What's the alternative, assuming that you can't reach into peoples' heads and change their positions on an issue? Regardless of the decision, you would still have 51% of the population in support of it and 49% opposed (or vice versa, if the system were minority rules). If I could reach into peoples' heads, there's a solution: "mind your own damn business". If we didn't care so much what other people did, then we woul…
As I stated, there is no alternative as of today, and that is the flaw. Its not terrible flaw, and I think that the democracies on this earth are far better than any other form of government, but maybe one day someone will think up the alternative. Mind control though would just be an uber-dictatorship.
If 51% and 49% cant come to agreement they should live separately. I am not advocating full secession but something like Hong Kong (HK handles everything except Defence and External Affairs).
(I think) In democracy, voters are less likely to compromise. This is result of weak discussion between >1m.
I am faving this comment. Huxley was a true visionary. However I dont agree with the "...new kind of non-violent totalitarianism..." Our democracies are non-violent only if you obey. Otherwise they use violence and force to lock you up. Most people in prisons are there for victimless crimes like drugs. That is not a non-violent system in my opinion.
euh... Don't confuse Republics and democracies. Letting the people vote is a not an equivalent statement to let the people rules. Condorcet has shown how voting systems can be unfair, and a quick look to every elected assembly from the G20 is showing a clear non representation of the demography of the people in the assemblies. We do not live under democratic systems, neither was USA in 1861. These are Republics. And…
Fair point, you are of course right.
However I used the word in the way how it is used nowadays by public. I am from Europe and people here will tell you we have "democracies".
As I stated, there is no alternative as of today, and that is the flaw. Its not terrible flaw, and I think that the democracies on this earth are far better than any other form of government, but maybe one day someone will think up the alternative. Mind control though would just be an uber-dictatorship.
If 51% and 49% cant come to agreement they should live separately. I am not advocating full secession but something like Hong Kong (HK handles everything except Defence and External Affairs). (I think) In democracy, voters are less likely to compromise. This is result of weak discussion between >1m.
Unfortunately ideology and geography have a correlation that, while positive, is less than one. There will always be a minority that gets overridden. And while it is a good thing for people to have freedom to move to a place that supports their values in extreme cases (some are even talking seriously about it this election), in most situations that isn't practical.
It doesn't work when the population is composed of different social groups with vastly opposite systems of values. Iraq for example (I was born in Iraq). We can already see a similar thing happening in America with different ethnic groups not getting along well together. I think this will only get worse over time. Pro Trump and anti Trump camps are really about how a significant number of whites are not getting along…
What you speak of is backwards. The answer to disagreement isn't for both parties to walk away in opposite directions, nor is it for one party to kill the other party. Disagreement is valuable in that it provides the world an opportunity to learn something. Your solution is to run away? That's seriously very sad, and I feel like crying that we still have people who think like this. The solution isn't crying, either.…
It doesn't work when the population is composed of different social groups with vastly opposite systems of values. Iraq for example (I was born in Iraq). We can already see a similar thing happening in America with different ethnic groups not getting along well together. I think this will only get worse over time. Pro Trump and anti Trump camps are really about how a significant number of whites are not getting along…
What you speak of is backwards. The answer to disagreement isn't for both parties to walk away in opposite directions, nor is it for one party to kill the other party. Disagreement is valuable in that it provides the world an opportunity to learn something. Your solution is to run away? That's seriously very sad, and I feel like crying that we still have people who think like this. The solution isn't crying, either.…
> Disagreement is valuable in that it provides the world an opportunity to learn something.
Please stop. I dont want to have disagreement. I dont want to have this endless debate. I want to be left alone. I dont want people to make descision for me. I want to spend my brain cycles in my work. Not this. Please stop.
It's interesting to see that back then (I now checked that even before the Civil War period) the term United States of North America was used. To the history aficionados, was USNA more commonplace than USA? If so, when did USA become prevalent?
It's interesting to see that back then (I now checked that even before the Civil War period) the term United States of North America was used. To the history aficionados, was USNA more commonplace than USA? If so, when did USA become prevalent?
> Interesting, I'd disagree though. Say you live in a fascist society or a feudalist society, you get absolutely no say. These are hardly the only alternatives. In case you haven't noticed, the other people here aren't implicitly contrasting democracy with e.g. monarchy; they're implicitly contrasting it with anarchy (probably anarcho-capitalism). Again, there's lots of possibilities out there. Personally I like the…
Anarchy (and some of its branches) value very much the values of democracy, with the added benefits of stressing the search of compromise. In my opinion, anarcho-capitalism is merely feudalism, with some brainwashing for people to accept their fate. There's a reason some prominent anar-capitalists want to be differenciated from anarchists.
Isn't anarchocapitalism a contradiction in terms? Capitalism is perhaps the most statist of all forms of society. It's development coincided with the birth of the nation state. Markets have been a part of human societies since the birth of agriculturalism, but it was the state that created the large scale market systems required for capitalism to flourish. Historically markets were established in conquered areas to support standing armies. The same story for currency, which is introduced alongside the market as a means of tax payment levied upon the population by the conqueror; the army comes with the currency and the population has to acquire it through market transactions with them.
Schooling is another big one, the Karolingian expansion first instated it in Europe and around the time of the industrial revolution there was a clear need of schooling the peasantry into the new market driven systems, unifying disparate dialects, teaching basic arithmetics, making sure they can read instructions and do basic record keeping. It's around that time you see the establishment of new public institutions such as prisons and police for enforcing private property law, expansion of courts for arbitrage, the list goes on. Almost all of the foundations of capitalism were created by state power and coercion.
I really think the movie Idiocracy nailed the scary potential future of democracy. If elections continue and build on this trend of featuring reality tv show style candidates and media that lives off hyperbole, eventually we'll just start electing the most popular celebrities.
I don't think it's a trend. Besides Trump, who else would be part of this trend?
Most politicians since the time of Andrew Jackson, in the US.