opinion of democracy?

[MaC]

No freedomfighter/horrible person BS.  Just your opinion of it... (which I'll post mine in due time)

[GOP = Terrorists]

The only acceptable form of government.  A people has the right to overthrow their own non-democratic government at will.

[Gabu]

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.

Positive.

[© tweed]

Define 'democracy'

[Emsworth]

Direct democracy, in which the people vote on all the laws as a whole: Very negative.

Democratic republic, without constitutional limitations on the power of the majority: Very negative.

Democratic republic, with constitutional limitations on the power of the majority: Positive

[afleitch]

Direct democracy, in which the people vote on all the laws as a whole: Very negative.

Democratic republic, without constitutional limitations on the power of the majority: Very negative.

Democratic republic, with constitutional limitations on the power of the majority: Positive

I completely agree

[KillerPollo]

Very Negative. The masses cannot control themselves and do not know much about the ability to govern themselves. Like in a family, there must be a "parent". Someone who takes care of the masses. Electing leaders is just too big of a responsibility for the masses.

[Gabu]

Very Negative. The masses cannot control themselves and do not know much about the ability to govern themselves. Like in a family, there must be a "parent". Someone who takes care of the masses. Electing leaders is just too big of a responsibility for the masses.

Okay, I'll be the parent and you can be part of the people who need to be told what to do.

[Speed of Sound]

Very good.

[MaC]

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.

I'll agree with this.  It is a horrible system.  The people who terribly screw up our country keep getting re-elected.  Libertarians (the good guys) are rarely elected.  There's no accountablility because of the 97% (about) incumbency rate. 
Yet, out of all this, there's really nothing better.
I say negative, least bad of all evils.

[Hatman 🍁]

Extremely positive.

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.

I'll agree with this.  It is a horrible system.  The people who terribly screw up our country keep getting re-elected.  Libertarians (the good guys) are rarely elected.  There's no accountablility because of the 97% (about) incumbency rate. 
Yet, out of all this, there's really nothing better.
I say negative, least bad of all evils.

Indeed, what you have in the US (and to a lesser extent in Canada) is not a perfect democracy. In a perfect democracy, Libertarians, and other 'fringe' parties would get their fair share of a voice. However, I do not support direct democracy.

[Jake]

Mixed. Definitely not as good as advertised, and downright scary at times.

[Flying Dog]

Democracy is a point of view.

[David S]

Direct democracy, in which the people vote on all the laws as a whole: Very negative.

Democratic republic, without constitutional limitations on the power of the majority: Very negative.

Democratic republic, with constitutional limitations on the power of the majority: Positive

Bingo!

[phk]

Depends on the political climate of a given country.

However, if I'm confined to looking soley at the West; Positive.

In terms of some third-world countries I probably wouldn't always support it. In fact I support Musharraf over any democratically-elected leader Pakistan.  But then again it depends on the country,

I do indeed support Democracy for example in India, Manmohan Sing/Abdul Kalam are a great combination for India.

So it is completely variable, as I said, on the political climate/situation in a given country.

[KillerPollo]

Depends on the political climate of a given country.

However, if I'm confined to looking soley at the West; Positive.

In terms of some third-world countries I probably wouldn't always support it. In fact I support Musharraf over any democratically-elected leader Pakistan has ever had.

[AkSaber]

Direct democracy, in which the people vote on all the laws as a whole: Very negative.

Democratic republic, without constitutional limitations on the power of the majority: Very negative.

Democratic republic, with constitutional limitations on the power of the majority: Positive

I completely agree

Me too.

[Gabu]

Democracy is messy, unorganized, and allows stupid people (Democrats) to have a say.

Facsism is the best form of government followed by monarchies in terms of efficiency.

I'm sure you'd still say that if the Democrats overthrew Bush and installed Kerry as Supreme Leader.

[Jens]

Democracy is messy, unorganized, and allows stupid people (Democrats) to have a say.

Facsism is the best form of government followed by monarchies in terms of efficiency.

You should have a brown avatar - you don't deserve the blue


Back on topic. Gabu got the definition right. The greatest threat to a possitive democracy is when politicians lets economics deside everything. A visionless democracy is just as destructive as a dictatorship.

[MaC]

Facsism is the best form of government followed by monarchies in terms of efficiency.

I'm sure you'd still say that if the Democrats overthrew Bush and installed Kerry as Supreme Leader.

Both good points.  The dilema is that democracy allows for bad people to get elected, people you don't want.  Yet, at least "the people" have a say.  Ultimately, if 100,000,000 people vote your single vote IS pretty insignifigant.  Hawkeye's right in that a dictator is more efficient, yet the problem would be his unlimited power.

