My friends democracy essay

[Unrelenting Steve]

Hi, this is an oral i am writting for my friend on democracy, there topic was: Democarcy is like a newborn baby it needs to be nursed evry carefuly. NE comments or suggestions, ne gramatical errors also plz point out, its due on tuesday , thanx.





Let us start with our extremely precarious task of perceiving the question in the STATEMNT offered, so we can therefore answer it. So to be on the safe side, let me generalize my response, I will speak to its validity and then to its ramifications.

Democracy is like a newborn baby that needs to be nursed very carefully.

Democracy is like a newborn baby- no quibble their, we did not experienced true democracy (perhaps we still don’t as only persons over the age of 18 can vote) but we no doubt are now closer to its ideal as since 1994 all peoples of different races and creeds been allowed to vote.

baby that needs to be nursed very carefully- This is where my problems lie, “needs to be nursed” who needs it to be nursed? It only needs to be nursed if we can call it something good and therefore by its virtues is deserving of implementation. I come to no such conclusion. This piece of writing is pure conceit, arrogance and propaganda.
It disgusts me that in a free democratic nation we should be subjected to such biased forms of writing. Yes I concede that we are always subjected to subjective material, but at least the task that should be set, should include some form of analysis and not just open acceptance as this was intended, no doubt we were all supposed to go home and wonder how democracy works and how we can get it to work instead of actual questions like SHOULD WE ALLOW IT TO WORK. But I am getting ahead of myself, this piece of writing is presumptuous to say the least, let me also say the say that last bit; “needs to be nursed very carefully” is very true, it does need to be nursed very carefully, all children have to be indoctrinated with its ethics for Democracy to truly work, and that is not such a small task, but it is no doubt made easier by our system formed from generations of practice created by systems like ours lying in the world’s past.

That’s its validity down, now to its ramification and its implications on our practical environment. Obviously Democracy is just a mild form a fascism, as by its definition it substitutes the will of some for the will of the rest, this is only comparable to full blown fascism as it means to only disqualify the minority, this somehow is supposedly better for what ever reason our system has not seen fit to share with us. The fascist nature of democracy can be counteracted by a strong constitution imbued with “right” and moral codes etcetera etcetera, the South African constitution almost has this, but it lacks actually fulfilling proactive measures lined out in the constitution, in short, the only physical manifestation of the South African constitution is the Constitutional court which falls short by far through only making sure that All the 3 branches of the government don’t contradict the constitution, while leaving all the proactive things, like providing food for all and substantial housing unnoticed and unmonitored. That is how democracy is deemed absurd by its own definition; let us move into why it is just disgusting by a human account:
Democracy breeds’ nul beings, people that believe nothing, think nothing and understand nothing. In democracy tolerance is required by all citizens, they try to merge all religion, forcing a belief on each sect that they really all pray to the same god. You must think everyone is entitled to their own opinion no matter how stupid they are, you must respect their beliefs. I tell you this, If a Muslim must respect the beliefs of a Christian other than respecting their apparent “ignorance” then that Muslim has lost his faith, this is how democracy strips us all of our thinking, you only have to look to older democracies to see what it breeds- in America and Britain how many people are there with no beliefs, no understanding other than the new age realization of EVRYONE IS UNIQUE AND ALOWED TO BELIEVE WHATEVER THEY WANT. This is what Democracy breeds, and in the end this is only what it will tolerate. Come now everyone, it is not hard to understand, when you tolerate something outside yourself, you strip yourself of the possibility you are right. If you are right you will not tolerate falsehoods and half truths- that would be absurd, but through democracy and its sole pillar tolerance, we will never obtain any truth as it is assumed not to exist, and so I therefore say, if humanity is to ever evolve it will have to do so outside of a democratic system or in opposition to one.

