Democracy

Do you like the democracy?

  • Yes

    Votes: 24 58.5%

  • No

    Votes: 17 41.5%
  • Total voters
    41
Holdek said:
How can I know that democracy is better than every historical alternative? By comparing the results of those alternatives with democracy.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately it's not a science. Results cannot be reproduce via experimentation nor can variables be controlled, nor can there be a control group. It's a hard claim to prove. I would agree there does seem to be a correlation between economic freedom and successful states but I don't think this really has anything to do with form of government.
 
Godjesus said:
Yeah I understand democracy in theory would make the most happy since the most people will decide what they want. The idea that democracy is better than any government tried seems to be a fact in our society but is this idea analyzed fully? Or is it just accepted much like older traditions, religions etc? For instance, if we asked Chinese what the best form of government was, would they say democracy? They would probably say Chinese communism right? Again this is just personal values so the answer would be different for lots of people but on average would probably tend to be in the system you are in if it is perceived to be "working" or not. I think an unquestioned and accepted ideas deserve scrutiny.
Click to expand...

I think you're right that democracy is considered the best by many people living in democracies out of habit. But, I would also make the point that in China, for example, you can't go out and say, "Hey guys, maybe democracy is better than what we have currently. Discuss," or else you end up in prison. So the marketplace of ideas is monopolized by the system they have currently, and thus historical alternatives are not options for consideration.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: DirkBloodStormKing, Adamska and Godjesus
Holdek said:
I think you're right that democracy is considered the best for many people living in democracies out of habit. But, I would also make the point that in China, for example, you can't go out and say, "Hey guys, maybe democracy is better than what we have currently. Discuss," or else you end up in prison. So the marketplace of ideas is monopolized by the system they have currently, and thus historical alternatives are not options for consideration.
Click to expand...
I would think there is fear in actual democracies too rational or not. We all know that our conversations are monitored as most network traffic goes to america. Democracies share data on their citizens between each other. The fear of the government is not absent in democracies. Some democracies limit what you can express. One killed Socrates.
 
Godjesus said:
Unfortunately it's not a science. Results cannot be reproduce via experimentation nor can variables be controlled, nor can there be a control group. It's a hard claim to prove.
Click to expand...
That would come as a surprise to social scientists. While they aren't subject to controlled experimentation, there are entire fields of study that produce academic case studies comparing the different historical, sociological, and economic results between political systems. So, reason can be applied by comparing these situations, conclusions derived, and those conclusions critiqued for error, bias, caveat, etc.

My main point though is that I am able to do a basic version of this as an individual with at least a fundamental knowledge of history and geography.
 
Holdek said:
That would come as a surprise to social scientists. While they aren't subject to controlled experimentation, there are entire fields of study that produce academic case studies comparing the different historical, sociological, and economic results between political systems. So, reason can be applied by comparing these situations, conclusions derived, and those conclusions critiqued for error, bias, caveat, etc.

My main point though is that I am able to do a basic version of this as an individual with at least a fundamental knowledge of history and geography.
Click to expand...
I respect your opinion. I wonder if it would be the same and the Central Powers in WW1 prevailed though. They were powerful modern industrial states with relatively liberal social policies, just like the democracies, only difference they had Kings and Emperors. Perhaps social science would say differently then, no?
 
Godjesus said:
I would think there is fear in actual democracies too rational or not. We all know that our conversations are monitored as most network traffic goes to america. Democracies share data on their citizens between each other. The fear of the government is not absent in democracies. Some democracies limit what you can express. One killed Socrates.
Click to expand...
Democracies aren't perfect, but they aren't police states. I feel free, at least in 21st century America, to pretty much hear and say whatever political opinion I want without fear of reprisal.

Now, other democracies, from Canada to Europe to Australia, ban certain types of speech (usually extremist ones like National Socialist or Communist) for reasons of hate speech or for historical reasons, but they too are not police states and I don't see masses of citizens there trying to overthrow the tyranny of democracy in order to resurrect a Fourth Reich or a Soviet Bloc. Venezuela is a democracy (albeit nonperfect) but Hugo Chavez and his Movement toward Socialism basically left it as a failed state. I'm pretty confident the nonsocialist opposition will win in the next election.

Godjesus said:
I respect your opinion. I wonder if it would be the same and the Central Powers in WW1 prevailed though. They were powerful modern industrial states with relatively liberal social policies, just like the democracies, only difference they had Kings and Emperors. Perhaps social science would say differently then, no?
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. That kind of alternative history, with such vast, complex, and influential components is extremely difficult (probably impossible) to predict with much accuracy. It's probably not very useful beyond the hypothetical stage of thought. I mean, Lichtenstein is an absolute monarchy that is socially liberal, and it is very popular and prosperous, but it's also tiny and not very consequential. It's probably most edifying to look at the larger currents of history.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Marvin and Godjesus
Holdek said:
Democracies aren't perfect, but they aren't police states. I feel free, at least in 21st century America, to pretty much hear and say whatever political opinion I want without fear of reprisal.
Click to expand...
Agree in general.

Holdek said:
Now, other democracies, from Canada to Europe to Australia, ban certain types of speech (usually extremist ones like National Socialist or Communist) for reasons of hate speech or for historical reasons, but they too are not police states and I don't see masses of citizens there trying to overthrow the tyranny of democracy in order to resurrect a Fourth Reich or a Soviet Bloc. Venezuela is a democracy (albeit nonperfect) but Hugo Chavez and his Movement toward Socialism basically left it as a failed state. I'm pretty confident the nonsocialist opposition will win in the next election.
Click to expand...
Agree. No one really tries to overthrow democracy since the people are perceived to have a voice. I think this is sort of an ironic instability that democracy incorporates to stabilize itself. A regime can do a 180 in 4 years. But it's sort of a fallacy that a democracy is necessarily the foundation for prosperity that many accept. A democracy can become parasitic or oppressive entity although probably less likely? Democracy is rather new so the end game has yet to be seen. I do buy the argument where democracies tend towards the left and continue that way. The end could be where individual rights are trampled in favor of the group.

Holdek said:
Maybe, maybe not. That kind of alternative history, with such vast, complex, and influential components is extremely difficult (probably impossible) to predict with much accuracy. It's probably not very useful beyond the hypothetical stage of thought. I mean, Lichtenstein is an absolute monarchy that is socially liberal, and it is very popular and prosperous, but it's also tiny and not very consequential. It's probably most edifying to look at the larger currents of history.
Click to expand...
Agree. It's all conjecture.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Holdek
I think that there is also a problem in that in democracies people rarely rationally vote and instead vote on emotions and personalities. This just means that a new democracy should be created in which decisions are made algorithmically with the preferences of citizens affecting the parameters used in the algorithms. This would still be democracy as the desires of the citizens are still the basis for policy but it would be totally different in its implementation

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Potentially we could have a system where every month every member of parilament gets an amount of votes equal to all bills proposed each month and they get to choose how to allocate their votes among the bills (possibly with an additional fixed amount of votes). That way decisions could be made based on not just what the majority wants but rather how much an outcome is wanted so people who care less about a certain issue would be given less influence on it than those who care more about it so as a result by revealed preferences this would likely obtain the efficient outcome
 
Last edited:
  • Autistic
Reactions: Marvin
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back