Democracy

[Praxis1452]

Is not the entire foundation of democracy the idea that people, given equal representation through the vote, will vote people into office people that will enact legislation in their favor, and that through this competition the good of all will be served?

If you disagree please state your version of what the basis of democracy is and how it works toward that end.

A fundamental assumption is that voters will vote rationally, and that the results of these votes will produce policies that benefit the majority. Often, free market capitalists will come under attack for assuming that people are "homo economicus" or rational. If economists are overly optimistic about the rationality of the consumer, isn't it quite possible that most people are overly optimistic about the rationality of the voter?

-Odd side note: If you type in "the myth of the rational" into google, the first is "market" and the second is "voter".

If this is true, does this strike a blow at the heart of democracy?

In terms of works supporting this viewpoint is a work by Bryan Caplan called "The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies"

In terms of opposing works, are there any with an economic analysis, and not just something derived from idealism?

I bring this up as a discussion topic and so I should state my personal opinion: That democracy is fundamentally flawed for this, and numerous other reasons.

 

[sandorski]

Rationality is only as good as the Education of those using it. If the People are taught wrong/stupid Ideas, all the Rationality in the World will still conclude more wrong/stupid Ideas.

 

[cubby1223]

To quote Winston Churchill "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

Originally posted by: sandorski
If the People are taught wrong/stupid Ideas

I blame the liberal education system for this

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
If this is true, does this strike a blow at the heart of democracy?

In terms of works supporting this viewpoint is a work by Bryan Caplan called "The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies"

In terms of opposing works, are there any with an economic analysis, and just something derived from idealism?

I bring this up as a discussion topic and so I should state my personal opinion: That democracy is fundamentally flawed for this, and numerous other reasons.

This is where I wonder if Christianity is a necessity in Democracy, as a last safeguard to keeping elected officials in check.

Eh, the founding fathers divided up power enough that while we make mistakes in the short term, we should be able to get it right in the long term.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
To quote Winston Churchill "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

Originally posted by: sandorski
If the People are taught wrong/stupid Ideas

I blame the liberal education system for this

So basically, democracy isn't really good for very much.

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
If this is true, does this strike a blow at the heart of democracy?

In terms of works supporting this viewpoint is a work by Bryan Caplan called "The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies"

In terms of opposing works, are there any with an economic analysis, and just something derived from idealism?

I bring this up as a discussion topic and so I should state my personal opinion: That democracy is fundamentally flawed for this, and numerous other reasons.

This is where I wonder if Christianity is a necessity in Democracy, as a last safeguard to keeping elected officials in check.

Eh, the founding fathers divided up power enough that while we make mistakes in the short term, we should be able to get it right in the long term.

How does the division of power, counter the idea the voters do not vote rationally, that they do not vote in a productive way.

Oh, and people have done far worse in the name of religion than need be listed. Christianity is no safeguard.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
Is not the entire foundation of democracy the idea that people, given equal representation through the vote, will vote people into office people that will enact legislation in their favor, and that through this competition the good of all will be served?

If you disagree please state your version of what the basis of democracy is and how it works toward that end.

A fundamental assumption is that voters will vote rationally, and that the results of these votes will produce policies that benefit the majority. Often, free market capitalists will come under attack for assuming that people are "homo economicus" or rational. If economists are overly optimistic about the rationality of the consumer, isn't it quite possible that most people are overly optimistic about the rationality of the voter?

-Odd side note: If you type in "the myth of the rational" into google, the first is "market" and the second is "voter".

If this is true, does this strike a blow at the heart of democracy?

In terms of works supporting this viewpoint is a work by Bryan Caplan called "The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies"

In terms of opposing works, are there any with an economic analysis, and just something derived from idealism?

I bring this up as a discussion topic and so I should state my personal opinion: That democracy is fundamentally flawed for this, and numerous other reasons.

You're right that Democracy is very flawed, but wrong to conclude getting rid of it would be an improvement.

Just the fact democracy is in place, even if it's highly corrupt, creates pressures to have limits on the abuse of power that are absent without democracy - and democracy holds the promise for the people to have the power to improve things short of armed revolutions that are insanely impractical today and really went out of fashion around the turn of the 19thy century in France, just after ours.

We're at a sad point when many citizens are not only ignorant and uninvolved but often willfully so, willing victims of paid propaganda.

Like the appendix, people who don't exercise the muscle of democracy won't appreciate its value and it'll be discardable, all too willing to give it up it for some shiny beads.

