I find myself feeling increasingly disenchanted with democracy, or more to the point the people that seem to be most supportive of democracy.

I remember as a kid being fed all the stuff about the communists being evil and stuff, the big red threat and all that. Only to find that it's really just another way of doing stuff.

I tend to agree with you, Moonrakers. And I detest the attitude which says that democracy is good for everyone; I think it depends heavily on the overall level of education in a country (and also, as I said before) the size of the country).

I remember as a kid being fed all the stuff about the communists being evil and stuff, the big red threat and all that. Only to find that it's really just another way of doing stuff.

Has anyone here actually lived in the former USSR? I have for over a decade. Communism was not "just another way of doing stuff". Some people who suffered through it might be just a tad bit offended by it.

I remember as a kid being fed all the stuff about the communists being evil and stuff, the big red threat and all that. Only to find that it's really just another way of doing stuff.

Has anyone here actually lived in the former USSR? I have for over a decade. Communism was not "just another way of doing stuff". Some people who suffered through it might be just a tad bit offended by it.

That's just one communist country though, and a poor one. They may not have had it easy but would it have been much better under a democratic regime? How many people are suffering from poverty and corruption in democratic Cambodia right now?

Of course communism has its drawbacks which is why I would not choose that option if I was made to choose. But is is not the ideology of evil dictatorship it is made out to be. Democracy was intended to administer to the needs of the people, instead you now have politicians that are afraid of doing what has to be done in case they lose too many votes. Democracy needs common sense to work, but there is none.

I remember as a kid being fed all the stuff about the communists being evil and stuff, the big red threat and all that. Only to find that it's really just another way of doing stuff.

Has anyone here actually lived in the former USSR? I have for over a decade. Communism was not "just another way of doing stuff". Some people who suffered through it might be just a tad bit offended by it.

I've never lived there but I visited Yuzhny and Odessa when I was at sea. The one word which summed them both up was 'bleak'. We used to carry liquid ammonia from Yuzhny to Stockton(CA). In Stockton the INS would check the ship on arrival to make sure no-one was trying to slip into the US unnoticed. In Yuzhny KGB border guards would check us on departure to make sure no-one was trying to leave the Motherland. If you wanted to walk to the bow or stern to measure the draft you have to have a 'chitty' from the KGB before you could set foot on USSR soil even for a walk of a few yards.

I remember as a kid being fed all the stuff about the communists being evil and stuff, the big red threat and all that. Only to find that it's really just another way of doing stuff.

Has anyone here actually lived in the former USSR? I have for over a decade. Communism was not "just another way of doing stuff". Some people who suffered through it might be just a tad bit offended by it.

That's just one communist country though, and a poor one. They may not have had it easy but would it have been much better under a democratic regime? How many people are suffering from poverty and corruption in democratic Cambodia right now?

Of course communism has its drawbacks which is why I would not choose that option if I was made to choose. But is is not the ideology of evil dictatorship it is made out to be. Democracy was intended to administer to the needs of the people, instead you now have politicians that are afraid of doing what has to be done in case they lose too many votes. Democracy needs common sense to work, but there is none.

I'm not a proponant of democracy as it's practiced.

Did you read Flying's link ("It's All Lies") in the "Where's Gaddafi" thread? In it there is a description of the supposed style of democracy that held sway in Libya. Sounds like the closest thing to an ideal democratic system.

I agreee with Issanbirder too regarding democracy and education.....in fact it is an aspect of what I had proposed earlier (in this thread?)

I remember as a kid being fed all the stuff about the communists being evil and stuff, the big red threat and all that. Only to find that it's really just another way of doing stuff.

Has anyone here actually lived in the former USSR? I have for over a decade. Communism was not "just another way of doing stuff". Some people who suffered through it might be just a tad bit offended by it.

That's just one communist country though, and a poor one. They may not have had it easy but would it have been much better under a democratic regime? How many people are suffering from poverty and corruption in democratic Cambodia right now?

Are you suggesting that Cambodia was better off under Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge?

Vietnam is doing rather well for itself - in my opinion they have passed Thailand in the cities, the countryside is dirt poor in both places.

Not so many cars yet (thank goodness!) but literally millions of motorbikes. I can buy things in the shops here that the Thais had never heard of.

I was here in 2002, and Saigon and Hanoi are completely unrecognisable from that time.

So socialism seems to be working here.

I remember as a kid being fed all the stuff about the communists being evil and stuff, the big red threat and all that. Only to find that it's really just another way of doing stuff.

Has anyone here actually lived in the former USSR? I have for over a decade. Communism was not "just another way of doing stuff". Some people who suffered through it might be just a tad bit offended by it.

That's just one communist country though, and a poor one. They may not have had it easy but would it have been much better under a democratic regime? How many people are suffering from poverty and corruption in democratic Cambodia right now?

