Total democracy or constitutional democracy?

[WillJ]

Democracy... What a novel concept. Everyone is allowed an equal say in their government.

But are there some things that shouldn't be left to the people to decide? Is discrimating against blacks wrong no matter what, even if the majority of the citizens supported it? Would it be right to enforce non-discrimination against the general will, rather than either doing nothing or trying to educate the supporters and get them to change their mind? (This is just an example; there are many similar issues.) In fact, should we all screw democracy and give you totalitarian rule?

So what I'm asking you is this: Should there be limits to democracy? Do you believe that, since no one--not even YOU--has any true authority over anyone else, and no one can rightfully claim that they are right and everyone else is wrong ... that total democracy (majority rules no matter what) is the way to go? Or are there certain universal axioms that any democracy must go by whether or not the people support it?

A better way of asking this question would be on a personal level. If you, for example, are against abortion, but a vote is held and the majority rules pro-abortion, which would be your stance?:

A. I should enlighten these pro-abortioners! Let me teach them that abortion is wrong, and then we can vote again and abortion will be outlawed! Yay!

B. We must get rid of abortion at any cost! I don't care about what everyone else says!

 

[stratego]

Pure democracy, a.k.a mob rule is the stupidest thing ever; even worse than dictatorship.

I don't know what I really want. I would like everybody's voice to be heard, but I don't wish all those voices be attended to.

 

[Loaf Warden]

Pure, undiluted democracy can never really work. Too much of the population will always be too ignorant or too apathetic or too selfish to bother educating themselves about what the right thing really is. Democracy requires limits to work.

 

[Enemy Ace]

Emperor, as long as that Emperor is me. Otherwise I choose option number two.

 

[yaroslav]

Constitutional democracy.... The democracy is not only "what the majority want" but also a system that gives some guarantees to all the citiziens.... just my humble opinion.

 

[Hayek]

Option no. 2. There are certain inalienable rights which always should be there no matter what is the opinion of any majority.

 

[EdwardTking]

I tend to favour No 1 - I favour democracy on four levels:

Citizens voting for/against laws and for budgets.
Citizens voting in gavour of plaintiffs and innocent/guilty
on civil and criminal trials.
Citizens voting for officials and representives.
Citizens spending their money how they like.

And yes, conflicts can occur between these four:

The problem with most "inalienable rights" is that
they tend to be established by those who have
the power rather than on any absolute moral or
practical principles and so exist to prevent
democracy from actually working.

Th only "inalienable right" I favour is that you
can never sell your voting entitlement.

 

[EzInKy]

Originally posted by EdwardTking
I tend to favour No 1 - I favour democracy on four levels:

Citizens voting for/against laws and for budgets.
Citizens voting in gavour of plaintiffs and innocent/guilty
on civil and criminal trials.
Citizens voting for officials and representives.
Citizens spending their money how they like.

And yes, conflicts can occur between these four:

The problem with most "inalienable rights" is that
they tend to be established by those who have
the power rather than on any absolute moral or
practical principles and so exist to prevent
democracy from actually working.

Th only "inalienable right" I favour is that you
can never sell your voting entitlement.

That won't work very well if the majority decide to take away your right to vote because you don't look, think, believe, or have as much money as they do.

 

[Smidlee]

Monoarchy is alot better than Democracy if you talking about just the government itself.
1) Monoarchy is cheaper than Democrazy ( which has three branches of government)
2) Dictator has more power than Democracy . there is no debating or arguing.
3) laws are passed alot faster in Monoarchy
4) Justice is execute faster with less delays
5) in monoarchy you don't have to buy votes

I like Monoarchy 10 times better than Democracy but yet I'll choose Democracy over Monoarchy. why? Because power( and wealth) corrupt most men. monoarchy main weakest is man and since you can't trust any man with all that power then Democracy is the safer choice even though it's the weakest form of government. but if you got a good and rightous king ( there has been a few in history) then Monoarchy is a good form of government

 

[onejayhawk]

One of the problems with a democracy, and every other theoretical type of government from the populous, is the evolution of a bureaucracy to support the decisions of the government. While it seems noble to say that direct rule of the people is a good thing, there is often no conscensus on what or how things should be handled, which causes one of two things to happen.

The first is nothing happens, and nothing gets done. This is not a bad problem to some people's minds, but in reality it is catastrophic in times of crisis, like war or natural disaster. Partly because of this, the rule of the desks takes over. That is what bureaucracy means: rule by furniture. This is the second, and IMO almost inevitable result of true democracy. Committees are set up to do a function, and they aquire a life of their own. They are useful, though inefficient, and very difficult to control under the best of circumstances. In the end it is the paper pushers which provide the governance and there are few things further from the ideal of direct rule by the populous.

The thing that was so revolutionary about the formation of the United States is that they held a convention to set down on paper the basic sense of proper rule that other countries were doing through custom and legal precident. Then they went one large step further and defined the rights of the people against their government. This paper was then defined to be the supreme law of the land, to which all judicial decrees were made subject. Itis calledThe Rule of Law. This, and not democracy, is what the US is trying to produce in Iraq, for example.

J

 

[Zarn]

Bah, no monarchy or democracy is good

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Originally posted by WillJ
Democracy... What a novel concept. Everyone is allowed an equal say in their government.

But are there some things that shouldn't be left to the people to decide? Is discrimating against blacks wrong no matter what, even if the majority of the citizens supported it? Would it be right to enforce non-discrimination against the general will, rather than either doing nothing or trying to educate the supporters and get them to change their mind? (This is just an example; there are many similar issues.) In fact, should we all screw democracy and give you totalitarian rule?

So what I'm asking you is this: Should there be limits to democracy? Do you believe that, since no one--not even YOU--has any true authority over anyone else, and no one can rightfully claim that they are right and everyone else is wrong ... that total democracy (majority rules no matter what) is the way to go? Or are there certain universal axioms that any democracy must go by whether or not the people support it?

A better way of asking this question would be on a personal level. If you, for example, are against abortion, but a vote is held and the majority rules pro-abortion, which would be your stance?:

A. I should enlighten these pro-abortioners! Let me teach them that abortion is wrong, and then we can vote again and abortion will be outlawed! Yay!

B. We must get rid of abortion at any cost! I don't care about what everyone else says!

The thing is there is no absolute good and evil. What is evil is what is considered to be so by this "majority". And yes, if the majority thinks it's better to segregate whites from blacks, then segregation would be "good". How then did "good" end up to be viewed as it is by the current majority (anno 2003, "civilized"World)? Through the reduction of ignorance. This is linked directly with tolerance and is the only way society can "better" itself.

 

[Archer 007]

Keep the Republic.

 

[luiz]

Constitutional democracy, is the workable democracy. Rule of the mob is in fact rule of whoever holds influence, be it the media, the clerics, the partymen, whoever.

Even if the majority decides that a certain ethnicic or religious group should be killed, it doesn't make it right. There are certain evident truths, that should be respected.

Furthermore, who said "society" is a deity that should have power over individuals? Individual rights come first, for we are not insects.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Option #3.

 

[phoenix_night]

Number 1. Can't have democracy if you don't let the people govern themselves.

 

[Aramazd]

A strong imperial dynasty is the best

 

[The Yankee]

All imperial dynasties lose power within several generations.....They're lucky if they get a new emperor bringing fresh life into the line, as has happened in some cases, but not all.

I think a system like the USA's is good. Except for the damned Electoral College and way back when when the Constitution was too slow to bring about more rights for other peoples.....