Supporters of American Democracy, defend yourselves.

It is true that must of the protections in the Bill or Rights against the power of the federal government have now been extended to protection against the power of state and local governments as well. This has been a slow process (in 1833 the supreme court denied that the bill of rights protected individuals from the power of the states), the fourteenth amendment was passed after the civil war and the extension of the protections of the bill of rights has taken place slowly over the subsequent 100 yrs. Some provisions of the Bill of Rights still have not been determined to apply to states. In any event my point is that individual liberties have been slowly undermined at both the federal and the state level by ever larger, more powerful, more extensive government and this process has been aided by both "conservative and liberal" judges. The overall general trend is difficult to deny.

Well even the current conservatives on the court are more than happy to defer to executive power in the name of national security, allow the taking of private property under eminent domain to be turned over to another private party for the public good, and most doubt that any right to privacy exists. They may be conservatives limiting government power in your view but not mine. In any event the clear course over the last 250 years has been a federal government of ever increasing size, scope and powers quite beyond the intentions of the original constitution.

What makes every legal adult with U.S. citizenship qualified to choose the leaders of the most powerful country in the world? If they are not qualified, then why do they have a right to choose who the most powerful people in the world are?

I'm waiting for benevolent aliens to arrive. A good dictator is better than a bad democracy. To change that song about cowboys a bit: "Where have all the good dictators gone?"

A constitution monarchy is also fine. I think the rule of law is more important than the rule of the mob, but only if I like the laws. The Bill of Rights was a swell idea, seems to me.

Democratic government - NOT democracy - is neccessary for individual liberty, though it is by no means sufficient.

I think this discussion would be better carried on without the use of words like "stupid," and without claims that the political system of anyone's country is "retarded."

If you wish we can use other good words such as stupid, moronic, idiotic, unintelligent, ...

From Wiki, because this thread is silly. (And I'm a lazy American)

The occupation was so quickly accomplished that most Danes got out of bed without realizing that their country had already been occupied. To the rest of the world these events seemed perplexing, almost as if Denmark's Social Democratic government had sided with Germany, and indeed Denmark had a pro-Nazi government until 1943.

"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark."

What in the hell does this have to do with anything? If there's any reason this thread is silly it's because of side tangents about 'no dood denmark iz wai bettr than us' and 'nauh amerikuh kicks azz'. Get back on topic people.

From Wiki, because this thread is silly. (And I'm a lazy American)

The occupation was so quickly accomplished that most Danes got out of bed without realizing that their country had already been occupied. To the rest of the world these events seemed perplexing, almost as if Denmark's Social Democratic government had sided with Germany, and indeed Denmark had a pro-Nazi government until 1943.

"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark."

Look at your thread title, man.

Sure, plenty of us Americans are ready to play dictator. Sure, we don't mind the voting rights of the "unqualified" being stripped because we are absolutely certain that no one would dream of stripping our voting rights.

After all, we spend time on a philosophy forum. Everyone knows that philosophers are eminently practical and politically sophisticated. Look at Marx! What a genius! Or Berty Russell, who urged us toward World Peace on Tuesday and nuking the Soviets on Wednesday. I'm sure you'll be sought out for philosophical insight in the abstract world of politics, where theory is everything and experience nothing. (Yes, sarcasm.)

Keep your thread. I'm done with amateur politics that takes itself seriously, and defending the obvious virtues of America against the obvious criticisms. Politics is the zone of discourse where most of us are going to sound like fools. Do we study the world in its concrete details? No, we float idle questions on philosophy forums. Add ignore. I did.

The Nazi occupation of Denmark unfolded in a unique manner. The conditions of occupation started off very leniently (although the authorities banned Danmarks Kommunistiske Parti (the Communist party) when the Wehrmacht invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941), and Denmark retained its own government. The new coalition government tried to protect the population from Nazi rule through compromise. The Germans allowed the Folketing to remain in session, the police remained under Danish control, and the German authorities stayed one step removed from the population. However, the Nazi demands eventually became intolerable for the Danish government, so in 1943 it resigned and Germany assumed full control of Denmark. After that point, an armed resistance movement grew against the occupying forces. Toward the end of the war, Denmark grew increasingly difficult for Germany to control, but the country remained under occupation until the end of the war in May 1945.
Denmark succeeded in smuggling most of its Jewish population to Sweden in 1943 when the Nazis threatened deportation; see Rescue of the Danish Jews.


