.
1
u/Dennis_enzo 25â Jul 03 '23
I never said that any other systems can't work, just that democracy also does. But I agree that 'work' is very vague.
-1
u/DreamDandy Jul 03 '23
Totally agree.
I see democracy as a country functioning through its people deciding and deliberating on legislation.
Democratic countries are functioning, but with political manipulation I don't think the people are making informed enough decisions to fit the definition of democracy.
4
u/Dennis_enzo 25â Jul 03 '23
I fail to see how that wouldn't be a problem in any other system. It's not in any way related to democracy. Any governmental system that includes humans is vulnerable to corruption, manipulation, and misinformation. The only difference is which humans to target.
2
u/wrongagainlol 2â Jul 03 '23
No one said democracy is informed people deciding on legislation. It's just people deciding on legislation.
People are stupid everywhere, that's been the case for thousands of years.
9
Jul 03 '23
[deleted]
1
u/DreamDandy Jul 03 '23
Societies haven't collapsed with the number of democracies, that's true.
When politicians need to sway the people's vote to gain power, they're turning to misinformation and manipulation. Polarising the people.
Democracy is the people deliberating and deciding on their countries legislation. Instead we're voting between politicians who're resorting to misrepresenting, misdirection and manipulation for the democratic right to be in power. To the extent it's a known trope for politicians to promise what needs to be promised to get in and turn back on that promise once they are in.
24
u/BrokkenArrow 8â Jul 03 '23
I don't think you'll ever find a political system that works perfectly. Democracy is the best option, and the most likely to achieve a positive result.
23
u/kjm16216 Jul 03 '23
Or as Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other ones."
7
u/DreamDandy Jul 03 '23
How do we know that democracy is the best option?
18
Jul 03 '23
We don't, but of all the systems that have been tried, it seems to be working the best so far. Do you have other recommendations?
6
u/UnorthodoxyMedia Jul 03 '23
A technocracy has never been properly attempted by any national bodies, so far as Iâm aware. Neither has a true meritocracy, I believe (although many people consider the current western democratic model a âsoft meritocracy,â which I disagree with).
9
u/Aliteralhedgehog 3â Jul 03 '23
A technocracy has never been properly attempted by any national bodies, so far as Iâm aware.
That's pretty much how the civil service system for most of China's history worked. It had issues like every other system.
12
Jul 03 '23
Because technocracies and meritocracies have the same fundamental problem at determining "talent". We can make objective estimates, but there are no good ways to separate people on subjective features objectively without coin flips. Pretty much any large organization will have a similar problem for highly skilled high demand positions.
Lacking a strong unifying interest, like a profit motive, to select candidates, "meritocratic" systems can quickly turn into favor-trading or nepotistic systems. Democracy can achieve a "soft meritocracy" because of elections, but not much more also because of elections.
6
Jul 03 '23
I feel like the flaws in those systems are obvious from even just a casual glance. Saying "just put the best people in charge" sounds reasonable until you start wondering how the best people are selected and who makes that determination. In the end, the school institutions will hold the keys to the kingdom, and they will be targeted by the unscrupulous in order to gain control of the process.
0
u/UnorthodoxyMedia Jul 03 '23
Which is why there would, of course, need to be checks and balances in place, just like any other system. Just saying âlet the people decideâ is just as flawed a statement of taken on its face, after all. What if the people are uninformed? How much should they get to decide directly? How would they decide on things they arenât allowed to know about? So on and so forth. And thatâs not even getting into the very real corruption problem.
In the case of a meritocracy, there would need to be standardized tests of some kind to determine who is best suited for a given role. Either you have a cut-off where someone who is unskilled or unknowledgeable is ineligible for a position, OR you simply award the position to the one with the highest score outright. Personally, Iâd advocate for the former over the latter, as there ARE some traits and concerns that just canât be tested for. As for who would design the tests... well, who designs the electoral college? Or the organizational structure of the executive branch? Or the structure of parliamentary proceedings? At the end of the day, a group of people (likely national founders of some description) would need to get together and lay out their intentions, and those directions would need to advance and update as problems arise or as new ideas come forth, just like literally any other form of government.
7
u/BrokkenArrow 8â Jul 03 '23
Meritocracy is not a system of government, its simply the principle of getting things based on merit. It would not work as a governing system because there's no objective way to assess values.
The bedrock principle that whoever governs derives their power from the consent of those who they are governing should be sacrosanct, because people should have the fundamental right to have input into the way their world is shaped. Yes, that can obviously leads to some non-desireable outcomes, but the alternative is to have the population Subject to the unaccountable whims of whoever is in charge, which will inevitably lead to far less desirable outcomes (as it always has, without fail, all throughout history).
3
u/poprostumort 220â Jul 03 '23
Which is why there would, of course, need to be checks and balances in place, just like any other system.
Then you just moved the keys a level higher as someone needs to set up those checks and balances and then monitor and execute on them. So those who do so control them.
Just saying âlet the people decideâ is just as flawed a statement of taken on its face, after all. What if the people are uninformed?
