Current Democracy is, well,....Stupid!

MisterEpicurus

Basically what I'm trying to say is that the current form of democracy is not really a democracy. In essence, in most countries you have a couple of political parties usually of the same stripes...in other words, there's little choice in your choice.
To make things even worse, the vast majority of people are usually incredibly ignorant of politics and amazingly accepting of policies they don't understand. When things go wrong, they have absolutely no blame for themselves and instead blame the politicians, whom they voted for!
The EU is essentially strangling out the remaining democracy and raping it with more bureaucracy.
In more local news, Irish people have a tendency to elect people who have the fewest qualifications to represent the people...all you have to do is look at the sewage Kerry has inflicted upon us in Dail Eireann.
As the majority of people are stupid, should they even be in the position of electing who should run a country, let alone the following powers of controlling the army!
And yet we still elected Fine Gael...the allotropic form of Fianna Fail, who essentially transvestisize the policies of the aforementioned party...where the rich still take precedence over the poor.
To complete this triangulation of incompetence, Sinn Fein disguise themselves as the people for the poor while collecting themselves like an organized religion rehashing biased history and hatred of 'Brits'. Any criticism of them results in a permanent label of 'West Brit', as if that was somehow heretical.

Some choice!
And don't get me started on the Greens. The sooner they 'black out' the better!
So yeah...
Democracy - doesn't make people happy does it!
[As a footnote, I'm not advocating anarchy or Nazism or Socialism!! :-)]

Just pointing out the current, latent, potential and future problems with it, anyone come to a similar conclusion?

Mr.Biscuits

Commie alert!

MisterEpicurus

Mr.Biscuits wrote: »

Commie alert!

Haha! I'm DEFINITELY not a proponent of that! Actively against it!!
Just want to have a discussion within the whole politics of democracy, methinks it has lost its way.

El Weirdo

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

And yet we still elected Fine Gael...the allotropic form of Fianna Fail, who essentially transvestisize the policies of the aforementioned party...

Great. Now I can't get the thought of Enda Kenny and Michael Noonan in dresses out of my head.

I hate you, OP.

hooradiation

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Haha! I'm DEFINITELY not a proponent of that! Actively against it!!
Just want to have a discussion within the whole politics of democracy, methinks it has lost its way.

If you could find a time in human history where people were happy with their mechanics of governance I'd be fucking amazed.

MisterEpicurus

hooradiation wrote: »

If you could find a time in human history where people were happy with their mechanics of governance I'd be fucking amazed.

That's exactly why it's worth discussing!

MrStuffins

hooradiation wrote: »

If you could find a time in human history where people were happy with their mechanics of governance I'd be fucking amazed.

Er, I think you're forgetting the time about 10-12 years ago when Saddam Hussein held an election and he ended up with 100% of the vote!

Obviously a wildley popular man!

Genghiz Cohen

"I'll vote for your policy if you vote for mine."
The problem with the current system is that it is party based. Get support for your ideas by supporting someone else's, regardless if it is the best idea or not.

there should also be some for of competency test for voters. Nothing too taxing. :pac:

hooradiation

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

That's exactly why it's worth discussing!

"People are always complaining" does not strike me as a rich vein of conversation material, but I guess it ranks just after "kids today are so much worse then I was" as one of those conversations that most people indulge in endlessly.

mconigol

Democracy is a ridiculous system.

Guy:Incognito

Start a politcal party then?

You want choice and just expect other people to give you choice. You go be the choice.

Joshua Jones

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC_wjQtfhZQ

Toby Take a Bow

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

raping it with more bureaucracy ...
the sewage Kerry has inflicted upon us in Dail Eireann ... As the majority of people are stupid ... essentially transvestisize the policies of the aforementioned party.

A choice selection of words! I'd suggest not getting into politics. I'd agree with you, though. I am often bemused at how people end up joining FF or FG Youth (if they claim it's not just for power). Also bemusing was people voting FG as a 'radical' step in February. How radical did they think FG were going to be?

Attabear

This thread needs a poll.

AwayWithFaries

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Start a politcal party then?

You want choice and just expect other people to give you choice. You go be the choice.

We could start a boards.ie party. That would be guaranteed to work. Can't think of anything that could possibly go wrong there.

Attabear

AwayWithFaries wrote: »

We could start a boards.ie party. That would be guaranteed to work. Can't think of anything that could possibly go wrong there.

