Does Democracy Work?

[Haich]

 

[rainerann]

I think people seem very confused about what democracy is. Democracy is basically the right to vote. Therefore, democracy can only be demonstrated within a small, local area.

People saying they are democratic, or representing democratic ideas, and acting totalitarian, do not reflect whether democracy works or doesn't work.

I have lived within a democracy since before 9/11. There are very good things that can be accomplished when people are able to be involved in the decisions that affect their own community.

But, the vote is a key feature of the concept of democracy. Where there is no vote, there is no actual demonstration of a democratic process even if people say that this is what they represent in order to give the impression that they are doing a good thing by bringing democracy to the world because they are wolves in sheep's clothing.

It is like trying to sell the idea that what they are doing is bringing the American dream to other places in the world because a lot of people want to come to America. You aren't going to try to tell people you are going to help bring communism or a Saudi form of government. You are going to pretend to represent something people would actually want.

Anyways, there is a difference between a bully saying he is democratic and a democratic government that most of the people in this thread do not seem to be able to distinguish. The thread is supposed to be about whether democracy works as a form of government. If you haven't lived in a democratic government, I don't really think you can say whether it does work one way or the other.

The rest of you have barely been voting age long enough to really understand the democratic process from experience.

As a result, there is more presumption that you know something that you don't really understand, than actually knowing something that would allow you to answer the question of whether or not democracy works.

Democracy does work. Voting has been a beneficial feature of the country known as America since its foundation.

 

[rainerann]

I don't know if you think this makes you look cool, but posting these things demonstrates that you have no idea how to answer the question for the thread you created.

It doesn't even seem like you understand what a democracy is, but I doubt you have been able to vote for very long either. Maybe, try to study the history of the voting process in the US if you are going to try to create a thread like this instead of posting memes that do not describe a democratic form of government in any way, shape, or form.

This just has nothing to do with the question of whether a democracy works or not. Democracy basically means being able to vote. What does this meme have to do with whether a vote creates a better form of government than a monarchy? The meme seems to demonstrate a monarchy because I can guarantee you as an American, I have never voted on anything suggested in the meme. Therefore, it has nothing to do with democracy.

I think people might know that if they weren't so quick to think they had all the wisdom in the world before the age of 30.

 

[Etagloc]

I don't know if you think this makes you look cool, but posting these things demonstrates that you have no idea how to answer the question for the thread you created.

It doesn't even seem like you understand what a democracy is, but I doubt you have been able to vote for very long either. Maybe, try to study the history of the voting process in the US if you are going to try to create a thread like this instead of posting memes that do not describe a democratic form of government in any way, shape, or form.

This just has nothing to do with the question of whether a democracy works or not. Democracy basically means being able to vote. What does this meme have to do with whether a vote creates a better form of government than a monarchy? The meme seems to demonstrate a monarchy because I can guarantee you as an American, I have never voted on anything suggested in the meme. Therefore, it has nothing to do with democracy.

I think people might know that if they weren't so quick to think they had all the wisdom in the world before the age of 30.

Calm down. It's just a list of facts. And you're not even looking at it in terms of the context in which it was posted.

 

[rainerann]

I call BS on that.
Drinking a beer on the way home from work doesn't harm society. Growing a plant doesn't harm society. A felon voting doesn't harm society. Someone collecting rainwater doesn't harm society. Someone owning an automatic rifle doesn't harm society. Polygamy doesn't harm society. Paying for sex doesn't harm society. Selling produce/game meat/lemonade on the corner doesn't harm society. Are more examples needed?

I would like to modify the notion that you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm society a little bit in relation to what you have said because in a democracy we can vote about anything we want.

If I'm not mistaken, most of the laws regarding automatic rifles were decided through a vote. Most of the marijuana laws have been changed over the last 10 years through a vote and in many places, you can grow marijuana. There have been propositions to modify laws about prostitution as well. We could vote on polygamy, but I'm going to vote no because I do think it harms society.

We could also vote about much of the crap that corporations try to create to prevent small businesses from being competitive through creating petitions in most states. However, all states should have the right to petition for a proposition to be put on a ballot to vote on this.

If at some point, every one of these points is voted on by the community, I don't see the problem with it. Future generations also have the freedom to vote on the same things to make the community they live in the way they would like.

However, I do strongly feel that this should apply to a small, local area and that these votes should not affect the lives of every person in America on a federal level. People should have the right to move to a different location if they don't like something that was allowed through majority vote.

 

[rainerann]

Calm down. It's just a list of facts. And you're not even looking at it in terms of the context in which it was posted.

