What with all the religion topics scattered about, perhaps a change in the way the discussions are going would make the Forums less stale?
''Fine in Principle But A Failure in Practice. '' What is your assessment of this statement on Democracy?
I chose mostly to focus on the failures in practice part of the question, since a 2.5k word essay hardly even suffices to serve as a good introduction to a Tocqueville book. Feel free to disagree and move along to attack the roots of democracy itself.
So I'll get the ball rolling and take a chunk out of my essay.
Democracy can be a failure due to voter irrationality, causing people to vote for politicians that appeal through smoke and mirrors, not one that will serve them best. Voter irrationality can be pinned down on political ignorance, and this causes the electorate to be easily swayed by the charismatic words of a shallow candidate. This can lead to a failure in democracy, because democracy demands a rational electorate making informed choices, rather than one that votes for sweet tongued but unsuitable politicians. Without a knowledgeable and rational electorate, a country might in the end find itself saddled with inadequate leaders, leaders who would be in charge of the most important policies in the land. This was painfully highlighted when 58 percent of Americans believed that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 even after comprehensive reports denying this were released, leading to the disastrous re-election of President Bush in 2004. Hence, rather than bringing into power a government that is capable to best represent the interests of the people, second-rate or silver tongued politicians might be voted in due to voter irrationality - an abject failure of democracy in practice.
Of course there are quite a few absolutes inside, but a school sanctioned is an essay, and not a free-for-all musing.
One way I had thought to eliminate such an issue was to have a different system select the candidate who run. That system would select the best suited to be voted on.
I think that as of right now, democracy is failing. I think that it can be fixed however, if all politicians had to run using public funds, that way no matter how wealthy-or poor-you are, you have a chance at winning public office. Also, Super PACs should all have to be disbanded, as they are extremely misleading to voters.
The shortcomings of democracy is the reason why support many small governments rather than a single huge government. This is pretty much the idea behind the US being divided into separate states.
When a poor leader takes control of a small/state government, it's only that single government that is harmed rather than the nation as a whole.
Let's pretend that there are only 10 states. Some people feel that it's possible fore 7 of those 10 states to be controlled by poor leaders. Because of this, it's better to have 1 good leader who rules over all 10 states. Some people accept that it's riskier to have a single leader, but it's more efficient when you have a good one. I disagree with this mentality. This is why a good investor invests in a number of different businesses rather than gambling everything on a single business.
I do not support total democracy. There are some rights that I feel should always be protected. I believe that it doesn't matter how many people want to ban a religion, the freedom to practice whatever religion you wish should be there. In this sense, I support a republic that protects certain rights no matter what the voters want.
The other problem I have with a total democracy is that I believe there's a problem when 60 people want things one way, whereas 40 people want things another way. Even though there's a majority for one side of the issue, the other side is still very large and is not getting what they want. This is another reason to divide the government into smaller states.
If there's a single government with 100 people, 60 might want A, whereas 40 want B. Policy A is created. 60 people get what they want, 40 people get what they don't want.
60 - satisfied, 40 - unsatisfied
If we divide this single government into 5 smaller governments with 20 people in each, we will may see some variety.
1) 15 want A, 5 want B 2) 15 want A, 5 want B 3) 13 want A, 7 want B 4) 8 want A, 12 want B 5) 9 want A, 11 want B
Government's 1, 2, and 3, favor policy A, whereas 4 and 5 favor policy B. The policies are created accordingly. In the end you wind up with more satisfied people.
66 people now get the policy they favor, whereas 34 people get a policy they don't favor.
66 - satisfied, 34 - unsatisfied
The two numbers aren't drastically different, but keep in mind that I only divided the government up into 10 smaller governments. Also, understand that people who aren't satisfied with one policy are always free to move to a different government. Lastly, by having a number of small governments, it becomes easier to observe which policies may or may not be working the way as planned. Other states can change their laws respectively.
I think communism is the same way. In theory everyone is equal...we've all seen how that works out. Democracy has, in my opinion, turned out to be the best way to run a country, so far. As of right now it works, and it's the best we've got.
Our democracy is, largely, failing due to a relatively uneducated voter base. As you pointed out one of the main factors behind Bush's reelection was misinformation and the populace's inability to accept and understand new information. Personally, I think a simple idea to rectify the problem is to better our public education system. How we should go about that is an entirely different debate, but by instilling critical thinking skills and global awareness in our children (well ours exactly but you get the picture) we could build a more intelligent voter base and thus create a stronger democratic system.
On a brief tangent, I've been toying with the idea of adding a fourth branch of government. One made up of experts in various fields (economics, environmental sciences, bioethics, etc.) that would have the power to create bills and submit them to congress and veto legislation in their respective fields. They're appointment would come from a mix of voting by their members of their fields, legislative approval, and executive approval. It's still a rough idea but, if executed properly, I think it would have the potential to inject some much needed logical accountability into politics. Again, this is a very rough idea but I thought I would mention it.
The shortcomings of democracy is the reason why support many small governments rather than a single huge government. This is pretty much the idea behind the US being divided into separate states.
