Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Strongly Agree

1 (2.9%)

Agree

0 (0%)

Neutral/Tossup

12 (35.3%)

Disagree

13 (38.2%)

Strongly Disagree

8 (23.5%)

Total Members Voted: 34

[Retro]

Casually agree. I don't trust democracy to know what's right for me, but I do trust that it means well at its core (and I don't mean solely the politicians, but the staffers and administration supporting them).

[Shambling Zombie]

I vote disagree, since I think Democracy makes double-dealing rules lawyer-type leaders, rather than axe-crazy nutjobs you too often get with other forms of government.

[Taricus]

Axe-crazy isn't that bad, you still get those in a democracy.

[scriver]

Not as often. And besides, in a democracy, you can get rid of them without having to wait until enough glasses have been spilled for a revolution to flame up.
And without all the unnecessary death, pain and misery that inevitable follows one.

[Taricus]

True, true.

I guess the main problem I have with democracy is the lobbyist and lack of political education though.

[ChairmanPoo]

Go back a while and the first weapon to qualify as a weapon of mass destruction was throwing plauge bodys over the wall to infect the people inside, for a slow painful death.

Effectiveness: dubious. IMO it was more effective as a psychological weapon than as a biological one.

[scriver]

True, true.

I guess the main problem I have with democracy is the lobbyist and lack of political education though.

But do you really think it would be any different in a non-democracy? Lobbyists are basically just people with (or representing other people's) interests and who are trying to convince the people in charge to do act to their benefit. That would still exist and be the same with other types of governments - in fact, since so many non-democracies are dictatorial in style, they might even be more successful as there would be less people to convince!
Not to mention that the people, once again, would have little to no say in who gets to make important decisions and by extension have to deal with the lobby (not being able to put an environmentalist, who you can trust not to give in to "anti-environment" corporate lobbying, in charge, for example).

I'm uncertain what you mean by "political education" education, though. Are you referring to people in general or the politicians?


Lastly,
@MetalSlimeHunt; You don't mind some discussion in the thread, do you? I'll stop, if you want us to keep to the polling.

[Taricus]

The general populace, if the average voter doesn't know whats going on and what's actually being affected (instead of receiving a summary from the media) the people would actually know WHY they're voting for something.

As for the lobbyist statement, I was talking more about "monetary gifts" for political favors though I guess that's my fault I didn't word it correctly.

[CoughDrop]

When determining problems about a government, I think you shouldn't look to how it is already better than the other shit forms of government, but how it could better be improved.

That said, I agree that you are "playing Russian Roulette" with democracy. While there are many checks and balances (at least with how the US is set up) it can take a long, long time to right wrongs and that causes some major inefficiencies. Another HUGE problem stated here is that the majority of people just aren't educated enough. I've literally talked to a US citizen that votes but didn't know what the senate was... No, I am not kidding.

I talk a lot about political science with some friends and one of them had an idea that I really, really liked; turn all people below a certain IQ and political-know-how into second-class citizens that cannot vote or become government officials of any kind. I firmly believe this would solve quite a lot of all the bullshit that goes on in democracy, as the popular vote is literally run by a bunch of media-following idiots. Anyone else have other thoughts?

[Taricus]

Seems like a good idea, aslong as there are free classes teaching the basics.

[ChairmanPoo]

Sounds like a bad idea that has been posted (and debunked) several times in this forum

[CoughDrop]

Sounds like a bad idea that has been posted (and debunked) several times in this forum

I didn't see anything in your link about this:

Turn all people below a certain IQ and political-know-how into second-class citizens that cannot vote or become government officials of any kind.

...?

[ChairmanPoo]

I quoted the text for you, despite the fact that it is right there

Also there will be no global human rights. Rights will scale from freedom to the right to own property, to the right to hold office. To get those rights you must pass an intelligence test. The average joe probly won't be allowd to vote, but he could own propery. Someone very stupid would only have the right to free speech. A very intelligent person woul have all the rights as your average, north amrican adult.

...sometimes I wonder if the people who have these kind of wacky ideas actually think they'd be allowed to vote under their proposed "system"....

[CoughDrop]

I skipped that paragraph after reading "Also there will be no global human rights."

How does a link to a very different variation of an idea I posted supposed to debunk it? (Perhaps there's more discussion of it on that thread, but I only saw one comment referring to it within two pages afterward)

Could you explain why you think it's a bad idea?

...sometimes I wonder if the people who have these kind of wacky ideas actually think they'd be allowed to vote under their proposed "system"....

...That seems a bit low, doesn't it?

[ChairmanPoo]

Because it basically ammounts to arbitrarily decreeing that some people don't get to vote.

Actually, just read on in that thread. Other people (and yours truly) already ellaborated there why it's a bad idea.