That’s true, if you define “successful” as “long-lasting” and “stronger militarily than their neighbors.”
There are no actual democracies in use. The reason it’s a sacred concept is because any other system is called tyranny. In the US there is a tyranny of the corporations. In N. Korea they have a tyranny of … tyranny. If it’s not the majority deciding the minority will always use their power to advantage themselves and the minority of people they care about. You notice they stress minorities being oppressed a lot in education these days. What they’re really gearing your mind up for is to never target the powerful minority. Ever. They get to use the same language that makes sense when you talk about bigotry and use it to deflect and dampen attacks on the powerful who controvert society on every level to maintain their hierarchy. They would prefer efficiency but not at the cost of their power. Democracy is sacred because if it were done correctly it’s the only way we could have an honest society that deserved to exist. (it would also happen to be more efficient because it could do the correct thing and the right thing without worrying about what power structure the right thing threatened).
On the contrary, I think you overestimate how well even the best democracies function. Wise princes need not be particularly common; the process of averaging makes all democracies so-so.
Yes, that’s the point. Neither princes nor democracies run nations; bureacracies do. But they are ultimately subject to the will of the sovereign, be that a man or a group. The single individual can be, in theory, must more focused and effective in solving problems than the group. The group, on average, will do better in practice.
Not necessary, really. History is replete with examples of individuals who did infinitely better than the democracies or republics they replaced. We may not like Napoleon or Caesar or Caesar Augustus, or the Athenian tyrants, but all accomplished what was the group could not, and in some cases led nations of many millions, often down to suprisingly small local details.
Democracy’s faults lay in the fact a government is only as good as its leadership. Democracy’s strengths lay in the fact a government is only as good as its leadership.
Basicaly the people are both the leaders and the led; so they have an interest in leading well. However it can’t stop them if they want to be dumb.
A human being is capable overcoming the influence of massive media campaigns to confuse and steer them.
Human beings on any scale are not. Democracy is not just voting, it’s also the environment that voting occurs in.
Oh I agree that’s a problem. However people do have self interest, if nothing else.
It’s interesting though. A certain party’s provocative rhetoric seems to have served it well, now that same rhetoric seems to fall flat on the masses. Sure it fires up the base, but it’s drifted so far others don’t seem to listen. In fact we’re looking at a potential populist movement as a backlash. Will it sink or swim? Well I have my hopes, but who can know?
Perhaps, I hope, people become desensitized to propaganda when it’s shown to go against their interests. Look at Wisconsin’s governer election and the resulting recall movement when people realized his words would affect them.
This brings up an interesting point. The empires njtt brings up were all from quite some time ago. There has since been a shift toward democracy and military and economic strength going hand in hand. There’s a theory (which sounds likely to me, I don’t know how accepted it is by historians) that this shift was due to the inability of monarchs in Renaissance to raise the needed capital to field armies. I’ll quote Michael Hudson, since I happen to have the article open in another tab:
He then goes on to note that the bankers seem to be moving on to demanding some sort of technocratic oligarchy to best meet their needs, but that’s probably well outside the scope of this thread.
David Graeber’s recent book Debt: The First 5,000 Years also goes into the same history in somewhat more detail.
Perhaps those who think there are better alternatives might propose them.
From my perspective, having been born in a country(Iran) ruled by a “wise prince” and now ruled by a collection of intellectuals headed by a Philosopher King, I’m quite happy to be living in a democracy.
I think most of the people complaining about it have no idea just how much better off they have it.
Also, everytime I hear someone talk about how much more “efficient” dictatorships(enlightened or otherwise) are I nearly piss myself laughing.
Anyone who’s actually lived in a dictatorship knows that just the opposite is true.
Yes, the US has problems with corruption and government inefficiency. I know, I’m from Rhode Island.
However, Iran under both the Shah and later the Ayatollah was vastly more corrupt and the government was vastly less efficient. The same was true under the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.
Under democracies, the elected leaders are accountable to the public and so the government has to serve the public.
Obviously, there is corruption, however it’s nothing like in a dictatorship where the government and government officials are responsible to the leader and no one else.
As a result, under dictatorships governmental appointments, continued employment, and advancement depend entirely on one’s ability to serve and please the leader or governing oligarchy who aren’t answerable to the people.
That’s why corruption is vastly worse nude Iran’s philosopher King than in the US even under Huey Long.
I always have to laugh at people who complain that we here in the United States live under tyranny, just a slightly different sort of tyranny than the people in North Korea live under.
It’s fucking tiresome and idiotic and doesn’t even deserve to be debated. The fact that people from time to time whine about how horribly tyrannical self-government is all the proof you need that it is nothing of the sort.
Invariably these people try to win arguments by insisting on their own particular idiolectic definitions of words. An especial favorite is that there’s no such thing as democracy, because democracy can only mean the form of government that was practiced in Athens from 508 BC to 322 BC. And on and on, like Humpty Dumpty.
