Is Democracy the best form of government?

[XT]

[QUOTE=stardave]
I’m out for today, write up all your best arguments and I’ll respond tomorrow.
[/QUOTE]

It’s your assertion…you need to defend it.

Well I would say overall Roman empire is actually a improvement over Roman republic, it had more land, more wealth, more prestige, And the argument goes both ways just as there was good bad, there were also good emperor that governed well. But overall the Roman empire was far more successful as a political entity than all that come after in Europe, until recently maybe.

Well, if you want to define ‘best’ as ‘biggest’ the I suppose you have a point. I guess this gets back to what you mean by ‘best’.

BTW, the Roman Republic was hardly a democracy as the term is generally understood. Which begs the next question…what do you mean by ‘democracy’?

But I don’t think it is possible to compare this, because we are talking about modern 19th-21th century government.

Well, gets back to what you mean by ‘best’. The Roman Empire lasted for centuries (or a millenium plus, depending on how you define ‘Roman Empire’ :p). Throughout much of that time it was dysfunctional in one way or another…but expansionism has a quality all it’s own, to twist Stalin’s tail. The point, however, is that you need to define the qualities YOU think make something like the Roman Empire or one of the Chinese dynasties BETTER than whatever the hell you mean by ‘democracy’. If you don’t want to do a historical comparison (I don’t blame you…past forms of government were pretty dysfunctional, so I’d cry off as well) then by all means compare modern governments. Which form of government has been for, say, the last 100 years the most successful? Had the highest standards of living? Had the most dynamic economies? Had the highest indexes for happiness? Had the best record for orderly succession? Been the most stable? Or whatever the fuck YOU want to use as some sort of coherent metric to define ‘best’.

Which Dynasy? Well let me see, Han dynasty, Tang Dynasty, Song Dynasty, Ming Dynasty, Qing Dynasty, all of them were strictly monarchical and authoritarian and all of them with the exception of Song, utterly dominated Asia landscape when they were in power, and all of them had higher GDP than any other nation on earth at the same time, all of them brought new heights for the Chinese civilization. And yes, just as there was good Empiors there was also bad ones, but overall, they were extremely successful.

Ok, but how does any of that make them ‘best’? What QUALITIES make them better than democracies? Are you seriously suggesting that their quality and standards of life were overall better? Are you saying they were more stable? That they governed better? How? What metrics are you suggesting makes them ‘best’? Simply doing a comparison between other monarchies at the time or the fact that they dominated Asia? Comparatively speaking, what form of government currently dominates the entire planet? What form of government, comparatively speaking has the most impact on the most people on the planet today verse in any of the dynasties you mentioned?

Go ahead read that long post of mine, where I listed some good examples, then replies to me

I didn’t see a post by you concerning your arguments in favor of modern China being a good representative of your theory that there are better forms of government than democracy (seriously…communism? :p). Which post number?

If you want to look at ALL of recorded human history, where 99% of all governments are monarchism, then yeah, they all have fallen in the end, but that is not really fair is it? You want to argue ancient history? I can start another topic of Greek city states vs Chinese Warring states and compare achievements.

You can do what you like. What I’m trying to do is get you to list some specific characteristics that define what traits you think are superior in, say, monarchism than in democracy. Productivity? Succession? Stability? GDP? Happiness? Basically, if you want to compare only modern governments then feel free…if you want to put forth modern China as your champion then I’ll be happy to provide some cites showing that modern China has all sorts of problems and issues stemming mainly from the communist baggage, and that they are rapidly approaching a wall…for them (the old school communists), it’s economic expansion or bust, and that’s a no win game, as you can’t expand forever (which they are finding out right now as recession hits them harder and harder). If you want to put forth some other form of modern government that you think is superior, then again, feel free.

But let us look at all the modern 21th century government shall we? Let us look at the near 7 billion population on earth, how many of them lacks basic necessities and living in so call “democracies”, hint hint, India alone accounts for 1/3 of them, then you got almost all of Africa, large part of Latin American, large part of South East Asia. I mean this is not surprising is it? Vast majority of nation on earth are democracies, and vast majorty of them are doing a bad job to caring for it is own people.

Fine by me. Um…China is just as large as India, and they have similar lacks. Yet they seem to be your poster child. What form of government dominates countries without those lacks of basic necessities and living conditions? Is it A) Communism, or B) Despotic/Monarchical/Theocracy or C) Democracy? Think hard now.

