Should we stop the democracy experiment?

[RyQ_TMC]

No, Bush gets blame because when decisions made during the Clinton administration combined with economic developments during the Bush administration to make for a dangerous situation, rather than rolling back those Clinton administration decisions, Bush doubled down on them.

I'm not going to argue with you on that. I wasn't trying to say that Bush is completely clean in that respect, what I wanted to stress is that he gets ALL the blame. It was, obviously, pumped up by the media, but the impression I got was that the general feeling in the US was that the Republicans single-handedly led the country into economic collapse after it had been left in such a wonderful state after the Clinton terms. And while rolling with the bad decisions made previously certainly puts part of the blame on Bush, he wouldn't have been in a position to do that were the bad decisions not made in the first place.

But if you want to argue any further on that, then I will gladly back off, since I'm not following American politics very closely, what with being foreign and suchlike.

What I was trying to say was that nobody ever seems to consider how things play out in the long term. All too often very good proposals are gunned down because, despite advantages in the long-term, they lack immediate payoffs, and good proposals are passed because they seem to profit immediately - and then lead to an avalanche of trouble in long term, but who cares? When that happens, we'll have our fat pensions and some other poor sod is gonna get the blame.

 

[RyQ_TMC]

Selfishness is an issue either way, but it's less of an issue with government, with some corrupt officals, than with a corporation, dedicated solely to maximizing profits. And I have to say people aren't always selfish, sometimes they are trying to help.

Also, you're probably right about democracy. It does cause standstills thanks to the sheer number of different opinions, creating an equilibrium. I think a lot of it is scale, though, and smaller democracies would probably be swifter in change.

This might be an issue with a corporation, but similarly to what I said in a previous post - that often boils down to the long-short term conflict. A corporation devoted to short term gain would surely be a bad agent to hold power. But a corporation with long term goals in sight would almost certainly be more mindful.

With small democracies - depends how you look at it. In small countries, as well as in individual regions within larger states, you will often find the same group being elected over and over again for a long time. I think this is caused by the fact that in a small community, everyone can see the impact of the decisions made on themselves, and therefore makes more informed choices. The changes aren't much swifter than in larger countries, but if the same group stays in power for longer, they can do much more towards a specific agenda.

In larger countries, the central government is just so detached that the majority of the population does not make informed choices and even when a good candidate is elected, cannot see the effects of their rule. This leads to a pendulum effect, when popular sympathies go from one side of a polarized party system to another indefinitely, with each government undermining the effort of their predecessors and trying to put their own agenda in, which of course will be nullified by the next government undermining that... And so on.

 

[Lord Beautiful]

It is said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.

How dare you for not giving credit to the great Winston Churchill for that statement!
[/silly exaggeration]

All Democracy devolves into an unsustainable socialism when people realize that they can vote to give themselves free shit they didn't earn. Democracy is very nice while it's working properly, but it will always fall apart.

Very true, and very relevent, being that Obama is in office and working his Marx magic in that direction.

I think it's time to look for something more stable that sacrifices as little as possible in the way of civil rights.

Agreed.

FREEDOM!

 

[Delicious]

I made a post, you flamed me, that makes you the troll

No, I called you a troll.
That's a stated fact.

Flaming is what you're doing to anyone who doesn't share your opinion.
It's what got you suspended - that and spamming the same thing over and over again.

I've had to read this about fifty times, but I think I'm finally ready to respond to it. The problem was that each time I tried reading it I would start thinking about all the times I've seen babies being shaken, and I would just start laughing uncontrollably. But I'm good now.
Get your facts straight, I got suspended for wanting to lick that mans nipples in special sauce.

50 times? I used to have to do that. Well, up to until the point where I hit first grade and learned how to read. And trust me, in the first grade there are far more entertaining distractions than a baby being shaken.

...and the bait has been set.

 

[RyQ_TMC]

Blaming Clinton for things is like blaming the person who installs the new motor that blows up, not the person who ignores the warning lights. For something along the lines of what you said: we forget how short a term is compared to how events move, so that we can forget that while a policy may have been put into place in one term, all the clear warning signs showed up in someone else's term.

... aaaaaand I feel this pressing need to congratulate you on reflecting my logic back onto me. Should I see a doctor? (If I were really nitpicky I'd enhance this analogy with the motor used having 1,000 parts, any of which could cause everything to blow up if damaged, instead of using a much simpler model with less parts and lower chance of failure, but I'm not that nitpicky and I honestly feel that anything beyond what was already said would take us into the "here be dragons" OT territory.)