No, it has nothing to do with whether or not a democracy works. That is just a fact. Democracy is defined by the right to vote. Where there is no vote, there is no demonstration of democracy. Then, what you posted is just a random thought that has nothing to do with anything other than gaining social points, which was the only context in which it was posted.

 

[KoncreteMind]

America has a false sense of democracy (more like republic but the two have become interchangeable for whatever reason). Nobody voted for the Patriot act to be passed. Nobody voted for Trump to lift bans on military weapons for the police. Nobody voted on whether or not we should go to war. Most people allegedly voted for Hilary, but Trump won. I think in the Gore vs Bush election, Gore won the popular vote but again, Bush won (correct me if Im wrong). And even if we ignored that, how did most of the presidents that were voted in a "free democracy" end up being related?

Man cannot rule over man, but of course man believes he is the Most High so they'll try and as we can see, they'll fail...

 

[rainerann]

America has a false sense of democracy (more like republic but the two have become interchangeable for whatever reason). Nobody voted for the Patriot act to be passed. Nobody voted for Trump to lift bans on military weapons for the police. Nobody voted on whether or not we should go to war. Most people allegedly voted for Hilary, but Trump won. I think in the Gore vs Bush election, Gore won the popular vote but again, Bush won (correct me if Im wrong). And even if we ignored that, how did most of the presidents that were voted in a "free democracy" end up being related?

Man cannot rule over man, but of course man believes he is the Most High so they'll try and as we can see, they'll fail...

Something like the Patriot act should have been vote on. This is why 9/11 happened according to most people who think that it was an inside job, because it gave the impression that this created a legitimate reason to implement the Patriot Act as quickly as possible. Therefore, because of the "threat of terrrorism," there was no time to vote.

So it isn't really an illustration demonstrating that democracy does not work. It only demonstrates that severe measures are needed to overide the process of voting and this proves that democracy is actually a rather strong form of government that is difficult to control by a totalitarian force.

So I would say that a democratic form of government does work and it is a shame that some people have been ruining a good thing with their own selfish greed.

 

[KoncreteMind]

You indicated that the reason why many of the non-Western countries are doing terribly is because of the west, which isn't nearly the case to the degree many people say and in most cases is just victim mentality and inability to take responsibility for your own situation. That also applies to individuals in the Western world who fall into the minority category. I've had many of these debates over the last few years and in most cases my opponents fall into that category: people with victim mentality who like to blame all their problems on others and usually that evil perpetrator is the white man (sometimes men of all colors, sometimes also white women). So I'm simply asking are you one of those people so I'll know to just move on because this conversation won't go anywhere. I'm personally one of these white men who happens to be a business owner and as you can imagine not well accepted among one of these groups.

Theres two sides to the coin you're talking about. People who blame the west for everything, and those who pretend the west has no culpability in anything. Are you on one of these sides or in the middle? Its really not about "whites" persay as it is about the bankers who do not consider themselves as one in the same as the average "white". If a country doesnt bend to the wishes of the bankers, the bankers use the countries they rule out of (i.e. the West) to handle them. Libya is the greatest example of that...

Ghaddafi was giving out homes to people,cheap to free healthcare, and gave the country its OWN private bank unlike the privately owned bank most countries have. And for that, his country was bombed. So yea, alot of the countries that are doing bad, are doing bad because of the west. Which doesnt mean theres no blame to go to said countries, because the leaders are usually sell out puppets. But the buck starts and stops (usually) with the west.

 

[KoncreteMind]

Something like the Patriot act should have been vote on. This is why 9/11 happened according to most people who think that it was an inside job, because it gave the impression that this created a legitimate reason to implement the Patriot Act as quickly as possible. Therefore, because of the "threat of terrrorism," there was no time to vote.

So it isn't really an illustration demonstrating that democracy does not work. It only demonstrates that severe measures are needed to overide the process of voting and this proves that democracy is actually a rather strong form of government that is difficult to control by a totalitarian force.

So I would say that a democratic form of government does work and it is a shame that some people have been ruining a good thing with their own selfish greed.

What would you say are three things that voting has directly accomplished? Because once I see that somehow the popular vote can be given to one person, yet the other person wins, that shows that are votes do not matter or at least not as much as we're led to believe. Or if true, the belief that most of our presidents are related... How does this happen in a free democracy?

I think America is more of a republic than anything else. But its hard to separate the two definition wise.

 

[Etagloc]

No, it has nothing to do with whether or not a democracy works. That is just a fact. Democracy is defined by the right to vote. Where there is no vote, there is no demonstration of democracy. Then, what you posted is just a random thought that has nothing to do with anything other than gaining social points, which was the only context in which it was posted.