People need to appreciate the benefits democracy brings despite its flaws, and protect it. Ideally they'll do more for it, but that's a long shot.

FYI, the first book I know of that made a solid analysis of the flaws in democracy you seem to be raising, was Walter Lippman's "Public Opinion" - from 1922, relevant today.

I'd suggest you give it a look.

 

[Painman]

My dad always liked to say that cops and politicians should be drawn by public lottery, and serve non-renewable 2 year terms.

I like to think of my Dad as a pretty smart guy.

 

[Dissipate]

It is very easy to disprove the idea of democracy. Democracy utterly fails to answer this question: who is accountable? If politicians enact disastrous legislation that causes financial ruin of millions, who is to blame? Easy example: the 'national' debt. Who owes it and who was responsible for racking it up? The politicians? Nope. The people? Perhaps, but which people? Well, we don't know because voting is anonymous. Even if we did know, each person's vote is so statistically insignificant that it would be insane to hold any one person accountable for a particular politician getting into office.

The *best* I have heard people say is that bad politicians can be voted out of office. As if that is such a *terrible* consequence. Look at Vietnam & the war in Iraq. Thousands dead and billions wasted with little accomplished. All that happens is the politicians get voted out? Sounds like a sweet deal to be a politician. If I went to work and did something to cause my company to go to bankrupt with a number of employees being killed to boot, I would not just lose my job.

I laugh at people who get up in arms about wasted taxpayer dollars. They live under some insane delusion that the politicians care about their insignificant protest. Forking over a huge sum of your income to anyone with the expectation that they will do something desirable with your money is quite crazy. That's why business works and politics is crap. In a business there are no expectations about what people spend their money on after they get it. I go to a Starbuck's, slap $5 on the counter for a cup of Coffee, walk out and couldn't give a damn about how Starbuck's spends that $5. They control the money now and not me, and for me to even worry about what that $5 will be spent on would be considered rather insane on my part. All I know though is that I don't control that $5 any more, so I go about my day. Same thing at work: I get a paycheck and my boss doesn't care if I blow every dollar on a trip to a casino.

Another test that democracy fails is the compared to what? test. Politicians in office are by definition insulated from competition in their job after they get into office. In order to get into office they only have to get enough votes to beat out a select number of other candidates, a test unrelated to actual job performance in most cases. After they are in office there is no one else to compare their job performance to (or relatively few others). If I proclaim that a politician is great, the question is he is great compared to what? Politicians in the past? Politicians in the future? Politicians that could have in theory taken his place and done worse? For instance, if I proclaim FDR is great, how can I answer the question: compared to what? Just repeat the questions above.

In theory under a condition of free market competition of competing firms, if a firm is proclaimed to be the best the question of 'compared to what?' is easy to answer: the number of firms that went out of business trying to provide a similar product within a very similar business environment.

Democracy fails a number of common sense tests, these are just a few examples. In reality, democracy is a faith based system, just like religion. It is based on a theory of Platonic ideals that are theoretically and realistically impossible to achieve.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Painman
My dad always liked to say that cops and politicians should be drawn by public lottery, and serve non-renewable 2 year terms.

I like to think of my Dad as a pretty smart guy.

No disrespect to your father, I think it's wrong on this. While he's trying to gain the 'innocence' of the random selection and term limits, he loses more than he gians.

This would result in terrible harms of at least two sorts - possibly more:

- Decrease in competence. Go stand in line at DMV, pick a randome person, and ask if you want them making decisions for your district. No. Also the lack of experience built up.

- Transfer of power to the bureacracy. A legislature of amateurs is necessarily far more reliant on the permanent bureaucrats, who wil not necessarily be good for the public.

Really, it's one of those ideas you should come to understand is horrible despite the appeal for the one fix it has. Instead, deal with the problems like money in the system.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
If this is true, does this strike a blow at the heart of democracy?

In terms of works supporting this viewpoint is a work by Bryan Caplan called "The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies"

In terms of opposing works, are there any with an economic analysis, and just something derived from idealism?

I bring this up as a discussion topic and so I should state my personal opinion: That democracy is fundamentally flawed for this, and numerous other reasons.

This is where I wonder if Christianity is a necessity in Democracy, as a last safeguard to keeping elected officials in check.

Eh, the founding fathers divided up power enough that while we make mistakes in the short term, we should be able to get it right in the long term.

*pukes until he dies*

 

[Painman]

There is no such thing as individual sovereignty. No true right to privacy, under a private system, given today's set of rules.

