Democracy

[Jazzmail]

The upside of democracy is that no single entity gets all the power.

 

[Ecofarm]

The upside is that it is the most efficient and effective system of rule ever created.


The only cases that anyone can make against it involve imaginary dictators and imaginary democracies (unregulated!!11!! ).

If we keep even one foot in the door of reality, there is no contest whatsoever.

 

[Sharwood]

Yeah, that Athenian democracy produced way better results than that Spartan dictatorship.

Democracy: a failure from the start.

Groups of people don't make faster decisions than an individual. What the hell are you smoking to come up with that. And considering group decisions are made either by consensus or compromise, you're talking about a lot of time for what's likely to be a sub-optimal decision.

And democracy in the US is a joke. It's dogmatic crap like that that makes you unworthy of even attempting a rational argument with Eco. Anyone with sense can see that there are massive, gaping flaws in US-style democracy.

 

[Dachs]

Yeah, that Athenian democracy produced way better results than that Spartan dictatorship.

Sparta was only a dictatorship once, and they lost that war.

 

[Kal'thzar]

The upside is that it is the most efficient and effective system of rule ever created.


The only cases that anyone can make against it involve imaginary dictators and imaginary democracies (unregulated!!11!! ).

If we keep even one foot in the door of reality, there is no contest whatsoever.

Let Democratise the Military! YAY!

No, Most System stable? When Done Right. Efficient? EFFECTIVE?!? GAHHHH!

 

[Bigfoot3814]

Of course it has the best results. Because a group of people making a decision do a better job, in a faster manner, than a single person.

Hold the phone Eco, that ain't so. In fact the only merit of a dictatorship is that stuff gets done really quick, being that there's no discussion or voting.

 

[Mirc]

Care to provide an example of another system producing better results than democracy?

There's no way to compare with how things would have gone for any place and time in history, had a democracy been in place, since we simply can't know what "would have happened" if some place was a non-democratic system or if it was democratic, when it wasn't.

But if you want examples of great, unprecedented growth and prosperity of people under non-democratic systems, there are many in history. Let's start with the obvious:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Good_Emperors

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XIV_of_France

Only works in a short period of time, because as I said it can and will be abused at some point.

Therefore, in the great majority of the times, a democracy is the only feasible option we have, which was my point in my previous post too.

The upside is that it is the most efficient and effective system of rule ever created.

The point was exactly that it's not. It's by far the most stable, and hard to abuse (although it can happen, and it can destroy itself too, look at Algeria for example), but NOT the most effective one. I'd dare to say that fabulous growth, with some exceptions, ONLY happened outside democratic regimes. Regardless of whether this growth was for the good or for the worse (like it happened with Germany after WW1 which was basically reborn out of its ashes under a dictatorial regime only to start another catastrophe).

 

[Dachs]

(although it can happen, and it can destroy itself too, look at Algeria for example)

Eh? How do you mean?

 

[Mirc]

Eh? How do you mean?

Well, after the independence, I thought the first elections were free, right? Yet they only led to an authoritarian state... An authoritarian state built from the rule of an elected leader is the perfect example of democracy destroying itself, something which fortunately doesn't happen very often.

For another example, didn't Khomeini come to power with full popular support, thus being "democratically" placed in power? Yet look what he did to his state...

 

[Dachs]

Well, after the independence, I thought the first elections were free, right? Yet they only led to an authoritarian state... An authoritarian state built from the rule of an elected leader is the perfect example of democracy destroying itself, something which fortunately doesn't happen very often.

Oh. For a better Algerian example, look at how the liberalization of the late 1980s and early 1990s led directly to the rise of the FIS and the subsequent civil war, which basically destroyed the state.

For another example, didn't Khomeini come to power with full popular support, thus being "democratically" placed in power? Yet look what he did to his state...

Aaah, Khomeini wasn't that terrible. Most of the worst revolutionary excesses were below his level, either by internecine conflict between people vying for his attention or as part of the general reprisals against the remnants of the Pahlavi regime in the Army and what was left of SAVAK. The war helped that, too.

 

[Ecofarm]

Hold the phone Eco, that ain't so. In fact the only merit of a dictatorship is that stuff gets done really quick, being that there's no discussion or voting.

Done really quick does not mean that the problem is addressed in the most efficient manner. We can be certain that when the decision is made by one person, with a limited viewpoint, that perceptions and ideas will be ignored and backlash will occur thereby lengthening the problem's existence. Sure, a decision might be made faster but a real solution is made with far less efficiency. Therefore, a solution (as opposed to a decision) is made in a much faster manner through team work. The fallacy in your ojection is that you assume the dicator is not only benevolent but also all-knowing or omniscient; since that is never true in reality, your objection holds little water.

Efficient? EFFECTIVE?!? GAHHHH!

And yet, the democracies of the world are a paradise compared to the crapholes who don't have it. When the mideast, africa and most of east asia have standards of living close to the US or Europe, then we can talk about which system is most efficient and effective; until then, democracy is clearly superior in every conceivable and real-world way.

 

[Greizer85]

Done really quick does not mean that the problem is addressed in the most efficient manner.

