Log in

View Full Version : Downfall of Modern Democracy... - ...and the Rise of Direct



Pete
25th March 2003, 22:47
During the cold war there was a war between to sets of ideals. One was the Soviet form of control, with the Politoburo. The other was the British style(1) Representative Democracy which all first world countries bear semblance to. After the fall of the CCCP adn the nations formerly under the Soviet Bloc set up republics and federations using the Parliment model.

That is where the problem with modern democracy arises. No long is 'the threat of the Soviets' and excuse for limiting freedoms and governments consolidating power. The people have heard the ideological banter of the 'free world' and the 'iron curtain' for 50 years, and now they want the promises to materialize. But the representive system willnot, cannot, deliver the promises that it has made by discrediting the Soviets.

Today, at the dawn of the 21st Century, the gathering of powers and denial of freedoms is most evident in America. That Patriot Act, for security we are assured, denies the fundamental rights of many Americans. A question is asked from the throng: Are the rights not inherent and inalienable like the constitution and declaration of independance so vocally states? The Representives shout back a resounding "No" and ignore the demands of the plebiscite.

The corruption of representive democracy has become increasing evident. Other reasons to change to a direct democracy approach are also about. People are now schooled and, in some nations, relatively equal in economic stature. They know what is best for them, and do not need someone in suit to dictate what is best to them. Aswell, now that the leaders cannot say "Hey you are better off then those poor buggers" the people are asking for more freedoms. And one of these is the freedom to override elected officials.

Democracy is peoples rule. What a better way to exercise this then by allowing Intiatives, Binding Plebiscites, and Recalls? As the question echoes through the minds of the powerful, no answer is found. Representative democracy, and the party politics that is born, is innately corruptable. The representatives do not have to be accountable to their constituents until the last few months of there term, in order to secure reelection. In America there is no way to call a president down until his 4 years are up. How does this suit the needs of the people? It doesnt.

A government controlled by the people may make politicans mad, no one wants to give up power, but it will improve all of the currently 'democratic nations.' The only answer to the failing representative system is direct democracy.

(1) The American System is based on the British one.

Chiak47
25th March 2003, 23:02
What are you going to ***** about when the
"patriot act" sunsets?


BTW the war is almost over.They have it about wrapped up.

Pete
25th March 2003, 23:08
This is not the about the war. Do not litter this thread with that.

There are still many problems with American democracy other then the Patriot Act. You did not even address them.

Chiak47
25th March 2003, 23:09
Pete?

Anonymous
25th March 2003, 23:23
You say representative democracies are corruptable? Well yes, of course they are, all forms of government are corruptable. But direct democracy? No, that has to be one of the most volatile, unstable, and unjust systems ever devised by man. A republic may be corruptable, but at least it isn't subject to the unhindered whims of the masses. In a true democracy, nothing is sacred.

CruelVerdad
25th March 2003, 23:29
Actually we donīt have democracy even if big countrys say they are democratic states...
Itīs a consecuence of the lack of international democracy that the US is in war right now!

Pete
25th March 2003, 23:30
I read the article, A Better Way to Vote: Why Letting the People Themselves Take the Decisions I st he Logical Next Step for the West by Brian Needham before writing this. He uses the Swiss model as an example, where their is still Parliment, but it is subjected to Binding Plebiscits, and has complete controll only over the laws that the people do not care about, like garbage collection and such. You do not completely remove it right away, you implement it gradually over time. Nothing is sudden except what is rash. It would also lead to a more peaceful war, since the government is at the whim of the masses, and the masses often times do not want to die (since they would be sending themselves as individuals off to die not some hired army).

edit: Not Peaceful war, but peaceful world.

(Edited by CrazyPete at 6:30 pm on Mar. 25, 2003)

Pete
25th March 2003, 23:31
Please, let this be a haven from war talk! It is needed, or the flames will continue to turn this forum to hell!

