Debate 1 Discussion: Whether democracy is the ideal form of government: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Debates » Debate Discussion » Debate 1 Discussion: Whether democracy is the ideal form of government » Debate 1 Discussion: Whether democracy is the ideal form of government

Debate 1 Discussion: Whether democracy is the ideal form of government

Page: 1 2

Debate 1 Discussion: Whether democracy is the ideal form of government

Jay
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 04, 2003
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 1578

Posted 04/18/04 - 11:22 AM:	#26
Interlocutor wrote: For the time being, until everyone gets the hang of the rules, I'm giving debaters a bit of leeway. I'm glad you are since the aim of this is to focus on very interesting debates. Although time should be somewhat of a factor, we need not rush things I would hope...

Interlocutor
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 23, 2002
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 879

Posted 04/22/04 - 11:03 AM:	#27
I didn't want to have to do this, but for whatever reason, ashingular is not able to keep on schedule. He didn't contact me and ask for any kind of extension. Therefore, by rule, he forfeits. Should anyone wish to take his place, or maybe restart the debate, the negative position is open. Whether RandomPrecision cares to continue it or begin anew will be the concern then. Until further notice, however, "Whether democracy is the ideal form of government" is closed.

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England
Total Topics: 131
Total Posts: 4210

Posted 04/22/04 - 12:47 PM:	#28
Interlocutor wrote: I didn't want to have to do this, but for whatever reason, ashingular is not able to keep on schedule. He didn't contact me and ask for any kind of extension. Therefore, by rule, he forfeits. Should anyone wish to take his place, or maybe restart the debate, the negative position is open. Whether RandomPrecision cares to continue it or begin anew will be the concern then. Until further notice, however, "Whether democracy is the ideal form of government" is closed. I would love to replace ashingular but I just don't have the time. If you wait for about 2-3 months then I will have six weeks to do it, but right now I have exams to prepare for.
For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

Jay
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 04, 2003
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 1578

Posted 04/22/04 - 01:09 PM:	#29
I'd be willing to do so in about 2 weeks. But until then hopefully someone else will take up the debate.

RandomPrecision
Divisible by 3

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Elsewhere
Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 1383

Posted 04/22/04 - 04:22 PM:	#30
I am quite sure that I'll be available for any continuation or reincarnation of the debate. If anyone wants to take the negative, now or later, I can probably play along as the affirmative. I don't care whether the debate restarts or continues - the other person could decide if they want to keep ashingular's beginning.

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England
Total Topics: 131
Total Posts: 4210

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 04/23/04 - 09:45 AM:	#31
RandomPrecision wrote: I am quite sure that I'll be available for any continuation or reincarnation of the debate. If anyone wants to take the negative, now or later, I can probably play along as the affirmative. I don't care whether the debate restarts or continues - the other person could decide if they want to keep ashingular's beginning. If I was to do it then I would have to restart the defence, but I'm sure you could keep your introduction because you started first anyway.
For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

unrealist42
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 1941

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 04/30/04 - 05:25 PM:	#32
It greives me that Ashingular went directly to rebuttal without making an opening statement clearly outlining his position without regard to Random Precision's argument.

Mael
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2004
Location: Indianapolis
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 14

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 05/28/04 - 09:37 AM:	#33
Of all things, I found the nationwide voting of a show I usually have no interest in to be extremely visible examples of democracy's flaws in a nation where voting is based on people's personal feelings rather than the truly "wisest" choice. In this example, that being American Idol (and by extension the "buzz" that the voting caused), the masses of America voted out what nearly everyone admitted to be the more talented performer, in favor, instead, of what several called a "racist" decision...or perhaps, as well, someone whose look they admired, instead of talent they appreciated. The voting was scewed, basically....but in an interesting turn of events, many accused the voting of being duplicious, rather than consider the possibility that the people themselves voted in a "racist" fashion. In other words, "the viewers" couldn't believe that they, as a group, would vote in a shallow fashion. This moment, in a show that I've usually merely rolled eyes at (the very name after all attesting to the shallowness of our time), I found to be extremely engaging...for more so than all the focus they usually have on pop music...and reminded me of other such occurances, throughout recent history, including but not limited to many voting for Bill Clinton over Bob Dole in 1996 based not on the political issue of the day, but on the former's looks. Their thinking of him, at least in the females' cases, as "hot" is what got him their vote...what he stood for meant little. With actions such as these, I find it extraordinary that many do not see the dangers inherent in democracy...or specifically a democracy in which everyone as a whole determines policy, including those who self-admittedly "don't know what the **** [they] want." With a society that is "tossed to and fro as if on a sea"...of whatever's In at that moment...democracy becomes disturbingly easy to degenerate into something resembling what in post-Civil War Southern American society was usually called a [lynch] mob. Democracy can work if the foundation is strong, but what if it has begun crumbling, towards a savage world that begins to slightly resemble Aldous Huxley's vision of a savage, totalitarian future, complete with drugs (Soma=Ecstasy) designed to keep its users in a cloudy, euphoric daze? Does no one what such a world will soon become?

