Or, just as bad, they’ll be staffed by bureaucrats seeking to expand their bureaucratic fiefdoms as widely as possible without regard to the real good of the community.
I’d argue that that is what we have now, only it is single politicians instead of larger bureaucracies.
Yes, quite easily. It’s not as far fetched as you seem to think.
Its a bit of both.
But at the core you are correct. The spending problems would take care of themselves if we taxed the American people for every dollar spent by the American government, the American government would find themselves held much more accountable for their spending.
You’re right; I was thinking that QEI pushed out Mary I.
At first, yes, but Napoleon plunged Europe into major wars and France ended up with another king. And that’s the problem–many dictators start out OK but without any checks on their powers they invariably turn into despots.
I believe that this is balanced out because those with money generally have more influence than those who don’t.
I consider tyranny a good thing. The best check on populism is the certainty that the common man is a stupid worm with no right to power.
That doesn’t really help. Then you end up with wealthy interests cutting their taxes while shutting doors to the poor. Better one despotic tyrant than myriad petty ones.
Have you, um, done any study of history at all?
I sorta think Democracy would work even in a heterogeneous society if you had a simple rule: You may not borrow money from the future to fund anything today.
It might even help prevent politicians who get elected by promising a (borrowed) chicken in every pot to the stupid and selfish.
As it is, we’ve still had a good long run, even by historic standards of national systems. This particular democracy (the US) will end within my lifetime, though. And rather peacefully by historic standards, I’d guess.
That’s because you assume you aren’t the stupid one.
The Founding Fathers would disagree with you. Thus the reason we have a system of checks and balances.
You mean when corporations found they could help themselves to the treasury. They avoid taxes, they get TARP funds and they get all the legislation that money can buy. That where the money is going.
A tyrant can vary in competence or malevolence. A democracy will tend toward incompetence & a certain jingoistic hostility to its neighbors in any case. Democracy was seen as a solution to bad aristocrats, but in the end you just have a larger self-important aristocracy, one that will probably end up invading its neighbors for the glory of its vast enfranchised class (see the USA, the Roman Republic, etc.).
No, we need good tyrants, but tyrants all the same.
Are you operating under the illusion that we are a democracy? The United States is a Republic government. In a democracy you wouldn’t have a president you’d just take a pole of everyone in the country and go with that. Its impractical for large nations but it worked for greek city-states. In a Republic you elect people who make decisions for you. But yes it too Fails badly.
Tyrants are people who rule illigitimately, you’re thinking of a dictator. Like Caesar. Tyrants wouldn’t work in this day and age, too much independance for people to submit to an illigitimate ruler.
I’ll bite. How about Pinochet and Chile? Allende made a total mess of things. Does Allende count as a tyrant? He was very much in the Chavez mould.
Note that I’m not saying Pinochet’s regime was sweetness and light, just that it was better than Allende’s.
Good god.
Regardless of whether Salvador Allende “made a mess” (and regardless of how much fault for that mess can be assigned to the CIA fucking with Chile)… he doesn’t begin to compare with the tyranny of Augusto Pinochet, who imprisoned, tortured, and murdered thousands of his own people.
Historically we can thank people like **gonzomax **and **foolsguinea **for the rise of dictators like Stalin and Hitler. All dictators need are a core group of angry and disgruntled people who believe their problems are being caused by some failure of freedom and democracy. They don’t trust “the people” to collectively make the right decisions (whatever that means) so they turn to some strong personality who has convinved them that they have the answer.
Of course, that answer is usually to blame some specific subgroup or an external agitator.
Also, people don’t seem to grasp why our system works. It has nothing to do with democracy and more to do with checks and balances between the Legislative, Executive an Judicial branches. Our system is also adaptable. It allows for the removal of a ruler in a non-violent manner if the people don’t like the way they are being ruled.
Quartz, you are the victim of rightie propaganda.
Do I believe that my vote is worth more then an able bodied adult who has lived most of their life on welfare for no obvious reason?
Yes I do.
Do I believe that my vote is better then that of a moron who can barely read or write let alone understand economics ?
Yes I do.
Do I believe that my vote counts more then a Creationists?
Yes I do.
I wont go on, you fill in the dots.
A hundred morons gathered together still can’t reproduce the intellectual work of one reasonably intelligent person, no matter how long or how hard they try.
I’m not advocating the rule of an intellectual elite, I’m just saying that everyone should be educated for free so that they can understand what the hell they’re voting about and be tested on it.
If they still can’t pass the test then let them take the test as many times as they like, over as many years as they like.
We don’t let children vote for a reason.
Is there anything you believe which you know to be incorrect?
Well, it seems like I’ve gotten some good answers here, & some bad ones.
Good ones have pointed out useful observations, such as that the real difference-maker is in the media & education systems. Of course I maintain that it’s easier to educate a king than 50 000 000 households.
Bad answers have assumed that I seek to protect the franchise for myself while shutting out others. No, in fact that is what democrats do.
[emph. added]
It’s not about fairness. It’s not about me thinking I’m a genius & you’re an idiot. It’s about this thing that we believe in not actually accomplishing good government. And democracy doesn’t even spread itself. The Roman Republic imposed tribute on other nations, then fell to the god-emperors, who installed vassal kings around the Mediterranean. The USA, once it had exterminated the nations in its way, turned its eyes to Latin America, installing fascists like Pinochet, & now seeks to play hegemon to the world. Even democrats don’t really believe in democracy for other people.
So, no, let’s admit that if we could pick a system of rule not for ourselves but for other people, even people who are not our enemies, it would be something else. And then, let’s treat ourselves with the same caution as we would others, & make sure we are ourselves ruled, & ruled properly.
The world needs kings. This flirtation with populism was heady, but it will bring ruin. Let’s go back to kings.