Are you suggesting that Cambodia was better off under Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge?

Of course I'm not.

I thought it was quite clear that democracy isn't the ideal solution it's made out to be. I though my point was obvious, others seemed to get it OK>

No disrespect intended, but using Cambodia as an example of a Communist Country that might have been better off without democracy might not have been the best choice.

I don't think you could be any further from the point UG

In the words of my little girl: Whatever

Whatever indeed.

Corruption will destroy any system of government whether it be democratic, communist, monarchy, theocracy, etc.

I fail to see why some people emotionally feel one system is better than another. Any system can be good if the people in charge are good. Any system is tyranny if those in power choose to make it so.

The best system of government is a benevolent dictator. The problem is the world has a conspicuous shortage of benevolent men who won't be corrupted by power after becoming dictators. Thailand has one such revered man, but unfortunately he is about to pass on after serving this country for most of his adult life. I would happily forgo democracy in this country if he were yet young enough to assume governing it.

Systems of government are all about the people doing the governing. The preferred form is constantly changing throughout history, for the simple reason that any system left for too long eventually collapses under its own weight. This wasn't the first epoch of democracy on the globe, and it won't be the last. But there will be other forms in the intervening periods before democracy once again becomes popular.

+1

Corruption will destroy any system of government whether it be democratic, communist, monarchy, theocracy, etc.

I fail to see why some people emotionally feel one system is better than another. Any system can be good if the people in charge are good. Any system is tyranny if those in power choose to make it so.

The best system of government is a benevolent dictator. The problem is the world has a conspicuous shortage of benevolent men who won't be corrupted by power after becoming dictators. Thailand has one such revered man, but unfortunately he is about to pass on after serving this country for most of his adult life. I would happily forgo democracy in this country if he were yet young enough to assume governing it.

Systems of government are all about the people doing the governing. The preferred form is constantly changing throughout history, for the simple reason that any system left for too long eventually collapses under its own weight. This wasn't the first epoch of democracy on the globe, and it won't be the last. But there will be other forms in the intervening periods before democracy once again becomes popular.

Very true. And what makes Democracy "better" is that you get to vote out the corrupt leaders.

The best system of government is a benevolent dictator.

I nominate Charles Krauthammer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Krauthammer

The best system of government is a benevolent dictator. The problem is the world has a conspicuous shortage of benevolent men who won't be corrupted by power after becoming dictators. Thailand has one such revered man, but unfortunately he is about to pass on after serving this country for most of his adult life. I would happily forgo democracy in this country if he were yet young enough to assume governing it.

Systems of government are all about the people doing the governing. The preferred form is constantly changing throughout history, for the simple reason that any system left for too long eventually collapses under its own weight. This wasn't the first epoch of democracy on the globe, and it won't be the last. But there will be other forms in the intervening periods before democracy once again becomes popular.

Very true. And what makes Democracy "better" is that you get to vote out the corrupt leaders.

Lee Kuan Yew is near enough to the idea of a benevolent dictator.

I'm not sure whether democracy has really ever been put into practice. The Athenians had the idea, but it was only the citizen elite who had a say, not the metics and the slaves, who were the vast majority. Many people have had one man/one vote systems (forgetting the slaves for the moment), but they've always been skewed in favour of one group, usually a minority. Even the British system, which is one of the best, didn't even get universal suffrage until less than a hundred years ago, and then the constituency boundaries were drawn so that a socialist party had to get far more votes than a conservative party to win an election.

What makes democracy "worse" is that it is extremely hard for it to pass unpopular measures (it has happened; Britain did it after WWII). Unpopular measures are needed now to get Britain back on track, but who will dare try to impose them?

What makes democracy "worse" is that it is extremely hard for it to pass unpopular measures (it has happened; Britain did it after WWII). Unpopular measures are needed now to get Britain back on track, but who will dare try to impose them?

True. Just think about how many minority rights have taken generations to come about because they were unpopular with the majority for so long.

Corruption will destroy any system of government whether it be democratic, communist, monarchy, theocracy, etc.

I fail to see why some people emotionally feel one system is better than another. Any system can be good if the people in charge are good. Any system is tyranny if those in power choose to make it so.

The best system of government is a benevolent dictator. The problem is the world has a conspicuous shortage of benevolent men who won't be corrupted by power after becoming dictators. Thailand has one such revered man, but unfortunately he is about to pass on after serving this country for most of his adult life. I would happily forgo democracy in this country if he were yet young enough to assume governing it.

Systems of government are all about the people doing the governing. The preferred form is constantly changing throughout history, for the simple reason that any system left for too long eventually collapses under its own weight. This wasn't the first epoch of democracy on the globe, and it won't be the last. But there will be other forms in the intervening periods before democracy once again becomes popular.

