Is democracy still the best form of government?

[Pwent]

a constitutional republic

 

[Organic Damage]

That is an interesting concept, and exactly why I started this thread. I've never thought of such a thing.

So it sounds like we agree that a benevolent dictatorship is the way to go, but since no human is capable of being incorruptable, then we need skynet to be that dictator.


I have to say though, corruption is only one fault with communism. Let's say skynet does distribute all resources equally, but we still have the problem of motivating humans to work hard and achieve great things. We know that there are a lot of people who would turn into the equivalent of the stereotypical lazy union worker under a communist rule.

I guess, but capitalism hasn't exactly eliminated lazy goldbrickers.

In fact, the efficiencies of mechanized industry are set to put increasing numbers of people out of work, to the point where many people are already forecasting a guaranteed basic income will be necessary.

Someday, laziness might be enshrined in law.

 

[Sir Galahad]

The liberals are trying to destroy what Democracy stands for in the US.

 

[Roca]

The liberals are trying to destroy what Democracy stands for in the US.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

The liberals are trying to destroy what Democracy stands for in the US.

That's the thing... we're not a Democracy.

So many media and political figures refer to the country as a Democracy, and since we have Presidential elections it enforces this illusion. But even then, the Presidential elections aren't based on a popular vote - but the electoral college.

We're a Constitutional Representative Republic.

Within our states, we elect our representatives by popular vote. They are democracies, but not the country as a whole. We elect our federal representatives, Senators/Congressmen to (supposedly) represent the best interests of the people of their state, and they swear to honor the constitution.

Not attacking you @clint, just clarifying your point.

And yes, liberalism is the cancer that infects free societies and eventually kills them.

 

[Sir Galahad]

That's the thing... we're not a Democracy.

So many media and political figures refer to the country as a Democracy, and since we have Presidential elections it enforces this illusion. But even then, the Presidential elections aren't based on a popular vote - but the electoral college.

We're a Constitutional Representative Republic.

Within our states, we elect our representatives by popular vote. They are democracies, but not the country as a whole. We elect our federal representatives, Senators/Congressmen to (supposedly) represent the best interests of the people of their state, and they swear to honor the constitution.

Not attacking you @clint, just clarifying your point.

And yes, liberalism is the cancer that infects free societies and eventually kills them.

I get your point. Can't seem to have any type of logical conversation with liberal Democrats. The attack from the left is just baseless nonsense.

 

[Exi]

The short answer is that is 'No' democracy is not the best form of government. The next form of government will be.

There is a global phenomenon that is just beginning to emerge now of people that are actively looking for a superior way of governance. It will happen, and it is happening. Evolution is inevitable. Between our globalized world and technological advancements, we are at the dawn of a new age of political Renaissance. Unfortunately there is going to be allot of blood spilled getting there. Per the norm.

 

[Exi]

I get your point. Can't seem to have any type of logical conversation with liberal Democrats. The attack from the left is just baseless nonsense.

Both "sides" are broken. It's a typical result of a political mechanism that is in its dying days. Many different empires and civilizations rise and fall, but the similarity's of political decay always remains the same. History repeats. Future generations will build in new fail safes to prevent these predictable occurrences from happening.

 

[Burning Hammer]

The short answer is that is 'No' democracy is not the best form of government. The next form of government will be.

There is a global phenomenon that is just beginning to emerge now of people that are actively looking for a superior way of governance. It will happen, and it is happening. Evolution is inevitable. Between our globalized world and technological advancements, we are at the dawn of a new age of political Renaissance. Unfortunately there is going to be allot of blood spilled getting there. Per the norm.

Yeah, except Globalization would require a system where someone or something is above all else. It's almost like we've had this system fuck up time and time again before.

 

[Lanx]

democracy is majority rule, you're either on the side of at least 50.1% or on the losing side.

if a classroom of 21, 10boys and 10girls, and 1(other) were to split apart, the group that can convince the 1(other)/Trans to join them, controls the room, and the other half will sulk in misery.

