Democracy, the myth of freedom . . .

extragon

It's a fine form of government but, as the OP says, it's not "real."
A "real democracy" could never work. A scary thought: half the world's population has an IQ less than 100. So they rely on social ( ie. follow the leader ) intelligence. In public affairs they depend, directly or indirectly, on the simplicities pissed down on them by the plutocrat owners of popular medias.

Not ideal, but not all bad. Would the "people," left to themselves, have voted for free trade, or racial equality? How about the internet? ( 20 years ago hardly anyone saw the point.)
In an earlier age would people have voted for decolonisation, or against the power of the Church?
Would the cavemen have voted to leave the caves?

The Corinthian

extragon wrote: »

A scary thought: half the world's population has an IQ less than 100.

Actually, just under half.

nesf

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The Greeks were right , a benovelant dictatorship is best, but until aliens arrive that would mean corruptable humans in control. And a bad dictator is worse than a bad democracy.

That's essentially the conclusion that Mancur Olson came to in his final book before his death (Power and Prosperity: Outgrowing Communist and Capitalist Dictatorships). In theory a benevolent dictator is the best option. They can act with a view to the best long term option even when the short run of the strategy would be difficult to implement in a democracy because it's unpleasant. Think raising the age of retirement to preserve benefits for future retirees or drastic changes to expenditure to fix a gaping budget deficit like ours. Short term pain, long term gain. Exactly the opposite kind of polices that are easy to pass in democracies.

The problem is that there are huge incentives for the dictator to stop being 100% benevolent and start redirecting some of that wealth to him or his cronies. So generally the conclusion is that no matter how big the pay-offs a dictator might bring seem to be they're outweighed by the immense pain and suffering that is possible.

You run into similar problems with any form of non-term limited oligarchy. Though something like the American model (President appointing non-elected "experts" to key roles of Government) is a good compromise between democracy and oligarchy which can capture the advantages of both, though it does allow for some potentially nasty outcomes if the wrong kind of person becomes President. Though honestly, there's a similar amount of power vested in out own Taioseach office thanks to DeV.

Sand

You run into similar problems with any form of non-term limited oligarchy. Though something like the American model (President appointing non-elected "experts" to key roles of Government) is a good compromise between democracy and oligarchy which can capture the advantages of both, though it does allow for some potentially nasty outcomes if the wrong kind of person becomes President. Though honestly, there's a similar amount of power vested in out own Taioseach office thanks to DeV.

I think it might be worse in Ireland - arent Presidential appointees quizzed by a powerful legislature and need to be approved? Whereas the in Ireland the Taioseach can appoint cronies with no justification or oversight.

DadaKopf

Sand wrote: »

I think it might be worse in Ireland - arent Presidential appointees quizzed by a powerful legislature and need to be approved? Whereas the in Ireland the Taioseach can appoint cronies with no justification or oversight.

That's definitely the case as it stands.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

A Primal Nut

Meh, I'm happy enough with my life.

As long as people have the opportunity to choose between getting educated and working a job they like or following a trade or whatever they want to do I don't see the problem. They should all have a certain amount of choice into how they contribute to society.

Thats why we should focus a lot more on improving other less fortunate countries. If we could give our system to all of Africa the world be a lot better place. Yeah, so some people will have more money and powers than others, so what? Some are lucky enough to be born into it others make it themselves, whatever. As long as I'm not been thrown into a concentration camp, etc,etc. Considering how most systems are we have it well. Of course we should still hold our politicians accountable a lot better than we do, but I don't see how a total overall of the system will change people's lives for the better. There might be ways of reducing an individuals power, corruption etc, but this is as good a system as there is for standards of living.

People seem to always emphasise America as having the worst system as if its the worst place to live in the world, you'd swear its hell on earth. But there are a lot worse places to live!! Standard of living is the most important thing.

And as for corporations shaping us into consumers, we have an individual choice whether we allow them too. It seems the op has rejected being turned into a consumer...everyone has that choice.

A Primal Nut

For the record I think a benevolant dictator would be a nice idea, but they are too rare and unlikely to say the least.

extragon

A "real democracy" might just work - in a distant future. Nearly everyone has the same basic insticts, about human rights, for example. It's just that they apply them inconsistently, selfishly, and using faulty information.

Imagine a country with no parliament, and citizens voting on issues using an interactive internet, filtered by a super computer, with totally transparent rules, only changeable by consensus - a kind of benevolent dictator which would ruthlessly eliminate inconsistency.

If you grant a "human right" in case A, you must grant it in case B, or agree to change your values, or you must provide a rational explanation based on generally accepted knowledge. If you reduce taxes you must reduce spending, and so on.

Tech3

thebman wrote: »

OP you should read 1984 if you like Fight Club IMO.

Anyway my take on the whole thing would be that Democracy is the best we have. Anarchy will never achieve what we have achieved as a society using Democracy and capitalism..

Multinationals have come earned a profit and left. Leaving us poor Irish people without a job. Unemployment is over 350,000 people. Capitalist ideals are the main front of what has happened over the last 2 years. Our country is in severe debt and taxes are likely going to be thrown on top of low earners making society even worse than it is.

As for people being slaves to 9-5, this is not really the case. I think it is possible to make money doing something everybody loves, its just that for some people this isn't enough. I have gone into an industry I love and although management have frustrated me at times, overall, the actual work I do leaves me satisfied and I enjoy doing it and I enjoy working in a team on the projects I have worked on.

Its okay for people on higher wages that have some kind of "democracy". We have to look at the lower paid who work just to get by while there is a huge gap to the wages of our bankers and politicians who have made a mess of the country. They get bailed out whereas the hard earning tax payer will be getting less in their pockets as a result of this.

A lot of jobs don't need to exist, you are right but they exist and generally jobs that aren't fun to do pay pretty well in a lot of cases so people that do them, do so to pursue their dream of owning stuff. That is really up to each person to decide IMO. The capitalist, democracy does not force people to do this. People choose to want what they see in ads, I would consider that I own everything I want and they are all tools that I use in one way or other for my personal enjoyment such as my mountain bike, laptop or games console. It is entertainment and this entertainment wouldn't exist IMO in a non-capitalist, non-democratic society (at least not to the same extent).

Why would they not exist? People would be still entitled to spend on what wages they have earned. The problem with this country is there is too many people that will contend with the corruption and greed seen with the fat cats. There is no such thing as equality when a capitalist government is in power.

Vichy

Democracy is a horrible idea to begin with. There is no way the requisite information required for a realistic evaluation of political consequences - with all their externalities, especially considering that it is literally impossible to engage in interpersonal comparisons of value - can be gained by anyone, much less hoards of people. This applies to the elites as much as the masses of voters. In substitution for such knowledge they adopt tropes, slogan-based reasoning and inhereted ideology. Given that opinion holds sway in democracies this means that the Press - as incapable of such evaluation as the rest of us poor human beings - more or less 'rules' the country, perpetuating an ideology that the intellectual elites tricked themselves into believing.

Democracy is, really, just a kind of slow-motion civil war where equally ignorant and self-righteous parties fight over control of the state to force everyone else into their herd.

Thank God democracy is as limited as it is.