But lets take the second part of your statement there. ARE the vast majority of nations democracies? Defined how? And ARE the vast majority of nations today doing a bad job of caring for their people? I’d say that clearly the most successful countries ARE democracies, while the least are either ‘democracies’ that are chaotic anarchy ridden hell holes where ANY form of government is going to by dysfunctional right now or are totalitarian/despotic hell holes such as North Korea. I can’t think of a single non-democratic example of a really functional and stable government today. Oh, some are able to get by using some resource (such as oil or cheap labor) to get by in the short term, but none of them have the levels of economic prosperity, stability and general happiness of modern democracies.

[John_Mace]

I think this thread has gone on long enough that it’s time to vote for whether or not the OP has proved his thesis. I say “no”.

[Grey]

The OP’s thesis is a mess but you can almost see a decent one in there.

It is currently accepted that Democracy is the best form of government in allowing citizens to order their own lives in a broader society. Democracy’s strength lies in the role of nominally disinterested instituations where power is executed. For example Parliment, the Courts, Congress, the Office of the President. These institutions persist while the holders of power within them is transitory.

However, if the society in which the application of democratic government occurs lacks these established institutions it will not nessesarily function better then a more coercive form of authoritarianism. Therefore it may be better for citizens to exist under a nondemocratic government at that time on the basis that stability is better than chaos. However when comparing the range of potential actions available to the largest number of citizens between these two systems the democratic one comes out ahead.

But I would have thought that argument was obvious.

[John_Mace]

@Grey

The OP’s thesis is a mess but you can almost see a decent one in there.

It is currently accepted that Democracy is the best form of government in allowing citizens to order their own lives in a broader society. Democracy’s strength lies in the role of nominally disinterested instituations where power is executed. For example Parliment, the Courts, Congress, the Office of the President. These institutions persist while the holders of power within them is transitory.

However, if the society in which the application of democratic government occurs lacks these established institutions it will not nessesarily function better then a more coercive form of authoritarianism. Therefore it may be better for citizens to exist under a nondemocratic government at that time on the basis that stability is better than chaos. However when comparing the range of potential actions available to the largest number of citizens between these two systems the democratic one comes out ahead.

But I would have thought that argument was obvious.

Well said, except I think there quite a few more institutions that need to be in place for democracy to “work”. I don’t think you intended your list to be exhaustive, but it might be read that way.

[Grey]

Let’s go with that - it makes me look smarter.

[stardave]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Pakistan’s system is incredibly unstable with regular coups, assasinations, and revolts. And India started from an incredibly low base in 1947 yet they have as noted above successfully fought the Caste system and in addition made starvation a thing of the past.

You seriously need to read up more on India. I don’t want to go off topic here.

[stardave]

@Gagundathar

The OP is “Is Democracy the best form of government?”

This begs the question (as has been noted above by more worthy posters) of what do we mean by ‘best form of government’.

If we mean ‘the most efficient’ then a technocratic form of fascism would probably fit the bill.
If we mean ‘the most individual expression of will’ then simple anarchy works nicely and has, arguably, for tens of thousands of years.
If we mean ‘the most good for the most people’ then some forms of representative democracy, notably the republican form defined in the US Constitution, appears to be a good fit, as well.

It is not just that the members of the citizens of such a form of government are allowed to select their representatives by voting, it is also that their ability to ‘petition the Government for a redress of grievances’ is an inalienable right of the people and may not be abridged by any law other than a constitutional amendment. This is supposed to establish the sovereignty of the populace over their representatives. This is, of course, honored more in the breach than in the observance now, but it is important to remember the ideals of the Republic occasionally if only in its mourning.

So, in my opinion, I agree with Mr. Churchill when he said, “[n]o one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

Agree with most of what you said, however I want to go beyond that, if you look at the record, democracy is only working for a very small percentage of nation that adopts it, because when you think of democracy, what come to your mind first is United State, Germany, France, Norway etc… the very successful nations on earth, however you rarely think of democratic states such as Ethiopia, Haiti, Philippine, Mexico etc.. and those states actually way out numbers the successful ones.

That might mean 2 things, 1 democracy is not good form of government, 2 democracy is good, but not yet ready for those type of society yet.

