There are several forms of democracy , what form is the best one ? Representative Parliamentary democracy Liberal democracy Direct Democracy Socialist Democracy Anarchist Democracy Iroquois Democracy Sortition Consensus democracy Interactive Democracy I took those forms from Wiki
I would say parliamentary democracy allows for better checks and counter checks and also balance of powers.
I don't like democracy. I used to be like most people, accepting that democracy was the ideal political system, because, well, uhm that is what everyone thinks. But if you start looking into democracy, and other forms of government like feudalism, anarchy etc, you realize that democracy is only different, not necessarily better. In many systems, the representatives fail to check themselves or to represent their constituencies. In others, 50%+1 vote holds mob control power. The best form of government is self-government IMO.
I agree, for the same reason. Unless it devolves to a mess (like postwar Italy and its increasingly "centrifugal" politics), the coalition building - and accountability of executives - endemic to parliamentary democracy works pretty well, by my book. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=7225042&postcount=206
That is a superb point. Sometimes, as in the case of us Brits someone like the terrorist and Bush lapdog Tony Blair can get in with 30% of the country voting for him. I do not call that a democracy at all.
That's a parliamentary democracy. The same sort of government we install when we take over a country like Iraq or Afghanistan. I figure that is because it is easy to control a multi-party system where as often as not, you have a minority government. There are some people on this forum who think that political compromise is progress, but in the case of the UK and the last year of a Democrat congress with a Republican President, it's business as usual because as Ron Paul says, One side wants welfare, one side wants warfare, so they compromise and do both.
Actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but the country didn't vote for Blair at all - in fact, the "country" never votes for the PM. The country votes for MP's, and the leader of the largest party, or the party leading the governing coalition, becomes PM, by party election. This is correct, yeah? No system is perfect, of course. The endemic requirement in Westminster parliamentary systems that the executive is subject to parliament's support is a tremendous boon, it seems to me, in terms of checks and balances. I agree with Wisdomtool here. Extraordinary to me that the PM/Executive is subject, at any time, to a vote of no confidence and his or her necessary resignation, or call for new elections. Guerilla regularly attempts to malign my view that compromise can be a virtue. In terms of this, in part, please refer above, to post #6, which contains a discussion of "centrifugal" competition and "boring" politics. On an individual level, at the heart of all human interaction in society, necessary in all relationship, is compromise. We are selves living among selves, and no one gets entirely what one wants. As I have said before, Against this, in Guerilla's world, there is no compromise, but then, I'd say, such a world doesn't really exist, unless one lives utterly alone and apart from the world of all others, a utopian, hermitic reclusion. Regardless, this would be a private choice, and is not a way to organize society, "a political theory for organizing civilized society," as the concept is being attempted in another thread. His apparent view is that a stateless society is best ("I don't like democracy....The best form of government is self-government"), and although he is free, of course, to think this, and he is free to jettison compromise, living alone and apart from all others, I cannot agree this is optimal for humanity.
Political compromise is different than voluntarism. We make concessions for things of greater perceived value all of the time. We might budge on something we're really stuck on, if we see a higher value in doing so. But our politicians have taken compromise to a level that is unimaginable in the wild. What they do is trade the equivalent of their children's future meals for votes. Votes which equal money and power. There was a time when generally every man knew you couldn't trust politicians, lawyers or banks. Now we make politicians rock stars. We worship them like they are working class heroes, like we aspire to be. It's sad. It's an interesting technique, to paint me at one extreme, when it's not about me. In fact, it's about our politicians. But rather than address their specific compromises, and the consequences, legitimacy of that, we'll frame everything around the poster. While tired, I almost fall for it, over and over again. I can compromise for me. I can't compromise on behalf of you. That is the difference. When politicians make backroom deals, and compromises, they aren't looking out for kids, or helping the elderly. They are covering their own asses and trying to turn a profit through corruption. So when you tell me that an Obama is going to compromise our way to happiness, I'm reminded of that Congressional phrase, "Get along so we can go along". Meaning, just vote with the pack, and we'll all make out alright. You avoid meaningful discussion of your candidate, while feeling free to attack mine. You say Paul is too principled, too stout to compromise (this used to be considered an indicator of high moral fiber and character) to accomplish anything. To which I respond, if the result is debt, a police state through shrinking civil liberties, and senseless war, why would any person with character compromise on that? And the challenge I have found most effective to issue is, find me votes from Paul you disagree with. And not the mindless "Didn't vote along with Israel" or "Wouldn't give a medal to the Pope". I mean real, nuts and bolts policy votes. Find me the ones where his rigidity came down on the side of wrong. Because voting alone, if he is voting for what is right, is the most courageous thing he could do. And in this regard, the Obamas are just like the Clintons and McCains. The Giulianis and the Joe Bidens. They "get along so they can go along", and damn the consequences or rationale. A problem you seem to have, is that if the government is not big, it is stateless. It's an obsession with size, the typical bigger is better mentality. Self government doesn't equal the jettison of compromise. This is just more linguistic word games from you, an intentional technique to dumb the conversation down to a personal level, and then to avoid any meaningful discourse. You do it in thread after thread. I don't like democracy for the same reasons you have shouted over in other threads. It's a form of mob rule. If the mob says blacks can't vote, blacks can't vote. If the mob says gay marriage is not marriage, then it is not. Black's didn't change between being not able to and able to vote, the mob did. When you don't have hard and fast rights, and you don't observe the law, and you arbitrarily allow the mob mentality to dictate was is moral and what is not, you live in a tyranny. Either one in full bloom, or one waiting to happen.
