Democracy: It doesn't work.

Wrong. Fascists & communists seek to harness the people to serve the dreams of the people, & in the process may destroy everything around them. They are extreme forms of democracy in effect, though fascism is anti-democratic in its process.

What I’m saying is that democracy gets to the same place, more slowly, but even more surely.

Good government, by contrast, saves the underlying support system of the people–the environment, the moral culture–without regard to the people’s stupid selfish wishes.

Good government must be, if not coolly indifferent to popular passion, at least able to defy it. Democracy never can. Thus democracy will turn to madness & destruction every time.

I think the ratio of hell hole countries, to non-hell holes speaks in democracy’s favor.

Name three non-democracies where someone can reliable eat, not fear being rounded up by government thugs over petty crap, and has ability to be upwardly mobile despite whatever class they’re born into.

edit: just so we’re clear, being arrested as a result of religious persecution, or speaking your mind falls under the term “petty crap”.

Nope.

You are describing things used to manipulate people. To avoid the trap of populism one needs an educated and healthy nation. “An educated, healthy and confident nation is harder to govern" like Tony Benn said once. Guess who are trying to keep the people (specially the poor) uneducated and unhealthy?

To deal with this nonsense one has to just listen to Tony Benn:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/int_tonybenn.html#7

Here one should not forget that Fascists protected the capitalists.

IMO you are confusing the corruption of democracy by the powers that be with democracy itself.

That’s a No True Scotsman fallacy, buster. The Confederate States of America were as much a real democracy, that is a real-world democracy, as any Warsaw Pact country was really Communist.

I love Tony Benn, but he’s wrong. Education eventually falls away in a democracy, & the populace are left reading tabloids.

Hellhole countries don’t really exist in a vacuum. Democracies make a point of turning poorer weaker countries into hellholes if at all possible. It was the UK & USA that installed Reza Pahlavi as Shah. It was the USA that backed Lon Nol in Cambodia, Pinochet in Chile, & so on. It was the Roman Republic in its “cult of the divine Caesars” phase that acclaimed Titus Caesar when he leveled Jerusalem.

Democracies don’t, as a rule, believe in democracy for anyone else. They may start out idealistic, saying “make the tyrants of the earth shudder in their beds.” But in time they curry favor with the worst tyrants, to bring poorer & more manipulable nations into a state of utter deprivation. Look at the USA & Latin America. Democracies in reality tend to be patrician oligarchies, or desperate populists trying to win votes with giveaways. In time, a democracy will naturally find its divine Caesar & evolve into a monarchy or the like. My belief is that this is a good thing in the end.

Nope, that was not a democracy as we know it now, you really do not know history uh?

Sorry, you have no evidence for this. If that was so then all democratic nations would already have educational failures.

My experience with the matter (I saw how the US administrations in the past supported the dictators in El Salvador) tells me that you are ignoring the fact that most of the population in the US was kept ignorant from what was taking place.

What I see coming from you is an attempt to ignore that the powerful in the US, for example, are continuing to subvert democracy by withholding information to the population.

And my experiences from Latin America tell me that you are wrong. It is not a good thing in the end.

If that’s the case then you should be able to point to at least one country in history that was not a “hellhole” for the common man and also not a democracy. Can you?

I see what you mean, now.

Even if this is the case, you have failed to present a convincing argument that a monarch or dictator will better represent the interets of foreign countries, the environment, the unborn and whoever.

And how does one remove a bad king or tyrant? A constant cycle of violent coups ensuring rule by whoever can amass the strongest and best armed faction? What gives your so-called King legitimacy? You say the people are a bad king, so how does one determine who this great and wise King should be? Does he pull a freakin sword out of a rock? Is he the long lost decendent of the true heir to America?

And what checks and balances are in place to counter the whims of this king? Or do we presume he is of infinite and infalable wisdom?

Our populace is a better king than your alternative - the inbred member of a permenant aristocracy whose only qualification to govern for life is having the right genetic parents.

At this point one must question your grasp of history…or reality.

ARGH!!! cringe at this BS, tell me sir where are the WMD’s in Iraq? What’s the deal with Guantanamo? Price fixing commodities? Oil rigs in the Gulf? CIA?
The whole world’s laughing at you even your “friends”.

Another vast difference is that despite living with lower standards of every type of infrastructure and rates of pay you couldn’t imagine they ARE in countries like Malaysia and Vietnam on average far more content with what they have. Say it another way; they are generally not affected by outrageously obscene levels of greed and selfishness, in fact quite the opposite.

Nixon I presume was non-violent; TRUE. What was JFK? Oh yeah we still don’t know 'cause of those great checks and balances.

I like this idea, interested to see it in more detail though.