My post you quoted wasn't even talking about democracy. That's how far off from the point you are. I was responding to someone else on this thread and either you mistakenly or willfully just randomly took my post out of context. You can write all the arrogant, self-righteous paragraphs you want but you still haven't even grasped the point.

 

[rainerann]

What would you say are three things that voting has directly accomplished? Because once I see that somehow the popular vote can be given to one person, yet the other person wins, that shows that are votes do not matter or at least not as much as we're led to believe. Or if true, the belief that most of our presidents are related... How does this happen in a free democracy?

I think America is more of a republic than anything else. But its hard to separate the two definition wise.

I appreciate your question KM. However, all of my examples would be local so I won't be able to provide them for this discussion.

The reason the president wins even though he doesn't recieve the popular vote is unique to the office of the president. Nothing else. In application to previous elections, the electoral college is useful in preventing the east and west coast from picking the president every four years.

There is easily a large enough population between the two locations to choose the president every time and when you have a large population grouped together, their ideas start to meld and there isn't the same kind of diversity of opinions represented.

The electoral college has given other states the fair opportunity to choose the president. However, I don't know how this would change if we were to expand the number of parties to three or four.

Overall, if I could vote to remove the office of president altogether, I would. This was historically a questionable decision that the founders weren't completely sold on. As we can see more and more with each election, the president becomes more and more like a king every four years.

Although, you are right that America is more of a republic that applies a democratic process because in a republic form of government, the public is involved in the process and responsible for choosing their own representitives.

This is why this thread is so clearly derailed by definitions that do not apply to the concept of democracy at all. A democratic process is just basically a vote and many other institutions choose to adopt a democratic process. There are lectures that will explain it as a form of leadership for businesses and different organizations, not just government because it isn't really a form of government. It is just the opportunity to vote on a matter.

In America, we have been basically having this right taken away more and more. Overall, I don't think anyone pictures a voting process when we discuss the potential of a New World Order, and it would seem that TPTB are very engaged in trying to remove the right to vote from one of the only places in the world that uses it.

People keep showing these memes about the military presence of America and how this defines democracy when the actual history of military presence of America has always been forced on us.

Since 9/11, many people have noticed a trend that America joins a military effort whenever we are bombed, and we are usually bombed after we have opposed the idea of joining the war.

In world war 1, Americans did not want to go to war, then the Luisitana was bombed. We didn't want to join World War 2 and Pearl Harbor was bombed. We wouldn't have wanted to go to Iraq to dethrone Sadaam Hussein, which was a very weird response to 9/11 according to most people, but I am not trying to give a detailed history of war here. I am only pointing out how we are bombed every time we oppose joining a military effort.

So they bombed the World Trade Center for who knows how many reasons, but the reason that applies to the US is that we wouldn't have wanted to participate in a military effort otherwise.

Basically, what we need to do at this point is apply what the Declaration of Independence said, " But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

Either way, the presence of this phenomenon has nothing to do with whether or not democracy works as a process or not.

 

[rainerann]

My post you quoted wasn't even talking about democracy.

Exactly. Look we agree on something.

 

[Etagloc]

Exactly. Look we agree on something.

It was in response to someone else and was in response to something else being discussed.

You took it out of context.

 

[Aero]

Still like my idea of going back to a Monarchy. Because the right to vote has been usurped by power anyway. And that's not saying that we don't have some power, we do. Just not as much as the government, or even some corporations and people. We get a little taste of actual democracy, the rest is worse than a Monarchy. It's more like a military dictatorship.

Corporations have turned America into a toxic waste dump. And I'm not being cynical. Our elected officials were supposed to deal with the problem 30 years ago. And it's only gotten worse. So I ask where is our vote? or where was our vote. Because there is no way the actual population voted to let them dump the shit.

A king could clean all the shit up, and do it quickly. No red tape, no idealists shooting holes in the plan. Our version of democracy means people will oppose a good plan. It means nobody will get anything done until someone at the top starts kicking people in the head (military dictatorship)

 

[Etagloc]

As I've already said and as is already well-known- the US is not a democracy. This is just a well-known fact. The US is an oligarchy run by a cryptocracy.

 

[mecca]

Still like my idea of going back to a Monarchy.

No, it's not worth it.

 

[mecca]

A king could clean all the shit up, and do it quickly. No red tape, no idealists shooting holes in the plan. Our version of democracy means people will oppose a good plan. It means nobody will get anything done until someone at the top starts kicking people in the head (military dictatorship)

We can't go backwards to go forward.