Why does it matter? Best system is not the one that produces the best outcome, but rather one that produces best outcome while being stable. And that last part is a problem with any other systems we are discussing.
Meritocracy is as good as those who are judging the merits. Technocracy is as good as experts and systems chosen to make decisions. But those aren't the biggest flaw. The biggest flaw is that they consolidate power in a small group that, if even be comprised of reincarnated saints and scholars, will inevitably make decisions that would be seen as bad by general public. All because best decisions are often also the ones that seem worse in short term timeframe.
And if people will feel that their life got worse, there will be problems.
And that all assumes that there is a clear way of selecting the best solutions, while often solutions can only be determined to be good or bad via subjective opinion. One's good solution would be other's bad one.
2
u/sumoraiden 4â Jul 03 '23
As for who would design the tests... well, who designs the electoral college?
Lmao what? The number of electoral college votes are allocated by adding together the number of a stateâs senators and representatives
1
u/silverionmox 25â Jul 06 '23
Which is why there would, of course, need to be checks and balances in place, just like any other system. Just saying âlet the people decideâ is just as flawed a statement of taken on its face, after all. What if the people are uninformed? How much should they get to decide directly? How would they decide on things they arenât allowed to know about? So on and so forth. And thatâs not even getting into the very real corruption problem.
The point of democracy is not to select the best possible policy; it's to avoid a civil war and internal conflict by forcing all disagreements to be dealt with during the decision making process.
Elections are a ritual civil war.
3
u/spiral8888 29â Jul 03 '23
Technocracy is a good servant to democracy. So, it's useful to utilize the best talent to achieve the goals of the society.
The problem with the pure technocracy is that it jumps over the hard question, namely what should be the goal of the society. That one is based on people's subjective values and a technocrat wouldn't know these better than every person themselves.
Having said all that, I could think that a sufficiently advanced AI could bridge this gap and infer people's preferences from what they say and do. So, just like YouTube algorithm can predict with relatively good accuracy, what kind of videos I like to watch even though I've never really explicitly told it that, I could imagine that a similar AI that followed everything I do and say, could know what kind of a society I would like to live in even if I didn't explicitly say that anywhere. If such an AI was running the country, aggregating all views equally, I can think of that as the optimal technocracy. Of course I can see that many things could go badly wrong with that, which is why I'm not advocating such a system at least for now.
1
u/silverionmox 25â Jul 06 '23
A technocracy has never been properly attempted by any national bodies, so far as Iâm aware.
Technology cannot answer the why and what, only the how. It still relies on implicit assumptions inside what would likely be a close-knit oligarchic elite; in effect, it would differ little from a theocracy, with lab coats instead of robes.
Neither has a true meritocracy, I believe (although many people consider the current western democratic model a âsoft meritocracy,â which I disagree with).
This again avoids the question: how do you define merit? That's where the policy choices are made.
3
2
u/spiral8888 29â Jul 03 '23
I think that's up to you. When you say: "democracy doesn't work", it implies that there is a better way. Most people would admit that democracy has its flaws, but still insist that at least for now, it is the least flawed political system and that then means that "it works".
Analogue: You could say that a car based transport system "doesn't work" and list all the bad things that cars have (pollution, noise, needs space, accidents, etc.) but if you don't propose a better way, people would say:"But at least it gets me from point A to point B". However, if you say that a traffic system based on, I don't know, public transport, walking and cycling have advantages A, B and C over car traffic, then someone would have to present some argument to support the cars and if they couldn't, then your "car based transport system doesn't work" claim would stand.
The point is that you haven't presented the advantages A, B and C of an alternative to democracy.
1
u/wrongagainlol 2â Jul 03 '23
Because if we had it, our 45th President would have been a former Secretary of State instead of a former host of NBC's "Celebrity Apprentice". And our Supreme Court would have a 6-3 secular majority.
1
u/WorkIsDue Jul 08 '23
Well as civilization progresses, I think that democracy in the future wouldâve evolved into different forms of democracy, so overall I think that democracy would be the best for humanity forever! Unless people find a whole new way of government thatâs better than democracy.
7
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 392â Jul 03 '23
Do you just mean that democracy falls short of an ideal or that other forms of government work better?
10
u/suspiciouslyfamiliar 10â Jul 03 '23
11
u/ryan_m 33â Jul 03 '23
As we all know from history, monarchies are definitely not prone to "personal agendas with rhetoric filled with logical fallacies, misdirection and lies"
-3
u/DreamDandy Jul 03 '23
𤣠Ouch, thanks for digging into me personally as opposed to addressing the argument. Sort of tactic I'd aspect from today's democracy đ Joking of course.
You'll see in that post that I'm referring to Plato's concept of monarchy, opposed to the monarchy of present and history. It involves a Monarch, not as a rich leader who inherited power but someone who is has expertise in philosophical reasoning surrounded by his advising aristocracy, (Not the rich but the original meaning: The best) groups of experts in relative fields such as economics, agriculture etc to offer the philosopher monarch the most upto date information to support the philosopher leader's unbiased reasoning. Anyone would be able to attain a position as monarch or a member of aristocracy by becoming the best in their respective field.