But, in fact, free countries have been pitted against unfree countries, time and time again. And like the famous tests where paddlewheel and propeller boats were chained together, it has turned out that freedom works better than slavery. Well, we haven’t acheived Utopia yet, so there’s plenty of room for improvement. But if you want to replace liberal democracy with a better system, then for fuck’s sake don’t trot out the tired and outmoded methods of government that have been tried over and over in the past and have failed over and over. You’ve got to come up with something new, and before we can say that it’s going to work better than liberal democracy you’d have to convince people by some method or another to try your system, and then you’d have to actually demonstrate that it actually is superior.
Delusion is cute, a comfortable tyranny guess what, is still a tyranny. You know what tyranny is? It’s when you have no say in what your government does and guess what? If you think you have some say or that what the majority wants happens here, you’re not very clever.
“arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.” Sure the definition tends to want a single ruler instead of a plutocracy but the spirit of tyranny is the same: A tiny focal point of power serving it’s own interests and whims, and even in single family rule situations nothing can continue without the support of a much broader class of the privileged. Different names for the same roles.
I know for some people patriotism is an adequate replacement for thought and go ahead and toot the horn for the media maelstrom as pathetic as that is. Everything is fine, maybe it could be better, go to work, pop out some kids, shut up and have a bar-b-cue and watch some football.
Oh whatever you don’t read things you don’t agree with anyway, you skim and react. Of course I meant N. Korea and the US were equivalently pleasant places to live.
Governments tend to serve the people who control them. Democracy generally works better than other forms of government because it places control into the hands of a large share of the governed. So the government ends up serving a large share of the population.
A smaller controlling group might be smarter than the general electorate but nobody’s figured out a reliable system to keep that smaller group working for the general interest of society instead of the self-interest of their group.
I’d recommend a library.
Maybe one in a Western culture, even.
And here we see the attempt to debate by definition. Of course, under Untoward_Parable’s defnintion every government that has ever existed since the dawn of prehistory has been tyrannical. Since he defines government as tyranny and tyranny as government, why do we need two words to describe the same thing? And what’s the purpose of his trying to get us to accept the word tyranny rather than government?
Look dude, it’s not an accident that North Korea is an unpleasant hellhole, while liberal democracies are decent places to live. The unpleasantness of North Korea is a consequence of North Korea’s system of government and social control, the pleasantness of North America an Western Europe is a consequence of our system of government and social control.
It turns out to be a simple fact that liberal democracies are pleasant places to live, while dictatorships are shitholes. Now, why do you think that is?
Agreed, his definition of tyranny is extremely questionable and even it shows little understanding of how liberal democracies work.
According to his definition, in liberal democracies would have to engage in “arbitrary, and unrestrained exercise of power” but even in the worst cases, they don’t have “unrestrained exercise of power” and they have to derive their power from the law hence it’s hardly arbitrary.
In fact, the original definition of tyrant was “one who rules without law, looks to his own advantage rather than that of his subjects, and uses extreme and cruel tactics—against his own people as well as others”.
Liberal democracies have the rule of law protecting the rights of minorities and restricting the power of governments over their citizens.
That’s why the modern concept of democracy includes more than just regular elections.
Well an absolute monarchy under my rule would be the best, but Democracy is a close 2nd! 
I’ve never done one of these but the OP inspired me to make this.
Democracy is preferred because it is the best means we know of preventing arbitrary power and ensuring government focuses on bettering its constituents. The alternative is arbitrary government and people being used as pawns to the betterment of a tyrant.
As much as we complain about it (and there are justified complaints), we don’t have any other system which meets these criteria.
Also interesting that ‘England before the monarchy lost its power’ is listed as a time when England was great. By many reckonings 17th Century England, when the height of kings was at its highest, England was one of the weakest powers in Europe. It was only with the eventual supremacy of Parliament that England became a great power for definite.
True. England is Exhibit A in showing why democracy is better than monarchy. Look at England under the Tudors and the Stuarts - colorful, yes, but full of civil wars and other domestic disturbances as government policy flew from one extreme to the other depending on what the monarch wanted this year. England finally settled down under the Hanoverians - not because they were any better than their predecessors but because they had less power to inflict their whims on the country.
I think one of the main reasons Britain did so much better once Parliament’s constitutional position was confirmed was twofold:
a) A permanent oversight of public accounts to ensure money was properly spent. Charles II and James II had been notoriously bad at keeping proper accounts and sold commissions and ships left, right and centre. The Royal Navy was a pretty bad mess by the Glorious Revolution. So accountability of properly spent public funds and properly used public resources.
b) Security for the individual. The monarch was stripped of their power to dispense with laws they disliked and also prevented from arbitrary arrest or seizure of property without proper use of lawful procedure. This made people more willing to accrue wealth and have it taxed. The French revenues, I understand, routinely dwindled as people disliked accruing wealth in case the state tried to seize it for its own ends.
China seems to be doing fine without, though. I don’t want to speak to the proletarian paradise each Chinese citizen lives in, because I kinda doubt living there is very much fun, but from a power and economical standpoint China is undeniably successful.