What is a better description of our democracies

[timtofly]

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.

I don't really see size as the problem. It is more the satisfaction of the one's in control of what form of government they deem viable. You will never please all people living in the same area. The majority of the people live in a pacified state. Government should be organic and evolving, not just the whim of a few people who think it should change because they think something else is better.

 

[Phrossack]

I don't really see size as the problem. It is more the satisfaction of the one's in control of what form of government they deem viable. You will never please all people living in the same area. The majority of the people live in a pacified state. Government should be organic and evolving, not just the whim of a few people who think it should change because they think something else is better.

Assuming each society is democratic, the smaller the society, the more say each person has. Generally. In a country of hundreds of millions, one's individual vote matters little, and the government barely knows you exist. In a society of, say, hundreds, people know you and your vote carries more weight.

 

[timtofly]

I would agree with you on democratic societies, but even in a small town where your voice can be heard (if one spoke up) it may or may not matter depending on the voice of the rest of the town. However we are talking about those who rule, who bulldoze their form of government via revolution or strong arming the opposition.

If one agrees to live in a democratic society and votes their will, they still have to go by the majority will. They cannot (after loosing) get a group of people together and wipe out the opposition and then declare their will as the victor.

 

[gay_Aleks]

In a true democracy, you could, theoretically, tear off the roof of a house.

Rule of the people, you see.

 

[timtofly]

Probably too much work involved unless the pay was agreed upon by the local union, and all safety regulations were deemed ok by the local fed agency.

 

[Narz]

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.

+1

 

[Agent327]

Saudi-Arabia will implode if the USA ceases aid to it.

Seeing as that aid is primarily military, that seems doubtful. Israel might implode though if the US ceased all aid.

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.

Sort of like the 'popular support' for Soviet Russia, which magically imploded with the fall of the regime?

'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.

Really? European politicians were unpleasantly surprised by the rejection of the EU 'constitution' by popular vote in various countries. I would say that's a clear expression of 'the will of the people'. The real problem might be that 'the will of the people' sometimes results in decidedly unpleasant results. There's nothing intrinsically better about democracy above oligarchy or aristocracy. And the rise of mass media has gone hand in hand with the rise of mass democracy, so the two phenomena might be closely linked.

 

[Tahuti]

Seeing as that aid is primarily military, that seems doubtful. Israel might implode though if the US ceased all aid.

Saudi Arabia actually has a US military contigent stationed, on which the Saud monarchy is actively freeriding on. Israel, if anything, would become stronger without American aid, and also more anti-American.

Sort of like the 'popular support' for Soviet Russia, which magically imploded with the fall of the regime?

During Gorbachov's reign, the USSR just became a plain authoritarian régime. However, do note that the Soviet Union did not collapse by popular pressure. Rather, Yeltsin - with the support of the Soviet military - had Russia secede from the USSR, at which point there was no point for other members to continue being part of the USSR.

Really? European politicians were unpleasantly surprised by the rejection of the EU 'constitution' by popular vote in various countries. I would say that's a clear expression of 'the will of the people'. The real problem might be that 'the will of the people' sometimes results in decidedly unpleasant results. There's nothing intrinsically better about democracy above oligarchy or aristocracy. And the rise of mass media has gone hand in hand with the rise of mass democracy, so the two phenomena might be closely linked.

Mass 'democracy' is the same as rule by media. In the end, simple minded populism wins. That's why mass democracy and mass media go together. The very concept of 'will of the people' is plainly wrong. Someone else had already willed the 'will of the people'

 

[Agent327]

Saudi Arabia actually has a US military contigent stationed, on which the Saud monarchy is actively freeriding on. Israel, if anything, would become stronger without American aid, and also more anti-American.

I think you underestimate the amount of military aid Israel actually receives. Whether Israel is anti-American or not is neither here nor there; it's a small country. Saudi Arabia on the other hand can simply buy support elsewhere should the US decide not to support its oil interests.

During Gorbachov's reign, the USSR just became a plain authoritarian régime. However, do note that the Soviet Union did not collapse by popular pressure. Rather, Yeltsin - with the support of the Soviet military - had Russia secede from the USSR, at which point there was no point for other members to continue being part of the USSR.