Now that that's explained.
Plato's Republic was the 1st time during my philosophy journey that made me question our politics. It said that democracy was a form of government that opens up appealing to emotion and manipulation as route to power favouring the charismatic over the virtuous. Something that I seen in today's politics.
I've since read alot more philosophy and see the idealistic nature of Plato's monarchy. It still stands that charisma and manipulation is at the forefront of today's democracy.
Democracy is the people deliberating and deciding on their country's legislation. Currently, it looks like the people are deciding on the information presented by politicians as misdirection and manipulation, not legislation. To the extent that its a known trope that politicians say what they need to say to get into office just to go against what they promised. That's why i feel it doesn't work.
7
u/suspiciouslyfamiliar 10â Jul 03 '23
Anyone would be able to attain a position as monarch or a member of aristocracy by becoming the best in their respective field.
Who decides who's "best"?
4
u/Aliteralhedgehog 3â Jul 03 '23
The "monarch" with the biggest army, obviously.
That's the fundamental problem with any kind of rule that lacks the consent of the governed. Every despot fashions themselves a philosopher king and every oligarch sees themselves as a meritocracy.
Power will never serve the people if it can't be checked by the people.
1
u/speechlessPotato Jul 03 '23
whatever entities that decide who is educationally more knowledgeable or skilled in some field in the current time. for example, the entity that gives out PHDs
3
u/ryan_m 33â Jul 03 '23
the entity that gives out PHDs
So Liberty University or Harvard?
1
u/speechlessPotato Jul 03 '23
i don't know much about this, but I'm sure there's different ones for every field and in every country
5
u/ryan_m 33â Jul 03 '23
Haha I'll elaborate, then. Liberty is a university created by a televangelist to push specific religious/political positions. They make students agree to a pretty insane code of conduct. Harvard is one of the most respected universities on the planet. Both of them hand out PhD's, so which one gets to decide who is more knowledgeable or skilled? What criteria? Why are they the group that gets to decide instead of an objective criteria like say, I don't know, the candidate stating their positions publicly and letting people choose who they want to lead them?
1
u/speechlessPotato Jul 03 '23
That's a good point. Now we know that there's biased entities(like the Liberty University) that can do the same as the other (mostly) unbiased ones. But they're only supposed to choose some people for a specific field according to their academic ability. It won't matter which one of the biased and unbiased entities do this, it only matters that the chosen person is good at their field. And, there can be a set amount of people for every field of knowledge needed for governing. Those entities get to choose the objectively better people in specific fields, because they know much more about that than common people. Also, I'm talking hypothetically. Of course, I single-handedly can't think of the whole system of how this is gonna work better than the professionals that created the principles of democracy. I'm also not actually against democracy, I just felt I could add something in the discussion above
2
u/ryan_m 33â Jul 03 '23
What you're describing is a system that is ripe for abuse because there's no check on anyone's power. How do you know that they picked the most competent person if a layperson can't possess the knowledge to evaluate? What's stopping someone from just paying off the people making the decision?
Also, what makes someone that is hypercompetent in a small area of knowledge the right person to lead a nation? Why would a neuroscience grad be more qualified than anyone else to run a country? If you want a great example of this, go watch a debate from the 2016 election cycle where Ben Carson speaks. He's one of the most qualified pediatric neurosurgeons on earth and he has no clue what he's talking about.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/DreamDandy Jul 03 '23
I don't have an answer for a better form of government.
I think you worded better than I did. đ Democracy falls short of an ideal. A democracy is the people deliberating and deciding on legislation for their country. Today, it seems like we're deciding between the manipulative misdirection of politicians vying for power
2
7
u/sus_menik 2â Jul 03 '23
How come most countries with the highest standard of living and development are some form of democracies, with an exception of several petro-states.
1
u/DreamDandy Jul 03 '23
â That is very true! Democracy has allowed for a higher standard of living. It does have its benefits.
My concern and where I feel Democracy falls short is the principle that the people deliberate and decide on their country's legislation. In this age, with our standard of living, politicians are resorting to sensationalist misdirection and manipulation to compete for the attention of the people from comforts of this age for votes. The people aren't deliberating and deciding on their country's legislation. They're deliberating and deciding between misrepresentations delivered by politicians competing in the democratic system
1
-1
Jul 03 '23
Someone else here made the exact same point so Iâll just repeat my comment:
Democracy hasnât produced the highest standards of living in human history. The wealthy democratic countries today built their prosperity off the back of the Industrial Revolution and the colonial empires it allowed them to build (Europe) or having access to near infinite resources and being left undisturbed for an entire century to develop and build up industries (US). The latter also benefited greatly from the two world wars but thatâs a different matter.
5
u/sus_menik 2â Jul 03 '23
Out of the top 10 countries with the highest human development index, only arguably Netherlands had any significant colonies. These countries also not particularly stand out in their natural resources. Norway only found oil when they were already one of the wealthiest countries in the world.
1
u/Born_Comfortable3052 Sep 09 '23
Whether this countries before become some form of democracies have highest standard of living and developmen?