[FatFreeMilk]

um yeah, lots of spelling errors. You're writing a paper for your friend ? :blink:

[sc4r]

Originally posted by Unrelenting [email protected] 18 2003, 01:24 AM
Hi, this is an oral i am writting for my friend on democracy, there topic was: Democarcy is like a newborn baby it needs to be nursed evry carefuly. NE comments or suggestions, ne gramatical errors also plz point out, its due on tuesday , thanx.






I do believe very strongly, ideed completely, in democracy. Because I do not believe that there is any other system ever suggested which genuinely provides a method by which people may resolve the conflict between their desires as an individual and the benefits (and IMO joy) that comes from co-operation.

Essentially there are only three fudamental suggestions that have been made to resolve this conflicting dynamic of individual desires and group beenfit. They are :

1. Benevolent ruler - The essential problem with this is obvious; one has no way really of ensuring that an uncontrolled ruler actually is benevolent. Even one that appears to be so may only be using his/her power to mislead us.

2. The Anarchist 'solution' of all working together for common good without need for a formal mechanism - Frankly this is just wishful thinking. At best it can be said to be an idea that might become feasible given enough practise and familiarity with a formal controlled system to achieve the same thing; at worst its no more real than wishing that the Easter bunny, or the tooth fairy existed.

3. Democracy. A formal mechanism for expressing and then controlling actions taken on our joint behalf. There is, of course, more than just one possible mechanism available. They are not all equally effective or equally practical under all circumstances (for example direct democracy in a large society prior to the internet/ computer age might be too cumbersome; whereas representative democracy when allegiances to parties have been created almost as an article of faith and when powerful tools of persuasion are available to politicians becomes suspiciously like an alternating 'benevolent ruler').

You focus rather heavily on the much misunderstood doctrine of 'tyranny of the majority'. You state (quite reasonably) that in any democracy it is possible that a majority may in theory totally disregard the desires and welfare of a minority. What you (and 1000's of others) fail to realise is that 'tyranny of the majority' is a warning not a prediction. It warns that a democratic system must be set up so that such tyranny is impossible (or at least unlikely) .

This is achieved in practise by multiple controls all operating at the same time. In essence they are :

1. All people within a democracy must be educated to place their allegiance to democracy above other allegiances. They must realise that they are priviliged to live in such a state. Above all they must realise that while it is acceptable indeed desirable) to campaign for their own desires they must actually conform to democratic will and laws in practise even when this goes against some interest of their own. If they do not do this they will in effect 'kill the democratic goose that lays the golden eggs'.

2. They must realise that everyone is in a minority of some sort, and that it is imprudent to oppress other minorities because sooner or later if they do so they will themselves be in an oppressed minority.

3. It is wise to have some level of law (essentially a constitution) which protects basic rights and which can only be overturned by a much larger majority than is needed for 'fine tuning' law.

4. In particular 'rights' to free expression must be guarded. This does not mean allowing absolutely anything, but does mean that any and all restrictions must be kept to the practical minimum ( which is not the same in every situation - Cuba is more precarious than the USA; it can practically afford less freedom - this is just practicalities - a society which cannot defend and maintain itself, no matter how 'nice', is pointless.

5. The actual forces of law enforcement (which would include the army etc.) must never swear allegience to an individual but to the constitution. AND such forces must be separate and act as controls on each other (the guards all guard the guards).

In conclusion - Democracy does indeed need to be nursed and protected. Demcracy is an attribute of society, it will survive only while society values it. But the realistic alternative is some form of Fascism or Oligarchy; this should not be difficult for anyone to accept, and all of us should grasp this fact rather easily.

A sucessful democracy is one which genuinely reflects the desires of its people and allows then to optimise both their individual freedom and their cooperative abilities. Not all democartic models do this equally and in this sense a genuinely democratic people will be constantly looking for ways to improve.

best wishes from a believer in practical direct democracy (which is actually a synethesis of represntataive and diret democracy).

[Hegemonicretribution]

1. All people within a democracy must be educated to place their allegiance to democracy above other allegiances. They must realise that they are priviliged to live in such a state. Above all they must realise that while it is acceptable indeed desirable) to campaign for their own desires they must actually conform to democratic will and laws in practise even when this goes against some interest of their own. If they do not do this they will in effect 'kill the democratic goose that lays the golden eggs'.