However, what I want to talk about even more is the successful form of democratic nations, for example, United State, Germany etc… I see it has worked for us in the past, but there is no guarantee it will still be working for us in the future, because in democracies, the people are sovereign, but it is becoming increasing apparent that now wealth are becoming sovereign. Freedom will create wealth, wealth will corrupt the democratic process, which as I have listed from step 1-9. So the question is, can this continue? with ever more concentration of wealth and power, can the democratic system even survive in the end?

Or rather is it better to have some kind of more benevolent authoritarian government in charge, who is not influenced by the special interested, who can make the decision actually base on what is benefiting for the people.

[stardave]

@Whack-a-Mole

Hell, what do we mean by “democracy”? It is an overly broad term for this.

East Germany used to be called (in most of our lifetimes) the German Democratic Republic (Deutsche Demokratische Republik or DDR). North Korea’s proper name is the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. I am pretty sure no one here would describe either as “democratic” in any meaningful sense. Hell, the Soviets had elections and again I doubt anyone would say they were a democratic government.

So where do you draw the line? There are dozens, over a hundred even, variations on democratic governments. Which one is the best in that list and how close do they adhere to some notional ideal of a democracy?

Hell, a “pure” democracy (e.g. something that follows a textbook philosophical definition of a democracy) does not even exist nor could it on this planet. A “pure” democracy is wholly unworkable which is why we have so many bastardized versions of it.

As has been noted several times saying democracy (or what passes for it) is the “best” form of government is NOT the same thing as saying it is a good form of government. It merely means all the rest are worse and democracy is the least worst so far.

Certainly any form of government yet devised by man has their good and bad points. Democracy, in any of its forms, is far from perfect.

Yeah agree with you on that, obviously I don’t think NPRK is democratic, I think what quality for democracy is some kind of representative government, in which people directly elects the people in charge. Just by this standard, vast majority of nation on earth shares this form one way or the other.

Also I find it interesting that no one has actually disputes all of my original1-9 points, it as if people agrees with me that those are the problems that democratic government often faces. Rather everyone argue with me that, what else can we do? This is the least form of worst evil. But be honest with yourself, are you really happy to choosing among the least of evil? And with the problem of original point 1-9, do you actually think that democracy as you know it will survive? Or even if it survives till the end, is it really the best form of government that man can be happy to live under?

[stardave]

@SecretaryofEvil

Stardave, is English your first language? I’m not trying to be a dick, I’m genuinely just curious.

Nope it is not. Feel free to make fun of me.

[stardave]

@XT

It’s your assertion…you need to defend it.

Sorry, I need to sleep once a day, therefore I can’t read you post when I am in a deep slumber, so please, cut me some slack.

[QUOTE=]

Well, if you want to define ‘best’ as ‘biggest’ the I suppose you have a point. I guess this gets back to what you mean by ‘best’.

BTW, the Roman Republic was hardly a democracy as the term is generally understood. Which begs the next question…what do you mean by ‘democracy’?

Well, gets back to what you mean by ‘best’. The Roman Empire lasted for centuries (or a millenium plus, depending on how you define ‘Roman Empire’ :p). Throughout much of that time it was dysfunctional in one way or another…but expansionism has a quality all it’s own, to twist Stalin’s tail. The point, however, is that you need to define the qualities YOU think make something like the Roman Empire or one of the Chinese dynasties BETTER than whatever the hell you mean by ‘democracy’. If you don’t want to do a historical comparison (I don’t blame you…past forms of government were pretty dysfunctional, so I’d cry off as well) then by all means compare modern governments. Which form of government has been for, say, the last 100 years the most successful? Had the highest standards of living? Had the most dynamic economies? Had the highest indexes for happiness? Had the best record for orderly succession? Been the most stable? Or whatever the fuck YOU want to use as some sort of coherent metric to define ‘best’.

[/QUOTE]

Ok, look like you again force me to compare ancient history with modern history, just like you want me to compare ancient Chinese government official to 21st century average Joe in the very few first posts. And I already told you, and it should be obvious, this comparison is stupid. Because vast majority of government in ancient times was authoritarian, and due to technological difference, of course the stand of living for modern average Joe will be significantly better. But yes, by ancient standard I would say Roman Empire, which was governed by a monarch system was very successful for the overall benefit of the people that it governed, it expanded the land, it brought stability, it expand commerce, it created art, architecture, philosophy, improved technology etc… by that judgement it was very successful, but again, there is no comparison of that to modern history, if during the roman empire, it exited another democratic nation than I can compare it than I am happy to do so, but that is not possible. The closest comparison I can think of is Greek City states vs Chinese Spring and Autumn era is So you want to dig even further into ancient history or move on?