 

[rainerann]

Still like my idea of going back to a Monarchy. Because the right to vote has been usurped by power anyway. And that's not saying that we don't have some power, we do. Just not as much as the government, or even some corporations and people. We get a little taste of actual democracy, the rest is worse than a Monarchy. It's more like a military dictatorship.

Corporations have turned America into a toxic waste dump. And I'm not being cynical. Our elected officials were supposed to deal with the problem 30 years ago. And it's only gotten worse. So I ask where is our vote? or where was our vote. Because there is no way the actual population voted to let them dump the shit.

A king could clean all the shit up, and do it quickly. No red tape, no idealists shooting holes in the plan. Our version of democracy means people will oppose a good plan. It means nobody will get anything done until someone at the top starts kicking people in the head (military dictatorship)

Well, I can sympathize with the suggestion that a king could clean things up; however, I disagree that requires reinstituting a monarchial system because once something like that is in place, you can't get rid of it.

A good leader could also clean things up. There are many good leaders that prove this would be possible. The problem is that the world has created wealth in such as way as has never existed before, and the greed that is created by this is killing all of our opportunities to find a good leader.

So leadership is a separate discussion from the subject of democracy. Democracy is just basically the opportunity to vote. Discussing what makes for a good leader, which is still required within a democracy, is a different subject.

However, all of these things are pieces that have to fit together in a way that would make a world free of oppression, greed, and the rest of the crap we are all suffering from at this point of history.

 

[KoncreteMind]

I appreciate your question KM. However, all of my examples would be local so I won't be able to provide them for this discussion.

Actually thats a good point that I didnt even think about. Democracy works moreso on a local level than with the big government we have today. I automatically thought about democracy on a national level

The reason the president wins even though he doesn't recieve the popular vote is unique to the office of the president. Nothing else. In application to previous elections, the electoral college is useful in preventing the east and west coast from picking the president every four years.

There is easily a large enough population between the two locations to choose the president every time and when you have a large population grouped together, their ideas start to meld and there isn't the same kind of diversity of opinions represented.

The electoral college has given other states the fair opportunity to choose the president. However, I don't know how this would change if we were to expand the number of parties to three or four.

Overall, if I could vote to remove the office of president altogether, I would. This was historically a questionable decision that the founders weren't completely sold on. As we can see more and more with each election, the president becomes more and more like a king every four years.

Although, you are right that America is more of a republic that applies a democratic process because in a republic form of government, the public is involved in the process and responsible for choosing their own representitives.

This is why this thread is so clearly derailed by definitions that do not apply to the concept of democracy at all. A democratic process is just basically a vote and many other institutions choose to adopt a democratic process. There are lectures that will explain it as a form of leadership for businesses and different organizations, not just government because it isn't really a form of government. It is just the opportunity to vote on a matter.

In America, we have been basically having this right taken away more and more. Overall, I don't think anyone pictures a voting process when we discuss the potential of a New World Order, and it would seem that TPTB are very engaged in trying to remove the right to vote from one of the only places in the world that uses it.

People keep showing these memes about the military presence of America and how this defines democracy when the actual history of military presence of America has always been forced on us.

Since 9/11, many people have noticed a trend that America joins a military effort whenever we are bombed, and we are usually bombed after we have opposed the idea of joining the war.

In world war 1, Americans did not want to go to war, then the Luisitana was bombed. We didn't want to join World War 2 and Pearl Harbor was bombed. We wouldn't have wanted to go to Iraq to dethrone Sadaam Hussein, which was a very weird response to 9/11 according to most people, but I am not trying to give a detailed history of war here. I am only pointing out how we are bombed every time we oppose joining a military effort.

So they bombed the World Trade Center for who knows how many reasons, but the reason that applies to the US is that we wouldn't have wanted to participate in a military effort otherwise.

Basically, what we need to do at this point is apply what the Declaration of Independence said, " But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

Either way, the presence of this phenomenon has nothing to do with whether or not democracy works as a process or not.

What do we have to show it works though on a national level though? We have the ability to vote that we agree on but is democracy that simple? I mean if I gave you the opportunity to vote between Hitler and Kim Jong Un, is that really a "democracy" since I provided you with both options? I see America like this since the presidents are seemingly mostly related. I mean what are the chances that in a free democracy, in one race, both presidents came from the same fraternity at or around the same time(Kerry vs Bush)?

Idk about the Lusitania, but with Pearl Harbor and 9/11 they had advance notice in both situations. Yet of course they let it happen, to get the pretense they needed to go to war which shows the amount of control that is at play imo. Locally in small amounts, democracy works. But on a national level, I cant see how it has worked in America or anywhere really. It seems we vote, and they do what they want anyways. I'd say moreso than a vote, politicians support the people who lobby them into office.