Popular pressure never had any effect on the USSR; it didn't have any political means to express the will of the people except through the CP. I wasn't referring to the political collapse of the USSR, but of Communism. Without the USSR it simply vanished as a political force. Without state support Communism didn't appear to have any popular support. There may be some professed 'nostalgia' to the Communist era, but there is no movement willing to return to a Communist state. So it would appear propaganda performed more or less the same function as the mass media in democracies.

Mass 'democracy' is the same as rule by media. In the end, simple minded populism wins. That's why mass democracy and mass media go together. The very concept of 'will of the people' is plainly wrong. Someone else had already willed the 'will of the people'

The latter doesn't follow: mass media only became possible because of the rise of the masses - economically and politically. Prior to that there was no point in having mass media. But it's not mass media that gave rise to mass democracy. Whether populism wins in the end depends on the quality of the democratic leaders; if you have populist leaders, then yes, populism wins. I am not denying the effect of populism, but it's just another expression of 'the will of the people' - within the framework of democracy.

 

[Tahuti]

I think you underestimate the amount of military aid Israel actually receives. Whether Israel is anti-American or not is neither here nor there; it's a small country. Saudi Arabia on the other hand can simply buy support elsewhere should the US decide not to support its oil interests.

In absolute terms, US aid to Israel is still very little, even if it is per capita the largest receiver of aid. Israel has also a strong indigenous arms industry. There is actually discussion about refusing US aid among the pro-settler crowd.

Besides, you also have spotted the elephant in the room in regards to Saudi Arabia: Remove oil consumption and the house of Saud IS toast. Overthrowal would be imminent.

Popular pressure never had any effect on the USSR; it didn't have any political means to express the will of the people except through the CP. I wasn't referring to the political collapse of the USSR, but of Communism. Without the USSR it simply vanished as a political force. Without state support Communism didn't appear to have any popular support. There may be some professed 'nostalgia' to the Communist era, but there is no movement willing to return to a Communist state. So it would appear propaganda performed more or less the same function as the mass media in democracies.

That was my point from the beginning, what are you arguing for?

The latter doesn't follow:

Ooh what...

mass media only became possible because of the rise of the masses - economically and politically. Prior to that there was no point in having mass media. But it's not mass media that gave rise to mass democracy.

Does it contradict any of my points? Its all true, yet there is nothing here to contradict my points.

Whether populism wins in the end depends on the quality of the democratic leaders; if you have populist leaders, then yes, populism wins. I am not denying the effect of populism, but it's just another expression of 'the will of the people' - within the framework of democracy.

The media selects who is in charge and/or what those in charge are going to do, by agendising issues (Muslims are evil, Russia is evil etc.). Again, the 'will of the people' has been decided by the media. That's actually my basic point that follows through all the threads.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

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

True that. But that would have to involve the banning of ordinary free-market enterprises - and that seems like its very own big big problem.

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 was tongue-in-cheek here The Arab monarchies all are oil hives. It is easy to look good. At the same time, those monarchies do not seem to exhibit some kind of special responsibility superior to democratic governments.

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.

Well they prove that monarchies can work well, I'll give you that. But good governance seems to become more difficult th bigger your country is. So I don't trust those cases to have much potential for generalization.

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 don't think I really follow. Aren't Andorra and Lichtenstein also dependent on popular support? What differentiates the two does not seem to be the reliance on popular support but North Korea trying to make this support not a matter of debate by using totalitarian measures. Which seems undemocratic to me. So in actuality, I think Lichtenstein and Andorra are more democratic than North Korea.

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.

Regarding arts and scholarly ventures I feel Germany already is doing that. We have a strong tradition of financing theaters and universities with taxes. But that doesn't seem to make much of a difference when it comes to economics ruling the day.

 

[classical_hero]

How the heck is democracy like a party bus?

Because only a few get to party and the rest of us are left off it.

 

[Tahuti]

True that. But that would have to involve the banning of ordinary free-market enterprises - and that seems like its very own big big problem.

Not necessarily. More crowding out. Private enterprises could still receive grants by government and base their profits around that.