That and the fact that there were states before there was a United States, but yes. The states should function as laboratories for democracy. Personally, I think the federal government should create broad frameworks for states allowing them to develop their own strategies for meeting certain goals by certain dates (a certain percentage of individuals must be covered by heath insurance by 2014 and so on).
My main problem with the rest of your (Nemo) post is that it seems to assume that the states are independent countries and that what happens in one does not affect what happens in another. Let's assume that the GDP of the country is partitioned individually between each state, what happens if one states economic polices are left unchecked by the federal government and cause a total economic collapse? The ramifications for the other states would be massive; potentially, their economics could also fail. The states should be given more control in some areas but, ultimately, they are part of the country and that country as a whole should have more control than the individual states.
That and the fact that there were states before there was a United States, but yes. The states should function as laboratories for democracy. Personally, I think the federal government should create broad frameworks for states allowing them to develop their own strategies for meeting certain goals by certain dates (a certain percentage of individuals must be covered by heath insurance by 2014 and so on).
Why should a certain number of people be covered by health insurance by a certain date? Maybe certain people don't want health insurance. For the government to require states to reach certain criteria would harm the states. It would be like No Child Left Behind, except it would be states and politics rather than students and schools. Instead of a state focusing their resources on drug problems or other issues, the states will focus more on meeting criteria so they don't get in trouble. These required results would be nothing more than blinders that would only prohibit smaller government from accomplishing goals they feel are important.
I would also like to state that creating a certain standard that must be met, such as requiring a certain number of people to be covered by healthcare, makes no sense. What's the point of focusing on small government when big government is already intervening? Once more, who says that health care is an end? Who says a certain number of people should be covered by health care?
The system doesn't really allow states to govern themselves, it only creates the illusion of self government.
My main problem with the rest of your (Nemo) post is that it seems to assume that the states are independent countries and that what happens in one does not affect what happens in another. Let's assume that the GDP of the country is partitioned individually between each state, what happens if one states economic polices are left unchecked by the federal government and cause a total economic collapse? The ramifications for the other states would be massive; potentially, their economics could also fail. The states should be given more control in some areas but, ultimately, they are part of the country and that country as a whole should have more control than the individual states.
If one state fails, the whole system will not collapse. Yes, there will be some unfortunate effects such as a rise in prices, but these failures can be much more easily recovered from. It's easier to fix one state's poor economy, than fix a whole nation who's economy collapsed because they decided to do the whole "all or nothing" bit.
Remember, national government is made up of minds just as troubled as those that make up smaller government. National government is JUST AS susceptible to flawed logic as state and local governments. The minds that make up the federal government are not particularly smarter than those that make up local governments.
The main difference between state and federal government is that when a state government fails, other states aren't taken down with it (again, there will be negative effects on other states, but the other states won't fail as well). Federal government, on the other hand, will take everyone down on a failed policy! As I said before, a successful person in the stock market never puts all his money in a single company.
My main problem with the rest of your (Nemo) post is that it seems to assume that the states are independent countries and that what happens in one does not affect what happens in another.
Also, I should note that there really isn't a difference between two countries and two states except for the scale. Why is it that if one state fails in the US, all the other states would fail, yet when one country fails, the rest of the world doesn't? Again, there's obviously impacts, but why are countries immune to each other's failures while states are not?
Again, there's obviously impacts, but why are countries immune to each other's failures while states are not?
First world countries aren't. States are very closely tied together, they all depend on each other. For a large part of history countries did not depend on each other at all, but with governments and economies becoming close countries are being more dependent on other countries.
First world countries aren't. States are very closely tied together, they all depend on each other. For a large part of history countries did not depend on each other at all, but with governments and economies becoming close countries are being more dependent on other countries.
The reality is that when a state fails, other states aren't impacted as much as the failing state. If we incorporate a system which is completely dependent or even largely dependent on the federal government, then any single failure will be felt by everyone.
Even if states govern themselves, and even if one of them fails, the impact on other states will be less than if it was the government who created failed policy.
The advantage of having individual state rights is that more votes can be heard. I understand that democracy isn't always the best solution because the majority can be just as flawed as the minority (which doesn't make the minority any more or any less responsible). The idea behind having smaller states is that people have a stronger say over what happens in a smaller area, and any disastrous results don't effect everyone as a whole.
Just because a majority of people may be misinformed doesn't mean the minority of people are any better off. The idea that a specific system be put in place, or that we hire a special group of "smart" people to solve our problems, comes off the assumption that a) the people who are being selected will be correct in their ways of thinking and b) that the people HIRING these "experts" won't be biased when hiring.
For example, you can't add a branch of government filled with economic experts who can pass and veto bills. That's the whole point behind government, to elect experts to pass and veto bills, is it not? Before we determine who qualifies as an economic expert, how do we decide which form of economics works best? Sure, this is easier when it comes to science or math, where results are clear, concise, and without moral objection, but economics revolves around morality. This is the importance of philosophy. Philosophy is important because there is no clear cut science when it comes to what is and is not acceptable morally.