I don't like the Boards.ie political party logo so I'm starting the democratic boards.ie peoples party.
Down with the original boards.ie political party.
Who's with me?

quietriot

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

To make things even worse, the vast majority of people are usually incredibly ignorant of politics and amazingly accepting of policies they don't understand.

The EU is essentially strangling out the remaining democracy and raping it with more bureaucracy.

Quite.

As the majority of people are stupid

But of course, you're not part of that majority, right?

And yet we still elected Fine Gael...the allotropic form of Fianna Fail, who essentially transvestisize the policies of the aforementioned party...where the rich still take precedence over the poor.

List some policies that they've "transvestisized".

Democracy - doesn't make people happy does it!
[As a footnote, I'm not advocating anarchy or Nazism or Socialism!! :-)]

Great conclusion, well put.

A pretty incoherent, baseless rant dressed up with fancy words in an attempt to give it some air of credibility overall. You should start a blog, you might get a few followers to subscribe to your revelations.

AwayWithFaries

Attabear wrote: »

I don't like the Boards.ie political party logo so I'm starting the democratic boards.ie peoples party.
Down with the original boards.ie political party.
Who's with me?

Don't be drawn to the dark side. The democratic boards.ie peoples party is known to accept brown envelopes and midget tossing, lots of midget tossing over there.

Support the boards.ie party where midgets are safe and brown envelopes are not accepted. (Cheques are fine though)

MisterEpicurus

quietriot wrote: »

List some policies that they've "transvestisized".

A pretty incoherent, baseless rant dressed up with fancy words in an attempt to give it some air of credibility overall. You should start a blog, you might get a few followers to subscribe to your revelations.

I refuse to 'list some policies' as it's not the subject of this thread. The subject of this thread concerns democracy and I won't be detracted down a policy path. I can PM you if you like.

Bit funny how you called my initial post a 'baseless rant'. I think you're guilty of your own accusation toward me.

Aaaaanyway...

Back on topic methinks...democracy doesn't work :-)

Attabear

AwayWithFaries wrote: »

Don't be drawn to the dark side. The democratic boards.ie peoples party is known to accept brown envelopes and midget tossing, lots of midget tossing over there.

Support the boards.ie party where midgets are safe and brown envelopes are not accepted. (Cheques are fine though)

Slander and libel, a wilful misrepresentation of our policies. We have been a safe haven for little people since our inception over twenty minutes ago. Throwing them around was an act perpetrated by a splinter group, the peoples democratic boards.ie leftist alliance.

CrazyRabbit

The only true democracy would be one in which everyone can & does vote on every governmental decision. But, not only would this be a logistical improbability, but it would be a disaster for the country as there are too many ignorant, short sighted and stupid people.

A benevolent dictatorship is the way to go....assuming you get the right person for the job and they remain dedicated to the welfare of the people/country. But I'm not available right now.

My name is URL

The problem with democracy is you

patwicklow

Well i agree what you said (sewage Kerry has inflicted upon us in Dail Eireann)

Attabear

My name is URL wrote: »

The problem with democracy is you

Me?

southsiderosie

I would agree with Churchill's assertion that 'democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried'.

Pacifist Pigeon

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Some choice!
And don't get me started on the Greens. The sooner they 'black out' the better!
So yeah...
Democracy - doesn't make people happy does it!
[As a footnote, I'm not advocating anarchy or Nazism or Socialism!! :-)]

Just pointing out the current, latent, potential and future problems with it, anyone come to a similar conclusion?

Aww, but I want an anarcho-fest!!

The thing is, our notion of democracy is inherently flawed. We think that the "right" to vote on absolutely everything is a good thing. In hindsight, this simply means that everything is just one step away from being at the behest of the government, that include all our rights and liberties, all it needs is majority approval. The tyranny of the majority prevails under democracy.

I feel that people in general don't understand the inherent dangers of democracy. We are brainwashed into thinking that democracy is flawless and should be absolute. I know this might sound controversial, but I think a large amount of our present problem stem from the public's thwarted views on the relevance of democracy and the state in general.

Democracy should be limited to unalienable rights. Also, it is my personal view that the economy should be separate from the state and, by virtue of this fact, no economic policy can be introduced by the decision of the electorate. The economy should be in the hands of every who is willing to put their livelihoods on the line from its survival (that's a majority of the people), not politician who would merely get a slap on the wrist for their failed economic policy.

