In ancient times it was called (especially by Aristoteles):
1) “Monarchy” and its variation “tyrannise” (= “abnormal monarchy”). 2) “Aristocracy” and its variation “oligarchy” (= “abnormal aristocracy”). 3) “Democracy” and its variation “ochlocracy” (= “abnormal democracy”).
The “abnormal democracy” is approximately that what James mentioned under point 4):
This is approximately that what Aristoteles called the “ochlocracy” as the “abnormal democracy”.
“Social eqaulity”, “respect”, “individual”, “community” are merely rhetoric words, if they are used in a political text and context. They only have to do with forms of government, if it comes to enforce ideologies, and ideologies are used in order to control the people.
So the words “social eqaulity”, “respect”, “individual”, “community” can indirectly, but not directly be used for the describing of any form of government, but they can directly be used for the describimg of the totaltarian rhetoric.
The “principles of social equality” and the “respect for the individual within a community” mean a contradiction!
“The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community” are also a contrast to the other points James mentioned:
Especially the majority rule (=> 4.) excludes the “principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community” because a “majority” can merely really be a mojority, if there is also a minority, and a “minority” is no longer a minority, if there is “social equality”, and the “individual within a community” can not exist, if there is “social equality” (cp. above: The “principles of social equality” and the “respect for the individual within a community” mean a contradiction!).
So “the principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community” contradict democracy and any of the other forms of government, but especially democracy and its variation named “ochlocracy” (= abnormal democracy).
That’s right, but nevertheless: it does not change anything of that what I said. The “social equality” can not really be reached, it’s an ideal, and ideologists are always the first ones who misuse this ideal as well as other ideals in order to control people.
So there is no “social equality”.
Many people who are very much ill, or other people who are caused by other circumstances that they are not able to vote - all those people indicate that there is even then no “social equality”, if it comes to vote.
None of those were considered perfect. They just chose the one that seemed the best that they could arrange. Knowing no more than they did at the time, I think they did a surprisingly good job. What people are trying to do today is far worse.
There is only one right way and it is “None of the above”.
If presuming to reform Democracy (or actually reestablish it), the only thing that the US Constitution was missing was for all laws to be obligated to their openly documented reasoning. If they had that one added stipulation, the entire world would be different today and be much more democratic and far more advanced. The world wars would never have occurred yet Israel would still have obtained land and without having to sacrifice millions of people to get it.
By requiring such open documented reasoning and binding laws to it (meaning to remove the law that isn’t doing what it was reasoned to do in favor of any law that does bring what it is reasoned to bring), other governing structures would begin to change. In the long run, far more decisions would be made locally with a far greater diversity from location to location. Reasoning would take the upper hand and gradually discover the most ideal arrangement available.
Are we discussing democracy in general or democracy in US only?
As far as i know, fortunately or unfortunately, there are lot of people, who also use to live at this very planet outside US, perhaps, manytimes more than US.
The same is applicable to the democracies too.
What i fail to understand sometimes why the objectivity of most intellectuals would not able to cross the boundries of US!
Me neither. Which is why I think a new democracy needs to be designed.
Right. How did this happen? Isn’t it because congress is made up of people and people are subject to greed and personal gain. Wave enough money under their noses and they’ll do anything you want. (However, I should point out that I doubt it’s always money for its own sake that has this effect, but money put towards a cause that the member of congress is fighter for or believes in that has that effect). In any case, this is one of the problems. What can be done about it?
So you mean, as opposed to simply recognizing that X is the law, and even it is making life difficult (however much it worked at the time of its codification), too bad, it’s the law. But if we had the means and the rights to the reasoning that stood behind the law at the time of its codification, we could make a much more effective and binding decision on whether or not to keep it, change it, or remove it?
At this point, I think we’re only trying to define “democracy,” but with a slant towards the American system (but this is only because I brought up the subject of corruption in the US system in my OP as an explanation for what prompted this thread). I personally think the US is in trouble (and remember, I’m Canadian), which is why I’m focused on the US (and add to this that the majority of ILP members are American). Nevertheless, carrying this discussion into the nature and state of democracy in other countries, or in general, is surely important and would help the overall goal of this thread.
By all means.
I do not forget important things that easily, if those are not names and numbers.
This problem is not restricted to US leaders but the whole of the society is infected by it. And, i am not talking about only American society here but all democracies.
Gib, education is a slightly different subject.
Mere education does not increase wisdom by default. Wisdom is not mere education but how one uses his education. And, that cannot be taught in schools. Either family has to teach this to its youngs or they will get clues on their own from their surroundings/interactions. And, unfortunately, there are more bad things than good present in the surroundings.
Furthermore, sometimes even overeducation becomes a problem itself. That is happening because of immature children having access to internet. Internet is too complex for them to handle. It is harming them more than helping.
At the end of the day, the only solution to find wise leaders is to increase the general wisdom of participants. I do not think that there can be any other alternative. Unwise choosers cannot ever choose wise representative. That is the only reason of the downfall of the democracy.