Well they prove that monarchies can work well, I'll give you that. But good governance seems to become more difficult th bigger your country is. So I don't trust those cases to have much potential for generalization.

That's why decentralisation is a good thing.

I don't think I really follow. Aren't Andorra and Lichtenstein also dependent on popular support? What differentiates the two does not seem to be the reliance on popular support but North Korea trying to make this support not a matter of debate by using totalitarian measures. Which seems undemocratic to me. So in actuality, I think Lichtenstein and Andorra are more democratic than North Korea.

They are popular among it populace, yes. However, monarchies by definition should NOT have to rely on mass movements to exist, even those are self-created. That's more or less the point. North Korea has created a mass movement to sustain its popular legitimacy domestically. Idem dito for the USSR under Stalin, and Nazi Germany. Without popular support, the military will overthrow those in power in totalitarian regimes. What these regimes have in common with 'liberal democracies' is their reliance on the media for their legitimacy.

In powerful monarchies, there is no need for any mass movement support to exist.

Regarding arts and scholarly ventures I feel Germany already is doing that. We have a strong tradition of financing theaters and universities with taxes. But that doesn't seem to make much of a difference when it comes to economics ruling the day.

States often fund culture and universities for economic purposes instead for its own sake. Often, culture only consists of a miniscule amount the state budget.

 

[muhtesem insan]

see my signature

 

[Agent327]

In absolute terms, US aid to Israel is still very little, even if it is per capita the largest receiver of aid. Israel has also a strong indigenous arms industry. There is actually discussion about refusing US aid among the pro-settler crowd.

Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing the amounts provided to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct U.S. economic and military assistance since 1976 and the largest total recipient since World War ll. Total direct U.S. aid to Israel amounts to well over $140 billion in 2003 dollars. Israel receives about $3 billion in direct foreign assistance each year, which is roughly one-fifth of America's entire foreign aid budget.

Yes, very little indeed...

The argument that Israel can stand on its own two feet (after massive US aid) is actually used by opponents of continuation of this aid in the US; which seems slightly more relevant than what a few Israeli settlers are shouting. (Meanwhile the Palestinians has received a grand total of 0.0 US aid.)

Besides, you also have spotted the elephant in the room in regards to Saudi Arabia: Remove oil consumption and the house of Saud IS toast. Overthrowal would be imminent.

Yes, the same might apply to Israel with regards to its industry. What's the point of such What if-s however?

That was my point from the beginning, what are you arguing for?

Actually, it wasn't:

The media selects who is in charge and/or what those in charge are going to do, by agendising issues (Muslims are evil, Russia is evil etc.). Again, the 'will of the people' has been decided by the media. That's actually my basic point that follows through all the threads.

... which is the exact opposite of what I said. Propaganda nor other media can generate popular support; what they can do is galavanize existing opinions. The collapse of the Soviet bloc showed its propaganda for what is was worth: zero. There was no mass opposition to the abolishment of Communism; there was however mass support for a regime change. So 60 plus years of propaganda turned out to be exactly that: propaganda.

Similarly, media do not select, they follow. Trying to publish non-existent issues won't generate any sort of popular support. What the media do, is pick on popular issues. (And here is where propaganda totally failed.)

 

[Tahuti]

Yes, very little indeed...

The argument that Israel can stand on its own two feet (after massive US aid) is actually used by opponents of continuation of this aid in the US; which seems slightly more relevant than what a few Israeli settlers are shouting. (Meanwhile the Palestinians has received a grand total of 0.0 US aid.)

Except that what opponents shout is actually way overemphasised in general.

Yes, the same might apply to Israel with regards to its industry. What's the point of such What if-s however?

Israel has faced so many economic sanctions that any cutting of aid or even a boycott will not affect it in any way, other than possibly making it stronger.

... which is the exact opposite of what I said. Propaganda nor other media can generate popular support; what they can do is galavanize existing opinions.

That's exactly the first time in this thread you have explicitly said this. The main problem of your debating style here is that you want to provoke your opponents into exploding into anger, as you also did with your earlier debates with Cheezy and Lord Baal and many others, and do not shun the seemingly purposeful use of misleading statements to accomplish this. It results however, in logically unsound arguments on your part.