Where would that leave our revolutionary chance?

This is one aspect I believe in a lot. I do think democracy is necesary, but at the moment it is counter productive (because it isn't how it is supposed to work), as in the above essay.

The anarchist solution would work if it had to. It has worked when it had to. Is communism and other systems also seen as wishful thinking, shit in practice? There are ways these things can work.

Good essay, not 100% with you towards the end, but fanastic start.

[Elect Marx]

I agree, for the most part, with the previous posts. Democracy is in contradiction with the systems that claim to use it because democracy is based on human nature being overall, a good one. This is why democracy is supposed to prevail by the "demos kratin" (Greek for the people to rule). I believe a true form of democracy would work well in a communist society.

[rcpnz]

"Obviously Democracy is just a mild form a fascism, as by its definition it substitutes the will of some for the will of the rest, this is only comparable to full blown fascism as it means to only disqualify the minority, this somehow is supposedly better for what ever reason our system has not seen fit to share with us".

[You then go on to talk of] "The fascist nature of democracy"

Well not quite. Political Democracy is based upon the rule of the majority. This is the general principle of political democracy in the western world.

Obviously, you haven't ever read anything fascist. Democracy is not a form of fascism. Fascism is a form of political rule based upon the principle that the majority should not rule by virtue of the fact that they are the majority, and upon political repression.

"Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage"
(Benito Mussolini, What Is Fascism? 1932).

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by 313C7 [email protected] 18 2003, 07:26 PM
I agree, for the most part, with the previous posts. Democracy is in contradiction with the systems that claim to use it because democracy is based on human nature being overall, a good one. This is why democracy is supposed to prevail by the "demos kratin" (Greek for the people to rule). I believe a true form of democracy would work well in a communist society.
The problem with direct democracy in communism is the duration of any rule. As the economy needs to be controlled, and to achieve things it could take a while, with no initial results, frequent, more democratic elections could wreck plans. There would have to be a careful time phase of rule. The plans that show initial benifit may be short term, but election winners, for tyhose that make that their priority. Time appreciation is my main qualm with democracy, and it is one point that I have not yet sen adressed.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by hegemonicretrobution+Aug 18 2003, 08:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hegemonicretrobution @ Aug 18 2003, 08:29 PM)
313C7 [email protected] 18 2003, 07:26 PM
I agree, for the most part, with the previous posts. Democracy is in contradiction with the systems that claim to use it because democracy is based on human nature being overall, a good one. This is why democracy is supposed to prevail by the "demos kratin" (Greek for the people to rule). I believe a true form of democracy would work well in a communist society.
The problem with direct democracy in communism is the duration of any rule. As the economy needs to be controlled, and to achieve things it could take a while, with no initial results, frequent, more democratic elections could wreck plans. There would have to be a careful time phase of rule. The plans that show initial benifit may be short term, but election winners, for tyhose that make that their priority. Time appreciation is my main qualm with democracy, and it is one point that I have not yet sen adressed. [/b]
"and to achieve things it could take a while"

Your ideas are good but they are based on this idea and I don&#39;t know why things would take a while. Could you elaborate? Specify what phase of social reconstruction this will be a problem in. I think if the people are informed and critical, this will not be a problem.

[Hegemonicretribution]

The main point of that was assuming that communism was achieved through democracy itself, which I don&#39;t believe can happen. However post revolution, there is likely to be a large group of newly formed communist parties. Many parties have to their favour many different ideas and ways of approaching the new, more resource friendly economy. If you were thinking of elections ever year, then it would be difficult to plan, well, make sure measures are taken and implemented, and start showing results in that time.

If like America or England they are around the 4 or 5 year mark, most policies should show their true colour by the end of it (or cause enough damage). Negative side apart the main problem is with the extra workforce, effeciency etc. what will happen to research projects? Would the plug be pulled after four years, if results aren&#39;t quite there? Then again things might run too long.

