Are Democracies robust or fragile systems of governance?

[Braznor]

Every change of guard in power is just another successful conspiracy, except in democracies where this process is transparent. Also democratic countries are stabler over the long term compared to more authoritarian forms of governments.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Belomgs in P&N.....

 

[Torn Mind]

The democracy part of the system is superficial compared to the judicial branch if we're talking about English derived democracies.

Indeed, the legal system that the democracy complements matters very much.

 

[Braznor]

Belomgs in P&N.....

Nooooooooooooooo.......

 

[nakedfrog]

I would say it can go either way.

 

[shortylickens]

the democratic SYSTEM is fine.

The problem is the people.

And make no mistake: The people will ALWAYS be a fuckin problem.

 

[Muse]

Potentially, democracies are more adaptive but the paths are often difficult. Non-democratic systems develop problems that are just killers.

 

[dullard]

Many countries in Africa tried democracy in the last half century. Many failed or are failing. I think in 2015 only half of the elections succeeded in actual power transfer to the winners. It is so bad that the running joke there is "One person, one vote, once in your life". Many votes just ended up in dictatorships.

The US democracy required a civil war. Looks like it is headed for another.

There just isn't much history of democracies lasting very long. So I voted that they are fragile.

 

[Captante]

EXTREMELY fragile based on observation.

 

[sandorski]

Poll needs at least one of these options I could vote for:

Yes
No
Maybe
Neither
Both
Depends

 

[Captante]

Poll needs at least one of these options I could vote for:

Yes
No
Maybe
Neither
Both
Depends

Nice... I'll be borrowing these!

Covers pretty much every possible poll topic on the forums!

 

[Torn Mind]

Many countries in Africa tried democracy in the last half century. Many failed or are failing. I think in 2015 only half of the elections succeeded in actual power transfer to the winners. It is so bad that the running joke there is "One person, one vote, once in your life". Many votes just ended up in dictatorships.

The US democracy required a civil war. Looks like it is headed for another.

There just isn't much history of democracies lasting very long. So I voted that they are fragile.

You need to be smoking something real good to think another civil war is going to happen in the US.

Mainly because state identity/pride is basically dead and the states themselves are way too bound to the Federal government's money now.

And then there's the degree of arms the federal military has....

 

[nakedfrog]

Nice... I'll be borrowing these!

Covers pretty much every possible poll topic on the forums!

Maybe, depends.

 

[nakedfrog]

You need to be smoking something real good to think another civil war is going to happen in the US.

Mainly because state identity/pride is basically dead and the states themselves are way too bound to the Federal government's money now.

And then there's the degree of arms the federal military has....

I don't know if you've been paying enough attention.

 

[Captante]

I don't know if you've been paying enough attention.

I do.... he has not.

 

[Torn Mind]

I don't know if you've been paying enough attention.

The Civil War was a formal affair of a large swath of governments and politicians themselves going to war and forming their own government, not just a bunch of vigilante lunatics from the private sector. So called red states lack population and economic might(fly by states in the Midwest), actually have a significant amount of division(turning purple), or in the case of Texas and Florida, even love the fact that businesses or old people get drawn in by tax breaks, all which would be lost if a nouveau sovereignty is established.

You are obviously swept by the messaging of the media but do not realize the logistics do not favor the lunatic vigilantes. For, even prior to the federal military getting involved, the states' executive and his little militias can intervene in war-proper decides to take hold. And below them, there's law enforcement.

 

[nakedfrog]

The Civil War was a formal affair of a large swath of governments and politicians themselves going to war and forming their own government, not just a bunch of vigilante lunatics from the private sector. So called red states lack population and economic might(fly by states in the Midwest), actually have a significant amount of division(turning purple), or in the case of Texas and Florida, even love the fact that businesses or old people get drawn in by tax breaks, all which would be lost if a nouveau sovereignty is established.

You are obviously swept by the messaging of the media but do not realize the logistics do not favor the lunatic vigilantes. For, even prior to the federal military getting involved, the states' executive and his little militias can intervene in war-proper decides to take hold. And below them, there's law enforcement.

I think I possess a greater capacity for critical thought than you credit me for, and you perhaps credit your own capacity too much.

 

[Torn Mind]

I do.... he has not.

