Democracy (1 Viewer)

[yoddle]

As i said when i repped your ass jules, i agree.

I can def see where Freedom (the poster not the concept). As Billy Nighy said in The Boat That Rocked "governments hate anyone being free."

A wise person once said that human motivation and actions are dictated by two emotions: fear and laziness. Democracy fits both of those criteria because
a) most people only have to seriously take any direct action about their broader dictating ideologies once every three/four years (excluding State and council elections) and
b) We don't have to ask the question "what on earth would we do if we weren't being governed?"

REAL freedom (which democracy, by definition, cannot grant us) is probably one of the most frightening concepts I can think of.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

A wise person once said that human motivation and actions are dictated by two emotions: fear and laziness. Democracy fits both of those criteria because
a) most people only have to seriously take any direct action about their broader dictating ideologies once every three/four years (excluding State and council elections) and
b) We don't have to ask the question "what on earth would we do if we weren't being governed?"

REAL freedom (which democracy, by definition, cannot grant us) is probably one of the most frightening concepts I can think of.

+ 1

Very, very true. And that's a great point you raised about democracy...I hadn't thought of it that way before.

True freedom, in which everyone is left to their own devices, would be disastrous.

I mean, whether we like to admit it or not, human society functions best in a hierarchy, where there are set rules which people can easily abide by, and consequences for those who don't. We need to feel safe and we need to feel as though we can trust that we won't be murdered if we walk out the door. And we need to feel as though we have someone giving us direction.


It makes a lot of sense if you think about it. Other animals which we consider intelligent also have hierarchical structures within their social groups...chimps, gorillas, monkeys, dolphins, etc.

 

[yoddle]

I like it how you agreed with me, and your point about animals gives your view credence. We too often ignore behavior elsewhere in the animal kingdom when trying to solve our human problems. (cough homosexuality cough)

But we don't really know that a situation where everyone is left to their own devices would, in fact, be disastrous. There are nations where this occurs in a fashion, but they are mostly dysfunctional democracies, as opposed to regions of proper anarchy.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

I like it how you agreed with me, and your point about animals gives your view credence. We too often ignore behavior elsewhere in the animal kingdom when trying to solve our human problems. (cough homosexuality cough)

But we don't really know that a situation where everyone is left to their own devices would, in fact, be disastrous. There are nations where this occurs in a fashion, but they are mostly dysfunctional democracies, as opposed to regions of proper anarchy.

Danke. And yes, VERY true about our failure to look at the animal kingdom...we seem to be under the misguided impression that we're completely separate from our 'uncivilised' counterparts, which is totally untrue. We can learn, and have learnt, so much about human behaviour by observing other animals.

Hmm. You're right about the anarchy thing. Maybe we should set up a 'Lord of the Flies' situation as an experiment.

I suppose have just enough self-awareness to recognise that it wouldn't work? Or maybe it's simply because we wouldn't function if we couldn't rely on each other to behave in a certain way? Because, that is, essentially what laws force us to do.

 

[Iron]

animals are natural
whatever comes naturally is an unquestionable good
humans should behave like animals

 

[HumanDichotomy]

Which would include exhibiting same-sex behaviour...

 

[Iron]

yeah!

 

[HumanDichotomy]

Awesome!

 

[Iron]

Bc anything natural must be good!

Esp if I want to do it!

I interpret the world thru my own devicesss

 

[HumanDichotomy]

I see. What about God? Wouldn't He object to that?

 

[Iron]

refer to my dumb tax neg rep

 

[HumanDichotomy]

refer to my dumb tax neg rep

Oh. I'm so depressed. Boo hoo.

 

[Iron]

Haha, the best part was when you edited your post with a wink, so it looked like you picked up on my massively complex sarcasm

 

[HumanDichotomy]

I'm glad I could please you so. After all, it's all I've ever really wanted.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

I'm glad I could please you so. After all, it's all I've ever really wanted.

Massively complex my arse.

 

[Planck]

John Humphreys is pretty spot on:

I’m often accused of being too cynical and too negative about the intelligence of voters. In contrast, I think most people put too much faith in democracy and over-estimate most voters.

Democracy has become a new faith. Simply saying the word supposedly makes an argument stronger, as though there is some inherent morality in two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Democracy has it’s uses — it allows you to change government without any killing and it puts downward pressure on corruption. But I doubt that it leads to better policy, and indeed I think it has a built-in bias towards ever more totalitarian policy controlled by special interest groups (as suggested by Schumpeter nearly 100 years ago).

As for the intelligence of voters… well… I suspect that about half of them have below-average intelligence.

But more seriously, the issue isn’t intelligence. Plenty of smart people remain rationally ignorant of politics, and rightly so. It would make little sense becoming an expert on every policy debate just to inform your 1/15,000,000 vote between two mostly-identical political leaders. And so I find it very easy to believe that most voters don’t have a clue about health policy, or fiscal policy, or micro-economic reform, or international trade, etc. The idea that the better argument wins in democracy is laughable. Clearly, the better spin wins.

I recently came across an interesting paper looking at political knowledge in Australia. These were some of the findings:

* 55% of voters don’t know that the Senate is proportional representation
* 63% don’t know how the constitution is changed
* 70% were confused about how long between federal elections
* 30% of people don’t know who their MP is, and 40% don’t know which party they’re from

And these people control the rules you and I live by.

In other contexts, people are assumed to be quite dumb. Apparently, Australians aren’t smart enough to make their own decisions about smoking, drinking, drugs, wearing helmets, saving for their retirement, wearing seatbelts or generally taking risks. Well, if people aren’t smart enough to do those things, then I suggest they are not smart enough to run my life.

Democracy may be better than dictatorships… but it’s still shit.

Trust democracy? Thoughts on Freedom

 

[loquasagacious]

John Humphreys is pretty spot on:



Trust democracy? Thoughts on Freedom

If not democracy then what?

To paraphrase churchill; democracy is a shit system of government - but is still better than anything else we have come up with.

 

[Iron]

but, mr churchill, is it worth saving weedy little poland for?

 

[loquasagacious]

but, mr churchill, is it worth saving weedy little poland for?

Interesting question. Better suited to this thread, which I still haven't gotten around to posting properly in.

I don't think that democracy is necasserily a reason to oppose the aggression of one state against another (or even against it's own citizens). However going to war against Germany over Poland can be justified in a couple of ways:

- War with Germany could be argued as inevitable and therefore while a direct casus belli of defence did not exist a very strong indirect one did. The classic fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here.
- Peace is underpinned by alliances promising retaliation for aggression. If this retaliation does not eventuate then the alliance is worthless and peace is impossible. Because a worthless alliance removes the disincentive for countries to go to war, the aggressor must be fought or their aggression will continue and other states will become aggressors. The classic fighting for peace argument.

 

[Iron]

also
-we sold them to the russians anyway