Very true. And what makes Democracy "better" is that you get to vote out the corrupt leaders.

You mean like Thailand?

What makes democracy "worse" is that it is extremely hard for it to pass unpopular measures (it has happened; Britain did it after WWII). Unpopular measures are needed now to get Britain back on track, but who will dare try to impose them?

We need another Maggie

And what makes Democracy "better" is that you get to vote out the corrupt leaders.

Now if they could just perfect it by not mainly giving us only corrupt leaders as choices to vote in.

That seems to be the biggest problem with the two parties that control.

They always owe their power to someone

And what makes Democracy "better" is that you get to vote out the corrupt leaders.

Now if they could just perfect it by not mainly giving us only corrupt leaders as choices to vote in.

That seems to be the biggest problem with the two parties that control.

They always owe their power to someone

So basically all forms of government are corrupt to some point so it is probably best to have as little government as possible interfering into the lives of people. I'm all for that.

I'f ruffle a lot of feathers if I was in power, because I believe that not everybody deserves to vote. I think that everybody should be born on an equal footing in that regard but the right to vote should be earned by demonstrating they are responsible enough. Everybody will have the opportunity, but not the god given right.

I'd make sure people are voting for their own reasons are and not just voting the way Rupert Murdoch et al, for example, are influencing them. They'd have to give the reasons they are voting. It wouldn't have to be the 'right' reason because there wouldn't be a right reason, it'll just have to be 'their' reason.

Not working...... Sorry, no vote. If you want to vote for society, you should first contribute to society. Of course there's exceptions but I'll spend more time thinking about that when paid for it.

A basic understanding of politics..... Not much, no rocket science. But if you want to vote to influence politics, you should understand what you are voting for.

In countries like Thailand anybody caught selling their vote to the highest bidder should have their rights removes.

I'f ruffle a lot of feathers if I was in power, because I believe that not everybody deserves to vote. I think that everybody should be born on an equal footing in that regard but the right to vote should be earned by demonstrating they are responsible enough. Everybody will have the opportunity, but not the god given right.

I agree but it would be almost impossible to regulate. What is responsible enough? Only people in the center? (probably true) People can be reasonable or responsible on different levels depending on the issue. A voter (or candidate) can be strong on one issue but weak on another. Someone could have studied the issues, contributes to society but is deemed irresponsible... because they are liberals.

In countries like Thailand anybody caught selling their vote to the highest bidder should have their rights removed.

I usually call it 'their nuts'.

I'd lay down some rules in black and white Koheets, leaving opinion out of the decision of who votes and who doesn't. Even far right/left voters should be allowed to vote, but they will have to earn that along with everybody else.

I suspect that some genuine people might miss out unfairly, but surely what's most important is what's best for everybody. It won't be a perfect system, but it'll better than the current one.

In countries like Thailand anybody caught selling their vote to the highest bidder should have their rights removed.

I usually call it 'their nuts'.

That as well

I'd lay down some rules in black and white Koheets, leaving opinion out of the decision of who votes and who doesn't. Even far right/left voters should be allowed to vote, but they will have to earn that along with everybody else.

I suspect that some genuine people might miss out unfairly, but surely what's most important is what's best for everybody. It won't be a perfect system, but it'll better than the current one.

It's been done, by sex, by property rights, by education levels, by age limits (starting age). Any better ideas?

One of the Athenian ideas which has fallen by the wayside is ostracism. If an ostracism was held, every voter had the right to write, on a piece of potsherd, the name of the person he would most like to see banished for the next ten years. The one who got the most votes had to pack his bags and go. Apart from the fact that it would be completely impracticable for the large numbers of voters in a modern democracy, what a wonderful idea!

I'd lay down some rules in black and white Koheets, leaving opinion out of the decision of who votes and who doesn't. Even far right/left voters should be allowed to vote, but they will have to earn that along with everybody else.

I suspect that some genuine people might miss out unfairly, but surely what's most important is what's best for everybody. It won't be a perfect system, but it'll better than the current one.

It's been done, by sex, by property rights, by education levels, by age limits (starting age). Any better ideas?

They are all discriminatory though.

I'd have no discrimination because every person will get the opportunity regardless of who they are. Whether or not they take that opportunity will be up to them.

They are all discriminatory though.

I'd have no discrimination because every person will get the opportunity regardless of who they are. Whether or not they take that opportunity will be up to them.

Any hurdle you put in the way would be discriminatory in some sense; what sense I can't say unless you're more specific.

I think simple tests to check people's understand of politics and economics (just the basics) would be a start. Plus the requirement to work (with exceptions like disabled people) or contribute in some other way.

That should discriminate against the lazy and the stupid, which is fine by me.