[QUOTE=]

Ok, but how does any of that make them ‘best’? What QUALITIES make them better than democracies? Are you seriously suggesting that their quality and standards of life were overall better? Are you saying they were more stable? That they governed better? How? What metrics are you suggesting makes them ‘best’? Simply doing a comparison between other monarchies at the time or the fact that they dominated Asia? Comparatively speaking, what form of government currently dominates the entire planet? What form of government, comparatively speaking has the most impact on the most people on the planet today verse in any of the dynasties you mentioned?

[/QUOTE]

LOL, again, where in my post did I say ancient Chinese dynasty was “BETTER” than modern democracy? I only said that under the rule of ancient Chinese dynasty, which was in a form of authoritarian monarchy, they were very successful, they brought tremendous benefit for the people that it ruled, it expanded the land, brought stability, technological progress, culture, philosophy and had a good military to defend the homeland, aka what Roman empire accomplished. Again, I don’t want to compare ancient Chinese dynasty to modern America, because that is pretty stupid to do, but I can say that when the ancient dynasty ruled at the time, it was overall a success for the people that lived under them.

Let me guess, you want to force me to compare that with modenr democracy again are you?

[QUOTE=]

I didn’t see a post by you concerning your arguments in favor of modern China being a good representative of your theory that there are better forms of government than democracy (seriously…communism? :p). Which post number?

[/QUOTE]

Wow, you really think China is still communist? You know what? Pleasd read post #53 and get back to me.

Oh and when you are ready, I’ll go list plenty of problem that United State have as well, and let’s compare progress shall we?

[QUOTE=]

You can do what you like. What I’m trying to do is get you to list some specific characteristics that define what traits you think are superior in, say, monarchism than in democracy. Productivity? Succession? Stability? GDP? Happiness? Basically, if you want to compare only modern governments then feel free…if you want to put forth modern China as your champion then I’ll be happy to provide some cites showing that modern China has all sorts of problems and issues stemming mainly from the communist baggage, and that they are rapidly approaching a wall…for them (the old school communists), it’s economic expansion or bust, and that’s a no win game, as you can’t expand forever (which they are finding out right now as recession hits them harder and harder). If you want to put forth some other form of modern government that you think is superior, then again, feel free.

[/QUOTE]

Again post #53, then get back to me

[QUOTE=]

Fine by me. Um…China is just as large as India, and they have similar lacks. Yet they seem to be your poster child. What form of government dominates countries without those lacks of basic necessities and living conditions? Is it A) Communism, or B) Despotic/Monarchical/Theocracy or C) Democracy? Think hard now.

[/QUOTE]

Reason I compare India with China is both are very simlar in land area, population, so it is a good comparison, would you rather I compare China with democratic nation of Ethiopia?

To answer your question What form of government dominates countries without those lacks of basic necessities and living conditions? I choose C) Democracy

Because when you think of Democracy, you think of United States, UK, Germany, France. However what you don’t think of is India, Ethiopia, Iraq, Afghanistan, DR Congo, Philippines, Indonesia etc… all of them have some kind of democratic government, and all of them have FAR lower standard of living than United State and yes… China. And all those population combine far outnumber successful democracies, by population and also the amount.

[QUOTE=]

But lets take the second part of your statement there. ARE the vast majority of nations democracies? Defined how? And ARE the vast majority of nations today doing a bad job of caring for their people? I’d say that clearly the most successful countries ARE democracies, while the least are either ‘democracies’ that are chaotic anarchy ridden hell holes where ANY form of government is going to by dysfunctional right now or are totalitarian/despotic hell holes such as North Korea. I can’t think of a single non-democratic example of a really functional and stable government today. Oh, some are able to get by using some resource (such as oil or cheap labor) to get by in the short term, but none of them have the levels of economic prosperity, stability and general happiness of modern democracies.
[/QUOTE]

When I say democracy, I mean at least some kind of government that achieves power by election from the people. No matter if it is direct democracy or representative democracy etc… Where did I ever give you the impression that I think DPRK is democratic?