There are countless employers that test your piss, test your hair, in order to make sure that whatever you do on your time, won't interfere with whatever you do on their time.

Therefore, your "private" time is not so. Every moment of your life is company time. They are free to monitor you, the levels of chemicals in your body, the # of dependents in your family, every single thing. Where you shop. What you buy.

A Miller Brewing Co. employee is on record as having been terminated for drinking a Bud Light on his own time.

Is that Freedom?

 

[Ausm]

For the GOP lunatic fringe voice their opinions and for people with a brain to call them out.

 

[Painman]

Originally posted by: Painman
Is that Freedom?

It's FreeDumb!

"OMFG Teh Obamunist wants to take away my FreeDumb!

Ahh, Please, Huge Corporate Entity that's engulfed every job in my podunk region of the country and shipped it off to Bangalore, Protect my FreeDumb! I Voted Republican like you wanted me to... 'Cos Teh Obamunist is gonna come take my gun away! then I won't be Sovrun no more!

And... OMFG... He wants to put the GuvMint in charge of my doctor!

...Wait... Who's my doctor? Haven't seen one of them since I got that molar pulled out 10 years ago... Wait, that was a dentist... Nevermind.

OMFG OBAMUNIST!!

 

[Painman]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Painman
My dad always liked to say that cops and politicians should be drawn by public lottery, and serve non-renewable 2 year terms.

I like to think of my Dad as a pretty smart guy.

No disrespect to your father, I think it's wrong on this. While he's trying to gain the 'innocence' of the random selection and term limits, he loses more than he gians.

This would result in terrible harms of at least two sorts - possibly more:

- Decrease in competence. Go stand in line at DMV, pick a randome person, and ask if you want them making decisions for your district. No. Also the lack of experience built up.

- Transfer of power to the bureacracy. A legislature of amateurs is necessarily far more reliant on the permanent bureaucrats, who wil not necessarily be good for the public.

Really, it's one of those ideas you should come to understand is horrible despite the appeal for the one fix it has. Instead, deal with the problems like money in the system.

Sorry, I missed this post.

But please, tell me, and us, how you would defeat the $ in the system.

It's easy to say, "idea x will fail".

What is Idea Y? there's the rub.

I like you Craig. But, C'mon now.

 

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
It is very easy to disprove the idea of democracy. Democracy utterly fails to answer this question: who is accountable? If politicians enact disastrous legislation that causes financial ruin of millions, who is to blame? Easy example: the 'national' debt. Who owes it and who was responsible for racking it up? The politicians? Nope. The people? Perhaps, but which people? Well, we don't know because voting is anonymous. Even if we did know, each person's vote is so statistically insignificant that it would be insane to hold any one person accountable for a particular politician getting into office.

The *best* I have heard people say is that bad politicians can be voted out of office. As if that is such a *terrible* consequence. Look at Vietnam & the war in Iraq. Thousands dead and billions wasted with little accomplished. All that happens is the politicians get voted out? Sounds like a sweet deal to be a politician. If I went to work and did something to cause my company to go to bankrupt with a number of employees being killed to boot, I would not just lose my job.

I laugh at people who get up in arms about wasted taxpayer dollars. They live under some insane delusion that the politicians care about their insignificant protest. Forking over a huge sum of your income to anyone with the expectation that they will do something desirable with your money is quite crazy. That's why business works and politics is crap. In a business there are no expectations about what people spend their money on after they get it. I go to a Starbuck's, slap $5 on the counter for a cup of Coffee, walk out and couldn't give a damn about how Starbuck's spends that $5. They control the money now and not me, and for me to even worry about what that $5 will be spent on would be considered rather insane on my part. All I know though is that I don't control that $5 any more, so I go about my day. Same thing at work: I get a paycheck and my boss doesn't care if I blow every dollar on a trip to a casino.

Another test that democracy fails is the compared to what? test. Politicians in office are by definition insulated from competition in their job after they get into office. In order to get into office they only have to get enough votes to beat out a select number of other candidates, a test unrelated to actual job performance in most cases. After they are in office there is no one else to compare their job performance to (or relatively few others). If I proclaim that a politician is great, the question is he is great compared to what? Politicians in the past? Politicians in the future? Politicians that could have in theory taken his place and done worse? For instance, if I proclaim FDR is great, how can I answer the question: compared to what? Just repeat the questions above.

In theory under a condition of free market competition of competing firms, if a firm is proclaimed to be the best the question of 'compared to what?' is easy to answer: the number of firms that went out of business trying to provide a similar product within a very similar business environment.