[Gabu]

Facsism is the best form of government followed by monarchies in terms of efficiency.

I'm sure you'd still say that if the Democrats overthrew Bush and installed Kerry as Supreme Leader.

Both good points.  The dilema is that democracy allows for bad people to get elected, people you don't want.  Yet, at least "the people" have a say.  Ultimately, if 100,000,000 people vote your single vote IS pretty insignifigant.  Hawkeye's right in that a dictator is more efficient, yet the problem would be his unlimited power.

The problem with a dictatorship is that every man is mortal; even if you got the perfect ruler, he or she will die eventually and you'll be totally screwed if someone takes power who is completely the opposite of the previous ruler.

I've noticed that many people are in favor of a dictatorship until confronted with the idea of a dictatorship that they don't like.  Democracy does not always produce the best leader a country has to offer, but it does allow the people to boot a bad leader out of office, which is, in my opinion, more important.

[MaC]

Facsism is the best form of government followed by monarchies in terms of efficiency.

I'm sure you'd still say that if the Democrats overthrew Bush and installed Kerry as Supreme Leader.

Both good points.  The dilema is that democracy allows for bad people to get elected, people you don't want.  Yet, at least "the people" have a say.  Ultimately, if 100,000,000 people vote your single vote IS pretty insignifigant.  Hawkeye's right in that a dictator is more efficient, yet the problem would be his unlimited power.

The problem with a dictatorship is that every man is mortal; even if you got the perfect ruler, he or she will die eventually and you'll be totally screwed if someone takes power who is completely the opposite of the previous ruler.

I've noticed that many people are in favor of a dictatorship until confronted with the idea of a dictatorship that they don't like.  Democracy does not always produce the best leader a country has to offer, but it does allow the people to boot a bad leader out of office, which is, in my opinion, more important.

True, there are good and bad parts to both systems.  I created this post mainly to point out that democracy is not the "golden heaven" that public schools preach.  Just because the people decide  doesn't mean their choice is any better than who could've assumed power otherwise.

Of course, if you hear out my ideal libertarian/anarchist utopia-I could tell you about how after we abolish government, everyone will be self-governing and we won't need politicains or democracy.     

[Gabu]

True, there are good and bad parts to both systems.  I created this post mainly to point out that democracy is not the "golden heaven" that public schools preach.  Just because the people decide doesn't mean their choice is any better than who could've assumed power otherwise.

Yeah, that's true.  Anyone who thinks democracy is perfect is fooling themselves.  Democracy is subject to all sorts of abuses, such as voting fraud, false smear campaigns by unscrupulous candidates, hidden agendas, etc.  If you can sway the people, it doesn't matter if anything you say is true, and even if you can't sway the people, there's always ballot box stuffing.

Democracy would be near perfect if there was a way to know exactly what you'll get if you elect Candidate A instead of Candidate B, but we haven't exactly yet got the technology to predict the future.

Of course, if you hear out my ideal libertarian/anarchist utopia-I could tell you about how after we abolish government, everyone will be self-governing and we won't need politicains or democracy.     

And I could point you to the fact that every single anarchistic system developed into a government, given enough time.   Anarchy would be great if everyone was a completely rational, intelligent, perfectly self-motivated person who had plenty of scruples.  The problem is that very few people actually are.  Most people like to have someone tell them what to do for the most part, whether it be a manager at their place of employment, a police officer, or a government official.  On top of that, organization is absolutely essential if humans ever wish to finish large projects, and nearly every organized group of people has someone in charge, such as foreman for construction workers.  The only difference between a small-scale private organization and a more broad government is the scope of operations and how many people are underneath the leader(s).

[MaC]

And I could point you to the fact that every single anarchistic system developed into a government, given enough time.  

C'mon Gabu, live for the moment.  Hasn't been an anarchy in a while.  It's a social expiriment that's probably worth at least considering...

AND BESIEDS WITH NO GOVURMNENT WE WILL HAVE
1.NO SANTORUM
2.NO GEORJ W BUSH
3.NO GOD DAMNED LIBERALS!!!

[Erc]

Constitutional limitations sound nice.

But, in the end, they only exist to instill respect among the people.  ("But that's the first/fifth/eighth amendment rights!").  Eventually, as time goes on, people forget--and a little piece of paper cannot forever hold back the desires of the majority.  Although hopefully it lasts long enough for the desires of the majority to pull back from an extreme...