froclown
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 16, 2003
Location: Illinois
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 678

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 05/29/04 - 12:10 PM:	#34
What is required is that each individuals be accustomed with the mystical revelation, which grants him the ability to know what is best for everyone. This way there is not need to act as a group or have a government, as each individuals simly knows his proper place and does not over or understep his bounds. Seeing as such a mystical revelation is unlikely, then the best remaining option is to insue that those who rule, are accustomed to this mystical communication, between the whole and the individual. This select panel of elite philosopher kings, should not of course rule directly as in deligating power. They should remain secret and few, so that they can subtally alter the behavior of the many, so as to keep a natural balance, ie an equalibrium is maintained the same or close to the same as if everone could know and perform his proper duty, by way of revelation. For an example of how a few secret forces can control without showing themselves or deligating a hierarchy of power, see Walden Two by B.F. Skinner. For real life evidence, look at the effect of media on culture, especially music on teenagers. Change the music, you change the behavior. Other such modifications are possible as well, and are used by profit driven megalomaniacs. I believe a governement system that used those same methods, under the control of enilightened Buddhists or other such mystics, who are concerned with humanity more than personal gain, would be ideal.
"X/\|-\|3\|\| `/0\|_\|'/3 [)0\|\|3 +\|-\|1\|\|6$ \|216\|-\|+, \|30\|\|3 X/0\|\|'+ \|}3 $\|_\|\|23 `/0\|_\|'/3 [)0\|\|3 @\|\|`/+\|-\|1\|\|6 @+ @\|\|" 60[)

banter
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 10, 2004
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 62

Posted 06/11/04 - 07:13 AM:	#35
Democracy presents a host of problems that are intractable within the definition. The most glaring of the internally defined problems concerns whether or not the votes cast are actually being counted, being counted accurately, and, if counted accurately, reported to the public accurately. Quite simply, there is the problem of non-transparency... or as Stalin liked to say, "Those who cast the votes decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything.". I personally am not one for faith based innitiatives with respect to people that control large armies... of course all of this even assumes that the majority can make correct decisions! One of the oldest lessons of history and nature... if there's a crack that can be exploited, something living will thrive there. Non-transparency is unacceptable, when decisions of life quality hang in the balance. Realistically, it would take less than 300 people to actually be a part of complete and total nationwide vote fraud to manipulate the general perception that currently circulates. The only method of transparency involves receipts. While the specifics of triple redundancy aren't critical to cover right now, it is still possible to keep privacy while exerting complete transparency -- as the voter becomes a 10 digit alpha numeric string drawn at random by themselves from a stack of ballots after verifying registration. But there is still one privacy problem... walking out the door with your receipt. On the outside, you may be holding the ticket to whether or not you get to keep your job, something redeemable for cash, something exchanged for any certain priviledge, something to alleviate a generalized peer pressure, something that was coerced. In order for transprency to work, a perfect representation in the form of a reciept, must leave that precinct with the voter... retro-active transparency. As a summary of WHY democracy is not possible... You either have non-transparency or coersion.
- The leading cause of preventable death is birth. - The only way to change the past is through perspective. - A conspiracy theory always proves at least one thing, superfluous non-transparency with respect to the topic. This in and of itself is criminal.

SimplyPlatonic
Level 24 RogueWonderer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 04, 2004
Location: Maryland
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 102

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 08/06/04 - 09:23 AM:	#36
Mael wrote: reminded me of other such occurances, throughout recent history, including but not limited to many voting for Bill Clinton over Bob Dole in 1996 based not on the political issue of the day, but on the former's looks. Their thinking of him, at least in the females' cases, as "hot" is what got him their vote...what he stood for meant little. With actions such as these, I find it extraordinary that many do not see the dangers inherent in democracy...or specifically a democracy in which everyone as a whole determines policy, including those who self-admittedly "don't know what the **** [they] want." With a society that is "tossed to and fro as if on a sea"...of whatever's In at that moment...democracy becomes disturbingly easy to degenerate into something resembling what in post-Civil War Southern American society was usually called a [lynch] mob. Democracy can work if the foundation is strong, but what if it has begun crumbling. I find what is quoted here extremely true to why I believe very strongly agaisnt democracy. In my (limited) experience i have found that most people are dull, easily decieved, and influenced heavily by emotion and not influenced at all by reason. I'm slow to make the old people=sheep analogy, but it may have been used time's before for a good reason. Giving power to a large group of stupid people is, I think most will admit, not preferable to giving power to a small group of wise/intelegent people.
Your skill in Reading has increased by 1 point