Democracy fails a number of common sense tests, these are just a few examples. In reality, democracy is a faith based system, just like religion. It is based on a theory of Platonic ideals that are theoretically and realistically impossible to achieve.

Corporatistic hogwash!
compared to what?
other countries of the same day and age!
Humanity is faith based and we are in reality a reflection of one another, It would be a shit life living by yourself. Faith needs to be backed up with action, you harp on negatively about anyone and they have less chance of succeeding then if you give them positive encouragement- so yes faith in the system is vital, but you need transparency at its base.
The real problem for most modern democracies is the way politics is fund and the lack of professional diversity, its a hurdle not dead end. I would rather be born where I am, then Mogadishu!
compare that idea!
Now its time to set presidence and lead the world out of the strangle hold the legal and financial industry currently have- democracy is fine! its full blown capitalist democracy which ends in a quagmire of covert corruptions which trickle down the society, just like the money!
Capital has its place it can be a good "social referee" as long as the majority of people still have enough power to regulate self-interested minorities. Intent is the greatest part of justice, if the system gets manipulated too much by theoretical based professions like law and fiance, that's when your ship will run aground. Politics should have three fundamental components -Ideals, science and social welfare at it's heart.
Serious social policies need to be formulated to regulate power distribution and capital holdings in the new technological age, the tools currently being used for self interest can work the good of the majority in any 1st world society. The 1st step is to start use plain english language to show up the verbal filibustering of self-interest.
People do learn, and cynistic, apathy based silence isn't the way forward.
People will get emotive as they learn more.
Vote with your dollar using your common sense, "think" that military power isn't the ultimate defense, it's the final line of defense. Offense was never the best defense, through out history this is proven fact.
The supreme court action in Italy against the law made for presidential political immunity is a good thing to hear in the last few days.
Accountability should be beholding to every entity in any society! man, woman and corporation!
......cooperation.
Rant over....for now.... ;-P
One way forward is to legislate free and equal air time to any political running candidate on all tv media outlets public or private- civil duty!
To regulate any corporate monopolies if a market is too small for many corporate players let local government decide who can and can't and the issues will clear up with a transparent future. All minutes of the council should be public- on a website updated as soon as practically possible-like the same or the next day, no excuses!
Any political information should be publicly accessible immediately.
Freedom of speech, amended to also include, freedom to know all the facts!
Have a blitz on political corruption and give no quarters, only the whole measure.

 

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Painman
My dad always liked to say that cops and politicians should be drawn by public lottery, and serve non-renewable 2 year terms.

I like to think of my Dad as a pretty smart guy.

No disrespect to your father, I think it's wrong on this. While he's trying to gain the 'innocence' of the random selection and term limits, he loses more than he gians.

This would result in terrible harms of at least two sorts - possibly more:

- Decrease in competence. Go stand in line at DMV, pick a randome person, and ask if you want them making decisions for your district. No. Also the lack of experience built up.

- Transfer of power to the bureacracy. A legislature of amateurs is necessarily far more reliant on the permanent bureaucrats, who wil not necessarily be good for the public.

Really, it's one of those ideas you should come to understand is horrible despite the appeal for the one fix it has. Instead, deal with the problems like money in the system.

The boy prince figurative speaking, too easy puppeted by the "veteran bureaucrat".
That's horse shit too, we *me and moonbeam!* don't agree, lol
what kind of talents does a pro-bureaucrat have and whats their life experience, in the real world, like a phd-ed nurse who never wiped an ass!
The language needs to be simple and concise, not using ambiguous phasing and worded laws to skirt around or provide cover to the intent whats behind the words!
Craig, what do you do professionally?
If you don't mind me askin'

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Painman

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Painman
My dad always liked to say that cops and politicians should be drawn by public lottery, and serve non-renewable 2 year terms.

I like to think of my Dad as a pretty smart guy.

No disrespect to your father, I think it's wrong on this. While he's trying to gain the 'innocence' of the random selection and term limits, he loses more than he gians.

This would result in terrible harms of at least two sorts - possibly more:

- Decrease in competence. Go stand in line at DMV, pick a randome person, and ask if you want them making decisions for your district. No. Also the lack of experience built up.

- Transfer of power to the bureacracy. A legislature of amateurs is necessarily far more reliant on the permanent bureaucrats, who wil not necessarily be good for the public.

Really, it's one of those ideas you should come to understand is horrible despite the appeal for the one fix it has. Instead, deal with the problems like money in the system.

