Democracy fails

Author: Analgesic.Spectre ,

Posts

Total: 20
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 474
1
1
5
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
5
In the Western world, to state that you are pro Democracy seems redundant. It has become an accepted paragon of Western civilisation, much like free speech or equality. Despite the popular opinion, Democracy is a failed political framework. Chiefly, there are four main problems with Democracy:

1) Tragedy of the Commons -- it is unwise for the individual to spend time to researching issues, given the insignificant impact it has on election outcomes. This is especially true when other voters, be it entirely uninformed, lacking in I.Q. or ideologically brainwashed, hold precisely as much voting power as the complete opposite. Therefore, Democratic voting is contingent on individuals acting irrationally.

2) Bundled political issues -- too often is a voter faced with a choice of the lesser evil, due to political leaders (the two or three whom have a shot at winning) rarely aligning 100% with your own beliefs. For example, if you believed that animal rights was the only thing which required fixing, yet the politicians espousing your view were in favour of radical reforms, you have to choose between fixing animal rights and suffering political change you don't agree with, or vice versa. Hence, you never truly vote your preference.

3) Voting warfare -- as expressed in my thread here (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/107), politics is primarily about voting for the group (be it racial, political etc.), rather than ideas or policies. This leads to all kinds of worthless mud-slinging and emotional appeals, because the voting people are oppressed by appearances and results. Due to outright theft disgusting the human mind, people then create narratives, of which are purely designed (whether they realise it or not) to serve the interest of the group they've already chosen, under the guise of moral high ground.

4) Detritus is preserved -- for some people, the welfare benefits they receive, which are born from the hard work of capable people, are the solitary things which keep them alive. So, the person who is wholly incapable of any contribution to society (e.g. severe mental illness, 50 I.Q. etc.) will vehemently vote for ineffective, economically draining policy purely out of self-interest, whilst the people whom know this policy is dreadful won't fight it with such fervour, because they will survive regardless. This leads to an enormous bog in welfare spending, stifling an economy.

I am aware of variations on Representative Democracy, such as Direct Democracy. Whilst they may alleviate some of the problems above, they will exaggerate other problems.

Hence, Democracy fails.
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 427
1
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
1
2
6
These are valiid concerns. It's about time the age of liberal western democracy ends.
Harikrish
Harikrish's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 550
2
1
2
Harikrish's avatar
Harikrish
2
1
2
--> @Analgesic.Spectre
For Democracy to succeed it needs an educated electorate. The people vote for issues that matter to them. The failings in Democracy is underestimating the stupidity of people in large groups. Americans are a good example. They are voting against their best interests.
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 474
1
1
5
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
5
--> @Harikrish
For Democracy to succeed it needs an educated electorate. The people vote for issues that matter to them.
Would you mind explaining how this will fix all four of the problems mentioned in the OP?

Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
--> @Analgesic.Spectre
Yes, democracy fails, but it fails less than any other system.
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 474
1
1
5
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
5
--> @Stronn
Yes, democracy fails, but it fails less than any other system.
What evidence did you use to reach this conclusion?

Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
--> @Analgesic.Spectre
What evidence did you use to reach this conclusion?
World history.

I should have qualified it to say that democracy fails less than any other system yet tried.
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 474
1
1
5
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
5
--> @Stronn
World history.
Are you able to give a summary of "world history?"

Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
--> @Analgesic.Spectre
Nope, any summary of world history would be a laundry list of systems which have been tried and failed worse than Democracy.

Since your OP enumerated failings of Democracy, it would be more instructive for you to offer a system that you think has proven superior.
1harderthanyouthink
1harderthanyouthink's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 256
0
1
3
1harderthanyouthink's avatar
1harderthanyouthink
0
1
3
Fools that seek the end of democracy would likely see, in their ideal scenario, a quickly grown democratic uprising.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 354
Posts: 11,453
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @1harderthanyouthink
I usually hate what you post but I smiled hard at how much I wish I had written that reply. Well said.
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 474
1
1
5
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
5
--> @Stronn
Nope, any summary of world history would be a laundry list of systems which have been tried and failed worse than Democracy.
This is a textbook example of begging the question.

Our conversation is over.

Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 474
1
1
5
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
5
--> @1harderthanyouthink
Fools that seek the end of democracy would likely see, in their ideal scenario, a quickly grown democratic uprising.
Vague, universal quotes are not substitutes for argument or substantive elaboration. To grant objectivity to this issue (it's hard to see your work objectively), drafterman encountered the same issue here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/26?page=2&post_number=30



1harderthanyouthink
1harderthanyouthink's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 256
0
1
3
1harderthanyouthink's avatar
1harderthanyouthink
0
1
3
--> @Analgesic.Spectre
I offered a maxim, and you refuse to listen. Given that, I doubt you would listen to the substance behind it. 
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 474
1
1
5
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
5
--> @1harderthanyouthink
I offered a maxim, and you refuse to listen. Given that, I doubt you would listen to the substance behind it. 
You don't understand my critique. I'm not interested in proverbial sayings, because they are too vague and lack the argumentative depth required to beget thorough analysis. The fact that you refuse to present the substance, unless I first agree with your shallow quote, shows how twisted your question begging is.

If you could refrain from inserting your fragile male ego into this discussion like drafterman did, please elaborate on the quote, so that we can discuss its substance.

1harderthanyouthink
1harderthanyouthink's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 256
0
1
3
1harderthanyouthink's avatar
1harderthanyouthink
0
1
3
--> @Analgesic.Spectre
It's funny. I find myself to have a disconnect from traditional social ideals of masculinity, but that means nothing to you. Because you've shown already that you can't take anything for what it is, and you can't understand depth without all of it being spelled out. Instead you call a short maxim hollow, when it is anything but.

And I would guess that is why you can't understand democratic movements. Humans are highly driven by having a sense of belonging, and having democracy feeds their sense of belonging. That attachment to society improves when democracy takes care of them, and that is just simple social contract theory. Without that feedback, especially in a society where it already has existed, the state has no integrity in its assertion of authority over the individual. At that point, anarchy is more legitimate than governance.
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 474
1
1
5
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
5
--> @1harderthanyouthink
You mistake vagueness for depth.

As for the elaboration of your quote, I'm not sure Democracy feeds a sense of belonging. Is it not possible that Democracy reflects people's sense of belonging, in that people are already part of a group, and that Democracy merely shows what part of group they feel they belong to? Are you able to use evidence to carve a distinction?

1harderthanyouthink
1harderthanyouthink's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 256
0
1
3
1harderthanyouthink's avatar
1harderthanyouthink
0
1
3
--> @Analgesic.Spectre
There's nothing vague about what I said.
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 427
1
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
1
2
6
--> @1harderthanyouthink
And I would guess that is why you can't understand democratic movements. Humans are highly driven by having a sense of belonging, and having democracy feeds their sense of belonging.

I would argue the opposite, democracy can lead to pitting people against one another in order for votes.


That attachment to society improves when democracy takes care of them, and that is just simple social contract theory.

Social contract theory was also followed by Thomas Hobbes, who was an absolutist. 


Without that feedback, especially in a society where it already has existed, the state has no integrity in its assertion of authority over the individual. At that point, anarchy is more legitimate than governance.

The state is more important than the individual, as it is the guiding force of society. 
spacetime
spacetime's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 193
0
1
3
spacetime's avatar
spacetime
0
1
3
--> @Analgesic.Spectre
What would be your alternative? Everything you said about democracy's flaws is true, but unless you can come up with a better political system, it all amounts to nothing.