Oh and yes, it is funny that you only want to list the successful democracy such as western civilization that qulaifty, but those democracy that are chaotic anarchy hellholes are somehow should not be count as democracy. But why don’t you try to be fair? Count Ethiopia and Iraq as democratic nation just as UK? I mean if your argument is that only democracy that works count as democracy, and democracy that don’t work should not be count as democracy, then yes, you win the argument, but that is a cop out.

Oh and as to why those chaotic anarchy democracy they are what they are, please read post #46 and get back to me.

Also please read post #87 and tell me what you think… actually I’ll re post it here. Feel free to quote me and reply

Agree with most of what you said, however I want to go beyond that, if you look at the record, democracy is only working for a very small percentage of nation that adopts it, because when you think of democracy, what come to your mind first is United State, Germany, France, Norway etc… the very successful nations on earth, however you rarely think of democratic states such as Ethiopia, Haiti, Philippine, Mexico etc.. and those states actually way out numbers the successful ones.

That might mean 2 things, 1 democracy is not good form of government, 2 democracy is good, but not yet ready for those type of society yet.

However, what I want to talk about even more is the successful form of democratic nations, for example, United State, Germany etc… I see it has worked for us in the past, but there is no guarantee it will still be working for us in the future, because in democracies, the people are sovereign, but it is becoming increasing apparent that now wealth are becoming sovereign. Freedom will create wealth, wealth will corrupt the democratic process, which as I have listed from step 1-9. So the question is, can this continue? with ever more concentration of wealth and power, can the democratic system even survive in the end?

Or rather is it better to have some kind of more benevolent authoritarian government in charge, who is not influenced by the special interested, who can make the decision actually base on what is benefiting for the people.

[Telemark]

@stardave

it as if people agrees with me that those are the problems that democratic government often faces.

People are saying that those problems are part of the human condition. No matter what form of government you choose some of those issues will remain. If you want to critique a particular form of government you must demonstrate that there are alternatives that alleviate those problems, something you haven’t shown.

[stardave]

@Grey

The OP’s thesis is a mess but you can almost see a decent one in there.

It is currently accepted that Democracy is the best form of government in allowing citizens to order their own lives in a broader society. Democracy’s strength lies in the role of nominally disinterested instituations where power is executed. For example Parliment, the Courts, Congress, the Office of the President. These institutions persist while the holders of power within them is transitory.

However, if the society in which the application of democratic government occurs lacks these established institutions it will not nessesarily function better then a more coercive form of authoritarianism. Therefore it may be better for citizens to exist under a nondemocratic government at that time on the basis that stability is better than chaos. However when comparing the range of potential actions available to the largest number of citizens between these two systems the democratic one comes out ahead.

But I would have thought that argument was obvious.

Finally, you hit the nail on the head. For some nations where stability and economic progress that is important, democracy may not be the best form of the government, but when a nation has became wealth and citizens ready, only then democracy will be more successful, forcing democratic means of government onto any type of culture/society regardless of their background often end in Chaos, please read post #46

However, I want to go a step further than that. As democracy stabilize, it creates many problems such as concentration of wealth which creates in concentration of power and inequality, so in this situation, which will often result in bank bailout, tax cuts for the very rich, and on the other hand it creates entitlement and welfare states from the lazy and the poor, which will inevitable creates new challenges to deal with, do you think democratic nation under these fast changing situations have what it takes to solve the problem at all?

[stardave]

@Telemark

People are saying that those problems are part of the human condition. No matter what form of government you choose some of those issues will remain. If you want to critique a particular form of government you must demonstrate that there are alternatives that alleviate those problems, something you haven’t shown.

Not so, many of those problems are unique circumstances of democratic governments. And if you want me to say there is another type of government that is better hands down, then I can’t do that, however I already argued that maybe China’s style government is just as good, authoritarian government governed by the knowledgeable elite that is able to make fast changing decisions might be better or just as good for the 21st century.

[Telemark]

@stardave

however I already argued that maybe China’s style government is just as good, authoritarian government governed by the knowledgeable elite that is able to make fast changing decisions might be better or just as good for the 21st century.

Are you ignoring the massive problems that China has today such as the lack of human rights, environmental protection, consumer safety, and worker exploitation?

