The western system of rule should be renamed, it's misleading. Democracy in ancient Greece, as imperfect as it was, indeed meant "rule of people". Major decisions were made by assembly of citizens. In the West (and its bad immitators elsewhere), people actually have no direct power over the state policies in most of the cases. All they can do is to cast a vote (if elections are not cooked) for one rich guy or another, let them do what they want, and go back to their mundane bussiness to make rich guys richer. The idea is that an elected guy will do all to please voters during his term to be reelected. However, in the propaganda age, it's not the case. Money decides who will win an election in 9 out of 10 cases. Mind control is extremely tight, mind control technologies are developed extremely well. Even when we think that no propaganda can touch us personally (cause we are sooooooooo smart), it's not the case. Thus, having control over the media, education, mass cult, etc. ruling elite can actually plant desires and wishes in plebeian heads. Voting becomes more and more like that in old good USSR. All the difference, USSR used fear to get 99% support for party candidate. West uses money and mind control technologies to get votes of majority. Thus, elections are essentially meaningless. 1% owns 99% of wealth, 1% rules. The rest are just decorations in the pseudo democratic theater of absurd. So how would you name the system of political rule that Western countries (and less financially blessed immitators elsewhere) utilize today? It's not democracy. It's rather plutocracy wich utilizes democratic symbols to legitimize and disguise its rule. Plutocracy not only have control over wealth, it has control of many people's minds (in certain areas).
It's a representative democracy (some say "republic"). But what does it matter what it's called? It's what we have. Baron Max
As bad as our system is, it is the best that can be devised unless you believe in the theory of a hereditary monarch who cannot be deposed, and therefore could be expected to do his best to run the country wisely. This theory claims that the monarch has all his material ambitions satisfied, including the future welfare of his family. Hence, he gains nothing by selfish motivations. I do not believe it, but there are those who do. An unrestricted democracy is potentially dangerous. It is a subtle version of mob rule. If my mob is bigger than your mob, I get my way. Something very similar to our constitutional republic based on some democratic voting system seems best. A constitution which is difficult to amend seems to be necessary to prevent outrageous action by an unthinking majority. I believe that there were times in our history when you could get a 51% majority to vote for the forced deportation of some unpopular minority or to vote for some bad policy subtlety disguised as a beneficial idea. A strong constitution protects against temporary stupidity on the part of a majority. One should always be aware that half the people are as dumb or dumber than the median, and 1% are not much smarter.
Well, with that attitude of course it is Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You think that the system is pretty bad yet it couldn't possibly be improved upon? And your point would be what? That we should be scared of what a dumb person may vote for? Take a look around the inmates have already taken over the asylum Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Kazakhan: When I posted the following, I was trying to indicate that a democracy based on unrestricted majority rule is potentially dangerous. I was not advocating that dumb people not be allowed to vote. I was indicating that mechanisms are required to make it difficult for the majority to do something really dumb like vote away major civil liberties or issue a million dollars in government bonds to every citizen so that we could all retire. The latter idea was once proposed by some senator or congressman. I did not say that our current system could not be improved. I merely said that the basic concept is better than other alternatives. Unrestricted majority rule is potentially dangerous, as indicated above. Furthermore, it is impractical when the population is large and/or spread over a large geographical area. If everybody is connected to the internet, it might be feasible, but I doubt it. At a minimum, I would want to have some very safe & secure technology to prevent a hacker from causing grief. A fascist dictatorship does not seem like a better alternative. Nobody has been able to make communism or socialism work. Anarchy does not seem like a good idea. Nobody seems to want a monarch with real power. While it has its advocates in the Islamic world (and some fundamentalist Christians seem to like the idea), I do not want a government based on religious dogma and administered by those in control of the religion. Do you have any better alternatives? At least the USA seems to be able to get rid of terrible policies without a revolution. The USA had a damn good system until congress and the supreme court allowed the federal government to have almost limitless power over the economy, mainly via the income tax which was unconstitutional until 1913. Those founding fathers knew what they were doing when they put a clause in the constitution outlawing an income tax.