Chiak47
26th March 2003, 01:08
http://www.gunsnet.net/forums/images/smilies/ignore.gif


Purged...

synthesis
26th March 2003, 01:23
Quote: from Chiak47 on 1:08 am on Mar. 26, 2003
http://www.gunsnet.net/forums/images/smilies/ignore.gif
Purged...

Christ almighty, shut up about this censorship bullshit already.

(Edited by DyerMaker at 1:25 am on Mar. 26, 2003)

Anonymous
26th March 2003, 01:25
You say representative democracies are corruptable? Well yes, of course they are, all forms of government are corruptable. But direct democracy? No, that has to be one of the most volatile, unstable, and unjust systems ever devised by man. A republic may be corruptable, but at least it isn't subject to the unhindered whims of the masses. In a true democracy, nothing is sacred.
so acording to you the needs and desires of the masses (aka people) are unhind whims.. wich means the people shouldnt have any needs, desires or powers and all the political power should be restrained to a elite...

congratulations you just won the Order of Mussolini Medal..

synthesis
26th March 2003, 01:27
Quote: from Dark Capitalist on 11:23 pm on Mar. 25, 2003
You say representative democracies are corruptable? Well yes, of course they are, all forms of government are corruptable. But direct democracy? No, that has to be one of the most volatile, unstable, and unjust systems ever devised by man. A republic may be corruptable, but at least it isn't subject to the unhindered whims of the masses. In a true democracy, nothing is sacred.


You sound like a Stalinist. Whatever happened to being a "libertarian imperialist"?

kelvin90701
26th March 2003, 01:53
Quote: from CrazyPete on 10:47 pm on Mar. 25, 2003
The people have heard the ideological banter of the 'free world' and the 'iron curtain' for 50 years, and now they want the promises to materialize. But the representive system willnot, cannot, deliver the promises that it has made by discrediting the Soviets.



What are the promises? Who made the promise?

I vaguely remember Kruschev making a promise, I almost sure I am wrong who it was, but I am sure a commie promised:

1) To outproduce the USA.

2) To see the collaspe of the USA.

Chiak47
26th March 2003, 02:09
#1 never happened
#2 never happened

Reagan said it best

kelvin90701
26th March 2003, 02:21
Quote: from Chiak47 on 2:09 am on Mar. 26, 2003
#1 never happened
#2 never happened

Reagan said it best

I could still use some help to identify who said it.

Pete
26th March 2003, 02:29
During the ideological battle it was the Free World against the Communists. The promises may not have been vocalized as much as they where assumed. If you are told that you are the free world, you will assume that you are being promised freedom. That is a logical jump is it not? The promises are met with limits on freedoms, and the governments 'of the people' (aka western democracies) betraying these freedoms by becoming corrupt.

kelvin90701
26th March 2003, 02:50
Quote: from CrazyPete on 2:29 am on Mar. 26, 2003
During the ideological battle it was the Free World against the Communists. The promises may not have been vocalized as much as they where assumed. If you are told that you are the free world, you will assume that you are being promised freedom. That is a logical jump is it not? The promises are met with limits on freedoms, and the governments 'of the people' (aka western democracies) betraying these freedoms by becoming corrupt.


Hmmmm. I don't know what to say about that. Kind of vague? I am pretty happy with the freedom I have. You right that I do not have true freedom, but I am pretty glad I do not have the freedoms given citizens in the USSR and China when it was communist.

Pete
26th March 2003, 02:57
The thread is direct democracy, so it also deals with rights. The government may take away your rights to free health care and education without thinking twice as cost cutting methods, meanwhile your child dies of a curable disease. In direct democracy you could recall the bill that cancelled your medical plan and vote it down. This forces the government to be true to the wishes of the people, and it deters corruption. Of course I am suggesting it on a larger scale, but you need to start somewhere no?

edit: In addition, the people of the CCCP had some freedoms we do not. They could report a profiteering/corrupt/creul owner to the government and get them removed. Now these things (minus creulty) are acceptable here, although they make it harder for the worker.

(Edited by CrazyPete at 9:59 pm on Mar. 25, 2003)