[Tibby]

@Trinopus

It is widely believed that the best form of government is the “benevolent tyrant.” If you are lucky enough to be ruled by a wise, tolerant, kind, generous, dedicated, and inspired leader, who truly wants and knows what is best for everyone…that’s a pretty good life.

The killer is: how do you get such a person? What is the selection process? What keeps a stinker from using the exact same process to get in power? Historically, the ratio of stinkers to noble and wise rulers is unimpressive. Really good Roman Emperors were great to have: they led the empire to good times, economic strength, military triumph, and domestic peace. Then the next guy came along… Name of Commodus…

I agree with this premise. A “benevolent tyrant” with finely tuned characteristics may certainly be the best type of government. I also agree that finding such a person (or committee) with these characteristics and who is also incorruptible, would always be an act of futility. However, an advanced artificial intelligence “tyrant” programmed to govern most efficiently and fairly, with no negative human characteristics, and with the ability to learn from feedback of its actions, would make an ideal candidate. Perhaps we all agree that it’s just a matter of time until our technology reaches the point of creating AI meeting these criteria.

If this technology existed now, and you were confident that the program contained no bugs and had some type of reliable synthetic system of checks and balances built in, would you willingly accept the transfer of your nation’s governing power to this entity? I would.

So, to answer the OP’s question, democracy may be the best type of government on Earth now, but not necessarily in our future.

[Shodan]

[QUOTE=stardave]

Because it was under that system, where political power is highly concentrated, they were able to carry out the extremely successful reform, the reform that was need to improve the nation.
[/quote]
Are you talking about the Great Leap Forward, or the Cultural Revolution, or Tiananmen Square?

[QUOTE=stardave]
That their system cannot produce innovator, however there is really no proof of that. They are sending millions of students all over the world to study, a lot of them decides to come back after they are done, they can also attract many people all around the world to work there because they have the the money.
[/quote]
I don’t understand this part. If China can produce it’s own innovators, why would they need to send students overseas to study? Why not study innovation at home?

Regards,
Shodan

[Trinopus]

@Tibby or Not Tibby

. . . However, an advanced artificial intelligence “tyrant” programmed to govern most efficiently and fairly, with no negative human characteristics, and with the ability to learn from feedback of its actions, would make an ideal candidate. Perhaps we all agree that it’s just a matter of time until our technology reaches the point of creating AI meeting these criteria.

If this technology existed now, and you were confident that the program contained no bugs and had some type of reliable synthetic system of checks and balances built in, would you willingly accept the transfer of your nation’s governing power to this entity? I would.

So, to answer the OP’s question, democracy may be the best type of government on Earth now, but not necessarily in our future.

Superb point! I would favor turning over control gradually. Let’s test it. Let’s see how it works, say, at providing water and sewer services. If it manages that better than the current human bureaucracy that runs such things, then we can move forward and try giving it further responsibilities.

Considering this is how computers have already come to have elements of control over many aspects of corporate management – from accounting to production and factory manufacturing – I think that the gradual transfer of authority to AI systems is an accurate prediction of the future.

(“Hi! I’m Barney, the City Hall Computer!”)

[XT]

[QUOTE=stardave]
Sorry, I need to sleep once a day, therefore I can’t read you post when I am in a deep slumber, so please, cut me some slack.
[/QUOTE]

I wasn’t taking up your slack…there was no urgency in my post that you had to respond to when you were sleeping.

Ok, look like you again force me to compare ancient history with modern history, just like you want me to compare ancient Chinese government official to 21st century average Joe in the very few first posts. And I already told you, and it should be obvious, this comparison is stupid. Because vast majority of government in ancient times was authoritarian, and due to technological difference, of course the stand of living for modern average Joe will be significantly better. But yes, by ancient standard I would say Roman Empire, which was governed by a monarch system was very successful for the overall benefit of the people that it governed, it expanded the land, it brought stability, it expand commerce, it created art, architecture, philosophy, improved technology etc… by that judgement it was very successful, but again, there is no comparison of that to modern history, if during the roman empire, it exited another democratic nation than I can compare it than I am happy to do so, but that is not possible. The closest comparison I can think of is Greek City states vs Chinese Spring and Autumn era is So you want to dig even further into ancient history or move on?

Again, you don’t seem to be reading what I’m saying. I’m no forcing you to do an apples to orangutans comparison…I’m asking you for specific examples that you feel demonstrate your thesis that there are better systems than democracy.

