''Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried''.
~Winston Churchill
This certainly seems like a plausible viewpoint, and to those whose minds are keen enough to realise the problems of democracy believe this. But does it really stand up to scrutiny?
A text I've been reading by Hans Hoppe called ''Democracy the God that Failed'' offered criticisms of democracy that never really occured to me. He is neither pro democratic, nor anti democratic. He emrely postulates that if the only choice was between monarchy and democracy, then monarchy is preferable. To many of you, this is simply an unthinkable position to take. But let me flesh out his ideas in a little more detail to stimulate some dicsussion:
Democracy he argues, if not restrained by strict adherence to a constitution, degenerates into special interest groups vying for governmental favour in the hope that their position will be enhanced (this point is especially poignant in the US where 17,000 lobbyists in Washington can effectively buy policy) at the expense of everyone else in society. He uses numerous examples to show that if American political history has taught us anything, it's that governments refuse to be limited by such trivial things like codified constitutions.
For a brief article that goes into more detail go here. For everyone else that can;t be bothered, I think what is written above is sufficient to start up a discussion.
Democracy can be the best system, but only in a group smaller than any nation. Since the world has seen what happens to democracy with a very large group of people, I don't think we really need to explain that. I can see how monarchy would be preferable with monarchy and democracy being the only choices, but I would rather have neither. I have yet to see a government that I believe could work for large groups of people over a long period of time. The closest thing I have seen to being a truly good government is communism, unfortunately it only looks good on paper. Once you add real humans to that it falls apart from greed, which seems to be the problem of every government.
I can say that no political system of government is efficient as it is always under attack by lobbying and corruption. Democracy is the most efficient in having the citizens' voices be heard; citizens elect their leaders, whom are proficient and experienced in politics and law, to have them make the decisions for us. However, as human beings, we are creatures of wants, not needs, therefore can be bribed and corruptible easily. This can go for EVERY SINGLE system known, in different forms.
The closest thing I have seen to being a truly good government is communism, unfortunately it only looks good on paper. Once you add real humans to that it falls apart from greed, which seems to be the problem of every government.
I like this statement right here. Like I have said above, humans are corrupted creatures that can easily be swayed by wants. The thing that separates Communism from a Democracy is that the leaders have terms that can be used to the citizens' advantages; once we get word that a leader or official isn't being true to his/her word, we have the power to take the official out and bring in another corrupted leader XD
"Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty." -Plato
I am among those who believe democracy is a waste of time because of the lies that each party spreads about each other. This means that the average person lacks the comprehension to make a truly educated choice.
"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." Emma Goldman
Democracy convinces the vast majority of people that they have a say. But we really don't. Look at the political parties in power in Western nations. Most are center-right parties that support pro-corporate, neo-liberal, interventionist policies.
Take a look at the US system. The people had a 60% approval rating for the public option. So what did the Senators do? They destroyed the public option and made these "insurance exchanges" which empowered the insurance industry even further. The approval rating for the bill fell into the 30's after that, but it was still voted through.
If we were really democratic, the public option would have been voted for. But those slimy senators are funded and bought out by the insurance industry, giving no chance to the public option. They vote based on what keeps them in power, not what is best for the people, or what the people want.
I really don't think it does at all, Drace. One person ruling a nation can still be corrupting, as a king/queen can have advisers "giving them advice" on how to proceed. For any system of government to work, humans have to be entirely objective in all forms and only requires of items based on need, not want. Only then can government function without worry of corruption and lobbying.
Yeah but of course, Plato, a man from over 2 millenniums ago, has a better understanding of political rights and freedom.
strangely enough he may. He lived in Athens, which was, in a way, democratic where any man of 18 could vote. They even had a voting system to dispose of their leaders, in fact the American Empeachment system is based off of the Greeks. Plato saw democracy as a slow form of corruption, eventually it becomes a bogged down beauracracy where the common man becomes confounded and unable to make a decision, thus leaving the state all the power.
I personally think that democracy usually works best in practice, but communism is best in theory. Communism is based on a very clean and good idea, but it never works, because not everyone is on exactly the same level. I am not trying to say that one specific type of person is better then others, but some people are smarter than most.
Most likely not but it's the only one we could handle right now.
I don't think communism is the best more likely socialism is because in commuism discourages education and dedication since everyone gets the same amount. Most people don't like the idea of that.
No one form beyond a totalitarian monarchy is remotely effective in large nations. Democracy is great, but America is too large to contain our current form.
Unfortunately, no system would work in America either. Well, not without severe social upheaval and rioting.
Americans despise their government, yet love how it works. Am I an exception? No.
We will never be happy because we are too divided. Nobody can agree on anything, and this is true to most western nations.
The most flawed is our current one, with representative democracy. It severely fails, leaving one half happy and in control, and the other unhappy and powerless.
In a country of over 300 million, this is unacceptable, and counterproductive.
So how does a monarchy at all solve the problems of this so called democracy (Representative government)?
It is not monarchy solves the problems that democracy suffers from, but that Hoppe regards monarchy as the least bad option. He acknowledges that monarchy has its own problems, but through primarily economic analysis of the democratised world, surmises that the net effect of the problems created by monarchy would be less severe than the net effect of problems caused by democracy. He does not claim that either is ideal.
The only perfect governmental and economical system is communism. Of course, everything and everyone must be perfect in order for it to work correctly.
I don't know why everyone keeps saying that. Any political/economic system can be seen to be perfect if the assumptions it makes about human nature are correct.
It also depends on how you define perfect, in that the 'erfect' fascist specimen is different from the 'erfect' communist specimen.
If assumptions about human nature are correct, dictatorships would only be necessary as an interim phase with regards to communism. But yes, in fascism, the dictator has to be a demi god for the system to work.
I once had a debate with an intelligent person (Hard to find, eh?) about this topic. He supported Monarchy, on the grounds that it be controlled. Meaning a small cabinet of people to be his advisers, and have the ability to get rid of him. I supported Republics.
In the end we determined Republics weren't effective over large empires, and Monarchies are too dangerous by them selves. So, we agreed it would be best to have a controlled Monarchy, with republic cabinets over the "states". Meaning the monarch was pretty much the president, except he would have to be a lot more responsible. And the republics could all vote to get rid of him.