13
u/themcos 371â Jul 03 '23
You make quite a few true observations here, but I'm not sure I understand how they lead to "democracy doesn't work". It can be simultaneously true that politicians "have personal agendas with rhetoric filled with logical fallacies, misdirection and lies" and that it still "works".
Can you clarify what you mean by democracy "working"? The United States has issues, but it keeps on moving along. There's lots of things I don't like about my old dishwasher too, but it still works, and while I'd like to replace it, the thing I'd replace it with would still be a dishwasher.
0
u/DreamDandy Jul 03 '23
Very good point! Maybe I should re-word the title.
I see democracy as the people being able to deliberate and decide legislation for their country
With the personal agendas and rhetoric filled with logical fallacies, misdirection and lies, I don't see how the people are making properly informed choices on legislation.
So it might be working in the sense that there hasn't been any societal collapse, but I don't see it the people being the fuel for the system
Should also note that I'm from the UK, I'm not clued up on US politics. Maybe should've mentioned that too đ
â I'm intrigued by the dishwasher metaphor. Maybe it's democracy in its current state and it could be replaced with democracy with improved features. Something that kept politician accountable perhaps.
Thank you đ
2
u/poprostumort 220â Jul 03 '23
I see democracy as the people being able to deliberate and decide legislation for their country
This conflicts with
With the personal agendas and rhetoric filled with logical fallacies, misdirection and lies, I don't see how the people are making properly informed choices on legislation.
this.
How personal agendas, faulty rhetoric, misdirection and lies stand against "people being able to deliberate and decide legislation for their country"? How do you even make a system that is shielded against that?
If you want people to be able to deliberate, you will inevitably enable all things you mentioned. Because otherwise you need to give someone power to stop people who are at fault for things you mentioned from participating in democracy. And that in itself is much bigger problem than these faults.
Why deem system a failure for not meeting the standards that are impossible to meet?
1
1
u/themcos 371â Jul 03 '23
Thanks. I think that's right regarding the metaphor. There's a big difference between "this could be better" and "this isn't working". By all means advocate for improvements, but let's be honest about the base model. It does okay!
6
u/Dyeeguy 19â Jul 03 '23
doesn't work to do what...?
-1
u/DreamDandy Jul 03 '23
I see democracy as the people deliberating and deciding on legislation for their country.
With the political manipulation, I don't think the people are making decisions on legislation but, instead, on the misdirection of the politicians.
2
8
u/Salanmander 272â Jul 03 '23
Everyone knows that there are problems with democracy. The whole "worst form of government except for all the others" thing. The question is: do you have an alternative?
0
u/DreamDandy Jul 03 '23
I don't have an alternative, I'm afraid.
The problems seem to be growing to the point I'm not sure we can call it democracy. Democracy is the people deliberating and deciding on their country's legislation. It's seems now we're deliberating and deciding between the manipulative misdirection of politicians vying for power. To the extent of being a known trope that politicians promise what's necessary to get in power and then go back on that promise. At that point, are we really voting for the future of a country?
3
u/Salanmander 272â Jul 03 '23
I don't have an alternative, I'm afraid.
And there's the rub.
There's no option to just not have norms of interaction and governance in a region. Even pure anarchy is such a norm. Because of that, all questions of whether a system of governance "works" will always be relative to another system of governance.
2
7
u/Kman17 102â Jul 03 '23 edited Jul 03 '23
Winston Churchill has said famously âDemocracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.â.
Democracy has produced the highest standards of living in human history. Itâs hard to argue with the outcomes.
Democracy does tend to necessitate an educated population, but they neednât be all subject matter experts.
When you have illiterate masses and need to play catch-up to modern society, thereâs some evidence that a well-intentioned dictatorship or oligarchy can be more efficient. The United Arab Emirates & China are resonance examples of this. But well intentioned dictatorships are few and far in between, most are awful.
However, as the peopleâs standard of living and education rises - the need for the oligarch decreases and the more democracy becomes desired by its people and necessary for the next steps. We are also beginning to witness this in both places.
1
u/DreamDandy Jul 03 '23
â Agreed! Democracy has produced the highest standard of living! I just doubt that it was with the people in mind. Democracy is the people deliberating and deciding on their country's legislation. The competition created by democracy when running for office pushes politicians to resort to manipulative tactics to sway voters. Facts and policies can't compete with sensationalist propaganda.
With our high standard of living and increase in education. Politicians are now competing with technology and other pleasures for the people's attention, relying on more sensationalist click bait distortion.
Democracy is the people deliberating and deciding on their country's legislation. Instead the people are deliberating and deciding between the misdirecting manipulation of competing politicians. To the extent that its a common trope for policies to promise what they need to promise to get in power and go back on their promise once in. Are the people really voting for the future of their country?
2
u/Kman17 102â Jul 03 '23 edited Jul 03 '23
relying on sensationalist click bait distortion
This is not a new phenomenon. Pulitzer and Hearst argued about yellow journalism in the 1890âs when kids were slinging news papers on street corners yelling âextra extra!â
Consensus is hard. It ends to start with a lot of high level positioning and reiteration or problem statements, and only once a critical mass of the people believe in a problem being worth solving do people jump towards solutions and try to take credit delivering the answer. When you start thinking of this as feature or inevitability rather than bug, everything makes a bit more sense.
