Why Democracy Will Fail

One simple proof that Democracy will fail:
People don't eat their vegetables.


Not that I am saying that we should have a government that tells us what to do and decides for us what is best for us - not at all.
I am in strong opposition for seat belt laws and bicycle helmet laws for adults - or any other law that is designed to protect us from our own stupidity.

However, our own stupidity is what keeps Democracy from working.
What is most popular is rarely what is best for us.

Quick fixes fix nothing, and people want qucik fixes - they would rather take a weight loss pill than get their fat asses on a bicycle.

Individual stupidity is magnified exponentially by mob mentality.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thats it...right there.

I first clicked onto this idea from reading H.P. Lovecraft's letters in a book called 'Lord of a Visible World'.

What he favored is a conditional democracy where citizens would have to qualify to vote through academic testing.

Further, I would support a system in which a representative would have a many votes in the house as the number of citizens who voted for him.

Three representatives from each district would reflect the majority will of an informed citizenry.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It won't fail any faster than any other government. Probably slower.

Governments fail, empires fall.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nothing lasts forever...just a matter of time and theres plenty of that.

 

I concur with the OP.

My preferred form of government is a Venetian Republic styled meritocracy.

 

The only problem I see with meritocracy is how you measure intelligence. If the methods we use at the moment are anything to go by a vast proportion of socially inept people who are wonderful at remembering details and information will hold sway, whereas others who have amazing minds will be overlooked because of their inability to perform well under test conditions. Also, there is the case that meritocracy will perpetuate its own hierarchical system. I think the general principal is good, it's just there's seems to be lacking in its implementation.

 

We have tests for every other right in society...the right to drive, the right to graduate, etc.

Why not the right to choose our leaders?
Why should that alone be unconditional?

All human organization arranges itself into hierarchies.

 

On what basis? How? By whom? How would it practically be any different to democracy? most people are stupid and vote for the best face or the most personable. Well I know a fair few paedophiles who are as charming as Father Christmas. Granted Meritocracy sounds like a good idea, but if you have the masses trying to decide who's the most suited to the job then that's not a giant leap from what we have now, and if you have a small elite number of academics deciding on who leads the country you're no better than an Imperial government, or a monarchy.

 

Why not just go back to only allowing property owners to vote? Owning your own home/business implies a certain level of real world intelligence.

 

That's pure, unadulterated Capitalism. Maggie Thatcher thought that was a good idea too until our rather left wing populous said, "Oy, Maggie, NO". I don't see how owning things and being interested in business makes for intelligence. Give me a million idealistic socialists over one self centred capitalist any day.

 

Bah, a bunch of egg heads with no idea how things work in the real world.

I'd take a government made up of people randomly selected from the phone book over your idealistic socialists.

 

Why? I mean, I agree, to a point. Socialism is idealistic, but at least it's got ethics.

 

The problem is that when you limit suffrage to people with a certain alignment of economic interests, you can expect them to entrench it as against people with opposing interests. The same thing happens, I suppose, whenever one such group gains disproportionate power as against the other, but at least some theoretical ability to defend one's position.

Meanwhile, intelligence tests and literacy tests have too long and ugly a history to ever be used in this country. It's hard for me to imagine a proxy other than age as a measure of intelligence ithout it eventually either being abused or having people believe it has been abused in some way.

 

Mad the problem with limiting voting to a specific group is the chances of exploietaion by the privlaged group. For instance it has been sugested that only those with a basic level of political awareness should be eligable to vote which while it would cut down on the donkey voting would leave a group disenfranchised.

This is not a problem until a choice needs to be made between something which is good for the group who ARE voters and those who arent. If we take your example then say industrial relations laws would be a good example. Only the buiness owners views would be taken into account because those who arnt buiness owners wouldnt have the right to vote.

Also there is another problem with your viewpoint and that is the groups who would be excluded. The first group would be anyone serving in the ADF who not only work for someone but also tend to rent from defence housing because they move around so much and the benifits given to them are higher than the adverage. Then there is the health sector who again work for someone else. Infact if we look at education a lecturer in political science at a university could be locked out of the political prosses just because they chose to rent and i doubt you will find ANYONE who knows politics better than a political scientist

 

But at some point you have to wake up and realise you are being lied to. It's the only conclusion and self centred honesty is just better than idealistic dimwit.

 

John, I completely disagree. I certainly don't think Capitalism is honest. Far from it.

 

What is dishonest about going to work and getting paid or opening a business? It is more in tune with the true nature of humans. The Manson Family were Socialists, and sure it can work in ideal conditions but even then people get restless and it becomes repressive.

 

Pretty soon they have you wearing white jump suits with a red S on them.

 

Capitalism is the only honest system. In socialism, communism, fascism, whatever; you have to pretend you support some idiotic ideal while you pursue your real interests. At least in capitalism, you're free of such hypocracy.

 

In the way that a killer will look you in the eye as he stabs in the chest sort of honesty? It doesn't give a shit about anyone but the fat cat. It stands on people as it climbs its way to the top of the economic ladder then pisses on anyone below from a great height. I'm not the kind of person who will push in front of people to make sure I get on the train before the doors close. If they get on before me then I'll just get on the next train, and I'll rejoice in them getting on the train too. I don't believe in dog-eat-dog and that's what Capitalism is all about. I don't think socialism is an idiotic ideal, I think Socialism is about balance, insofar as politics can be. Socialism is the closest to the way I want to live, and the way I want to live for others. I suppose at the end of the day I don't see myself as more or less important as anyone else.