Turn on thread page Beta

I've had enough of democracy watch

    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    This is an appalling idea. Do you really want government-by-nerd with no input from the rest of the population? How will these best and brightest be held accountable? Why would they give a stuff about your plumber in Plymouth's welfare when they aren't at all accountable to said plumber? I agree that parliamentary representative democracy isn't good, but the reason it's bad is because it's not really democracy at all. What we need is more, genuine participatory and delegative democracy rather than getting to pick some moron to 'represent' you once every few years.

    (Original post by Grape190190)
    We could be ruled by well-respected doctors, barristers, economists, academics, trade specialists, and so on
    I'd really rather not, tbh. Whatever makes these people better qualified to run the country? I don't know about anyone else but I've met a fair fw academics, doctors, and barristers who I'd really rather keep away from any kind of government position. The notion that well payed professionals are somehow 'better' than the rest of us at anything they turn their hand to regardless of whether they'd actually be any good at it (like, say, running the country) is a pretty stupid one tbh.

    (Original post by Bagration)
    [Something about Grape being a socialist]
    Funnily enough most socialists only stop believing in democracy once they're in government :p: And, ofc, most socialists don't believe in creepy biological/social determinism quite like Grape does...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    What do you propose to replace it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grape190190)
    Well, we'll get to that once we've got rid of democracy. However: as I wrote in subsequent post, one possibility would be for the House of Lords could initially appoint the government, as well as an entirely independent panel, which would select a new government every five years or so.

    But this is all rather hypothetical, because any two people who want to dispose with democracy could be doing so for conflicting reasons.
    But what makes your government's view of intelligence the objectively correct one? Is it based on wisdom, academia, common sense, or what exactly?

    Ha. That really depends on what you think people's "basic rights" are, doesn't it? And this comes back to our communal indoctrination with the constitutional system that happens to govern us.

    What are the basic rights you speak of? We no longer have a right to a trial by jury. Our right to habeas corpus has been limited. A few years ago, these would have been the fundamental rights that liberals like me believed were sacrosant. The right to protest? That one went under Thatcher. The notion that we have some standardised list of The Basic Civil Liberties is nonsense.

    And what's more, I think we have to examine the whole assumption that "civil liberties" are somehow superior to the rights afforded to us by normal government policy. Wow, confusing sentence. What I mean to ask is this: why is your right to a fair trial more important to you than your right to see a doctor in certain period of time? Why is the right to [what we laughingly refer to as] "protest" more important than your right to a fair proportion of the nation's wealth?

    Just as we've come to worship democracy over above the real and important results of government, we've come to accept that certain political rights are somehow different to the things politicians tinker with.
    What gives politicians the right to such power? Or to determine what rights are? It is just their beliefs, which in the end are no different to anybody elses.




    I laid down my criteria: democracy is fundamentally about the self-determination of the masses - as in, everyone having equal power. I think it's pretty evident how a direct system would be closer to that ideal.
    so how would you get around the tyranny of the majority? or other problems inherent to direct democracy?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rajandkwameali)
    But what makes your government's view of intelligence the objectively correct one? Is it based on wisdom, academia, common sense, or what exactly?
    Well, what make's the democratically elected government's view the objectively correct one. I think the government that I selected all on my own would be better than the one that the electorate selects.



    What gives politicians the right to such power? Or to determine what rights are? It is just their beliefs, which in the end are no different to anybody elses.
    That seems to be an argument for anarachism.


    so how would you get around the tyranny of the majority? or other problems inherent to direct democracy?
    Not interested in fixing those problems (at least not in this thread :p:); I'm interested in getting rid of democracy completely.





    *
    Not actually sure I believe any of his, but I'm yet to see a convincing counter-argument.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grape190190)
    Well, what make's the democratically elected government's view the objectively correct one. I think the government that I selected all on my own would be better than the one that the electorate selects.
    you are saying the brightest should rule, but who defines the brightest? and how? given there is no objective definition of intelligence, then how are the brightest determined?



    That seems to be an argument for anarachism.
    it's a basic extension of normal human behaviour. no human being has supreme or infinite wisdom, and human beings generally don't like being told what to do. why then is a politician's belief any more worthy than anybody else's?


    Not interested in fixing those problems (at least not in this thread :p:); I'm interested in getting rid of democracy completely.





    *
    Not actually sure I believe any of his, but I'm yet to see a convincing counter-argument.
    But these problems are something that need to be addressed, if a direct democracy is to work properly.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Just as the conservatives are about to be voted in because people have forgotten how bad things were under their rule, you are suggesting that we return to an archaic, totalitarian system of government because the horror of one has passed out of knowledge.

    If anything, we should be more democratic in the UK - not less.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grape190190)
    Textbook: "Oh, that was because of the Treaty of Versailles."
    Students: "Oh, phew, that's alright then."
    Textbook: "Ye of little faith! Had you going there for a moment, didn't I?"
    Students: "Praise be to democracy!"
    Not gonna contribute to debate, but this made me laugh.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wholenewworld)
    Ideally we should have an all-knowing benevolent dictator
    Sounds a great idea but didn't we crucify the last one?


    Still, it might be worth resurrecting.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.