Guerilla, quite honestly, in a word, whatever. These are your words, in thread after thread, and they are mine, for all to see. Thread after thread, point after point, the inconsistencies and distortions of your views are clearly pointed up, and simply running at some point is your metier, it seems to me; or, resorting to further distortions and/or personal attacks in lieu of making a substantive point. Examples of your personal attacks should be known, by now - some variant on: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=788205&highlight=nutjob&page=9 Examples of your distortions or outright misstatements are everywhere. I'll pick one out of the hat, from your last post: On me "dodging" meaningful discussion on Obama, Guerilla just doesn't read, apparently. A small (very small) sampling, from one thread alone: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=7177692&postcount=10 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=774037&page=2 On "attacking" Ron Paul, a typical gross distortion of the truth. Only the last comment on Guerilla's candidate - and I've never said otherwise: In other words, name the thread, more of the same, in my experience. People may, and do, judge for themselves the relative merits, and if any wish to see what I'm talking about, please let me know, I'd be glad to direct you to appropriate discussions. Quite honestly, it just seems to me Guerilla can't bring himself to admit his errors, and in my experience, they are legion, as shown quite definitively on the many issues I've witnessed over the last stretch of time. Thankfully, not my problem.
It depend on the leadership and leadership alone. If they are corrupt then it dosent matter if its a democracy, dictatorship or any other kind of system. Public will suffer.
Whatever indeed. It seems quite clear to me, that you are rarely willing to defend your positions on substance and principle, resorting consistently to Ad Hominem and strawmen. Democracy is a good system and Obama is a good candidate for you. Vacuous rhetoric and mob rule for the philosophically bankrupt.
Uh, yes, to be sure. No misstatement here again, folks. I mean, my god - it's just clear as day, I'm a guy who personally attacks and avoids substance, while Guerilla stays on substance, and doesn't resort to insults, misstatements, distortions, as shown in post #11. And anywhere else, actually, here, here, only the latest examples. Please.
Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. Winston Churchill
a greek philosopher said about 3000 years ago about democracy: "the best way to silence a wise man is to give voice to many idiots" fact is the most successful businesses in the world have nothing to do with democracy there is 1 CEO and his word is final... the best system would be capitalism for the citizens and dictatorship for the politicians...this means the politicians should live in fear or their population because different laws apply to them and different standards...if the dont like it they can take a hike and stay the hell out of politics... democracy is our own fault and we have only ourselves to blame...
Athenian (except for the slaves) - Democracy was invented for each person to have a vote in the general assembly - in Athens this was possible because there were only about 10,000 citizens, who also had the responsibility as citizen soldiers, etc. They didn't delegate their vote to a "representative" - which is where democracy today fails. Why democracy was so successful in Athens is that it operated in just a city state level - a personal level. Should be build a new temple or invest in a navy, etc - you had a definite personal interest. Should we vote to go to war - seeing you would be the soldier risking your own life and not some one else's - going to war was something you definitely wanted a personal say about. Problem today Athenian democracy is impossible because we are just simply to big - maybe we all need to live in towns of 10,000 people to have real democracy.
As for the success of capitalism and how "democracy" continues to screw over the plebs I recommend you read Robert Kiyosaki's new blog
Each country and its people will have their own democracy based on history, on people, their actions, etc., there cant be just one type of democracy to head for, it wont work everywhere the same way.