Sorry, I missed this post.

But please, tell me, and us, how you would defeat the $ in the system.

It's easy to say, "idea x will fail".

What is Idea Y? there's the rub.

I like you Craig. But, C'mon now.

Well, thanks; the plan to get rid of the money in the system has two parts. The most direct is simply legislation to ban the private money and move to public financing.

Organizations like Common Cause have detailed plans.

The speed bump is the SUpreme Court's mistaken rulings about corproations being 'legal persons' with the rights of persons to 'free speech'.

That needs to be addressed - with a constitutional amendment if necessary.

If that sounds hard, an amendment would be needed for 'plan x' too. You can't change how the federal politicians are elected without one.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Painman
There is no such thing as individual sovereignty. No true right to privacy, under a private system, given today's set of rules.

There are countless employers that test your piss, test your hair, in order to make sure that whatever you do on your time, won't interfere with whatever you do on their time.

Therefore, your "private" time is not so. Every moment of your life is company time. They are free to monitor you, the levels of chemicals in your body, the # of dependents in your family, every single thing. Where you shop. What you buy.

A Miller Brewing Co. employee is on record as having been terminated for drinking a Bud Light on his own time.

Is that Freedom?

'At will' employment allows for that. To change it would prettymuch require a union.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Painman
There is no such thing as individual sovereignty. No true right to privacy, under a private system, given today's set of rules.

There are countless employers that test your piss, test your hair, in order to make sure that whatever you do on your time, won't interfere with whatever you do on their time.

Therefore, your "private" time is not so. Every moment of your life is company time. They are free to monitor you, the levels of chemicals in your body, the # of dependents in your family, every single thing. Where you shop. What you buy.

A Miller Brewing Co. employee is on record as having been terminated for drinking a Bud Light on his own time.

Is that Freedom?

There can be no absolute freedom in a society. Being a part of society means you must give up some of your freedoms.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
To quote Winston Churchill "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

Originally posted by: sandorski
If the People are taught wrong/stupid Ideas

I blame the liberal education system for this :D;

Of course you do. Education is, unfortunately, not limited to School.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
To quote Winston Churchill "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

/thread

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: cubby1223
To quote Winston Churchill "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

/thread

No, there are much better and much worse democracies. If blacks and women couldn't vote and someone posted about it, would you just post the Churchill quote and /thread?

If our democracy had a lot of the reforms that have made it better removed - the legislature and executive were even more owned by big business - is that ok?

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Painman
There is no such thing as individual sovereignty. No true right to privacy, under a private system, given today's set of rules.

There are countless employers that test your piss, test your hair, in order to make sure that whatever you do on your time, won't interfere with whatever you do on their time.

Therefore, your "private" time is not so. Every moment of your life is company time. They are free to monitor you, the levels of chemicals in your body, the # of dependents in your family, every single thing. Where you shop. What you buy.

A Miller Brewing Co. employee is on record as having been terminated for drinking a Bud Light on his own time.

Is that Freedom?

There can be no absolute freedom in a society. Being a part of society means you must give up some of your freedoms.

Noway dude, if I want to sit around and shoot dope, it ain't tha mans business, it's mine, mine I tell you, get out of mah pee, I ain't hurtin' nobody, oh the opression. Pffft when was the last time smokin' some rock interfered with someones work, geez you big guberment tools always in the little mans business.

 

[Jaskalas]

Topic Title: Democracy
Topic Summary: What is it good for?

Considering we?re a Republic and not a Democracy I really wouldn?t know. Would be nice to kick out the elite ruling class and have the people?s will be done. I?ve previously been asked what that majority is, how about you take a poll and find out?

If the majority want something, and their representatives don?t deliver it, that?d be the failing of the Republic that a Democracy theoretically wouldn?t have.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Topic Title: Democracy
Topic Summary: What is it good for?

Considering we?re a Republic and not a Democracy I really wouldn?t know. Would be nice to kick out the elite ruling class and have the people?s will be done. I?ve previously been asked what that majority is, how about you take a poll and find out?

If the majority want something, and their representatives don?t deliver it, that?d be the failing of the Republic that a Democracy theoretically wouldn?t have.

Not this idiotic point for yet again after dozens and dozens of times.

The word democracy includes republics, and pretty much always refers to republics, since the only form of democracy that exists in any nation is a republic.

The wod democracy is used to refer to a system where the people get the power of a vote, as opposed to not having that power, such as a dictatorship.

Now, for the next 500 times someone will make this ridiculous 'point'.