LOL, again, where in my post did I say ancient Chinese dynasty was “BETTER” than modern democracy? I only said that under the rule of ancient Chinese dynasty, which was in a form of authoritarian monarchy, they were very successful, they brought tremendous benefit for the people that it ruled, it expanded the land, brought stability, technological progress, culture, philosophy and had a good military to defend the homeland, aka what Roman empire accomplished. Again, I don’t want to compare ancient Chinese dynasty to modern America, because that is pretty stupid to do, but I can say that when the ancient dynasty ruled at the time, it was overall a success for the people that lived under them.

If it’s not better then why did you bring it up? You are talking in circles afaict. Again, do you have actual examples, either historical or current demonstrating what you feel is superior government to democracy?

Let me guess, you want to force me to compare that with modenr democracy again are you?

BUZZZZ!!! Wrong answer. But thanks for playing. Here are some wonderful parting gifts, however…a nice ceramic dog…the board game edition of the Straight Dope, GD edition…a gift certificate to ‘don’t guess next time, read what was actually written’ magazine…

Wow, you really think China is still communist?

You don’t? What form of government do you think they are? Who is the ruling party?

Pleasd read post #53 and get back to me.

Ok…from post #53:

Because it was under that system, where political power is highly concentrated, they were able to carry out the extremely successful reform, the reform that was need to improve the nation, remember, they were actually poorer than than Ethiopia by the late 1970s, and even so, the government was extremely reluctant to change. But because of the system they had, one person was able to convince others and carried out the reform, it have really dramatics improved people’s life. China have brought over 500 million people out of absolutely poverty in just 20 years, this is unprecedented in human history.

Even assuming this rather star eyed blurb is true, at what cost in human suffering and environmental damage to their people? Considering that the same party was in power from the late 40’s, why did you start the clock in the 70’s? What was the exact same systems track record from the late 40’s through the 70’s?

Oh and when you are ready, I’ll go list plenty of problem that United State have as well, and let’s compare progress shall we?

Certainly…feel free. Tell me, how many of our provinces, er, I mean states are either on the brink of revolt or have revolted in, oh, say the last 10 years? Tell me how our environmental laws are being enforced so much worse than the Chinese counter parts. And how our poor are comparable to theirs, of course. And, since we are (supposedly) talking about democracy, and not the US, how about expanding your list to Europe as well, since most of Western Europe also uses that failed democracy stuff. I’m sure you have many examples of superior GOVERNMENT from the Chinese over your list of democratic nations, right?

Reason I compare India with China is both are very simlar in land area, population, so it is a good comparison, would you rather I compare China with democratic nation of Ethiopia?

That thing that whizzed by your head? It was the point…you missed it, sadly.

Because when you think of Democracy, you think of United States, UK, Germany, France. However what you don’t think of is India, Ethiopia, Iraq, Afghanistan, DR Congo, Philippines, Indonesia etc… all of them have some kind of democratic government, and all of them have FAR lower standard of living than United State and yes… China. And all those population combine far outnumber successful democracies, by population and also the amount.

So, what you want to do is compare what you think is the best of the despotic/totalitarian governments to the worst of the supposed democratic (I love your list btw) governments, and you figure this makes some point in your favor, right?

When I say democracy, I mean at least some kind of government that achieves power by election from the people. No matter if it is direct democracy or representative democracy etc… Where did I ever give you the impression that I think DPRK is democratic?

I don’t recall mentioning the DPRK. But many of the examples you list as democracies are pretty marginal. Hell, you could say that China is a democracy, since there are elections. It’s pretty meaningless to call anything that has an election in it a democracy though…which is why I was trying to nail you down on an exact definition. Same with trying to nail you down on specific aspects of non-democratic governments that you feel makes whatever point you are attempting to make in this thread. Otherwise you are rambling all over the place, shifting the goal posts and generally not saying anything meaningful wrt an actual discussion or debate.

Oh and yes, it is funny that you only want to list the successful democracy such as western civilization that qulaifty, but those democracy that are chaotic anarchy hellholes are somehow should not be count as democracy. But why don’t you try to be fair? Count Ethiopia and Iraq as democratic nation just as UK? I mean if your argument is that only democracy that works count as democracy, and democracy that don’t work should not be count as democracy, then yes, you win the argument, but that is a cop out.

