Let's Be Honest, Anon. Do you care for Democracy? (34)

1 Name: Anonymous Sleeper : 2009-05-05 22:02 ID:NJTwYbPm This thread was merged from the former /debate/ board. You can view the archive here.

There are plenty of threads here that touch upon Democracy. Often the fear of the chaos that it has become-some Anons attack the ideas of Communism without knowing what they are or heap scorn upon the Parliaments and Senates of democratic nations for their infractions. Sometimes Anon has rightfully called out injustices on the part of stolid China and less flexible nations, and other times our members succumb to-though it may be a curse to say it-unchecked nationalism or pride.

But do you know what you are fighting for? Or against? We must, at a glace even, admit that the model of the modern republic is Chaotic... unjust even. But do you want anything more? Does your nation deserve anything less than anything more? Why?

2 Name: Anonymous Sleeper : 2009-05-05 22:03 ID:NJTwYbPm

Let's face it, most of us don't ussually think about why democracy is supposed to work. Looking at Iran v. the world right now, we see a standoff and tension between democracies. This is not suppossed to happen. Why? Because, the soul-the beating heart-of a representative government is education.

How fare the world's education system? Do we learn to tolerate past our national boundries? Yes. Do we learn to interact; to attain the greatest good afordable to our people (and thus avoid war)? Somewhat. Do we, as citizens learn negotiate, to think critically of our elected leaders, to be involved in more than our own interests, but to take interest in creating the opportunity for honorable dissent? I think not.

Freedom is not infinite, if you don't choose your gardeners not just for your style but for their skill in keeping the plant alive, the shrubbery of democracy shall be cut down to a dessicated skeleton.

Wow, you are a patient reader, aren't you.

3 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2009-05-06 06:34 ID:dlyod9C8

stupid thread

4 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2009-05-10 04:52 ID:0Cjyz4wI

republic, as in democracy with limits on what the majority can do.

5 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2009-05-11 23:17 ID:TkEUFW9Z

i tink it was good music but to long wait for new album

6 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2009-06-22 04:16 ID:LNyumyRT

The average IQ of any country is right around 100, which is far too low to make any beneficial or just decisions about running a country. Democracy is a bad thing. A constitutional republic, sort of like the original US constitution, before it was changed to gave excess power to the public during the Progressive Era, is a very good model. However, the party system, which isn't written into the system, but just sort of evolved, is the downfall of it. It changes it from a system where we vote for the most competent person, to one where we vote for one of two pre-packaged sets of ideologies. That is a total failure, and corrupts all who engage in it. If parties were abolished, and the power to elect senators returned to the state legislatures, and of course something done to neuter the Supreme Court so they stop subverting the power of the legislature and of the Constitution, the US would have the right kind of system.

7 Name: Caeia Iulia Regilia Lautum : 2009-07-02 02:07 ID:MVMeWSuY


preach it brotha.

I'd love to see basic reading comprehension and constitutional knowledge be required for voting. If you don't know what a President does, you shouldn't be picking one. And if you can't read in the 21st Century, just GTFO.

I think the DUALITY of the parties is the bigger problem than the existance of parties. All democracies have them in one form or another, but the more successful have more than TWO. Two parties mean that most of the time you won't really be voting for the guy you like so much as against the guy you don't like. McCain wasn't all that conservative, but he got a good chunk of the Conservative vote because Obama was too far left for them. Add in another conservative and another liberal party and I think you'd get a bit closer to what the people actually want.

8 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2009-07-05 20:26 ID:EeD3ciJP

Communism always fails, guys.

Russia. China. Cuba. North Korea.

All of them were shitholes when they were Communist countries/are shitholes because they are a half-assed Communist country/are a shithole 100% Communist country.

Why don't you Communist-ish people go TRY and get into North Korea. Or do some research on the hardships the North Korean people are going through.

I just got back from a trip to Europe, and some German dudes around my age (18) were actually talking about how Communism is a good idea. It was mind boggling. Here these guys are, chatting about how Communism is the way to go, and they were born right after the Berlin Wall fell. The new generations of people always forget what their preceding generations have suffered and make the same mistakes all over again.

I think that the American capitalist democracy is just fine for America, and the European democratic socialist model works great too(maybe even a little better than American capitalism). I've experienced both and I can live with both. I've seen the horrible things that are going on in North Korea, and it's pretty much hell. Same shit with Cuba. Why do you think there are so many refugees from these countries? Why were there so many refugees from East Germany? People want to leave these terrible Communist states.

You people really need to get educated before you get to voting age, or into a position where you can try and influence people.

9 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2009-07-10 02:47 ID:xIsdwj82

>>2 Tell 'em what they need to know, bro.

Some of you strike down communism as if it's oppossed to capitalism, but it's economics. An example of a socialist (but not wholly communist) state would be Switzerland or France. Say what you will of France, but the Swiss have a stable government. Just an example. Total communism, where the state owns and operates business (and perhaps civil liberties) is a fine ideal, but really, only two nations practice it. Cuba (which has it's problems) and North Korea (which is essentially an Orwellian shithole). When the people have no say, communism is the extreme concentration of powers. I do not beleive that the extreme is suitable for humans.

You can say that people are just too stupid too vote properly, but that comes down to two major factors. If education is the public's heart, experience is it's will. If education in times of peace is not enough, then tighten the voting standards to those with education. Personally, I do not feel that this is neccessary--just that we tighten up education.

But what to teach? How do you teach statesmanship, or how to choose a good leader. Here's a start: teach the basic principles of logic as a requirement for graduations, if not voting itself. I mean how to note logical falacies that politicians preach and understand how they personally weigh issues. This would give experience in calm choice. If that isn't enough, I don't know what is (hopefully some Anon does), we should not just preach the superiority or workings of our system. Those alone shall not preserve anything but loyalty.

If you read this, yes, yes, critize, and grand kudos.

10 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2009-07-21 15:05 ID:WHJNBwpC

I think I'd care for it as soon as I don't have it or it's seriously threatened.

It's all relative of course, could I stand an oligarchic Theological Republic like in Iran? Yes, I could, if it also was constitutionally legal and protected my civil liberties and didn't fake elections and imprison opponents.

In short, constitutionalism, rule of law, and the protection of civil and human rights/liberties are vastly more important (I think to most people) than the ability to throw your vote in a plastic box every 4 years.

It seems those mentioned things usually only come along with democracy, though, at least in the long term, so that's the deal.

11 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2009-07-22 01:04 ID:1o/THSSp

>You people really need to get educated before you get to voting age, or into a position where you can try and influence people.

Well in my opinion you don't have the right to call people uneducated when you fail to realize that even communism moved on and learned from its mistakes. The original capitalism was cruel too and it took even longer to evolve into a system that is worth living in.
However, have no problem with capitalism, but with forcing poor countries without a real economy to take part in it just because our corporations want to make more money. Unfortunately, all countries that try to build up their own economy just get blown away by the IMF and world bank.

12 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2009-08-23 10:51 ID:g3WRo/nU

I'm against the current systems we have. I care for Democracy in the long run - just not for the current democracies. For example, I think the "republic" model is a dead one. It worked well a century or two ago, but things have evolved.

I think what we must strive for is some sort of direct democracy, which will soon be possible despite the huge populations thanks to advances in communication technologies. Society needs to be dynamic and less clogged. There needs to be less intermediates so as to reduce signal dampening.

As >>6 said though, a lot of people (sadly) aren't qualified enough to emit enlightened opinions. So I think there should be some sort of "levels" of testing, each one giving clearance for more important decisions. These tests would also be divided between fields. A good economist isn't necessarily a good ecologist. Then, rests to find some sort of equilibrium between the decisions of each "branch". It sickens me when in France for example, some dude is Minister of Finances & Industry one day and of Culture the next. Or Defense. Or any other.

Politic shouldn't be an all-around job. NOBODY is qualified enough for this.

13 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2009-09-05 16:54 ID:ntRuokV8

My only complaint with the democratic process is that I feel leaders in a republic or parliamentary system are often ineffective, incompetent or corrupt. As in order to become leaders, they must first and foremost be 'politicians' (that is experts on gaining and maintaining power, not experts on social, economic or military policy).
Genuine leaders tend to be genuinely naive, and so may sooner be marginalized in favor of a figurehead with better political strategists.
In essence I feel we reward mediocrity.
But when I compare my safe, sanitary and comfortable lifestyle to countries where revolution (whether being socialist, fascist or foreign controlled military dictatorship) has plunged the populace into despair for decades or centuries, trying for anything better seems unwise at best.

I have much less faith in the 'people are stupid' crowd than I do in the democratic process, such sentiment forms the roots of fascism.

14 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2009-09-09 19:45 ID:VzAjT5tF

You people are CONFUSING democracy and republicanism.


Please drill this in your head. America does not practice mob rule, America practices rule of law above majority rule.

Rule of law > majority rule. In America the majority cannot oppress the minority. Our founding fathers thought and said that democracy was BAD. They detested democracy because it always led mob rule chaos.

America was founded as a republic. And still is. If a man kills his wife, the mob can't lynch him because that man has a constitutional right to a trial first to prove his guilt. In a democracy a mob would have been able to lynch him because they were the majority.

Basically republicanism protects the minority by giving every individual certain inalienable rights that protects you from the mob mentality.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention on September 17, 1787, as Benjamin Franklin left the hall in Philadelphia, he was asked, "What kind of government have you given us, Dr. Franklin?" He replied: "A republic, if you can keep it."

15 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2009-09-17 11:27 ID:IcTJwB3w

Although I do agree with you to a certain extent, I think you are also a bit confused.


America is a representative democracy. Republicanism and democracy are not mutually exclusive, nor is it as simple as DEMOCRACY = MOB RULE. I mean, c'mon, we're talking about civility and order when we refer to government.

>Our founding fathers thought and said that democracy was BAD. They detested democracy because it always led mob rule chaos.

The founding fathers liked the idea of democracy because they wanted an alternative to the oppression and tyranny of the British monarchy. They did acknowledge the fact that the majority probably wasn't as well informed or educated enough to directly control the government, but democracy was only a theory at this point in history. There were no current models of democracy for them to observe, so I don't know what you mean by "always"..

>Basically republicanism protects the minority by giving every individual certain inalienable rights that protects you from the mob mentality.

I think what you meant to say was, republicanism disallows the majority from voting away the inalienable rights people have. The rights you're talking about mostly protect you from the government itself, not mobsters.

16 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2009-09-19 03:11 ID:yhIY+dIl

well, democracy isn't nesseccarily "mob rule," but it does allow too much power to the individual. And, the Individual is either a republican or a democrat now, which means they either believe everything FOX news or MSNBC says. There is no in-between anymore. I absolutely hate the simple fact that every single american is misinformed about something, most people, alot of things. It is just a vicious circle of hate, the Reps hate the Dems and vice versa. I see no point in the near or even far future where this will stop. I am a libertarian socialist, I believe in a form of anarchy. People are too narrow-minded to accept my ways of thinking, and too prejudiced to even listen to me. I gave up on the world a long time ago. If they fuck it up too bad in america, I'm of to canada or the Netherlands, or somewhere with laws that I like.

17 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2009-09-21 12:55 ID:bzJjya0v


America is SUPPOSED to be a REPUBLIC, it unfortunately has become a democracy. The reason it was set up to be a republic was to protect the minorities and give them a voice in government. Today, minorities in the US have little to no say in government.

And by minorities, I am not just talking about blacks or hispanics. I am also including atheists, muslims, and other non-christians. People whom do not subscribe to being either a democrat or republican. People who want to see drugs decriminalized, drinking laws changed, or actually not be discriminated against for being poor or having poor credit.

I have no representation in government so I choose not to vote or be involved. I am an atheist and the state I live in, there are laws literally on the books that ban non-christians from holding public office.

I am not sure how much longer the US can stay together in its' current corrupt form.

18 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2009-10-03 15:59 ID:gKInyOco



Who votes on all the bills being passed, is it the people or is it their elected congressmen.

In a democracy the people vote on all laws. In a republic the elected or chosen officials do.

We are a republic, your tinfoil hat rant on other ethnicities doesn't change reality.

19 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2009-10-06 12:34 ID:bzJjya0v


I am not playing the "tinfoil" hat here. America is not a Republic, at least not anymore. It is supposed to be one.

You definition of democracy is wrong as well. What we have in the US now is mob rule, where 51% of the people vote someone in, the other 49% is totally fucked. Obama bearly got 52% of the vote and they called it a "landslide victory"?

This country needs to go back to being a republic and more political parties need to be formed. We need to start having coalition governments instead of this two party horseshit we have now. I am not neither a republican or democrat, so I am not represented in government.