If any democracy wants to succeed in the long run, it has to maintain the wisdom of its participants at a certain level, either by improving their overall standerd or filtering out the unwise ones from the system.
Gib, how can a 18 year child can ever understand what can be good or bad for him in the long run? This is nothing but abusing democracy, killing its spirit.
If you bring the voting age to 12, the majority of the votes would go that leader who promises to children for free video gaming, junk food, cold drinks and no schooling. And, a leader would have to do all that in order to get their votes. It is as simple as that.
In the same way, if you increase voting age to 30, the priorities of the voter would change. They will be certainly more sensible and wise than 18 years olds. And, the leaders would have to be more sensible also to attract them.
I do not know about the details of voting patterns in US, but my guess is that Obama got more votes from young, non-white and female voters. And, if Republican party wants to win the next election, it would have to nominate any female or a non-white candidate. That is their the only chance.
I am telling you this from my experience of Indian politics. Being a multiparty system and still based on cast and religions, Indian politics has evolved faster and far more complex than US. US has just enterered in that phase, which is near to its end in India.
Some menbers may have a serious objection to it but it is true.
The first one conquered a lot of diverse smaller Groups. IOW he killed a lot of people to extend the area over which he had Control. That seems bad to me. Likewise number two. Now it sounds like Akbar for an empire builder who kills a lot of people, did run the empire fairly nicely for an autocrat. Both passed on their empires to their sons. This is a bad idea and likely the son was not the best candidate. Let’s say the sons, in the specific cases were good. The problem is it sets a precedent for family Control, and sooner or later a maniac will come to Power. He also seems to have reacted with extreme violence to people who offended him, throwing some members of his family out the window, for example. Interestingly he did move society towards secularism. Some would see this as good, others as not.
Caesar killed lot of people for the empire. One can assume that his armies engaged in systematic rape also, for example. He had conquered leaders dragged around in chains. He had huge gladiotorial battles - for Entertainment - where captives were forced to fight to the Death. His reforms and rules as dictator seem OK. He was planning, at his Death, more empire building, which means he would send out armies to attack, kill, rape and destroy other nations and people. These were not defensive wars.
Catherine also extended her empire, though yes, as emporers go she seems to have had good intentions and done good things. HOwever these are part of the process of eliminating the class/Power distinctions based on birth family and moving towards other forms of society than autocracy.
I will leave specifics here. All these people acted to increase, not simply stabilize their realms. IOW they sought more Power and at the expense of their own lower classes - iow the Soldiers - and the peoples of any are they attacked and annexed. This is not a small thing. A leader today doing those things is generally though of as evil, unless they can manage to make their attacks on others look like defense, and people do fall for that.
This may seem unfair. These rulers did what rulers did if they could - as far as war and empire building. But there were likely many people, even then, who would not have viewed war as a given, who would not have assumed that ‘my’ Culture should be other people’s Culture because we know the best way to live - thinking more of the pre-Catherine the great rulers. So even though we are evaluating the past or I am through modern Eyes there were people even then who would not have assumed these things - though perhaps would have ended up abusing Power in these ways. And each autocrat, unless they undermine autocracy, set the stage for the next tyrant. Also I do not Think there has ever been an autocrat who did not rule over and support a caste system which includes a great deal of abuse. I can’t blame these autocrats for not changing that - though Catherine seems to have taken steps (affected by the *Enlightenment) - but I can’t really see how an autocrat can function without at least a few classes, the higher ones having Always - with individual exceptions - been systematically abusive of the lower classes.
Is there an autocrat who did not use systematic violence on either his or her own people or the people of other nations?
Only because John Adams isn't taught in school because he's not progressive enough. If we had a 'direct democracy' in this country, all that would do is empower an oligarchy of pundits and entertainers (moreso). That kind of oligarchy isn't a problem to be overcome so much as it is an inherent feature of governance. It sucks that it takes a Princeton study to re-reveal what we all should have learned in high school.
So what’s everybody’s consensus then? Apart from the confusion over whether or not America is a democracy, I sense that people don’t really care and actually like it as an oligarchy.
See if you can form the same kind of poll that Arminius made. You should (typically) see most of the people going along with the flow, just as he did (category 2).
We need to do something concerning democracy.
We don’t need to do anything concerning democracy.
I don’t like it as an oligarchy, I just think the best way to mitigate oligarchy is republicanism- you have to turn back to the Constitution, not the people.
I don’t like an oligarchy and I think you’ve started taking this thread into dismissal without giving it enough thought. (In other words, my have remained mostly unanswered. lol)
Seriously, pure Democracy cannot be reformed, it can only be replaced with something else.
There is no such thing as a pure form of government; government is too tied up with Economic theory.
World ‘democracies’ are most often nothing other than countries that have been forced, in some way and usually by the US, to hold elections, period. The people of the ME and African countries, for example, have no concept of Democracy other than that, so the most powerful tribal leader is ‘elected’ in those places under the name of “Democracy.” Yet, the US, in its ‘fight against terrorism’ continues to spread democracy–or tries to. The US, which a democratic republic, doesn’t understand Democracy, itself!