 

[Exi]

Yeah, except Globalization would require a system where someone or something is above all else.

Not necessarily.

 

[Exi]

democracy is majority rule, you're either on the side of at least 50.1% or on the losing side.

if a classroom of 21, 10boys and 10girls, and 1(other) were to split apart, the group that can convince the 1(other)/Trans to join them, controls the room, and the other half will sulk in misery.

Not if we force them all to become trans-gendered.

Liberal utopia.<DrakeLaugh>

 

[Lanx]

Not if we force them all to become trans-gendered.

Liberal utopia.<DrakeLaugh>

how about a crazy white boy wants to be Korean?

 

[BisexualMMA]

They have existed for a relatively short period of time (a few hundred years), but I wouldn't say that they've caused a great deal of problems by themselves. Some, yes. But others have been problems that have been caused by forces that are irrelevant to the system's construct. Take the environment, for example. We have a real issue on our hands with carbon emissions, but that isn't the fault of capitalism. It's not like socialist economies DON'T produce hydrocarbon emissions, so is the problem capitalism? And we have only just begun to understand our environmental impact. The people of the Industrial Revolution did not understand such things, nor did the cattle farmers of the era (cow farts are the actual largest source of methane emissions on the planet). So is capitalism really the problem, or is it scientific ignorance?

It will be interesting to see if democracies can respond swiftly and strongly enough to these environmental challenges. Can you make decisions with short-term harm by economic indicators in order to save the environment and stay in office? Will voters actually vote for a candidate that will address these matters, or will they always put it off another four years until it is too late?

 

[Exi]

how about a crazy white boy wants to be Korean?

Bwahahahha!....Hey, I'm support of people doing stupid things for my entertainment. Freedom for all I say...do it for the lulz.

BTW...I would bang that cauc-asian.<7>

 

[guard_passer]

Well, it would be hard to top a benevolent dictatorship with an altruistic genius at the helm, but since it's impossible to guarantee such an individual, it's generally best to avoid that system.

you're so edgy

 

[sub_thug]

It will be interesting to see if democracies can respond swiftly and strongly enough to these environmental challenges. Can you make decisions with short-term harm by economic indicators in order to save the environment and stay in office? Will voters actually vote for a candidate that will address these matters, or will they always put it off another four years until it is too late?

Critical to a democracy is an educated voting bloc. That seems to be one area where we are lacking... I think a prudent electorate would try and make strides in this area though. Our lack of focus on environmental concerns is one of the major problems with a two-party system. I will use myself as an example. I believe in a strong defense budget and a few other tenets of a conservative platform, so I tend to vote Republican. However, my party has a section within it that seems to abhor the science of climate change for no good reason. So when in power, they do virtually nothing about it. To make my issue come to the forefront, I would have to accept all of the things that come along with the Democratic platform. I cannot manage to stomach that, so I have to align myself with a group of people that I don't agree with. It's a rather frustrating problem.

 

[Exi]

you're so edgy

Shut your shithole @guard_passer . Stop picking fights you can't win, with members that out rank you by every metric, or are you looking to get banned again?

(was that edgy enough for you attention whore?)

Also...Vasyl Lomachenko is a soon to be tomato can, and future wash out jobber. You will see. He has a the heart, will and jaw of a Ukrainian Pysanka egg, and he will crack.

 

[guard_passer]

Shut your shithole @guard_passer . Stop picking fights you can't win, with members that out rank you by every metric, or are you looking to get banned again?

(was that edgy enough for you attention whore?)

Also...Vasyl Lomachenko is a soon to be tomato can, and future wash out jobber. You will see. He has a the heart, jaw and will of a Ukrainian Pysanka egg, and he will crack.

damn, ur mad

 

[BisexualMMA]

you're so edgy

What other than the most simplistic reply would have avoided this label?