Dinosaur, I was taking the piss so to speak. I have some ideas on improving my system of government(Australia) but nothing worth debating at this point. And I agree that income tax is mostly evil, it should only apply to very high income earners.
That's quite a statement of unsubstantiated belief. 1000 years ago, some slaveowner could quote your words. Monarchy or plutocracy in pseudo democratic disguise. Your choices are quite limited. For whom? Plutocrats? You prefer mob rule of those with $? that essentially what you have. Mob of plutocrats with greater amount of $ and power rules supreme. but mob of janitors would be way too dangerous to bear? I would disagree. I think janitors knows way more (or at least the same amount) about right and wrong than bunch of CEOs and crooked politicians. Unthinking majority? Well, plutocracy does not spend its propaganda $ in vain. Mob, plebeians, etc., etc., etc. Those are people. People with brain, souls, aspirations, morals, ideas .... not inferior to those of top 1% with cash. It did not protect Indians, did it? It did not protect blacks... And those politicians on corporative payroll are shining examples of intellectual refinement? Just look at GW. Guess what? Too much brain and vanity is a bad thing for a leader (look at the mess W. Wilson has left). One should just have lots of common sense and down to Earth thinking to be a leader. And those things are in abundant supply among the people managing to elk up a living somehow.
DixonMassey: I do not understand what system you want. You seem to think that a pure democracy is the way to go. A majority vote passes any law proposed. A majority vote makes any decision not covered by some law. No constitution establishing individual rights? No judiciary to decide what the laws which passed mean? If there is disagreement over the meaning of a law, you have a vote to decide what it means in a particular situation? I like the idea of a constitution protecting me from a vote to install a police state because the majority feels threatened and wants security. I like the idea of a judiciary interpreting that constitution. I like the idea that the constitution cannot be overridden by a simple majority vote. Is a democracy practical even if all the citizens are both intelligent and well educated? You have far more faith in what the majority might vote into law than I.
Dinosaur you are absolutely correct. Absolute forms of any government inevitably lead to tyrrany or other equally unfortunate end. The biggest problem we face today is that the hybrid forms of government, such as the representative democracy, have little ability to respond to technological change. That's a huge topic that requires a completely separate thread - just tossing the idea out there for now.
dixonmassey offered: So, by what name would you find it leading? What's in a noun, anyway? There are no "people defining the rules" in the West? And you're not an actual voting component of that apparently non-existent process? Ah, Election Day. There are no "Election Days" in the West? You're not a voter? There are no popularly elected representatives anywhere in the West? You have no Voter's Registration Card on your person? You've never had the opportunity to actually vote for your prefered representative for any government office? You must live in one of those bad immitating places, eh? Probably because you've never registered as a poor candidate all those mislead poor peoples might be willing to vote for. Whose fault is that? You seem to have a problem with people being more skilled, more capable, more financially successful than you think you can be, and are. Why should that reality be anyone else's personal problem just because it's your's? Do you have something against other people succeeding, and then not including you in their good fortune, even though you contributed absolutely nothing to their success? You had nothing to do with the creation of Oxygen. Why does Oxygen owe you anything? Only because voters vote to be pleased, not to have someone else do the hard work they themselves could do, if they only offered themselves up to the same vetting vote. Yes, it is. It's Darwinism. By your own admission, you can't succeed in the system without artificial protections. Not my fault, loser. Android: Just your very small corner of it.
The USSR used propoganda to get support, the trick was getting everyone to accept the system, everyone was tought to love their country. If you think that 250 000 000 people would keep a party in power under fear, you must be insane, it is neither logical, nor true. Do you think the people of Leningrad would sit for years in a BLOCKADED city, and fight off the germans till their last breath if they didnt love their system and their country? Take this pre-baltic ideology elsewhere. I grew up there, and I can certainly tell you no one I know feared the government, but everyone wasextreamly patriotic about the "motherland" , and this held the society together.