One final thought: How did Hitler get into power?

quietriot

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

I refuse to 'list some policies' as it's not the subject of this thread. The subject of this thread concerns democracy and I won't be detracted down a policy path. I can PM you if you like.

Bit funny how you called my initial post a 'baseless rant'. I think you're guilty of your own accusation toward me.

Aaaaanyway...

Back on topic methinks...democracy doesn't work :-)

Taxi driver politics at its finest. The subject of this thread is democracy? Not really, you made a brief point about it being "stupid" and then had a little baseless rant about the parties you don't like. Then when asked to back something up, you refuse to and re-iterate your fantastic initial, baseless point.

And yet you feel you're not a part of the "ignorant, stupid" majority. Well done.

Dudess

I bet people who say "Democracy is useless" would sh1t themselves and whinge about their "freedom of speech" if there was a coup d'etat tonight and even a benevolent dictatorship in place of the government tomorrow.

Usually when people criticise democracy, it's in relation to other people, not themselves.

MisterEpicurus

quietriot wrote: »

Taxi driver politics at its finest. The subject of this thread is democracy? Not really, you made a brief point about it being "stupid" and then had a little baseless rant about the parties you don't like. Then when asked to back something up, you refuse to and re-iterate your fantastic initial, baseless point.

And yet you feel you're not a part of the "ignorant, stupid" majority. Well done.

It's quite obvious that you're looking to get some reaction out of me. It's not going to happen, nor will I reply further to these unhelpful comments. :rolleyes:

Pacifist Pigeon

Dudess wrote: »

I bet people who say "Democracy is useless" would sh1t themselves and whinge about their "freedom of speech" if there was a coup d'etat tonight and even a benevolent dictatorship in place of the government tomorrow.

Usually when people criticise democracy, it's in relation to other people, not themselves.

The idea is that "freedom of speech" (as one of the basic human rights) should limit the scope of democracy. If democracy was absolute, then it would outweigh the value of "freedom of speech". Feasibly, in an absolute democracy, the public could vote on whether someone should be entitled to "freedom of speech", as well as other human rights. This is a fundamental danger of democracy. Democracy can lead, and has led, to dictatorships.

Joshua Jones

quietriot wrote: »

Taxi driver politics at its finest. The subject of this thread is democracy? Not really, you made a brief point about it being "stupid" and then had a little baseless rant about the parties you don't like. Then when asked to back something up, you refuse to and re-iterate your fantastic initial, baseless point.

And yet you feel you're not a part of the "ignorant, stupid" majority. Well done.

Ian64???

Dudess

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

The idea is that "freedom of speech" (as one of the basic human rights) should limit the scope of democracy. If democracy was absolute, then it would outweigh the value of "freedom of speech". Feasibly, in an absolute democracy, the public could vote on whether someone should be entitled to "freedom of speech", as well as other human rights. This is a fundamental danger of democracy. Democracy can lead, and has led, to dictatorships.

If absolute freedom of speech existed, a lot of bullying would have to be allowed - so thankfully absolute freedom of speech does not exist.

Pacifist Pigeon

Dudess wrote: »

If absolute freedom of speech existed, a lot of bullying would have to be allowed - so thankfully absolute freedom of speech does not exist.

The right to the freedom of speech is in itself limited by other fundamental human rights, such as the right to privacy and the right to security. Rights keep each other in check, so to speak.

HalloweenJack

A benevolent dictatorship is still a dictatorship. Is there any example of a dictator who has never got drunk with power?

Democracy is the fairest system available as everyone gets a say (in the initial elections, at least). The flaw with democracy is that EVERYONE gets a say.

Just having a look at some of the posts that pop up on Boards, it's plain to see that there are plenty of ignorant, idiotic people out there and these all get a say in who gets to run the country.

I still wouldn't change the basic premise of democracy: that everyone gets a vote, that's only fair. Just something needs to be done to educate people about what they're voting for and to make them vote for logical reasons and not emotive ones.

Pacifist Pigeon

HalloweenJack wrote: »

I still wouldn't change the basic premise of democracy: that everyone gets a vote, that's only fair. Just something needs to be done to educate people about what they're voting for and to make them vote for logical reasons and not emotive ones.