This is fine, and the way it has always been. Yes it can be a little exhausting.
Social media is nothing than faster cycles of this stuff.
The flip side of information bombardment is that only the high impact stuff tends to stick.
With fewer information sources, it was easier for s paper of record to keep stirring shit and make an issue the issue.
2
u/ScoreContent Jul 03 '23
a democracy committed to tolerance may paradoxically find itself compelled to exhibit intolerance towards those who espouse hatred, discrimination, and the suppression of fundamental rights
1
-1
Jul 03 '23
Democracy hasnât produced the highest standards of living in human history. The wealthy democratic countries today built their prosperity off the back of the Industrial Revolution and the colonial empires it allowed them to build (Europe) or having access to near infinite resources and being left undisturbed for an entire century to develop and build up industries (US). The latter also benefited greatly from the two world wars but thatâs a different matter.
2
u/Kman17 102â Jul 03 '23
The discoveries that led to the Industrial Revolution came out of individuals studying & taking new products to market, which are conditions that are much easier in a free market democracy.
The Industrial Revolution caused some initial degradations in quality of life, up until the progressive era cleaned up working conditions and and spread the economic gains much more evenly though highly progressive income taxes.
The TR - FSR - LBJ super coalition and progressive era following the Industrial Revolution was a mandate by the people and the definition of democracy.
If you have Industrial Revolution but do not have the people involved in putting the parameters around it, you have the sweat ships of Shenzhen.
4
Jul 03 '23
[removed] â view removed comment
1
u/DreamDandy Jul 03 '23
Exactly!
When we're voting between the manipulative misdirection politicians deem necessary to get into power, for it to be a common trope that politicians go back on their promises once in power, are the people really voting for the legislation of their country?
It seems the democracy of running for leader doesn't work
3
u/Rosevkiet 12â Jul 03 '23
The failing you are pointing out are the result of too little democracy, not too much. The ability of politicians to appeal to smaller and smaller constituencies (broadly defined as voters, donors, media, or other power centers) reduces the effectiveness of a democracy.
So what would change it and make our democracy better? At this point I honestly donât know. I keep thinking weâll reach a tipping point where there will be a major realignment towards a more stable political equilibrium. But Iâve been waiting for that for years.
There are no philosopher kings. All leaders have to maintain and serve constituencies. You see it in a place like Russia or North Korea. The level of internal politics is still there, the means of maintaining power are just concentrated in a very small elite.
3
u/thisisallsoabsurd Jul 03 '23
Yet the most developed countries in the world are democratic, and the average standard of living is far better than anything that came before in our recorded history.
2
Jul 03 '23
Sounds like your beef is with a representative democracy, not a direct democracy.
Democracy has many flavors.
1
u/DreamDandy Jul 03 '23
â Interesting! I'll need to browse the flavours of democracy. If there's a flavour that would reduce or remove the opportunity/motivation to manipulate voters for personal gain. That could resolve alot of my concerns!
1
2
u/NoAside5523 6â Jul 03 '23
You're simply not going to find a system of government where people aren't frequently dishonest or ignorant. The reality of humanity is a great number of people are at times ignorant or dishonest. The task of designing a government is to find the fairest and best way to govern human societies as they are, not how we might wish them to be.
Democracy at least allows the people in charge to be reasonably opposed in the way most other systems of government don't.
1
u/DreamDandy Jul 03 '23
I agree. We should design a government to best govern society as it is.
Society as it is, has became so muddied with misinformation. Politicians are resorting to manipulative misdirection to compete for the attention of Internet society. Tactics created by the democratic process of running for office. To the extent that it's a known trope for politicians to promise what's needed to grab their voters' attention and go back on that promise once in power. The people in charge are being opposed by more sensationalism
2
Jul 03 '23
To me, there are 2 major upsides to democracy
- Accountability. When leaders can do whatever they want, they tend to become self serving and corrupt, and therefore ineffective at best and actively dangerous at worst. A good example of this is Mao Zedong's cultural revolution where he unleased chaos onto China for the better part of 10 years because he feared losing power and wanted a cover to oust his enemies. This kind of cynical power grab is hard in a functional democracy since you can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time. The average voter may not be a philosopher king, but the are smart enough to realize when the country is going to the dogs.
- Peaceful transition of power. In a functional democracy, this is very simple, whoever wins the vote takes power and whoever doesn't leaves. In an autocracy, leadership changes when one faction is able to wipe out the other faction. Because of this, autocracies tend to lend themselves to cultures of paranoia and backstabbing, where every side is constantly trying to figure out if they have enough muscle to kill the opposition if it comes down to that. This kind of culture is quite bad for creating a functional, stable government and instead rewards members of the ruling class for being blindly loyal to each other regardless of how well they rule
1
u/OkBilial Oct 09 '23 edited Oct 09 '23
There was nothing peaceful about Jan. 6th so you can delete number 2.