Media reports are the most superficial, non-contextual, non-education presentations of facts known to man. The Facts are legitimate, but any background is up to the reader to acquire.

Here's some questions:
Do they have air power?
Do they have executive support in their local states?
Do they have legislative support?
Do their local military back their causes.
Do they have control or can take control of supply lines like rail, trucking companies, etc?

Don't go yapping about a war when the people don't have the means to engage successfully in the modern day.

 

[dullard]

You need to be smoking something real good to think another civil war is going to happen in the US.

Mainly because state identity/pride is basically dead and the states themselves are way too bound to the Federal government's money now.

And then there's the degree of arms the federal military has....

It's be thrilled if nothing is going to happen. You might want to tell that to the 40% of America that currently thinks violence against the government is ok just to get what you want. Or tell it to the militias that have massive stockpiles of weapons and ammo.

I agree with you that their weapons will be pretty useless against the arms of the federal military. But that just decides the outcome of any civil war--not whether or not we have one.

 

[Torn Mind]

I think I possess a greater capacity for critical thought than you credit me for, and you perhaps credit your own capacity too much.

Non-responsive response by you. I have tried to bring up some considerable logstical matters that you are obscure.

Since you have been paying attention, you can provide some of the salient articles in which war is imminent.

 

[Muse]

There just isn't much history of democracies lasting very long. So I voted that they are fragile.

I believe it's the Greeks who invented it and the example has shown brightly for 2 millennia. They are credited for giving birth to the glories of human intelligence. Democracy is one important facet of this.

Uh, I did not vote in this poll.

 

[dullard]

I believe it's the Greeks who invented it and the example has shown brightly for 2 millennia. They are credited for giving birth to the glories of human intelligence. Democracy is one important facet of this.

Uh, I did not vote in this poll.

Their first democracy failed after 2 centuries, not 2 millennia. It was followed by decades of the Peisistratids Tyranny.

 

[Captante]

Don't go yapping about a war when the people don't have the means to engage successfully in the modern day.

You do the bolded a LOT actually and most of the time you're WAY off base.



What you fail to take into account (and omission is usually your issue) is that large portions of the Federal government WILL "pick a side" and the same can be said for the military.

Having said that, I sincerely hope you are correct about the odds but I 100% wouldn't bet on it. (lol)

 

[Torn Mind]

It's be thrilled if nothing is going to happen. You might want to tell that to the 40% of America that currently thinks violence against the government is ok just to get what you want. Or tell it to the militias that have massive stockpiles of weapons and ammo.

I agree with you that their weapons will be pretty useless against the arms of the federal military. But that just decides the outcome of any civil war--not whether or not we have one.

That's not the same as saying war will occur. Violence against government isn't the same as war. Nor is it an certain eventuality("Looks like it is headed for another [war]"). You are blending two concepts into one because you're emotionally sensitive to the matter.

Do you think it is ever justified for citizens to take violent action against the government, or is it never justified?

That's the questioned asked. The poll was national sample. I would assume it's representative of the whole country, not the select subset. There's matter of respondent's psychology when it comes to answering questions about violence. Some actually don't grasp that the totality of facts did involve violence in a cause/act they support, they think violence is only against persons and not property, or there's just an internalized social taboo against "supporting violence". Perhaps storming a police station is justified and feels good. The respondent may answer that violence in never justified because the the violence isn't interpret as violence by the respondent.
But this question did not ask about war proper, because war is just an isolated bit of vandalism or infliction of harm or death of some government officials; it's a greater collection of action that usually involves taking sovereignty and material(not merely symbolic) control, not just causing harm.

Violence against government is terrorism or vigilante justice at worse and if cause is not justified. It is Civil disobedience at best depending on the cause backing the violence, because violence against cops is violence against the government.
Can 1 million of the them actually:
1. Get together
2. coordinate a proper attack with strategy
3. not get divided with internal affairs and dissent
4. Then actuall occupy any meaningful city

 

[nakedfrog]

Non-responsive response by you. I have tried to bring up some considerable logstical matters that you are obscure.

Since you have been paying attention, you can provide some of the salient articles in which war is imminent.

Perhaps I would, if you had in the past indicated an openness to having your ideas changed, but that doesn't generally seem to have been the case