Come to think of it...I can't quite help but dislike the concept of democracy, the freedom of giving the right to vote to people.
Firstly, a populist leader with no substance would be able to gain power, which isn't exactly good. Any run of the mill person with an aptitude for speaking and pulling of heartstrings is going to get in.
Secondly, are the people even able to vote correctly? Would they be educated enough, or sensible enough to vote for a good stable government? I know how the West keeps baying for voting rights, , political rights like a pack of insatiable hellhounds, yet are the people or The Great Unwash able to govern themselves? Would it be sensible to ask a farmer, who say only knows in detail his farm and the neighbouring areas to vote?
Thirdly, it causes fragmentation. Different diverse groups are bound to form. Groups who stand for ridiculous reasons like the Pirate Party are going to pop up, grab some seats, and deal a deathblow to the bigger parties trying to cobble a coalition. So far last year, I've seen so many hung parliaments, or minority governments. Australia, Britain, Sweden went into a deadlock, the US seems kind of balanced between the two big parties. And these tend to fail or fare badly, the party can't even agree amongst themselves, let alone get many bipartisan bills passed.
Is sacrificing the rights of people to vote in favour of a system that would tolerate less internal division unjust? I still can't comprehend why the West slams China for it's style of government for one. It works perfectly fine, some people are sidelined, yet there are always casualties in any battle. Most of the people from China whom I have known for years tell me they don't give a hoot about voting, they put their trust in the CCP as they have for decades.
And before some people shoot off about how the Chinese stamp out dissent such as the jailing of that recent Chinese Nobel Laureate, I would like to stress that that person has caused more disorder in China than actually bringing peace thank you very much.
So is democracy really worth it? People get their vote? And knowing people tend to have a nasty habit of conceiving different opinions about everything and anything under the sun, this would lead to political fragmentation and ultimately stagnation.
In a true democracy, someone could be banished or put to death by popular vote if people so desired. With a Bill of Rights, people are protected from a tyranny of the majority by preventing the majority from infringing their rights.
seeing that a true democracy would do that there would need to be some sort of protection for minorities, (since the majority could just vote them into banishment) so a republic with a slow leguation system would protect the rights of minorities but a fast exsutive system to be the will of the majority,
Definition of communism from wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn "Communism: a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership"
In fact many communisms have called themselves "People's Republics."
For example, North Korea justifies many of their actions by saying that they are only following the "People's voice" From Wikipedia:
The government's position, expressed through the Korean Central News Agency, is that North Korea has no human rights issue, because its socialist system was chosen by the people and serves them faithfully.
well, I do know some non-democritical countries in the past and present:
russia (discutable if this is in present or was in the past.) northern korea (now.) china (same as Russia.) cuba (same as Russia.) gemany (in WOII and in the DDR) all european countries (from the (at least) middle ages to the deterrence of napoleon. (of course france is an exeption here.))
all these countries are not known to be the best for the people who live there during the non-democratic time.
I would love to be in a regular democratic country instead of Representative, just to see what it's like to directly affect the laws of the nation. Then we would have no one to blame but ourselves when the majority decides that universal healthcare needs to be repealed
I can't really post anything from experience regarding other forms of government, because I haven't been under them, but I like a democratic government. I hear of people in communistic societies that don't get to choose certain areas that we in the U.S. can do. Jobs, for instance. I really, really wanna be a surgeon. I could also be a multitude of other jobs, because I enjoy the freedom to choose my job. Not in countries where they regulate what you do and what you earn. Being able to do what you wish, within the reaches of the law, just feels great.
However, there are times in which the leaders or lawmakers of a state and nation (preferably the U.S.) do not look out for the wishes of the people. They look out for the interest groups. Sometimes, their hands are guided by money than wishes. With so many people running the country at one time, it is easy for the interest groups to really be in control.
If democracy was always practiced correctly and byt he guidelines it would be the best. however, now a days too many selfish people with their own agendas make democracy very confusing since they are not making choices int he best interest of the people.