No. Democracy needs to be limited to unalienable rights. Plain and simple. Democracy can be abused very easily, it doesn't matter how much you "educate" people, their views have the potential to be distorted and used to justify the forceful actions (negative or otherwise) of the state. This was a fundamental concern about democracy, from Aristotle to the Enlightenment and is to this very day. IMHO, the only thing that the public should have the right to vote are who should be mandated with protecting fundamental rights, everything else shouldn't even be under the authority or regulation of the "state", and I dare you to brazenly label such a premise as "ignorant" or "idiotic" without a well thought through reason.

southsiderosie

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

IMHO, the only thing that the public should have the right to vote are who should be mandated with protecting fundamental rights, everything else shouldn't even be under the authority or regulation of the "state"

Sorry, can you clarify what you are saying here?

wendell borton

Democracy is not the problem. A lot people vote for purely selfish reasons instead of looking at the bigger picture.
They vote for people like Lowry and the Healy-Rays who promise they will get you this and that while lining their own pockets.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Democracay is fine. It's the people who are stupid.

starbelgrade

Democracy is the worst political system.

Apart from all the other ones.

Pacifist Pigeon

southsiderosie wrote: »

Sorry, can you clarify what you are saying here?

Libertarianism.

southsiderosie

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

Libertarianism.

Well the problem there is that if it is a democracy, people can vote themselves more government programs and the like - that's essentially what happened when voting rights became universal.

Pacifist Pigeon

southsiderosie wrote: »

Well the problem there is that if it is a democracy, people can vote themselves more government programs and the like - that's essentially what happened when voting rights became universal.

It depends on what you mean by "government programmes". Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on that?

jimmycrackcorm

If only we had electronic voting machines...

southsiderosie

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

It depends on what you mean by "government programmes". Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on that?

There is no need to elaborate - in a democracy, if people want something, they can generally lobby and agitate for it, and push their representatives to put it into law - and in some cases, they can pass it directly through ballot initiatives. This can be anything from lower taxes, more spending on education, social welfare programs, etc. How would you actually limit this in a democracy?

Pacifist Pigeon

southsiderosie wrote: »

There is no need to elaborate - in a democracy, if people want something, they can generally lobby and agitate for it, and push their representatives to put it into law - and in some cases, they can pass it directly through ballot initiatives. This can be anything from lower taxes, more spending on education, social welfare programs, etc. How would you actually limit this in a democracy?

Because you'll be limiting the power of government/state to impart force on others. All of the things you mention above are a direct consequence of the state/government having the seemingly unquestionable ability to impart such force on others.

The system I propose is one in which the state doesn't have the right to get so intricately involved in the economy. It won't have the right to force the will of lobbyist upon the people. Not even an election would give the state the right to gain greater control over the economy. The only things the state would be used for would be ensuing that basic fundamental rights of the individual are kept safe.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

surely the only way to do that would be to write it into the constitution.. but any government would have to have a means to amend a constitution so they'd just be able to change those rules whenever they wanted

it's completely undoable

kryogen

I should be made all powerful and knowing leader

Nobody would complain then

southsiderosie

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

Because you'll be limiting the power of government/state to impart force on others. All of the things you mention above are a direct consequence of the state/government having the seemingly unquestionable ability to impart such force on others.

They do so at the prerogative of democratically elected officials. The state is not some autonomous entity.

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

The system I propose is one in which the state doesn't have the right to get so intricately involved in the economy. It won't have the right to force the will of lobbyist upon the people. Not even an election would give the state the right to gain greater control over the economy.

Views like this are why I increasingly think that libertarianism is incompatible with democracy.

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

The only things the state would be used for would be ensuing that basic fundamental rights of the individual are kept safe.

Well who gets to define what basic fundamental rights are? These aren't necessarily universal or frozen in time; today in most liberal Western democracies, things like health care are considered a right - this was not the case 100 years ago.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

southsiderosie wrote: »

Views like this are why I increasingly think that libertarianism is incompatible with democracy.

it can be, and that can be a good thing. it's perfectly democratic to vote away the rights of minorities but it's not very libertarian

mconigol

wendell borton wrote: »

Democracy is not the problem. A lot people vote for purely selfish reasons instead of looking at the bigger picture.
They vote for people like Lowry and the Healy-Rays who promise they will get you this and that while lining their own pockets.

So democracy is the problem then? If it allows people to foist stupid decisions on the general population then it's a problem.

El Siglo

Benevolent dictator, like this fella.