The collapse of the Soviet bloc showed its propaganda for what is was worth: zero. There was no mass opposition to the abolishment of Communism; there was however mass support for a regime change. So 60 plus years of propaganda turned out to be exactly that: propaganda.

There was no way to disseminate propaganda since the USSR was becoming too disorganised after Stalin's death. However, the propaganda more or less worked. To this day, there is plenty of support for the USSR among those who lived to see it happen. The USSR did not collapse out of popular discontent and instead collapsed due to power struggles within its elites. That doesn't mean propaganda isn't useful to stay in power.

Trying to publish non-existent issues won't generate any sort of popular support.

Then I think you have forgotten about what news media essentially are. Though that's more of a blessing than a curse.

 

[Kyriakos]

Indeed we do not have democracies now.

What mostly was an unstable balance of populism and legal rule, later on (particularly with the 20th century and the climate of total war and interwar) turned to a reverse-populism, reverse-ochlocracy (as in rule not by the unruly crowd, but by equally dumb minorities supposedly higher than the crowd), and by now in many countries of the so-called West does appear to be a dynamic for a lot worse things to come.

The main problems seem to be:

-erosion of the distinction and autonomy of the seperate power branches

-policians become members of the economic elite

-politics is so rotten that most of those who come into it are already harboring a pleiad of horrible qualities such as misanthropy and greed

*

I do hope the near future will be more democratic. Doesn't look good atm.

 

[CavLancer]

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

If you don't like life in the democracy you're in you do have the freedom to move. :b: Moving out of the Soviet Union could get you shot in the back.

 

[Agent327]

Except that what opponents shout is actually way overemphasised in general.

Not by me.

Israel has faced so many economic sanctions that any cutting of aid or even a boycott will not affect it in any way, other than possibly making it stronger.

Seeing as the US has never been part of any sanctions I fail to see the point here.

That's exactly the first time in this thread you have explicitly said this. The main problem of your debating style here is that you want to provoke your opponents into exploding into anger, as you also did with your earlier debates with Cheezy and Lord Baal and many others, and do not shun the seemingly purposeful use of misleading statements to accomplish this. It results however, in logically unsound arguments on your part.

It's probably a faulty assumption of mine to assume that people can actually follow what is implicitly meant beyond the actual words. And I don't hold myself accountable for other peoples' explosions of anger - which, I believe, was not the subject.

What I find typical as that when people realize they have nothing further to contribute, they decide to bring up unrelated issues - like this one. If I feel I have nothing further to contribute I simply stop posting.

There was no way to disseminate propaganda since the USSR was becoming too disorganised after Stalin's death. However, the propaganda more or less worked. To this day, there is plenty of support for the USSR among those who lived to see it happen. The USSR did not collapse out of popular discontent and instead collapsed due to power struggles within its elites. That doesn't mean propaganda isn't useful to stay in power.

I would say that since propaganda is usually simply lies told beautifully there is little gain beyond the propaganda itself. It certainly didn't generate massive popular support - which was the point. (Stalin's death altered little in the USSR beyond the internal power struggle in the top, by the way.)

Then I think you have forgotten about what news media essentially are. Though that's more of a blessing than a curse.

Your perception 'of what media essentially are' may differ from mine: media, like propaganda, are simply the means to transmit a message. Mass media wouldn't be mass media if they did not appeal to a mass audiences' tastes.

Let's look at an extreme example: National-socialism made effective use of both propaganda and mass media. But without a rampant antisemitism in Germany a very large part of the propaganda would have missed its purpose. (Which is why Italian Fascism originally was completely devoid of any antisemitism.) And no amount of propaganda could hide the fact that after Stalingrad Germany was losing the war; the German people knew, as they were the ones receiving the news of their soldiers dying by the thousands.

 

[LamaGT]

Democracy is really just a fancy oligarchy where the skills required to get in power have nothing to do with the skills required to govern the country. Ultimately what matters is how intelligent the ruling class is and if they have good will, at least towards their own people. The idea that democracy is better in absolutely every single case whatsoever is just propaganda.