The duration has to be balanced between the harm/good a government can do in the time, and bear in mind long term projects/studies (especially world improving science) may overrun short government spells.

[sc4r]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2003, 02:07 PM
1. All people within a democracy must be educated to place their allegiance to democracy above other allegiances. They must realise that they are priviliged to live in such a state. Above all they must realise that while it is acceptable indeed desirable) to campaign for their own desires they must actually conform to democratic will and laws in practise even when this goes against some interest of their own. If they do not do this they will in effect &#39;kill the democratic goose that lays the golden eggs&#39;.

Where would that leave our revolutionary chance?

This is one aspect I believe in a lot. I do think democracy is necesary, but at the moment it is counter productive (because it isn&#39;t how it is supposed to work), as in the above essay.

The anarchist solution would work if it had to. It has worked when it had to. Is communism and other systems also seen as wishful thinking, shit in practice? There are ways these things can work.

Good essay, not 100% with you towards the end, but fanastic start.
Who cares. If you belive that you have the right to impose a system on those who do not wnt it then you are no better thn other imperislist or fascist.

Sorry, but that is the bottom line.

Far too many fail to realise that the essence of socialism is democrcay.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I agree with that, and I have often wondered whether revolution is right, and why I have never condoned violent revolution. However I don&#39;t believe we live in a democracy, and bring in the propaganda and it becomes very hazy, both in the literal and ethical sense.

All I am saying is people should be able to voice their concerns even in "democracy." Take a pointer from the worlds longest running elected parliament (the Isle of Man) on Tynwalld day each year their is a special part for people with a grievance, they come and in front of all the leaders in the island (the queen of England was there this year) ***** about what their concerns are, and this way they can put their well constructed arguments to those in power direct. Try ringing the whitehouse to talk about communisms benifit, or saying to Bair how nasty war is. Most "democracies" don&#39;t give a chance for that, if it is impractical, then perhaps larg street demonstrations and protest need to be legal.

Who the hell gives governments to plant anti communist seeds in the young of their nation? To form their oppinions for them by raising them in a very biased situation? When things are put straight, then we know what people think, the other thing is so few vote that does it mean that much anyway. Oh and how much f the vote did Bush get?

I was asking the question of where that would leave the revolutionary chance...it wasn&#39;t intended to be rhetorical, I was wondering. For reasons stated above.

[sc4r]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2003, 02:43 PM
I agree with that, and I have often wondered whether revolution is right, and why I have never condoned violent revolution. However I don&#39;t believe we live in a democracy, and bring in the propaganda and it becomes very hazy, both in the literal and ethical sense.

All I am saying is people should be able to voice their concerns even in "democracy." Take a pointer from the worlds longest running elected parliament (the Isle of Man) on Tynwalld day each year their is a special part for people with a grievance, they come and in front of all the leaders in the island (the queen of England was there this year) ***** about what their concerns are, and this way they can put their well constructed arguments to those in power direct. Try ringing the whitehouse to talk about communisms benifit, or saying to Bair how nasty war is. Most "democracies" don&#39;t give a chance for that, if it is impractical, then perhaps larg street demonstrations and protest need to be legal.

Who the hell gives governments to plant anti communist seeds in the young of their nation? To form their oppinions for them by raising them in a very biased situation? When things are put straight, then we know what people think, the other thing is so few vote that does it mean that much anyway. Oh and how much f the vote did Bush get?

I was asking the question of where that would leave the revolutionary chance...it wasn&#39;t intended to be rhetorical, I was wondering. For reasons stated above.
I&#39;d say we do live in a democracy. Just not a very good one unfortunately.

Whats the rough test of a democracy? IMO it is whether people in general feel that they are alowed to express their views and that a reasonable approximation to the prevailing view is followed.