Lesse here....535 total members of congress, one president...we need 268 members to say "yay" when declaring lobbying illegal, with the president saying "yay" to the bill. When he reaches for the stamp, grab his hand, subdue him, then proceed to forge his signature.
Good luck getting that past the lobbyists...
Yeah, when you propose a bill to abolish lobbying, I believe every interest group in the nation will be forking over goodies to make sure that won't happen. A prime weakness in Representative Democracy! These guys can raise their own pay, yet they accept bribes....
While any form of government has its pros and cons, and on paper the concept is always great, there are numerous problems to all government setups. The biggest problem with a communist society, or "eople's republic" is there is no reason to truly aspire to be more than common. What benefit do you really get for being a surgeon if you get the same pay and benefits of being a common laborer?
Democracy is flawed, and eventually it comes down to people voting for whoever promises the most personal benefits for the individual. It is easy to lose sight of the nation as a whole when you have campaign promises to fulfill and favors to return. The biggest strength of this is that if someone is acting out of line or being irresponsible, we can just vote for someone else.
The authoritarian government works great until you get a corrupt leader. If the whole of power of a government is a central figure or a governing board, then you are left with little choice to do what you are told, which often degrades into little more than common slavery for the nation after a cruel dictator. There has to be some public scrutiny, and there is too much opportunity for the dictator to serve himself instead of his people.
And why the capitalism countries have destroyed Soviet Union? The communism is a good form government. The best form of board is a communism. But not that communism which was in Soviet Union, and little bit changed, less despotic.
And why the capitalism countries have destroyed Soviet Union? The communism is a good form government. The best form of board is a communism. But not that communism which was in Soviet Union, and little bit changed, less despotic.
Firstly, the USSR collapsed under its own weight. It was essentially a First World military Power saddled with a Third World development index.
The best form of board is a communism. But not that communism which was in Soviet Union, and little bit changed, less despotic.
What the USSR practiced was not Communism. It was a dictatorship. I fail to even see why it was Marxist starting from Stalin's rule. They never did progress from a proletarian dictatorship.
The communism is a good form government.
In theory yes. In practice, never happened.
Please elaborate if you want us to take your arguments seriously.
Well, the topic moved a bit, but I wanted to reply directly to the OP, where nichodemus and others said that a test for voting would be useful to assure the electors are mature enough to support a stable government.
In three words: NO, NO and NO.
Just because according to your theory the European noblemen were right not giving any political power to the people, because 90% of the population couldn't read and write! I think the best solution is giving voting right to EVERYONE, then wait. If the country is actually a democracy the average education will slowly grow, and most people should be enough cultured to support the best government sooner or later. It's a long way, but there's no alternative.
I think the best solution is giving voting right to EVERYONE, then wait. If the country is actually a democracy the average education will slowly grow, and most people should be enough cultured to support the best government sooner or later. It's a long way, but there's no alternative.
So you're suggesting children be given the right to vote too?
If the country is actually a democracy the average education will slowly grow, and most people should be enough cultured to support the best government sooner or later. It's a long way, but there's no alternative.
I need statistics. These are all assumptions do you not think? What would be cultured? Are cultured people supporters of governments? For all I know Pol Pot was educated in France and was a French poetry connoisseur. Would a democracy actually lead to education growing slowly?
Just because according to your theory the European noblemen were right not giving any political power to the people, because 90% of the population couldn't read and write!
Ahem, we never stated that as a pillar of support. I must also state that the conditions of the time played a huge role. And thank goodness the vote was not given. I can't imagine if the French revolutionary crowds were given the vote.
Based on today's America. Would you think a person, bombarded by advertisements, political campaigns, satirical Youtube videos, would actually have a good grasp of politics? Suppose a farmer thinks subsidies is great, but does he ever consider that it might adversely affect others?
Also notice I never mention I was a supporter of democracy to begin with.
