Does True Democracy work?

[Sarevok]

Not true. First world nations (such as yours) actually have as their biggest block of the population a reasonably educated and well-informed middle class. That's why democracy works for you. It's underdeveloped countries with their pyramid-shaped societies (such as mine) that fit your criteria, and thus tend to make a mess out of democracy even if it were handed to them.

This is true, this is why democracy does not work in the third world. Onlyin nations that have a people throughout their history that seek accurate unbiased information (such as India) would it be possible.

 

[Strider]

I doubt it would even be possible with a well-informed public. Humans are naturally selfish and greedy, and are more likely to aid themselves than anyone else.

Democracy is based around trusting humanity itself, and no matter how much we'd like to, you can't trust humanity.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Aphex Twin- I just replied on your message, if you didn't receive it, please notify me.
AVN - I think it is possible, but I agree that it can't be achieved over the night, however I believe in not the permanent revolution, but the permanent evolution.
Of course this demands that common people take a more active interest in politics, an organization like Attac is a good thing the way I see it.
EU is too great a topic to cover, but to me it can not be called democratic, it is created by, for and with the elite.
Virtually every great thinker of the Enlightenment or classical liberalism agreed on this, it is obvious really, because money is power. Just see the current USA with their corporate media, in every president election the two candidates respent a fraction of the same business-party - you really need a magnyfying glass to spot the difference.
But you could try to find something by Wilhelm von Humboldt, John Stuart Mill or Bertrand Russell, and there is always Rudolf Rocker. Also be aware that Adam Smith was not the sinister figure he is often depicted as, he was a moral philosopher deeply concerned with the power of the capitalists with to use his words "their vily maxim, everything for themselves, nothing for the public". Thomas Jefferson also warned against gyielding power to the merchants and bankier. John Dewey has perhaps written about it. And as far as I know, abolishing wage labour, or wage slavery as they quite correctly termed it,
was something that were discussed in the end of the 19th century, not only among workers but also among American Republicans! I also strongly recommend you to check out Noam Chomsky's writings: www.chomsky.info. Good luck with your research!

 

[Sarevok]

I doubt it would even be possible with a well-informed public. Humans are naturally selfish and greedy, and are more likely to aid themselves than anyone else.

Democracy is based around trusting humanity itself, and no matter how much we'd like to, you can't trust humanity.

It is quite true. I trust no one and expect everything.

 

[Richard Cribb]

AVN - Sorry, I forgot. You might also want to investigate Michael Albert's Parecon-project. A lot about that as well as plenty of othr interesting material can be found at www.zmag.org.

 

[crystal]

You honestly think that 1 voice among 60 million is going to be heard? One among 250, maybe...

If you are a rich white man, then yes, your voice will be heard in current capitalist system.

 

[Dann]

This is true, this is why democracy does not work in the third world. Onlyin nations that have a people throughout their history that seek accurate unbiased information (such as India) would it be possible.

Actually, a lot of Indians don't share your rosy view of their democracy. They're glad they have it though, instead of some other governmental system. And hope that they'll eventually outgrow the present circus-like stage. Still, for me they're better off. At least they're not under communism...

 

[Akka]

Not true. First world nations (such as yours) actually have as their biggest block of the population a reasonably educated and well-informed middle class.

They are reasonably educated, sure.
But to not be ill-informed, you need more than just education. You need to actually CARE about being informed.
And caring about information and politics is something first world nations seriously lacks.

I'm not even entering into the question of objectivity, which is really useful when you talk about running a country, but is something nobody has enough of.
So...

 

[Strider]

You also have to think of the natural flaws of humans... some people will just believe anything you tell them. Others however won't believe anything except they see it themself.

 

[JohnRM]

Well, this is why I am for nothing, but the absolute individual right to tell the rest of you to take a hike.

 

[thestonesfan]

In theory, the best government would be a Monarchy or Dictatorship with an uncorrupt leader (although if you believe in the phrase "absolute power corrupts absolutly," than this is impossible). It's efficient, stable, and fair (for the most part anyway). Now, the chance of finding a relatively uncorrupt leader, and the chance of that leader staying uncorrupt from the urge's his poistion would bring, there is a VERY low chance it will work.

Go read "Superman: Red Son". Instead of landing in Kansas and growing up American, Kal-El lands in the Ukraine and eventually becomes the Soviet premier. It's a great tale.

Even an uncorruptable, ultra-intelligent, ultra-moralistic man who can literally be everywhere at once must eventually concede the impossibility of the task he has undertaken.