Educate a handful of geniuses? They all get sick/turn out to be psychos then you get left with the smartest of the uneducated 50M, not good.
KINGS!?! So we can get a leader who believes in imaginary friends(read:god/religion) then we can see if women float and when they do burn them 'cause a guy with a funny white hat says so.
I don’t have an answer, I wish I did but I’m too lazy for that, though just because I can’t see any viable options does not mean I can’t see that what is now and I mean globally simply does not work. Also, it seems odd to me that folks here speak of “in 50 years” and “after a few generations” and “if the US population reaches 1B” these views seem highly optimistic to me. China wants to dam the water sources of the subcontinent and much of SE Asia, WW3 a.k.a. Water War looms near, and it’s going to be worse than the Kostner movie as impossible as that seems.

@Namaste Che - Are you crazy? Is that your problem?:confused:

Hmmm, that’s a tough one, but off topic I think.
Psychiatric diagnoses chronology:
2yr - major depressive disorder
10yr - mannic depressive
16yr - bipolar 1 with suicidal ideation (same thing new name)
14-17yr - 4 attempts: electrocution, immolation, hanging, fall from cliff.
27yr - olanzapine+mirtazapine 6mnth dur. final dosages 3X max. spec.
31yr - olanzapine+duloxetine 4mnth eaten like candy, no affect.
32yr - diagnosed “Normal”

My opinion, entire psychiatric industry lacks credibility, DSMIV is laughable, not science.

Well…good luck with all that

I hate to break this to you, but there is no such thing as democracy in America and there never was nor was it ever conceived. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that guarantees you democracy. It does however guarantee you " A Republican form of government". yes, it guarantees you a republic.

I find it fascinating that people do not know this and presume that we have a democracy. Democracies have no elected officials inside of them and they will not work in a large country. How could you get 400 million Americans to go out and agree on something? You couldn’t so a democracy will not work.

So, you end up with a republic for of government, The United States of America.

America is a democracy and a republic. You should check out the definitions.

Definition of REPUBLIC

1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president
(2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law
(2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>
2: a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity <the republic of letters>
3: a constituent political and territorial unit of the former nations of Czechoslovakia, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or Yugoslavia

Definition of DEMOCRACY

1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2: a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>
4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

Should we actually try it first?

we’ve barely reached the point where most adults can vote for a proxy decision-maker who will make decisions in their stead (with very little input from us) for multiple years. Hardly qualifies as anything better than 'somewhat more democratic than the totalitarian governments of previous eras.

You don’t have to pack them all into a single room and reacah a 400 megaperson consensus for each decision, you know. Have you bothered to give it more than aa couple hours’ thought? How you might conceivably structure decision-making so as to not rely on representatives, persons in charge, unequal authority whether permanent or rotating etc but still address the “too many people to do a town hall meeting” problem? Give it some mental consideration.

When Zimbabwe was named Rhodesia, and when it was a white minority regime governed by Ian Smith, William Buckley had Smith on his Firing Line. Smith was candid in expressing his belief that Rhodesian blacks were too stupid to deserve the franchise.

Buckley said, “Democracy is not an intelligence test. It is a means of saying, ‘No’.”

That is the best justification of democracy that I have heard. Elites will always make decisions, but when the decisions turn out badly, the demos, that is to say the electorate, the electorate will say, “No.”

In 1932 the electorate said “No” to the Republicans, because the Republicans seemed supportive of a plutocracy that was blamed for the Great Depression.

Beginning in 1968 the electorate said “No” to the Democrats because the Democrats seemed supportive of black ghetto rioters, criminals, and welfare recipients.

In 2008 the electorate said “No” to an economy most did not benefit from. President Obama had two years to achieve a lower unemployment rate. When he failed, and established a health program most Americans did not want, the voters said “No” to him. If the Republicans seem more intent on destroying the Obama administration than fixing the economy, they will likely hear “No” in 2012.

During the Great Depression democracy lost prestige in Europe and even the United States because the Soviet Union was untouched by the Great Depression, and Germany recovered faster than the democracies. Nevertheless, a democratic Germany, however jingoistic and chauvinistic, would not have made the strategic efforts Adolf Hitler made. The Germans were reluctant to go to war over Poland. They would not have indorsed the invasion of the Soviet Union after losing the Battle of Britain. They certainly would not have declared war on the United States after failing to defeat the Soviets in December 1941.

Bertrand Russell attributed the spread of democracy largely to the fact that since the eighteenth century major wars have usually been won by the side that was more democratic.

Within political science circles, this semantic issue is non-existent. “Democracy” does not mean “the system of Athens for a while during antiquity”, it means rule by the many. Nor is it a Platonic ideal —there can be better democracies and worse democracies. So yes, in fact, there is democracy in the United States.

This sounds like a brilliant idea until you think about large, vocal minorities. Electoral democracy is actually a pretty sophisticated way of compiling voters’ preferences, because everyone gets to decide what basis they vote on. Hence, if 49% of the population strongly wants A, and 51% weakly wants Not-A, then the A’s will tend to win. This is as it should be —it lets minorities protect the things that are really important to them by requiring compromise compromise. In direct democracy, you really don’t need to compromise; the majority always wins, regardless of how much strong its preferences are.