Does democracy possess any fatal flaws?

[spingears]

For the record: The U.S. is NOT, I repeat NOT a democracy no matter how often it is described and aluded to as such.

It is a REPUBLIC. [Look up the definitions of each word.]

The biggest fault being politicians who promise the moon to thier constituents to get votes, and constituents who DEMAND more and more largess from the government.

Higher taxes result which are alleged to be paid by the “wealthy” who turn out to be the hard working middle men. Those on welfare do nothing to contribute to the good of the country, and the very few who are very rich notice not the amount of their taxes, other to complain, as they have so much.

The mantra: “Tax the rich” plays well to the public but again lays the burden on the everyday schmoe who has to work hard to care for himself and his family!

A pox on liars for such the revisionist are, having no interest in TRUTH as they wouldn’t know ETHOS if they met hi on the street.

[spingears]

For the record: The U.S. is NOT, I repeat NOT a democracy no matter how often it is described and aluded to as such.

It is a REPUBLIC. [Look up the definitions of each word.]

The biggest fault being politicians who promise the moon to thier constituents to get votes, and constituents who DEMAND more and more largess from the government.

Higher taxes result which are alleged to be paid by the “wealthy” who turn out to be the hard working middle men. Those on welfare do nothing to contribute to the good of the country, and the very few who are very rich notice not the amount of their taxes, other to complain, as they have so much.

The mantra: “Tax the rich” plays well to the public but again lays the burden on the everyday schmoe who has to work hard to care for himself and his family!

A pox on liars for such the revisionist are, having no interest in TRUTH as they wouldn’t know ETHOS if they met hi on the street.

[AHunter3]

I’m well aware that the US is not a democracy.

We’re gonna fix that.

[sailor]

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
There is a dangerous trend for modern democracy - as more and more of the tax burden gets carried by a wealthy minority, you wind up in a situation where the majority can vote for benefits which they do not have to pay for. This disconnect can have grave consequences.

C. Northcote Parkinson made this point in The Law and the Profits: that taxes can be divided into two groups: those which a group imposes on itself (which are self limiting) and those which a group imposes on others (which tend to grow indefinitely until avoidance and evasion make revenue decrease rather than increase). He cited the Uk as an example of the majority imposing crippling taxes on the rich and so the rich took their money elsewhere or other ways to evade or avoid paying confiscatory taxes.

However, I don’t buy the argument that the public is ‘stupid’. I think that argument is arrogant and elitist. It’s also flat-out wrong. In the aggregate, the public tends to make rational decisions. The problem is that ‘rational’ and ‘right’ are not synonymous. If you can vote for a tax cut, and the cheque won’t come due until you’re dead, it might be ‘rational’ to make that choice. If you can vote for free day care for your children, and the tax to pay for it will come from someone else, that also might be a rational choice. That doesn’t mean they are moral choices, or economically sound choices from a macro perspective.

I disagree. I think it is often easy for a people to make very irrational decisions. A leader can beat them into a frenzy of patriotim and people will vote for actions which will cripple the country and their wallets. People will vote for what they consider higher ideals (religion, moral values, country, etc) even if it means they will pay for it. History is full of these situations. People are quite irrational and it is easy to stir their emotions and get them to do the craziest things. Many, if not most wars, can only be explained like that.

I will add that democracy is not the ultimate value which many people make it to be: freedom is. There have been democracies which oppressed minorities and where freedom was less than in some monarchies or benevolent dictatorships. Freedom is the ultimate moral value, not democracy.

[erislover]

Bertrand Russel, in The History of Western Philosophy, makes what I think is quite a defensible remark on democracy, if a bit longer than Churchill’s. Interested readers can find it during his discussion of Plato.

The discussion up to this point has critiqued the idea of a generalized “wisdom” that we would like our enlightened rulers to have, but here then switches gears away from a critique of wisdom’s existence… [italics mine]

But even if we suppose that there is such a thing as “wisdom”, is there any form of constitution which will give the government to the wise? It is clear that majorities, like general councils, may err, and in fact have erred. Aristocracies are not always wise; kings are often foolish; Popes, in spite of infallibility, have committed grievous errors. Would anybody advocate entrusting the government to university graduates, or even to doctors of divinity? Or to men who, having been poor, have made great fortunes? It is clear that no legally definable selection of citizens is likely to be wiser, in practice, than the whole body.

It might be suggested that men could be given political wisdom by a suitable training. But the question would arise: what is suitable training? And this would turn out to be a party question.

The problem of finding a collection of “wise” men and leaving the government to them is thus an insoluble one. That is the ultimate reason for a democracy.

Perhaps here we can understand Churchill’s comments better. Does democracy possess any fatal flaws? The answer is, “Yes, all of them.” You name it, it can happen. And this answer is really trivial; since government is always by at least one man, and up to a plural number of them, then any flaw they can make is already encapsulated in democracy where, ideally, everyone rules.

So if you wish to attack democracy for its flaws, you will find them in spades. But this is not surprising. Democracy isn’t there so that all political blunders will go away. Nothing can do that.

[Rashak_Mani]

What many people are missing is that Democracy is worthwhile in the long run… it averages out to a better result because it avoids extreme highs and lows of other governments. Monarchies ruled by able kings had surges of development that were matched by a string of bad monarchs that destroyed their nations. Rome was an example of what difference Emperors could do… if Rome had only “good” emperors… they would still be in charge to this day.

Even the most charismatic of leaders cant keep a farse going for longer than a decade possibly in a modern democracy. Eventually the economy will suffer or people get tired of war. Then they vote for someone else that is media savy. Like Churchill said "worst type of govt. except for all others".

Sounds all nice… but for us enlightened individuals it sure seems a very frustrating system where politicians run amock and silly voters mess things up.

The US is a democracy and a Republic. Like Britain is a parliamentary democracy. Shrub and voters not withstanding.