Is democracy all its cracked up to be?

[Patrick Degan]

Here's a pair of quotes from the 1928 Army Training Manual:

Democracy, n. "A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic - negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."

What horseshit! A definition from an Army manual written during one of the high periods of anti-Bolshevist hysteria in this country's history and you don't even suspect that the tenor of the entry is itself propagandistic?

Republic: Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress. Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world. A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of (1) an executive and (2) a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create (3) a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize (4) certain inherent individual rights. Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.

Seems to describe the United States rather well. Just because a commercial dictionary has a different definition does not mean it overrides official government definitions.

In other words, democracies, such as those in Europe, Japan, Australia, or even Canada up north, do not have: (1)an executive and (2)legislative body, working in a representative capacity together and having all power of legislation to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures? They do not have either (3) a judiciary to review the legality of governmental actions and they do not (4) recognise certain inherent individual rights? They lack the qualities of liberty, reason, justice, equity, contentment, statesmanship, and progress? They do not base their forms upon a constitution? Would you declare parliamentary democracies to be examples of mob rule?

Sorry, but this is hairsplitting. The Army in 1928 went to the pains to differentiate between "democracy" and "republic" to reinforce the propaganda of the period, which was hysterically anti-Bolshevist. Ask yourself why the Army went to the pains it did to equate democracy with communism or anarchy.

And I must comment on how amusing it is to find an alledged Independent depending upon "official government definitions" to form his political ideas.

Of course, there's also the Pledge of Allegiance "to the Republic," the Constitution which "shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government," and the Federalist Papers, which state that "democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention."

Too bad that is not the sole opinion of the Federalist Papers on the subject. You also ignore that the concepts of "republic" and "democracy" have often been used interchangeably in reference to free elective government. I would remind you that the word "democracy" has its root in the Greek demos kratos —meaning "of the people".

Seems I recall Abraham Lincoln invoking that phrase describing our own government in the concluding paragraph of the Gettysburg Address. Remember —"government of the people, by the people, for the people" and all that?

America has never been a democracy, but rather a republic.

As you wish. Communist China also claims to be a "republic". Technically, it is.

Technically, that is.

[Pu-239]

For the human race at our current tech level, US-based democratic republic is the best so far (evidence is obvious, the US being #1 nation so far).

snip

Rubbish the US has the best democratic setup. That the US has the #1 armed forces, or anything else, does not mean a damned thing.

I think any system that provides representation by political view is better than that of geographic location. Larger countries also tend to have less efficient democracy.

[Howedar]

Democracy and its half-brothers are fucked up, but the alternatives are worse.

[Faram]

The Swedes are racking up impressive debt with their welfare state, and suffer minimal demographics, security, and political issues that U.S. burdens itself with as sole remaining superpower.

Quick statistics
Swedish national debt:
http://www.riksbank.se/svenskstat/
~133,000 skr/per capita= ~ $12 500/per capita

US debt
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

The estimated population of the United States is 288,831,275
so each citizen's share of this debt is $21,720.20.

Americans among others have prophesised the demise of the Swedish way of living sense the late 50’s.

[NecronLord]

Hands up who thinks the world would work better if SD.Net ran it?

[Vympel]

Not if some people on this forum are in the power heirarchy

I can't believe someone quoted a 1928 training manual ... what horseshit. And they say there was more propaganda in the Soviet Union. Right. Not more, just less subtle- most of the time. Though I've seen some shocking 50's propanda. It's embarassing. Stuff that would make Goebbels impressed.

[Warspite]

This willingness to accept the unusual (freedom) made America great. Other countries are comparable for their social expectations. But only the US had the ability to 1)feed its people; 2) feed people in other countries; 3) guarantee its defense and that of our allies; 4) provide most people with a house, job, car and TV; 5) and still find enough money to build modern versions of the Pyramids such as moon shots, Space Shuttles, and other frivolous scientific endeavour. The difference is that these mounuments to greatness actually do serve some public good whereas the Pyramids were just really, really big paperweights.

Sorry? The US has the abillity to feed it's people, and most of other countries due to it's resources, it has nothing to do with the governing body, although it might help. Canada is also a major cereal producer.

Monuments to greatness is only feasible in two ways: religious fervor (Pyramids, for example) or a wealthy nation were people don't now how to spend their money. And the Pyramids have nothing to do with this, they were built also during a relative stable period of Egipt, and back then democracy (or republic) ruling was still a few centuries to go.


[/qutote]Sweden? Well, I've heard its a great, friendly place to be as long as you're white. Many of the dark-skinned immigrants there feel ghettoized and discriminated against... Not that the US is perfect in this sense, we have a ways to go, but no nation on this Earth right now can lay claim to being the mythical ivory and gold "city on the hill". But the Western democracies in general come close.[/quote]

Well, in a country with million white population, if you are coloured, you can't go unnoticed, and since you're different you end up being ostracized, that's to be expected. Sweden isn't the best example for racism, and it's not a democracy, it's a contitutional monarchy, if i'm not in error.


The US may have a working republic/democracy, but it's not the best example (they have only two major parties, don't allow comunist parties), it's only "great" because of the principles it's based on (taken from the French, if I recall), and the resources.

[RedImperator]

Riddle me this, Batman: is there a NON-democratic country in the world you'd prefer to live in over any other?

[Warspite]

Riddle me this, Batman: is there a NON-democratic country in the world you'd prefer to live in over any other?

I assume that by non-democratic you're taking out also all monarchies, right?

So, let's see... um... There's China, North Korea, Cuba, some obscure African country... um, um... No, can't think of any.
Ditactorships tend to make life hell, unless you're a tourist. That's why democracy works better.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

For the human race at our current tech level, US-based democratic republic is the best so far (evidence is obvious, the US being #1 nation so far).

But I think having a super-smart supercomputer(note that I did not say AI) make all the decisions and people just carrying them out would be best. That way we won't have people with personal agendas making decisions to benefit certain people or such.

You mean like the Magi in Eva?