Well, you only seem to want to list the very short number of what you consider successful non-democratic countries, and then make a bunch of marginal countries representative of ‘democracy’ to make some obscure point that seems only meaningful to you, considering the responses to your thread so far. Again, this gets to the point you’ve thus far dodged, which is how are you quantifying ‘best’. Is it to take all the governments that represent a particular philosophy, no matter how tenuously, and then count up the number of successful ones and failed ones? No problem…I’m pretty sure that the number of failed totalitarian governments in the 19th and 20th centuries far outweighs the number of failed democracies. You merely have to define what the fuck ‘best form of government’ MEANS, with something quantifiable and you’ll have all sorts of meaningful responses to your question.

[stardave]

@Telemark

Are you ignoring the massive problems that China has today such as the lack of human rights, environmental protection, consumer safety, and worker exploitation?

Oh yes of course, but are you also aware of the fact that China has overall, brought more improved to it is citizen than any nation on earth?

authoritarian government will always have problem with human right, because it is often the balance between protect individual freedom vs the collective goods. In Western nations where we had over a century to develop, we take individual rights above all others, and in the Eastern nation such as developing China, it is often the other way around, oh and of course, our media are hooked on “EVIL CHINESE!!!” news, so human right problems are obviously what you hear the most. I mean ask yourself, when was the last time you hear news about China that was actually positive in the media? Please be honest.

Environmental problem, I already address this in the post, but I don’t expect you to every single replay here, so I’m going to copy and paste " You know why the pollution is bad in China? This is directly due to the economic expansion, people all over the world complain that China is taking all the jobs, guess what? China is also taking away all of your pollution as well. Everyone open factory in China, everyone pollutes in China, in the end they take the final product and sell back home. And besides China right now is the largest renewable energy prouder in the world,and they are also investing the most in renewable energy as well. The same reason that UK’s pollution was bad during industrial revolution is the same reason for China’s environment."

Consumer safety and worker exploitation, ask yourself when the West was developing, was there the same level of human right for them back then vs now? Of course, not people back then had no right, they had no insurance, life was cheap, it is only with post industrialization we achieve all that, now China is in the process of industrialization and they are doing what we have gone through for 150 years under 30-40 years, so of course they will have those problems + MORE, but ask yourself, do you rather people have all the rights they deserve which end up with massive unemployment and poverty such as the situation in Africa and India? Or would you rather people have less right, but economic growth? So that maybe in the future they can develop to the point where individual rights are valued? In early developing economy something need to be sacrificed.

I mean, all of your concerns are very normal, you probably grow up in the West, you probably don’t know what it is like to be hungry, I mean truly hungry to the point where you can’t sleep, where the cost of food alone will be more than half of your monthly income, where every time you eat meat was during the holidays. This is the situation which most Chinese faced not so long ago, so if you want to compare China to the modern Western nation which had over 100 years to develop, of course it will come up WAY short, but if you want to compare China with China, the improvement has been short of a myrical to be honest.

[stardave]

@Tibby or Not Tibby

I agree with this premise. A “benevolent tyrant” with finely tuned characteristics may certainly be the best type of government. I also agree that finding such a person (or committee) with these characteristics and who is also incorruptible, would always be an act of futility. However, an advanced artificial intelligence “tyrant” programmed to govern most efficiently and fairly, with no negative human characteristics, and with the ability to learn from feedback of its actions, would make an ideal candidate. Perhaps we all agree that it’s just a matter of time until our technology reaches the point of creating AI meeting these criteria.

If this technology existed now, and you were confident that the program contained no bugs and had some type of reliable synthetic system of checks and balances built in, would you willingly accept the transfer of your nation’s governing power to this entity? I would.

So, to answer the OP’s question, democracy may be the best type of government on Earth now, but not necessarily in our future.

Excellent, this was my final paper for my Government class when I was college. The most perfect government is the one that have no conflict of interest, that does think purely base on what is good for the people. And machine fits the role. But there is only one problem, such AI might not have the creativity and ingenuity of human brain, they maybe able to calculate the best outcome with the information that they have, however when a new circumstance that arises, which they don’t have sufficient data, chances are they will not come up with better solutions than human brains.

And besides it will be hundreds of years before we can achieve something close. So that is out of the question.