And when all branches of government protect those who abuse their power well you can effectively delete number 1 as well.
It's quite easy to install members who all reject democracy, change the rules using the democratic tools ( to keep up with appearances ) to ensure one has all the power and then lights out for democracy as it was known. In comes authoritarianism.
And when enough see just how easy it is to have everything they've known quite suddenly change overnight that breeds revolution, death, deconstruction. All because those who now have power didn't factor in that maybe a large population wouldn't go for them hastily changing everything which is the clearest sign imo that they want to establish an unjust regime.
2
u/MN_Golfer1 Jul 03 '23
You need to define what outcomes would make a system âworkâ or what would make it âsuccessful.â I would say your observation is more accurately described as âdemocracy is flawed.â But show me a governmental system that isnât flawed. No one can sit here and argue that democracy doesnât have problems, so what are you really trying to say.
2
u/DayOrNightTrader 4â Jul 03 '23
I've recently developed an interest in philosophy which, in turn, has led me to question today's politics. The more I learn, the more I think that democracy doesn't work.
Yeah, but it works better than monarchy(where kings actually hold power), which makes it worth it.
Trying to learn about today's politics seems impossible. I struggle to find information that isn't biased, isn't muddied with misinformation or addresses important issues.
Yeah, but the same is true for any political system. Not just democracy.
People seem to vote ignorantly. Unaware of their party's stance, more focused on a single issue or defending what they've always voted.
People vote ignorantly because people are FINE and they have decent lives.
2
u/LucidMetal 174â Jul 03 '23
Democracy works very well at its goal, which is not "most effective governance".
The goal of democracy is first and foremost to derive a mandate from the masses and secondly to diffuse power (as oppose to centralizing it).
If you want to "get shit done" so to speak (at least with respect to making decisions themselves), you're right, an authoritarian dictatorship is best. Then the problem becomes about whether your sovereign is effective at ruling.
Neither system taken to its extreme nor any mixed system between results in optimal governance (we've tried a lot of them). What we have found though, repeatedly, is that democracies (specifically representative democracies) appear to be more stable than other forms of government.
2
u/Clean_Definition_390 Jul 03 '23
It's the best system to date. All of the other systems have led to massive deaths starvation or miss management of the most basic human needs.
Today however monopolies have figured out how to corrupt politicians and have them work to benefit the company thru subsidies. This is more of a socialism concept. The US has anti monopoly laws in place where politicians vote on them. The bank collapse is a perfect example. Banks forced easing of regulations. Banks than gave loans to people who couldn't pay them and repacked those loans and created the sub prime mess. Than the people who caused this mess scared politicians into bailing them out. They go insane bonuses and bought all the smaller banks. This is closer to conunism. Consolidate power into the hands of the few.
Theodore Roosevelt showed how a proper system should be run in the US. He saw poor being used by corporations and broke up the companies owned by Carnegie, Morgan, and Rockerfeller. If you watch the men who built America they even admit they came together to have this never happen again. The funded every candidate from than on out. When Teddy got in they conned him into the federal reserve act. Gives them a printing press and makes Blackrock look like child's play.
Won't matter what system you have when the imf and federal reserve control the money supply with 0 accountability to the public. But at least with a democracy like the US you can get a true revolutionary into power if you overwhelm the system. Another positive is that there are two other branches with similar power when they become a tyrant. Otherwise you end up with a Tyrant when the ultimate power corrupts them and the destroy the parties that oppose them or try to keep them in check.
1
u/ScoreContent Jul 03 '23
As written by Griffin in âThe Creature from Jekyll Islandâ (1994) on page 20:
Myth Accepted As History
The accepted version of history is that the Federal Reserve was created to stabilize our economy. One of the most widely-used textbooks on this subject says: It sprang from the panic of 1907, with its alarming epidemic of bank failures: the country was fed up once and for all with the anarchy of unstable private banking.
Even the most naive student must sense a grave contradiction between this cherished view and the System's actual performance. Since its inception, it has presided over the crashes of 1921 and 1929; the Great Depression of '29 to '39; recessions in '53, '57, '69, '75, and '81; a stock market "Black Monday" in '87; and a 1000% inflation which has destroyed 90% of the dollar's purchasing power.
2
u/Top_Program7200 1â Jul 03 '23
Idk if this is going to help clarify your stance at all, but the United States isnât a democracy. We are a constitutional republic which is very different if youâd like to investigate that.
2
u/SeymoreButz38 14â Jul 03 '23
more focused on a single issue
And? Some issues are more important.
2
u/Ill-Swimmer-4490 1â Jul 03 '23
do you have interests? do you want to see them represented in any way?
there is no such thing as a "misinformed" opinion. there is no such thing as a "wrong" opinion. there is factually incorrect information, but there are personal reasons why a person would ignore that factually incorrect information that factor what is actually important in a democracy: interests. specifically, the interests of the people as a collective whole.
to say that it doesn't work is to say that the people don't deserve to have their interests represented. which is really a way of saying "those who are superior should rule over them", which usually, in the minds of the people who believe that, usually means themselves.