Which I would say in both America and the UK is pretty much true. The problem really is that the prevailing view is so badly informed (deliberately of course) that it distorts what people really want. In particular most people will say that they want exactly the sort of democracy (representative) that they now have, and in general will place this concern higher up their priority list than anything else.

So the challenge (for us) is first to show people that in fact there is a better option available, and then to convince people that this actually would not degenerate into &#39;socialist dictatorship&#39;, and then of course to find a party which would campaign for this change under the existing rules.

I&#39;d say violent revolution is a last resort. In practical terms of course we are nowhere near having the support to pull one off in any developed country anyway. But even if we had I&#39;d ask why choose a revolution with all its atendant destruction of infrastructure before at least trying for an electoral victory? Of course if one feels that in fact one should have won a fair electoral contest but were denied it by mispractice then violence is regratably the only recourse.

But neber forget that to suceeed in a violent revolution one needs at least the same (I would say actyually far more) support that one needs for electoral vicrory anyway.

best wishes mate.

[IHP]

I do believe very strongly, ideed completely, in democracy. Because I do not believe that there is any other system ever suggested which genuinely provides a method by which people may resolve the conflict between their desires as an individual and the benefits (and IMO joy) that comes from co-operation.

Essentially there are only three fudamental suggestions that have been made to resolve this conflicting dynamic of individual desires and group beenfit. They are :

1. Benevolent ruler - The essential problem with this is obvious; one has no way really of ensuring that an uncontrolled ruler actually is benevolent. Even one that appears to be so may only be using his/her power to mislead us.

2. The Anarchist &#39;solution&#39; of all working together for common good without need for a formal mechanism - Frankly this is just wishful thinking. At best it can be said to be an idea that might become feasible given enough practise and familiarity with a formal controlled system to achieve the same thing; at worst its no more real than wishing that the Easter bunny, or the tooth fairy existed.

3. Democracy. A formal mechanism for expressing and then controlling actions taken on our joint behalf. There is, of course, more than just one possible mechanism available. They are not all equally effective or equally practical under all circumstances (for example direct democracy in a large society prior to the internet/ computer age might be too cumbersome; whereas representative democracy when allegiances to parties have been created almost as an article of faith and when powerful tools of persuasion are available to politicians becomes suspiciously like an alternating &#39;benevolent ruler&#39;).

You focus rather heavily on the much misunderstood doctrine of &#39;tyranny of the majority&#39;. You state (quite reasonably) that in any democracy it is possible that a majority may in theory totally disregard the desires and welfare of a minority. What you (and 1000&#39;s of others) fail to realise is that &#39;tyranny of the majority&#39; is a warning not a prediction. It warns that a democratic system must be set up so that such tyranny is impossible (or at least unlikely) .

This is achieved in practise by multiple controls all operating at the same time. In essence they are :

1. All people within a democracy must be educated to place their allegiance to democracy above other allegiances. They must realise that they are priviliged to live in such a state. Above all they must realise that while it is acceptable indeed desirable) to campaign for their own desires they must actually conform to democratic will and laws in practise even when this goes against some interest of their own. If they do not do this they will in effect &#39;kill the democratic goose that lays the golden eggs&#39;.

2. They must realise that everyone is in a minority of some sort, and that it is imprudent to oppress other minorities because sooner or later if they do so they will themselves be in an oppressed minority.

3. It is wise to have some level of law (essentially a constitution) which protects basic rights and which can only be overturned by a much larger majority than is needed for &#39;fine tuning&#39; law.

4. In particular &#39;rights&#39; to free expression must be guarded. This does not mean allowing absolutely anything, but does mean that any and all restrictions must be kept to the practical minimum ( which is not the same in every situation - Cuba is more precarious than the USA; it can practically afford less freedom - this is just practicalities - a society which cannot defend and maintain itself, no matter how &#39;nice&#39;, is pointless.

5. The actual forces of law enforcement (which would include the army etc.) must never swear allegience to an individual but to the constitution. AND such forces must be separate and act as controls on each other (the guards all guard the guards).

