Mob rule

[fluffymark]

Can someone, anyone, explain to me just WHY democracy is supposed to be a good thing? I could never understand this. While you're at it, can anyone explain just how having elected representatives in a parliament constitutes "democracy", as it still doesn't seem that democratic to me!

Just because a plurality (or even a majority) of people want something doesn't make it right, or even the best thing to do.

When I rule the world everyone will have chocolate, and life will be perfect

Comments

[borusa.livejournal.com]

Well, technically it's a "representative democracy", rather than a pure democracy.

And as to why it's good - it isn't. It's obviously flawed in many ways. Though the "representative" element is actually supposed to prevent some of those flaws (the idea being that a small group of people are more likely to be able to keep up to speed with issues than the populace at large - it's an interesting thing to note that people only start to use "public opinion" as a reason for something when "public opinion" is on their side).

However, all the other things we've tried have been worse.

[phlebas.livejournal.com]

Indeed a benevolent dictatorship would be vastly superior. Sadly nobody's come up with a workable mechanism for ensuring the dictator is and remains benevolent. Or, for that matter, a definition of 'benevolent' to which everyone would agree.

[publicansdecoy.livejournal.com]

It's not so much that it's the best thing, as it's the least worst thing that anyone has been able to come up with so far.

-x-

[reddragdiva]

It's not supposed to work well, it's supposed to work without people wanting to burn down the courts and parliament because they feel it's the only way they'll be listened to. Same reason we have juries.

[lemur-man.livejournal.com]

Yes, it's not much different from mob rule. And mobs are known for (a) not being very bright; and (b) quick to reach for pitchforks and flaming torches.

*warily*
What kind of chocolate?

[(Anonymous)]

Can someone, anyone, explain to me just WHY democracy is supposed to be a good thing

The people who know are the ones who don't have it. Go anywhere that isn't a democracy and you'll find people willing to be beaten, arrested or killed for the sake of it.

Just because a plurality (or even a majority) of people want something doesn't make it right, or even the best thing to do.

There are no certainties, and there's no point looking for them, but democracies make, overall, better decisions than non-democracies. In any case, the people of the country have a moral right to be consulted.

[zotz]

That was me, by the way.

[mstevens.livejournal.com]

Since people get so desperate for it, surely there must be terribly convincing arguments in favour of it?

[fluffymormegil.livejournal.com]

I think "everything else that is plausibly actualisable is worse" is, sad to say, a pretty damned convincing argument.
Yes, what you actually want is a hypercompetent benevolent dictator - but unfortunately, history records very few instances of such, and even fewer instances of getting two in a row.

[(Anonymous)]

Indeed, and there are whole books on the subject. I very much doubt anyone is actually unaware of them. As I said, the main argument is that democratic governments are more responsive to the people's will and are much less repressive and violent. There are obviously other differences too, but those are the ones that strike me as being most important.

[mstevens.livejournal.com]

Yes, but "it's really popular" is hardly one of them.

[mstevens.livejournal.com]

When I rule the world everyone will have chocolate, and life will be perfect

Will there be kittens?

Thats the bummer about democracy

[angryangeltoo.livejournal.com]

You might want to watch The Trap on Beeb2 on Sunday T 9.00.

The thing with democracy is that it means we can also do all the shitty stuff and have the right to be racist/sexist/homophobic. Whilst morally, none of the forementioned is right, it is neither morally right to repress the people who have these points of views. It is democratic to be able to express those views and it is democratic to be able to disagree with them.
When we start telling people what to think (*cough*Christianity*cough*) what to read and that we may only have on person in power, we no longer live in a democracy. Yes it has its flaws, some of them are massive. But I would still take this system over "Communism" (Although I use that term lightly as real Communism as written by Karl Marx has yet to be practiced) A President ( Just look at the US!) or a Dictatorship ( Idi Amin, Mugabe) The only Dictator not to cause wide spread misery is Fidel Castro, and I do wander how different things would be if his country had money.

Just out of the interest, what would you propose instead of an elected representative?

Re: Thats the bummer about democracy

[(Anonymous)]

Wow! I live in Florida, and if you said that Castro hasn't spread catastrophe around here, you'd get your head bitten off! Castro has murdered thousands (starting with his close friends and allies who helped him overthrow the previous leader), and destroyed the lives of virtually everyone in Cuba. Even his sister lives in the U.S. and won't have anything to do with him!

[robert-jones.livejournal.com]

I'm confused as you are. I can see that there is a pragmatic argument for democracy (it works better than the alternatives) but that doesn't explain why people say that reform of the upper house is better because it is more democratic, which rather suggests that democracy is seen as a good per se.

As to elected representatives, although such a system would not have been considered democratic by the Athenians (as no doubt you know), I think the idea is that they represent the people, so the people govern through them. The problem with a list system is that the election is carried out, to a very large extent, by the party rather than the people.

[smhwpf.livejournal.com]

Tony Benn is fond of saying that whenever you meet someone with any degree of power, you should ask them five questions. These are: “What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And, how can I get rid of you?”

The fifth is probably the most important, IMO.

I don't think elected representatives in parliament consitutes anything like true democracy, our political system might be better described as an Oligarchy with elective elements. That's as far as most of the world have ever got, though I hope it's not as far as we ever get.

[vanessapyjamas.livejournal.com]

Democracy is a rubbish system. The philosopher king idea is much better just so long as I can be king. I'd be a much better king than you you feckless idiot, because I would make sure everyone ate Brussel sprouts which are good for them and then they would live longer. Everyone knows it is what in your long term best interests that really makes you happy. The happiness that comes from just eating chocolate is all illusory.

I have written to the queen asking her to abdicate so I can take over and do a much better job but she hasn't replied yet. I am wondering whether to e-mail her too.

[gothic-violin.livejournal.com]

Sweet, London bridge session on tonight, do you still want to come? My mobile's 07984 7575 655. On the tube, if youtake the borough highs treet exit at london bridge, and when you get outside, turn left and it's about the third "alleyway" and George inn old sign. starts about 8.30 and ends 11. Hope you be there! :)XXX

[fluffymark]

Thank you muchly for inviting me along, it was magnificent and I enjoyed listening to the session immensely. :) :) :)

If you fancy seeing me again before you head back to Northern Places, my phone number can be found hiding in this post here.

Larry Flynt

[(Anonymous)]

Larry Flynt (publisher of Hustler Magazine) said that you can't have democracy without civil rights, because you can't have 5 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what to have for dinner.