From Wikipedia.



Hmmm. Hardly fits in with your description of Denmark's relation to the Nazis. I think that King Christian wore a yellow star to symbolize his solidarity with the Jews of Denmark. And most of the Danish Jews were rescued by the Danish people. Denmark has a shining record during the Nazi occupation, so far as I can determine. It was the only country to have done so.

What in the hell does this have to do with anything? If there's any reason this thread is silly it's because of side tangents about 'no dood denmark iz wai bettr than us' and 'nauh amerikuh kicks azz'. Get back on topic people.

It appears that the thread may have run aground. Perhaps you could put it back on track by summarizing, in light of the discussion so far, what your questions are, and why you think that meritocracy is superior to other forms of government (or at least why it's superior to democracy). With all of the back-and-forth in the posts, I've had a difficult time following precisely what your position is.

In order for your view to be plausible, it's also necessary for you to give some basis for believing that such a system might be feasible in the real world (unless, contrary to your earlier statements, you intend this to be a theoretical discussion of what an ideal state should look like). With all due respect, the brief remarks so far about civil service examinations fall woefully short. If you haven't done so already, maybe you can identify a currently existing state, or one that has existed in the past, that embodies the kind of meritocracy you're advocating. If so, it could help focus the discussion.

If you haven't done so already, maybe you can identify a currently existing state, or one that has existed in the past, that embodies the kind of meritocracy you're advocating. If so, it could help focus the discussion.

No new forms of government would ever have gotten established if people always required instances where such a type of government had existed successfully in the past. I only have brought up what an ideal, non democratic, non despotic government would be like to appease claims for a better alternative to the representative democratic government of the United States. Certainly such a government as I have described in no great detail ought to be implemented in my opinion.

Anyways, here is the problem with representative democracy, as laid out by myself.

If those who choose the leaders are not themselves qualified to choose the leaders, then unqualified people will make ill informed and potentially(nearly certainly) wrong decisions about who the leaders ought to be and any choosing of the actual leader, since it he/she is not being judged on the correct criterion, would be entirely accidental. It is clearly the case that a government ought to have governors who are qualified to govern, so why leave it to the hands of those unqualified to judge a good governor? I have asked for a justification or sufficient explanation of representative democracies in particular the one of the United States, since it gives the 'right to vote' to all of its citizens over 18 who haven't gravely offended society in some way or another. The aim of this thread is either to find a valid justification or to likewise thoroughly debunk all possible justifications and leave the farce of U.S. style representative democracy bare.

Hmmm. Hardly fits in with your description of Denmark's relation to the Nazis. I think that King Christian wore a yellow star to symbolize his solidarity with the Jews of Denmark. And most of the Danish Jews were rescued by the Danish people. Denmark has a shining record during the Nazi occupation, so far as I can determine. It was the only country to have done so.

c) That our current system is terrible, a farce, and not meritocratic enough
d) That disenfranchising a majority of the population would not have hugely negative effects.
e) A vague kind of meritocracy would work great, it's easy to pick out who the experts are and any difficult people could be weeded out

Ugh, "what system of government is best" is such a terribly complex question that I can't get up the energy to debate it with someone who considers the answer obvious.

I take this as a concession that a meritocratic state (as you understand "meritocracy") has never existed in any significant degree. A clear yes or no on this point would be helpful. Such a concession isn't fatal to your view, but it's a big problem, and I think it's important to acknowledge it squarely.

I realize that you have already been asked earlier in this thread how you would determine who is and isn't qualified to choose political leaders. But so far, I think the answers have been very vague. In any case, humor me and explain again in non-question-begging terms: what is the criterion (or what are the criteria) that must be met in order to be deemed qualified to pick leaders?

"what system of government is best" is such a terribly complex question that I can't get up the energy to debate it with someone who considers the answer obvious.