In conclusion - Democracy does indeed need to be nursed and protected. Demcracy is an attribute of society, it will survive only while society values it. But the realistic alternative is some form of Fascism or Oligarchy; this should not be difficult for anyone to accept, and all of us should grasp this fact rather easily.

A sucessful democracy is one which genuinely reflects the desires of its people and allows then to optimise both their individual freedom and their cooperative abilities. Not all democartic models do this equally and in this sense a genuinely democratic people will be constantly looking for ways to improve.

best wishes from a believer in practical direct democracy (which is actually a synethesis of represntataive and diret democracy).

Good post.

--IHP

[Hegemonicretribution]

I started many topics and answered many on how I don&#39;t really even see violent revolution as an option.
So I agree education is what is needed.

Rough test of democracy maybe. But not what a democracy is. Remember that because totalitarian and oligarchy states run from voting, they are essentially democratic, although not a democracy. The problem is not everyone can vote, so it is really me being picky, and apart from that we are not too bad as representative. We are further from what oligarchy and totalitarian are meant to describe.

One of my main problems is that so few people DO vote and because of that we haven&#39;t anywhere near an idea of what people want. If we assume theyy don&#39;t want anything, then we already have a majority, if we can assume them as ours, and wouldn&#39;t be forcing ideas on many. Although I think what is more important is turning them into politically active and socially responsible beings.

P.S. don&#39;t you just hate huge quotes with no relevant message?:P

[sc4r]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2003, 05:24 PM
I started many topics and answered many on how I don&#39;t really even see violent revolution as an option.
So I agree education is what is needed.

Rough test of democracy maybe. But not what a democracy is. Remember that because totalitarian and oligarchy states run from voting, they are essentially democratic, although not a democracy. The problem is not everyone can vote, so it is really me being picky, and apart from that we are not too bad as representative. We are further from what oligarchy and totalitarian are meant to describe.

One of my main problems is that so few people DO vote and because of that we haven&#39;t anywhere near an idea of what people want. If we assume theyy don&#39;t want anything, then we already have a majority, if we can assume them as ours, and wouldn&#39;t be forcing ideas on many. Although I think what is more important is turning them into politically active and socially responsible beings.

P.S. don&#39;t you just hate huge quotes with no relevant message?:P
sorry mate but you defintely canot assume that someone not voting for someone else means that they vote for you. A non vote if anything means &#39;OK I&#39;m happy with how things are more or less and I dont believe any of you are actually gonna change it much, at least not so it matters to me&#39;.

It is also easy to chuck out prhrases that say &#39;USA it totaliraian, oligrachic, or whatever&#39;. It dont make it so. It is not.

The USA proves that either :

1) we are wrong; or
2) Much of the USA is badly infromed/educated; or
3) Much of the USA dont give a shit as long as it is alright jack.

The reality is prolly a bit of all 3.

Anyone (like our communist/anarchist friends) who want to kid themselves that the USA is not democratic is really just avoiding the hard question of what do we do to actually communicate that its a fucking bad democracy. The USA would for sure vote for (more or less) the exact system it has. Thats pretty democratic.

Slogans are easy to make up; believeable to the already converted; complete wank to others. Slogans and academic wishes wont ever achieve anything. Not never.

[Hegemonicretribution]

sc4r I think you must o misread my post. I admitted that the sytems are closer to democracy, and are a long way from totalitarian or an oligarchy...."so it is really me being picky, and apart from that we are not too bad as representative. We are further from what oligarchy and totalitarian are meant to describe." I know I am unclear in what I write sometimes, but I thought I clearly stated that was me being pedantic, and we are in quite democratic.


I didn&#39;t mean seriously we could assume them as ours, although they can&#39;t be assumed against us either, which is why I finished with.."what is more important is turning them into politically active and socially responsible beings."

ie: get the apathetic, non-voting people up and running, we would have a better idea of what we are against, and more people that would listen, if tyhey ain&#39;t voters why would they care? Lets make them vote.