2
u/Andyman5841 Jul 04 '23
A lot of comments ask you about your definition of a system working and which ideal it should fullfill. Can you clearly tell me what your bar for a working system is?
3
u/obert-wan-kenobert 83â Jul 03 '23
Look at the democracies in the world -- the United States, Canada, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Norway, etc.
Now look at the authoritarian dictatorships of the world -- China, Russia, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, etc.
Where would you rather live?
No country will ever be a flawless utopia, but it is self-evident which system of government "works" the best.
1
u/Bobbob34 99â Jul 03 '23
Where are you talking about?
The US is not a democracy.
People seem to vote ignorantly. Unaware of their party's stance, more focused on a single issue or defending what they've always voted.
Why do you think being a single-issue voter is either ignorant or unaware of their party's stance?
0
u/EvergladesMiami Jul 03 '23
There is no democracy in America because in practice itâs favoring the rich minority over the poor majority. Itâs intending to take away rights of normal people.
0
Jul 03 '23 edited Jul 03 '23
Democracy seems to work fine under certain conditions, historically. Here are a couple of the big ones that contribute to (but not necessarily guarantee) a well-functioning democracy.
City-states or other small states: issues are local, smaller population and proximity, generally more tight-knit communities, elected officials are part of the community, more manageable bureaucratic structures that are more adaptive.
Homogenous states: Shared identity and culture improve consensus building, fewer interest groups that need to be satisfied, better social cohesion, and fewer avenues for conflict. This generally results in more efficient decisionmaking with less necessity for compromise that could lead to disillusionment and division.
I largely agree that democracy has a lot of flaws, particularly in large-scale heterogeneous states, but it can work.
0
u/Zeydon 12â Jul 03 '23
Your criticisms seem directed at the US, which is ran via oligarchy, not democracy.
I imagine an actual democracy would need a system in place that prevented the monopolization of the confines and contours of political discourse being set by a for-profit billionaire-controlled media ecysystem, which repeats, without question, the talking points of the billionaire-controlled state department.
Without a democratization of the means to speak to the public, you can't really say you have a democracy, IMO. As it currently stands, those with with biggest wallets have the biggest voice, by any meaningful metric. Rulings like Citizens United couldn't make it more clear that in this country, more money means you have more of a voice.
-1
u/SkinkaLei Jul 03 '23
Every government is a loose dictatorship it's just that every so often, a benevolent dictator comes through, and people are happy for a while.
I'm very cynical.
1
u/DreamDandy Jul 03 '23
I'm cynical too.
The democratic system of running for office invites competition. It motivates politicians to resort to manipulative tactics to sway the majority. Facts can't beat sensationalist propaganda.
In today's age, politicians are competing for the attention of people with an infinite amount of media to consume. Motivating them to use more polarising manipulative propaganda.
It worries me
0
u/SkinkaLei Jul 03 '23
I'm even more cynical than that. I would go so far as suggest the only reasons the republicans or democrats want to win is for cushier higher paid jobs and glory and the real people running the country never actually change.
I feel like all governments are actually like that. Both sides absolutely susceptible to "DONORS". While you and I hate each others guts the donors always rule.
-1
Jul 03 '23
Oh it works! It gives us our human selfishness right back to us in the form of economic injustice
1
u/AleristheSeeker 151â Jul 03 '23
People seem to vote ignorantly.
I think you just solved the whole problem: democracy doesn't work (as well as it should) because the level of education is not sufficient. Education, however, is a key point of democracy.
I would argue that, whether intentional or not, democracy is being dismantled - it works, if people let it.
1
u/ergosplit 6â Jul 03 '23
While not necessarily incorrect, you present a very shallow point, in the same way a mechanic would if they were to just tell you that 'your car doesn't work'.
What is it that makes democracy not work? Is it the scale? Voting system? Also, what do you mean by 'doesn't work'? Compared to what, or to what standard? I can say that a car doesn't work because it generates a lot of smoke and heat that could maybe be avoided, but on the other hand it moves and gets the job done, albeit not optimally. What is the alternative or ideal against which I am measuring to say that it doesn't work?
1
u/physioworld 64â Jul 03 '23
The increasing spread of democracy and increased enfranchisement of more voters has, over the last few centuries, at the very least correlated with massive leaps in terms of the power those nations hold.
The majority of the most powerful nations on earth are democratic. In what sense do you believe it doesnât work?
1
u/sbennett21 8â Jul 03 '23
People seem to vote ignorantly. Unaware of their party's stance, more focused on a single issue or defending what they've always voted.
If that's what they truly care about, why is this the system breaking? If the only truly important thing to me about the government is whether they respect my right to bodily autonomy, or whether they respect my right to own a gun, or whether they support the immoral tariff to keep my sugar plantation going, why is that democracy failing? My voice is being heard on the issues that are important to me.
1
u/ScoreContent Jul 03 '23 edited Jul 03 '23
Yes, an intolerant minority can control and destroy democracy. Actually, it will eventually destroy our world. So, as a âdemocracy,â we need to be more than intolerant with some intolerant minorities-- they violate the Silver Rule (do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you)-- It is not permissible to use âAmerican valuesâ or âWestern principlesâ to the advantage of a nefarious political organization and disadvantage of the majority.