SimplyPlatonic
Level 24 RogueWonderer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 04, 2004
Location: Maryland
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 102

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 08/06/04 - 09:39 AM:	#37
froclown wrote: This select panel of elite philosopher kings, should not of course rule directly as in deligating power. They should remain secret and few, so that they can subtally alter the behavior of the many, so as to keep a natural balance, ie an equalibrium is maintained the same or close to the same as if everone could know and perform his proper duty, by way of revelation. For an example of how a few secret forces can control without showing themselves or deligating a hierarchy of power, see Walden Two by B.F. Skinner. For real life evidence, look at the effect of media on culture, especially music on teenagers. Change the music, you change the behavior. Other such modifications are possible as well, and are used by profit driven megalomaniacs. I believe a governement system that used those same methods, under the control of enilightened Buddhists or other such mystics, who are concerned with humanity more than personal gain, would be ideal. I would be slow to instill a secret government that controls people through covert/subliminal mean's, since I believe people still have a right to know what going on. I guess my question is would the people know that there is a secret government and that's it, or not know at all? Since in the second case, if someone found out then anarchy would be almost instant( unless you could keep communication slow enough that any breach could be......ahem eliminated...before word could get out. In the first case I believe that there would be no faith in the government from the beginning, and anarchist would be the most popular profession. Unless of course the secret government went the whole 1984 yard's with Ingsoc and Big Brother, Thought Crime, and all the old familar Orwellian faces. My second problem arises with the teenager/music suggestion. Yes I know that we (teens; I'm still far enough in this catagory to know) are fickle and easily swayed by popular opinion of our peers, but first that popular opinion must be established. Since we are fickle we cling to what we like (makes us feel good, and so on) and I would like to know precisely what changes you would invoke on the music to get your desired behavior?
Your skill in Reading has increased by 1 point

Machiveli
savage butter

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 19, 2004
Total Topics: 114
Total Posts: 1176

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 08/26/04 - 03:55 PM:	#38
The debaters constantly seemed to refer to communism as the opposite of democracy allthough later conceeding in passing it was an economic not a political system I know people might find this shocking but the Communist government of the USSR was democratic in the sense that they did elect their representatives. Article 135 Elections of deputies are universal: all citizens of the U.S.S.R. who have reached the age of eighteen, irrespective of race or nationality, sex, religion, education, domicile, social origin, property status or past activities, have the right to vote in the election of deputies, with the exception of persons recognized as insane in accordance with the procedure established by law. Every citizen of the U.S.S.R. who has reached the age of twenty-three is eligible for the election to the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. irrespective of race or nationality, sex, religion, education, domicile, social origin, property status or past activities. Article 136 Elections of deputies are equal; each citizen has one vote; all citizens participate in elections on an equal footing. Article 137 Women have the right to elect and be elected on equal terms with men. Article 138 Citizens serving in the Armed Forces of the U.S.S.R. have the right to elect and be elected on equal terms with all other citizens. Article 139 Elections of deputies are direct: all Soviets of Working People's Deputies, from rural and City Soviets of Working People's Deputies to the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., are elected by the citizens by direct vote. Article 140 Voting at elections of deputies is secret. http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/docs/ussr64.htm So it would seem democracy if it means purely voting within certain parameters is not what either of the debaters would term an ideal system. My second point is that both debaters seemed to accept that democracy was representative. Switzerland has a functioning (semi)direct democracy with referenda. http://www.swissworld.org/dvd_rom/eng/direct_democracy_2004/
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "Everything that exists is born for no reason, carries on living through weakness, and dies by accident" -Sartre

Machiveli
savage butter

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 19, 2004
Total Topics: 114
Total Posts: 1176

Posted 08/30/04 - 01:57 AM:	#39
One final point is that if democracy is the ideal form of government, then what is it the ideal form of government for? If there is no rational basis for considering only states then surely democracy should apply to all organisations. We can go up or down on this. Down would suggest that all companies should be run on democratic lines which is an interesting thought but it does seem to erode the concept of property rights. Up would suggest that we should have "global world governement" and that minories should go with the decision of the majority no matter how big the actual numbers are and that this would not result in civil war and ethno religious conflict. We can then further ask what decisions should be made democraticaly? There seems no real basis for any restriction to say 'elected representatives every n years'.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "Everything that exists is born for no reason, carries on living through weakness, and dies by accident" -Sartre

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.