Wolnosc-Solidarnosc
20th April 2005, 04:47
Again another response to something in a forum I can't access. I hope clarksist sees this as I doubt anyone will move this where it belongs.
Clarksist, your criticisms of democracy are valid. Indeed, pick up any major philosophical text other than Locke's Treatises and you'll see many of the issues you have raised.
The type of democracy I imagine you would like is one with full consent of all the people. Such an approach has been tried in government before and it failed miserably. Full consensus means that every single member essentially has veto power. Full consensus may work in VERY small settings but not on the scale of a modern state. Direct democracy may have worked somewhat for Greek city states but again, those were small "states" with simple economies and narrow citizenship. The greater the majority required to pass legislation, the more power a small minority has. Is that really rule by the people?
The large scale of modern states has created a need for representation. This in turn has created a whole slew of questions and problems that I'll get into if you actually see this post.
Democracy is a funny institution. There is no one model of democracy that states must follow. It varies from place to place in significant ways ranging from electoral systems, to parliamentary structure, etc. It's a lot easier to say what a democracy is NOT as opposed to what it IS.
Personally I'm a fan of proportional representation. Every party gets the number of seats equal to their % of the popular vote. Again, I'll go into details if this post gets any srious replies.
Clarksist, your criticisms of democracy are valid. Indeed, pick up any major philosophical text other than Locke's Treatises and you'll see many of the issues you have raised.
The type of democracy I imagine you would like is one with full consent of all the people. Such an approach has been tried in government before and it failed miserably. Full consensus means that every single member essentially has veto power. Full consensus may work in VERY small settings but not on the scale of a modern state. Direct democracy may have worked somewhat for Greek city states but again, those were small "states" with simple economies and narrow citizenship. The greater the majority required to pass legislation, the more power a small minority has. Is that really rule by the people?
The large scale of modern states has created a need for representation. This in turn has created a whole slew of questions and problems that I'll get into if you actually see this post.
Democracy is a funny institution. There is no one model of democracy that states must follow. It varies from place to place in significant ways ranging from electoral systems, to parliamentary structure, etc. It's a lot easier to say what a democracy is NOT as opposed to what it IS.
Personally I'm a fan of proportional representation. Every party gets the number of seats equal to their % of the popular vote. Again, I'll go into details if this post gets any srious replies.