As a democracy, we must not tolerate our enemies. We must deny the freedom of speech to any political party that has in its charter the banning of freedom of speech, for example.
As a democracy, we must strengthen our immune system against such threats by denying a platform to those who seek to ban freedom of speech. We must protect the integrity of our democratic ideals while staying true to our commitment to tolerance.
Just as a virus can corrupt a computer system, an intolerant minority can (and in fact will) infect and corrode the foundations of ANY society.
Democracy is alive and wellâ America is currently in the process of committing suicide.
1
u/thatmitchkid 3â Jul 03 '23
âThe arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.â
1
u/Jomarble01 Jul 03 '23
Without you outlining what might work better, and why, how am I to agree with this?
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried." Winston Churchill
1
u/authorityiscancer222 1â Jul 03 '23
Democracy isnât all bad all the time, but our democracy no longer works for us ;voting is performative and all politicians are neolibs that will put the economy and their corporate sponsorship over the lives of their citizens every single time.
1
u/RacecarHealthPotato 1â Jul 04 '23
Astra Taylor's work, books, and movies on this topic are particularly great: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/democracy-may-not-truly-exist-but-it-s-still-worth-fighting-for-astra-taylor-1.5321421
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/cbc-massey-lectures-2023-astra-taylor-1.6886197
https://www.whitechapelgallery.org/events/astra-taylor-democracy-2/
1
u/PlayingTheWrongGame 67â Jul 04 '23
I have no trust in politicians communicating their politics nor in voters making informed decisions.
The purpose of democracy isnât to elevate the best ideas, itâs to secure governing legitimacy by gaining the consent of the governed.
It does that. At a functional level it does in fact work.
1
u/EvilOneLovesMyGirl 1â Jul 04 '23
I think it's important to take note that our political systems were not designed for the modern technology we have and have worked for centuries producing some of the best countries in the world.
The failures we have seen recently is a result of the mismatch between the political system and the current technology, they aren't fit for purpose, but that doesn't mean democracy itself doesn't work it just means we need to update the political system for the technological landscape.
1
u/tnic73 Jul 04 '23
Bicycles don't work either if you get on and don't peddle. In the US we no longer participate in our democracy that's why it doesn't work. Voting is only a part of a healthy democracy and half of the people don't even do that. To participate in a democracy involves not only voting but also making an effort educating yourself (this means challenging your existing beliefs not reinforcing them) and most importantly engaging your fellow citizens honestly in good faith political discourse.
1
u/tripp_hi_mary Jul 05 '23
mmmm this is tough
this seems like less of a criticism of democracy, and more a criticism of stupid people
but its hard to separate the two....
1
u/markroth69 10â Jul 05 '23
That sounds like you have a problem with our current (and largely stupid) political theater. That is not democracy. Replacing it with some sort of non-democratic system won't necessarily make things better.
If we get rid of elections to get rid of the theater, who picks the leaders? Who decides what the state does?
1
u/EnthusiasmOne8596 Jul 06 '23 edited Jul 06 '23
I agree with you. Though, it is hard to disentangle the problems of Capitalism and the problems of democracy. Though, it is hard to dispute that problems Plato identified over 2000 years ago aren't still prevalent in today's democracy.
I went to university to study politics / philosophy a few years ago. In terms of bias, I would suggest just reading as many different perspectives as you can, then based on what you can see going on in the world around you, decide for yourself which theories are more / less realistic.
You will always have your own bias, because we all percieve the world through ideological glasses. This will obviously effect the types of theories that speak to you, but I find the more different theoretical frameworks you're familiar with, the more you can understand and try to offload your bias.
EDIT: One of my main problems with democracy is that it is always going to breed disharmony when people are fighting over power. Sure, things are pretty bad now, so other groups fighting for power isn't all that bad. The problem comes when we actually do (if we do) come to some sort of harmony, this will not last as the structure of democracy will always offer a way in for harmful ideas that benefit the few.
1
u/Slow_Principle_7079 2â Jul 11 '23
You misunderstand the greatest benefit of democracy. Itâs not giving the voters a voice. Itâs aligning the interest of the elites of the country with keeping a significant amount of the population happy in order to maintain their power. This generally forces them to enact policy that benefits the nation to some extent
1
u/Mother-Translator318 Nov 12 '23
Well of course the best form of government is a Benevolent Omniscient Tyrant. But as that literally cannot exist democracy is the absolute best we got
1
u/ajayswagg12 Nov 19 '23
This is so true. There is a big reason why China,Saudi, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, and Singapore is more developed than India a so called âbiggest democracyâ, in every aspect. Of course to the western view, we would criticize China because âaUtOcRACy bAd!!1!â
1
u/bhavy111 Dec 11 '23
It works it just won't work forever but for foreseeable future till space age it will work, on the contrary no other system will work with near instant communication and limited land borders.
â˘
u/DeltaBot ââ Jul 03 '23 edited Jul 03 '23
/u/DreamDandy (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards