Democracy

[MacKenzi]

Can a true democracy work? I don't mean the bullshit lie of a representative democracy, though I do understand its reason for coming into being. But, with communication as advanced as it is today, I find representatives and unnecessary risk. I am speaking of a democracy based on each individuals vote, via the internet (perhaps just a big message board with a check box of yay or nay). Could this work, or would differing opinions cause it to crumble? Is a dictatorship the only answer, or the best answer (presented nicely of course)?

[Jonah Davids]

I have thought of this too. Direct democracy seems viable in the age of online polls and widespread internet access. It might work. But it's unlikely to remain purely direct democracy for very long. Power wants to coalesce.

Democracy in general is a big meh. It works in the sense of it makes most people content most of the time. But it doesn't work in the sense that it's based on a logical fallacy. Just because a lot of people agree on something doesn't mean it's right.

[MacKenzi]

The question then becomes is there a better alternative? And better-yet, isn't the whole point of a government to keep the masses happy (content)? Also, how are you defining "right"? Effective? The best decision?

[pangolin]

While communications are getting to the point where they might facilitate direct government, a democracy respects nothing, and can only make wise decisions if a majority of those involved in each and every decision are wise. This is clearly not the case with human beings.

[stigmatica]

While communications are getting to the point where they might facilitate direct government, a democracy respects nothing, and can only make wise decisions if a majority of those involved in each and every decision are wise. This is clearly not the case with human beings.

I agree with ^

It sounds good on paper, but have you looked at the general population lately? There IS no good solution in MY mind, save giving me a global license to do whatever I want. That would be a great solution for me personally :D

[Zephyrus055]

I think it's viable in the distant future when genetic engineering is possible and intelligence and even knowledge can be programmed. But today individual differences in wealth, opportunity and skill-set make it impossible to have an effective democracy.

[Qfwfq]

In the greater picture, democracy isn't as much about making the best choices as it is having a relatively better accountability of your government.

[Jonah Davids]

The question then becomes is there a better alternative? And better-yet, isn't the whole point of a government to keep the masses happy (content)? Also, how are you defining "right"? Effective? The best decision?

Is there- probably, but not one I know of at the moment. No, that's not really the point of government, although that is a goal for most governments in that their power can be removed by an unhappy enough populace. I define "right" in this context as the idea of political decisions being rationally true, valid, justified, ethical, etc.

[DoomBagel]

Anything with human involvement is destined for failure.

[euterpenc]

Anything with human involvement is destined for failure.

Or at least with less than perfect success.

I think the whole idea of voting itself is faulty. A human being is reduced to a mark on a piece of paper, thereby reducing his effective humanity and all his true value to society to a pathetic minimum. Also, all the reasons, arguments, and even emotions involved in casting a vote are not included in that little checkmark. Further, voting is virtually useless anyway if your options are all shitty options to begin with.

This brings me to the problem of majority rule. Just because many people think something is best does not make it so. I believe in logic it is actually considered a fallacy to use an appeal to popular opinion to validate an argument. This becomes even more readily apparent when we consider the interests of the common person and their actually knowledge about the issues that they vote on.

The individual is crushed in democracy and all rare and valuable things are discarded as unsuitable trinkets which are worthless to the mass. Of course, this issue is not limited to democracy, it is also very prevalent in socialism, etc.

Alas, and viable solution to the world's problems will ultimately not be enacted due to all the conflicting interests of the 7 billion people on this planet. We have not yet learned how to live together as human beings, and until we do, all forms of government will come up short. As a matter of fact, I think as long as we need something like centralized governments, the State, we are already going down the wrong path. I say this because, ideally, human beings can work together and meet their needs without needing a third party middle man, i.e. the State. This would be a sort of communism, though rather unlike that of Marx or the Soviets.

[MacKenzi]

I think it's viable in the distant future when genetic engineering is possible and intelligence and even knowledge can be programmed. But today individual differences in wealth, opportunity and skill-set make it impossible to have an effective democracy.

After reflecting on this problem, my conclusion was similar. Perhaps machines could be used in the more recent future for calculating probability of success and whatnot?

[MacKenzi]

Or at least with less than perfect success.

I think the whole idea of voting itself is faulty. A human being is reduced to a mark on a piece of paper, thereby reducing his effective humanity and all his true value to society to a pathetic minimum. Also, all the reasons, arguments, and even emotions involved in casting a vote are not included in that little checkmark. Further, voting is virtually useless anyway if your options are all shitty options to begin with.

This brings me to the problem of majority rule. Just because many people think something is best does not make it so. I believe in logic it is actually considered a fallacy to use an appeal to popular opinion to validate an argument. This becomes even more readily apparent when we consider the interests of the common person and their actually knowledge about the issues that they vote on.

The individual is crushed in democracy and all rare and valuable things are discarded as unsuitable trinkets which are worthless to the mass. Of course, this issue is not limited to democracy, it is also very prevalent in socialism, etc.

Alas, and viable solution to the world's problems will ultimately not be enacted due to all the conflicting interests of the 7 billion people on this planet. We have not yet learned how to live together as human beings, and until we do, all forms of government will come up short. As a matter of fact, I think as long as we need something like centralized governments, the State, we are already going down the wrong path. I say this because, ideally, human beings can work together and meet their needs without needing a third party middle man, i.e. the State. This would be a sort of communism, though rather unlike that of Marx or the Soviets.

This reminds me of a quote from the Tao Te Ching (It's the chapter about first loosing Tao, then Te, then benevolence and so on (can't find my copy))