20 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2009-10-06 22:12 ID:Heaven

> What we have in the US now is mob rule, where 51% of the people vote someone in, the other 49% is totally fucked.

What the hell man, do want to have the runner-up be junior vice president or some shit like that?

> This country needs to go back to being a republic and more political parties need to be formed.

where 38% of the people vote someone in, the other 62% is totally fucked?

Hell.. I'm not even American and I know most of the power is focused in the senate.

21 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2009-11-13 06:41 ID:CZV3HzBm

> What we have in the US now is mob rule, where 51% of the people vote someone in, the other 49% is totally fucked.

Electoral. College.

22 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2010-02-27 14:46 ID:Gq2h91lS

>The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.


23 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2010-02-27 19:54 ID:hJ7nWd/L



Dude, a republic IS an indirect (or representative) democracy...

24 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2010-03-02 01:42 ID:1MWNHVq7

Oh yeah? Then why isn't the word "democracy" written anywhere within the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence?

Because the Founders wanted to avoid using any form of that word like the plague and for good reason. Just because it has some democratic functions doesn't mean it should be regarded as such.


25 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2010-03-04 07:37 ID:v6Jj6Vht


You're a troll, so I won't respond seriously to you. I will say that you are a big fatty fat fat who should look up what an indirect democracy is, unless you don't care and just wanted to disturb everyone's groove around here, in which case you should go butter yourself up and roll down a grassy hill on camera and post the video on the internet for everyone to watch.

26 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2010-03-04 22:07 ID:Heaven

What is your problem? I stated that the word "democracy" is not mentioned at all in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head where it's mentioned by a Founding Father is in Federalist paper #10 where it is not looked upon very favorably.

Since you couldn't come up with a rebuttal, you decided instead to go off on a childish tangent, further solidifying my point that the American form of government is a republic, not a democracy. So stop spouting this bullshit that it is.

Once again, IHBT.

27 Name: Honnest Girl : 2010-03-13 08:37 ID:MGzszw7O

To be honnest , it's just a bull of shit ^^ !! and it didn't even exist hahahaaaaaaa

28 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2010-04-25 01:37 ID:nstKw/Er


Well, one of the two major original parties were the Democratic-Republicans...

29 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2010-05-12 02:49 ID:Heaven

That's true, but that's a party. The republican form of government does have some democratic functions within it, but to say that it's strictly a democracy is ridiculous.

30 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2010-09-06 12:33 ID:T8J829WE

Republic > Democracy

31 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2012-10-09 14:25 ID:Heaven

democracy a shit

32 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2014-08-28 17:59 ID:Uy/mfK99

I dont want to live in DPRK

33 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2014-09-08 03:36 ID:+mlnQMiA

People say Switzerland is a model democracy but that country isn't very large. America is very much the opposite of democracy and has been since its inception, imo. Perhaps size does matter?

34 Name: Anonymous Speaker : 2014-09-10 19:07 ID:5EuYWozX

Both Democracies and Republics are stupid when they're just that. But mingeled with Technocracy it could really be something.

Democracy has some really massive flaws. For example:
-People fail to see that the current government is shit and elect the same one every day because they don't belong to groups that are hit hard by the current government. I didn't even know that there was more than 2 parties in America some time ago.
-There is no one that could do the job of ruling a counrty WELL(!)
-Uneducated people get to vote too
-Unreasonable people get to vote too
-There is more than one party. The thing is that are basically identical

Furthermore, parties lie just to get your votes (that's called a campaign in the media) and the list goes on and on and on...

Just think about it for a second. You choose by whom you want to be oppressed. At least you get to choose, right?

If politicians actually had an interest in ensuring prosperity for following generations they'd obviously be Technocrats. Why? Nowadays a lot of decisions are made because of 'money', 'the industrie' and 'growth'. That's a really bad thing. Now don't get me wrong, the industrie is important. But in my humble opinion it's wrong to decide things - that may or may not go against the wellbeing of the people - just to keep the industry rolling. If America invested their money into alternative resources, space craft, infrastructure etc. instead of bullshit like fracking, military etc. we'd be in a wholly different situation.

Democracy itself isn't actually good for big counrties and capitalism makes it even worse.

My alternative:
Getting ruled by people that have something in their brain besides growth and the industire and jobs and let the people decide how they want to make their society within the scope of a technocratic government.

I hope I didn't forget anything...

Name: Link:
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
More options...