Current Democracy is, well,....Stupid!

ch750536

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Start a politcal party then?

You want choice and just expect other people to give you choice. You go be the choice.

Stop complying with the owners of the country by becoming a part of the charade? Good luck with that.

vibe666

I always thought it was better to have a republic than a democracy due to the more limited powers given to those in power in a republic, but ireland still seems to have fcuked everything up just as well (if not even more effectively) than democratic countries.

admittedly this opinion if formed mostly from extensively playing the civilisation games on my PC.

Mr Benevolent

Democracy as we practice it is inherently flawed. The system we actually use is technically known as 'elected oligarchy', where the richest and most popular are elected into control by the voting majority. Add to this a bigger layer of unelected officials who have remained stagnant for decades and you have a hopelessly bloated and inefficient way of running things. For a proper system, look no further than Switzerland. Citizens vote on everything, from new representatives to the position of the newest bus stop with increasingly local elections as the decisions get more local. Most voting is done online, efficiency reigns and the country doesn't even have a permanent head of state.

What's the main difference between Ireland and Switzerland? Easy. Discipline, education (about government matters) and the ability to plan more than a year into the future. We're backward children compared to the Swiss in terms of our political outlook and dedication to our country. Irish politicians care about their job, their local community and the country - in that order of importance.

mconigol

Confab wrote: »

Democracy as we practice it is inherently flawed. The system we actually use is technically known as 'elected oligarchy', where the richest and most popular are elected into control by the voting majority. Add to this a bigger layer of unelected officials who have remained stagnant for decades and you have a hopelessly bloated and inefficient way of running things. For a proper system, look no further than Switzerland. Citizens vote on everything, from new representatives to the position of the newest bus stop with increasingly local elections as the decisions get more local. Most voting is done online, efficiency reigns and the country doesn't even have a permanent head of state.

What's the main difference between Ireland and Switzerland? Easy. Discipline, education (about government matters) and the ability to plan more than a year into the future. We're backward children compared to the Swiss in terms of our political outlook and dedication to our country. Irish politicians care about their job, their local community and the country - in that order of importance.

While I don't know anything about Switzerland's system I don't think we need that level of decision making. I don't see how that is efficient. Personally I don't think people what the kind of process where they have to continually make decisions. What they want is for good decisions to be made for them so they can get on with their lives.

What we lack is continuity and long term planning.

CrazyRabbit

HalloweenJack wrote: »

A benevolent dictatorship is still a dictatorship. Is there any example of a dictator who has never got drunk with power?

Democracy is the fairest system available as everyone gets a say (in the initial elections, at least). The flaw with democracy is that EVERYONE gets a say.

Just having a look at some of the posts that pop up on Boards, it's plain to see that there are plenty of ignorant, idiotic people out there and these all get a say in who gets to run the country.

I still wouldn't change the basic premise of democracy: that everyone gets a vote, that's only fair. Just something needs to be done to educate people about what they're voting for and to make them vote for logical reasons and not emotive ones.

Unfortunately, a few wealthy groups get a lot more of a say that most. Just look at the lobbying groups in the US. You can see evidence with the recent attempt to introduce SOPA.

AeoNGriM

Attabear wrote: »

This thread needs a poll.

And a tax to go with that poll.....aaaaaah Maggie, you are sorely missed!

Pacifist Pigeon

southsiderosie wrote: »

They do so at the prerogative of democratically elected officials. The state is not some autonomous entity.

Our modern "democracy" is based on the premise that we need an authority to maintain a certain order in society. In order to maintain such an authority, the state needs to use some sort of force. People will be forced to do something by the state, whether they willfully consent or not. I don't see why a state authority should be allowed to do whatever it pleases to whoever it want just because it is given consent by a majority of the people to do so. I believe that there is a fundamental flaw in this thinking.

The public at large can be easily swayed to believe in a certain truths; they can be easily manipulated. People vote for things that they think, or are led to believe, would benefit them. Therefore, the decision of the majority is in no way infallible. Yet democracy seems to be based on the premise that it is.

So to summerise, there are two fundamental flaws with modern democracy:

1. The false premise of total infallibility of the majority in all spheres.
2. The existence of an authority that can impart force on those who both consent and don't consent to it (the minority), i.e., that those who don't agreed with something are forced to obey the majority.