Which, however, brings me back to one of my original points - we need longer terms. There is always the motion of no confidence (don't know if you have it in the US) if someone really screws things up. And with longer terms (a) politicians would not be so concerned with immediate payoffs and (b) people who put a specific policy in place would be able to see it unfolding and have an opportunity to adjust - because, seeing as they were the ones who made it, they probably analyzed a few scenarios of how things can go wrong before putting it in place.

 

[CheeseSandwichCake]

Let somebody who works at 3d Realms run for president. I'M CERTAIN THEY'LL GET SHIT DONE.

 

[JimmieDean]

Anarchy.... now don't immediately blow the idea off or start bashing the belief if you do not understand it. Look into it.. do some research. It is the natural way to live together as people and there are many documented places where it has worked wonderfully and peacefully.

 

[A random person]

Anarchy.... now don't immediately blow the idea off or start bashing the belief if you do not understand it. Look into it.. do some research. It is the natural way to live together as people and there are many documented places where it has worked wonderfully and peacefully.

You have a point. People aren't just bastards who will kill and steal for the heck of it, it is social forces or indoctrination (and mental illness). Some primitive governments caused more violence than there would be without them.

Just keep in mind, though, that true anarchy wouldn't exist for long. A government of sorts would come in place, oftentimes greed-driven mob rule (driven by desire for resources), and that is simply going back to the problems of government oppression that anarchists seek to solve.

And there are some perks to government, like infrastructure and protection (again, people aren't just bastards, but there are people driven to burglary and murder out there).

 

[A random person]

Let somebody who works at 3d Realms run for president. I'M CERTAIN THEY'LL GET SHIT DONE.

"Mr. President, how is your proposed universal health care program coming along?"
"It's done when it's done."

 

[JimmieDean]

Anarchy.... now don't immediately blow the idea off or start bashing the belief if you do not understand it. Look into it.. do some research. It is the natural way to live together as people and there are many documented places where it has worked wonderfully and peacefully.

You have a point. People aren't just bastards who will kill and steal for the heck of it, it is social forces or indoctrination (and mental illness). Some primitive governments caused more violence than there would be without them.



Just keep in mind, though, that true anarchy wouldn't exist for long. A government of sorts would come in place, oftentimes greed-driven mob rule (driven by desire for resources), and that is simply going back to the problems of government oppression that anarchists seek to solve.

And there are some perks to government, like infrastructure and protection (again, people aren't just bastards, but there are people driven to burglary and murder out there).

+10 respect points for having a valid arguement. And though i can see the point and the benefits of a government I will always be an anarchist. Like you said people aren't bastards who will just kill and steal. I have faith in humanity that we could honestly govern ourselves. And the protection that comes from government is not ever worth the sacrifice of freedom, individuality or the corruption that comes with it. Show me a government that has worked and I will change my mind lol. Until then I say lets try something new, this isn't working. But again thank you for taking that the right way.

 

[Danman1]

Socialism. Oh that doesn't work. Look at the savage, war torn Netherlands.

 

[AMCization]

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

-Winston Churchill

(I have probably been beaten to the punch fifty times over

 

[RavingLibDem]

I would argue that rather than being a failed experiment democracy in fact provides the best chance of non extreme government, and there is also the fact that 2 democracies have never gone to war with each other, suggesting democracies to be more peaceful.

All in all, if we actually did democracy properly (ie. Proportional representation) then we'd find the system to be more succesful and effective, as it would avoid the feelings of disenfranchisement that haunt the US and UK.

 

[Leorex]

this is not an experiment, we are not looking for an outcome, we do not have an conclusion, nor are we testing for anything, we simply have a system.

 

[Noone From Nowhere]

I think that we should leave this for the Russian Reagan to decide. Turn-about is fair play, after all.

 

[Cerebreus]

Democracy fails when people let it.

As for Health care, Obama has been a proponent of a single payer plan. He may or may not be now, but he has previously stated he was in favor of a single payer plan.

I know there is problems with the current system, but a monopoly has the potential for greater abuse and failure.

EDIT 1: Oh, and he may want government to be the one in charge of that, since he was asking how could government fix the problem.