What is a better description of our democracies

[Terxpahseyton]

"Rule by the people" - the archetype of interpreting democracies. The ideal it is all founded on.

"Crap that sticks to your shoe" - an illustration by a German political stand-up act. Supposed to be the reality it turns out to be. (a little help: it refers to the political class and how the choice the voter is represented with is the effort to get rid of the crap but it just keeps stinking / the political class stays the same).

 

[Millman]

You want conclusions again. From my own experience it's better to have someone who might change things as opposed to someone who won't.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

nevermind

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie.

 

[Millman]

"It's a rare condition in this day and age to find any good news on the newspaper page."

 

[Perfection]

PARTY BOAT!!!!!​

 

[classical_hero]

I give you a party bus.

Link to video.

 

[Perfection]

How the heck is democracy like a party bus?

 

[Agent327]

What is a better description of our democracies

Elective republic.

 

[timtofly]

Is democracy any worse of a rallying cry than revolution?

 

[gay_Aleks]

PARTY BOAT!!!!!​

All aboard the welfare train! Or boat! Or spaceship going to the Mooooooon!

 

[Tahuti]

Democracy is only meaningful in settings involving very small amount of people that are small in such way that when one person letts his voice heard can significantly change the tide of the debate. Whether it is desirable is entirely up to the people involved.

When thousands of people or more are involved, it becomes a farce. The 'liberal democracies' of the West are arguably a major example of such. An individual vote or expression of political opinion does no longer change the debate. That is natural, since large polities cannot pay attention to every single dissenting opinion, since it would ruin the quality of decision making, even if the points made are otherwise true.

However, because 'Liberal Democracies' have free elections, people can be herded in droves to the voting booths and vote in a certain way by the mass media. The problem is further aggrevated by the fact the mass media are largely privately owned, though no one is to be held accountable when people too ignorant of politics are brainwashed into supporting whoever is favourable to the interests of big business. The good thing about monarchy and aristocracy as forms of government is that these do not allow for such thing, because these systems of government do not give the masses the political power that render them useful tools for those that control the media.

'Free Press' and 'Free elections' are thus meaningless concepts, since these only engender deceit in the name of liberty. No one is responsible for anyone, and those formally in power in such 'free' regimes are mere talking heads.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I agree and everything, but it is not like things have to be that way. I mean the individual is of course irrelevant. Or rather usually is. But the "will of the people " does not need to be a farce in action. Nor does the media have to be what it is. There are alternatives. They are just not pursued.

 

[Tahuti]

I agree and everything, but it is not like things have to be that way. I mean the individual is of course irrelevant. Or rather usually is. But the "will of the people " does not need to be a farce in action. Nor does the media have to be what it is.

Given how the media is funded by advertising and content is directed as such, it is innately the way how it is. Ideally, we should ban advertising in all media, be it TV, newspapers or radio: Quite a few media outlets will go bust, and that's the goal.

I for one already welcome the current crisis journalism is facing.

There are alternatives. They are just not pursued.

The state should cease being increasingly narrowly focussed on pure economic interests of its constituents and instead foster an healthy environment for the arts and scholarship and give meaning to communities. Alas, that will not be possible by our free will, currently. We might shift to a form of communism, which in turn will collapse by its overt egalitarianism. Society may return to the ideals of monarchy one day.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Given how the media is funded by advertising and content is directed as such, it is innately the way how it is. Ideally, we should ban advertising in all media

I had a more constructive rather than destructive idea on mind.

For one, a network of publicly funded media which is really really worth it. Historically, public media tends to lack independence and other things. But it is entirely possibly to create a publicly funded media which is all about being critically, about knowing its stuff and about questioning things. It just requires a kind of political will the poetical class will never ever ever produce itself.
Additionally, taxes on private media - be it TV shows or newspapers or whatever - would be used to fund private independent (news) media projects.

The state should cease being increasingly narrowly focussed on pure economic interests of its constituents and instead foster an healthy environment for the arts and scholarship and give meaning to communities. Alas, that will not be possible by our free will, currently. We might shift to a form of communism, which in turn will collapse by its overt egalitarianism. Society may return to the ideals of monarchy one day.

Before we try communism or monarchy perhaps we should just try democracy. That is my opinion anyway. And it is really marvelous how the Arab monarchies do. No democratic government could do better.
I very much agree though that economic interests as the prime interest is kind of dumb. But not because it is so obvious how to do better (meaning I don't know how and think that is one of the most difficult quesitons of our time). But because it is so obvious that it has be able to be done better.

 

[Phrossack]

Given the amount of problems all forms of government have, I'd say all are failures and should be abandoned, except the lack of government tends to die out pretty quickly. Really, it seems there's no way to run a society of more than a few thousand people effectively. But smaller societies don't stand a chance against big ones, so we're permanently stuck with failed systems.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

In theory at least we could have extreme federalism where the federal government's sole job is to protect the smaller communities from each other and from other bigger communities.

 

[Tahuti]

I had a more constructive rather than destructive idea on mind.

For one, a network of publicly funded media which is really really worth it. Historically, public media tends to lack independence and other things. But it is entirely possibly to create a publicly funded media which is all about being critically, about knowing its stuff and about questioning things. It just requires a kind of political will the poetical class will never ever ever produce itself.
Additionally, taxes on private media - be it TV shows or newspapers or whatever - would be used to fund private independent (news) media projects.

That would certainly be a good start. Ideally, all the arts and media would not be beholden to commercial or popular pressure.

And it is really marvelous how the Arab monarchies do. No democratic government could do better.

Saudi-Arabia will implode if the USA ceases aid to it. All the other Arab monarchies are significantly better places to live in than any other Arab country, save for the possible exception of Lebanon. I'd say Liechtenstein and Andorra fit my ideal of monarchies: Powerful monarchs that grant significant civil liberties and sense of community to its populace.

Do note that totalitarian states like North Korea are a distinctively 'democratic' phenomena: They survive and thrive on creating genuine popular support from the vast majority of the population, which it needs to prop its leaders further up.

I very much agree though that economic interests as the prime interest is kind of dumb. But not because it is so obvious how to do better (meaning I don't know how and think that is one of the most difficult quesitons of our time). But because it is so obvious that it has be able to be done better.

Like I said, the state should act as a patron for non-economic endeavours, such as the arts, scholarly ventures, etc. For a large degree to secure the independence of those fields from sheer popularity seeking and commercialism.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The only word I can think of is "farce."

 

[gay_Aleks]

But compared to the tragedy that previous governmental systems were...