The only solution to this, in my eyes, is the limitation of the powers of government and the limitation of the employment of total majority rule.

southsiderosie wrote: »

Views like this are why I increasingly think that libertarianism is incompatible with democracy.

The state should not be allowed to inherit such control over the economy, even with the majority will of the people. The state operates in an economy like any other commercial organisation would. It has to adapt to the conditions of the market, like any buyer or seller. If the state wishes to change an economic condition, based on it's own economic policy, it does so via playing by market rules. But unlike any other unit in the economy, it has ability to outperform others due to the resources it commands from taxpayers.

Government intervention in the economy leads, has led and is leading to economic chaos. Such interventionism accentuates the business cycle and leads to successive booms and busts. Lobbyist play politicians to favour their respective businesses/sectors via incentives, grants, franchises and tax reliefs. Doing so, the government helps create monopolies and inequalities in the markets; it upsets stability.

The electoral majority can be led to believe by politician (who in turn are influenced by oligarchs/monopolists within the private sector) that certain biased economic policies are good and would encourage prosperity and jobs. But the public at large aren't acutely aware of how biases like this lead to instability because they're blinded by their own collective greed. In reality, all these sort of economic policies are doing is allowing so-called private corporations/industrialists to exercise control of the economy through the force set on the people by the government.

It is best that the public at large isn't given the right to vote on economic policies, that the economy is separate from the government and that any all tax be fixed and unbiased with respect to any organ of society. Government spending should be limited to the judiciary and defense and any tax changes should be voted on by the people, however these tax changes must be completely unbiased. Such necessity for tax changes would only occur in exceptional circumstances.

southsiderosie wrote: »

Well who gets to define what basic fundamental rights are? These aren't necessarily universal or frozen in time; today in most liberal Western democracies, things like health care are considered a right - this was not the case 100 years ago.

There are two types of rights; natural rights and unnatural rights, "in rem" and "in personam", respectively.

Take an example of natural rights, say, the right to life. You are born with the right to live, it wasn't given to you. You have it by virtue of the fact that you are human and you have alway been alive since birth. The right to life is one that can only be taken away from someone, never given. The same is true for most other natural rights.

Now take an example of unnatural rights, say, the "right" to free healthcare. The right to free healthcare is one that is bestowed on someone, it is a right that doesn't exist naturally, it is only a privilege bestowed by the state. In hindsight, by virtue of the fact that this unnatural right is bestowed at the loss of someone else (the taxpayer), means that it infringes on the natural rights of others.

However, one might argue, if one has the right to life, then they must have the right to free healthcare to maintain their life. But the two are not equal. The right to free healthcare is based on the premise that there is an infinite supply of resources to provide the service. Clearly this is a fallacy. The right to life is one is that exists without the need for action. Having the right to life doesn't automatically mean one has the right to free healthcare.

So in conclusion, fundamental right should only include natural rights. Natural rights are kind of obvious. They do not exist at the behest of the state or anyone else. To say "Well who gets to define what basic fundamental rights are?", is to say that, by default, natural rights are only privileges that the state gives to the people and that outside those rights you are merely a slave owned by a totalitarian dictatorial state. That is clearly a fallacy. The state doesn't impart natural right.

ScumLord

I still believe the general public of any democracy are no better than an unruly mob, we're very ignorant of our own countries day to day running. We would rather be served than serve our state.

Unless people are educated and begin to work together at a more local level instead of being obsessed with their mythical individuality nothing will ever change we'll always be a lose group of random mouth pieces with no clue what they actually need.

hooradiation

Oh great, libertarians.

Pacifist Pigeon

hooradiation wrote: »

Oh great, libertarians.

Muhahahahawww!!

Stiffler2

I think communism is the way to go minus the dictating / dictator. Everyone gets the same share.

Sindri

I don't like our parliamentary system. Prefer the American system, think it's better.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Stiffler2 wrote: »

I think communism is the way to go minus the dictating / dictator. Everyone gets the same share.

It doesn't work, it stifles entrepreneurship and creativity. Man is not equal.

Sindri

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

It doesn't work, it stifles entrepreneurship and creativity. Man is not equal.

Well the manner that its been tried as well as some of the more orthodox policies it espouses to bring about actual communism within a society, and these are inherent in most Marxist ideologies, don't work.