As for the US, it’s because of democracy that it’s an oligarchy. Was it Marx who predicted that?
The US is stuck on the horns of the dilemma called freedom of speech. We cannot deny it. To deny it goes against our Constitution.
We can amend our Constitution and change it in that way. The amendment process is a part of the Constitution. And the SCOTUS constantly changes the interpretation of the Constitution to meet the time–the age–in which we’re living. As I understand it, however, the Supreme Courts, whether State or Federal, can only decide on–ajudicate–cases as they are presented to them.
Because of this, the SCOTUS is often presented cases that hinge on the application of the XIV Amendment and whether or not the XIV amendment applies in a particular case. The XIV amendment was, originally, meant to give freed slaves equal rights–it’s a Reconstruction amendment. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS has gone way beyond the original purpose of the XIV, because of how it’s worded. If you read it, you’ll understand why I say this.
But the II (2nd) amendment is probably the most contentious because of it’s wording. That’s the “right to bear arms” amendment. It’s backers/membership are probably the most powerful lobby in the US.
The AARP is also a powerful lobby. The NEA, as a union, is as well. Unions have always been, and may still be, powerful lobbies. So a lobby isn’t just a group of people with money, who dangle that money as a carrot in order to buy votes.
Should those voices be stopped? Can they be stopped, given our First Amendment?
So are you for reverting democracy then (if that’s what it was) rather than reforming it? (but remember, the Reformation was a kind of reversion). Even so, should we not be taking notes as to what caused it to stray in the direction of an oligarchy and perhaps learn from it?
Sure, I answered your questions.
What is “pure” democracy? Anything that falls within the purview of the definition counts, of course, but no definition is so narrow that only one type of thing may count.
The Cold War will attest to that.
I could hop on board with that, but what about countries that have a long tradition of democracy? Surely they understand what it’s all about and there surely have been periods in history during which such democracies were “real”.
I think he predicted that capitalism would collapse; Incidentally, I believe Marx actually imagined communism as being run democratically (which could explain why it didn’t work in practice), a poignant example of how there can be different kinds of democracies (at least in theory).
I wouldn’t recommend removing the first amendment, but what about rethink who it applies to? I think perhaps stricter regulations ought to be placed on politicians or those with a certain level of power. Maybe free speech ought to apply to common citizens but certain limitations come in to place when it comes to politicians. Also, on this note, maybe the whole “innocent until proven guilty” jurisprudence ought to be reversed when it comes to politicians. Maybe they should have to prove themselves innocent instead of us taking it for granted. And do politicians have to be legally recognized as American citizens just like everyone else? Correct me if I’m wrong, but this status changes once a citizen becomes a soldier, no? A spy? Children don’t have the same recognized status as adult citizens. Women and blacks didn’t at one point. Should we be considering politicians as the equals of common citizens?
No, I don’t think they should be stopped, nor do I think the first amendment ought to be stricken. What I think is needed is a change in public perceptions. The American people seem afraid of their government, afraid to do anything to change it. They seem numb and paralyzed–zombified. It’s James’ whole frog-in-boiling-water bit, except that I don’t think what keeps Americans in this state is the “normalcy bias” as James believes, but fear–fear that if one is to do something about it, one will have to do it alone, or that the government will react as a single unit and become a war machine opening fire on rebellious protesters.
But I guarantee you that even among the war machine are citizens like you who are thoroughly dissatisfied with the state of your nation. Just watch the videos in the OP. There’s a soldier expressing his grievances that he may one day have to confiscate people’s guns, and that he hates the thought of doing this–a soldier, a gear in that very war machine which will allegedly be used against you. And then there’s Ron Paul speaking out against the Patriot Act and the Martial Law bill–a politician, a member of the government who will one day allegedly use the war machine against you. Then there’s William Benny, the speaker in the first video, who once worked for the NSA using the very software which is now being used to profile and spy on you, but has since defected and now works to undo the damage. They’re there–in the military, in the government–afraid to speak up just like you, but hoping that some movement will arise and in which they, like you, can feel safely swept up by.
I think what’s needed most of all is to remind the people that they own their government–that’s what a republic is after all–for it seems that now, the people think of their government as the “boss”–and who could blame them: traditionally, this is the role that governments play. But it was the pivotal idea on which America originally turned (was it not?) that a new republican form of government in which it was the people who were the boss, and the government which served them, that would be the key to social happiness, progress, and freedom. I think people need to be reminded of that. I think they need to be reminded that if they don’t like the government they have–the oligarchy it has become–well, then change it–it’s your government.
James, I don’t understand what you were trying to say. I haven’t been brainwashed by globalist propaganda, but if, in your opinion, you believe I have been, please tell me how you arrived at your conclusion based on what I wrote. What I wrote was my understanding of the US Constitution and how it has been interpreted by the SCOTUS over the past several years. If you disagree with that understanding, please let me know. Perhaps we can frash things out, somewhat, before we agree to disagree.