Quickness is effectiveness in itself, though, since stagnation is such a big problem in bureaucratic systems (which democracy necessarily entails). Also, that the king ultimately decides for himself doesn't mean that he can't keep advisors.

...limited viewpoint...

That is a problem, but the main idea is to ignore the stupid viewpoints.

And yet, the democracies of the world are a paradise compared to the crapholes who don't have it. When the mideast, africa and most of east asia have standards of living close to the US or Europe, then we can talk about which system is most efficient and effective; until then, democracy is clearly superior in every concievable and real-world way.

Those places do not have benevolent dictators. And even if they did, they 'started on the tundra', so to speak. I agree that this is a stupid argument since human dictatorships are easily corrupted.

 

[Bigfoot3814]

A buncha stuff

I didn't realize you were making a distinction between a solution and a decision. Then I have no problem. Of course what a dictator sees as a solution and what a normal person would are probably quite different things.

 

[Ecofarm]

Quickness is effectiveness in itself,

Effective at what? Taking AN action I suppose (given that all actions are equal, you might have a point), but not all actions are equal and their effectiveness is not merely a factor of how quickly the decision is arrived at.

Clearly, decisions made by representative governments are far superior to those made by dictators (look around the world at the state of various countries). They are more efficient in improving society and more effective at reaching common goals. In comparison, there is not even the slightest contest. Whether a god-king, a plain-king, a cleric or an ideologue... they are reprehensible garbage compared to the US and Europe.

Given the apparently insurmountable body of evidence, I can't believe this is even a discussion.


People want to bring up centuries-old governments (who might have done FAR better if they were democracies) and imaginary scenarios of democracy without regulation in vain attempts to argue... but let's face it: that's nothing but crap.

 

[Greizer85]

Effective at what? Taking AN action I suppose (given that all actions are equal, you might have a point), but not all actions are equal and their effectiveness is not merely a factor of how quickly the decision is arrived at.

This. In a dictatorship, there is little bureaucracy and even less (usually none) political bickering, both of which make the enacting of any policy in a democracy (in its original form at least) within an acceptable timeframe a constant nightmare and a huge waste of resources.

Clearly, decisions made by representative governments are far superior to those made by dictators (look around the world at the state of various countries). They are more efficient in improving society and more effective at reaching common goals. In comparison, there is not even the slightest contest.

If I would be a dictator, in a year at the very most I suspect I'd be hopelessly corrupt. More likely I'd be deposed even before that, but the point is the methods which human dictators have to use in order to get to and keep their power tend to numb their feelings towards the people a little bit... If they had any in the first place. Nowadays, with the nobility requirement gone, rich & intelligent sociopaths are the most likely dictators.

If dictatorship was tried in a modern nation and the dictator could somehow remain benevolent, I have no doubts about the efficiency of the new regime. Especially if the people would support it (by not dissenting), which would be very unlikely given our democratic legacy. And unwise, considering the new dictator's possibly psychopathic successor, and his own potential corruption.

 

[Ecofarm]

This. In a dictatorship, there is little bureaucracy and even less (usually none) political bickering, both of which make the enacting of any policy in a democracy (in its original form at least) within an acceptable timeframe a constant nightmare and a huge waste of resources.

It's not a waste of resources if a BETTER decision is made... a more efficient and effective one.

If dictatorship was tried in a modern nation and the dictator could somehow remain benevolent, I have no doubts about the efficiency of the new regime. Especially if the people would support it (by not dissenting),

Absolute bullcrap. Benevolent =/= omniscient. A vast majority of the dictator's actions would be incomplete and cause new problems while failing to address every aspect of the current problem. He simply does not have the required diversity of viewpoints to get the job done correctly.

Rulership by the people is the most efficient and effective means of governance. The proof is all around you. Even in theory, unless Jesus Son of God is leading the regime and is infallable... then multiple viewpoints and perspectives will ALWAYS arrive at a better, more effective and more efficient solution.

ps. I bet a bunch of you mis-answered this on the political compass quiz because you were this short-sighted in assessing it.

Fast alone does not equal most efficient or most effective, m'kay?

 

[Cutlass]

The odds of a despotism remaining enlightened range between slim and none. The risk is too high for the hypothetical reward.

 

[Ecofarm]

Actually, it is impossible for it to be enlightened on all things. Thus, it fails; no matter how benevolent.

 

[Greizer85]

The odds of a despotism remaining enlightened range between slim and none. The risk is too high for the hypothetical reward.

That's what I've been saying all along.

@Eco: Did you read what I said earlier about the king and his advisors? Most of the time, the decision would still be a compromise between different viewpoints. That there'd be less time used to make decisions doesn't mean that there would be no consideration, just that all the unnecessary clutter would be cut.

The people are not omniscient either, and I'd say they see a far smaller distance than their rulers. That's why we have representational and not direct democracy (among other reasons).

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Despotism is by far the best, provided the despot is immortal, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. No human could ever suffice.


Short of that, the best would be a relatively weak, libertarian, democratic government with strong checks and balances, a devotion to protecting negative liberty/mitigating negative externalities, no political parties, and a voting system takes into account each individuals strength of preferences for all choices rather than forcing us to give unqualified support to particular leaders.