EDIT

The thing is, Marxism is mainly a political science or ideal, some of the stuff found in it is very idealistic. And to add the end result they wish to achieve, well there is better ways than what they espouse. The manner in which they wish to achieve that though is incredibly flawed.

Phill Ewinn

Blaming the output OP the problem lies with the input. It's the voters screwing each other over. FF/FG are just a result of idiots voting for them.

Deport people who voted FF/FG in the previous election. Problem solved.

laugh

We need to use technology to vote more frequently instead of depending on the ability of a bunch of publicans, solicitors and school teachers to do the right thing for 5 years at a time.

squod

Actually what we need is a functioning legal system. One which holds politicians and PS workers accountable.

Pacifist Pigeon

squod wrote: »

Actually what we need is a functioning legal system. One which holds politicians and PS workers accountable.

What we need to get rid of most public sector workers, bureaucrats and politicians.

Pacifist Pigeon

laugh wrote: »

We need to use technology to vote more frequently instead of depending on the ability of a bunch of publicans, solicitors and school teachers to do the right thing for 5 years at a time.

???????????

Rant detector reads positive.

k.p.h

I just think we should vote for positions and not just seats, sure we can still have TD's and a functioning Dail, but the minister positions and and major public positions are all voted for individually by the electorate.

On a bi-annual vote, TD's and then Ministers and other positions.

That way it would force them to put their CV's as well as their manifests on the table, it would also separate the party politics out of it a bit.

When these people are in their positions they would have the final say on what gets presented as policy relating to their specific areas of expertise. The full Dail aka every elected TD gets the final vote on whether the policy gets implemented.

In sense I want to privatize the government, but every citizen of Ireland is on the board that elects the major positions. Then for functionality through the terms the TD's vote on the forthcoming policy's.

Their is 1 TD for every 33,000 people in the country, if you want to influence the vote you contact you local TD.

This way no one is in government or in the opposition. Every TD is just a representative of the people who elected him, who votes on the policies of the individuals who were collectively elected by the people.

The thinking is no one is just going to vote for "johnny" down the road to be Finance minister, hell we need someone smarter than that in that role. But I would vote for "johnny" and allow him to represent me.

Kinda hard to explain this ****.

Tigger

Attabear wrote: »

This thread needs a poll.

can't believe everyone missed this

Jimoslimos

k.p.h wrote: »

I just think we should vote for positions and not just seats, sure we can still have TD's and a functioning Dail, but the minister positions and and major public positions are all voted for individually by the electorate.

With a little tinkering, that has the potential to be a very very good solution. Certainly too many TD's get re-elected because they served a previous term as a minister, and as we all know, ministers are great for bringing home the bacon to the local constituents.

KeithAFC

Populism is the key to all political parties doing well. An example in the Irish general election would be Fine Gael using the highly unpopular Fianna Fail as the punch bag. People jumped on board and voted in a party which won't make much of a difference. Hardly revolutionary.

TheChizler

What we need to do is overthrow this "democracy" and establish a republic!

LighterGuy

I know people wont agree with this :rolleyes:

But I think democracy is all shite. Its a farce.

Sindri

BLACK & PROUD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGaRtqrlGy8

mikemac1

Vote yes for jobs

Sindri

mikemac1 wrote: »

Vote yes for jobs

Vote yes for an aching agonising pain in your head.

Vote yes for lifeless apathy.

Vote yes if you wish to avail of our laundry service.

Vote yes is if you're an amoral, nihilist sell out who cannot summon sympathy for a degrading unfulfilling world because he's numb from the mind ****ing life offers complimentary with existence, where there's almost always must be poverty so we may have our middle class, depressing suburban lifestyles full of endless dinner party's and fake cheap smiles that are symptomatic of a lobotomised slug trying to masturbate through the endless horror of working days and the fake sincerity one feels while being updated on the problems of your witless socially retarded co-workers and friends punctuated by brief moments of pleasure which dissipate like streams of smoke unfurling their souls to the boundless sky, and then suddenly you feel the urge to masturbate and cry...


:pac:

Stiffler2

I'vs decided not to bother voting anymore because a) it won't make a difference and b) they're all just the same shower of b@stards anyway who want to take our money. There's just no diversity.

laugh

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

???????????

Rant detector reads positive.

Look at the previous occupations of our politicians.