Supporters of American Democracy, defend yourselves.

@amist,

Maybe once this line of questioning has come to an end and the 'there's nothing better' argument is soundly defeated we can move on to your rigorous defense of democracy.

0 Replies

@amist,

Personally I would choose to live in America over any other existing form of government and over any historical form of government that I know of. Lots of people would like to immigrate to American but only a few leave voluntarily for other countries.
Theoretically superior forms of government are just that theory and speculation.
People would rather suffer under a government of their choosing than live better under a government that is imposed (go figure?).

1 Reply

@amist,

What in the hell are you trying to say?

0 Replies

@prothero,

prothero;127741 wrote:

Personally I would choose to live in America over any other existing form of government and over any historical form of government that I know of. Lots of people would like to immigrate to American but only a few leave voluntarily for other countries.
Theoretically superior forms of government are just that theory and speculation.
People would rather suffer under a government of their choosing than live better under a government that is imposed (go figure?).

Stupid (another occasion to use the word in this thread) and irrelevant post is just that.

1 Reply

@amist,

There are many arguments for democracy. You could argue that it forces the government to take into account the needs of the people (a kind of "no democratic government with a free press has ever had a famine" argument). You could say that when people vote they become invested in the country and in the system of government (a kind of "the true patriot, upon receipt of a valid parking ticket, rejoices that the system works" argument).

Arguments against have been put forward in this thread too. You could say that it leads to people being elected who are good at being elected rather than good at governing. That once the people find that they have the keys to the treasury they will treat themselves. That since there are so many people individuals are not very invested in the system.

But amist, you don't seem all that curious. You give of the impression that you are here with an axe to grind, with all the complaining about people not talking about what you wanted to talk about. Presenting your own case as obvious and the others as obviously false doesn't help.

0 Replies

@Emil,

Emil;127747 wrote:

Stupid (another occasion to use the word in this thread) and irrelevant post is just that.

At least my statement has the merit of being an argument of sorts (even if poorly constructed, poorly presented, or irrevelant) and not a personal attack of any sort. Your statement on the other hand smacks of pure opinion and was surely both irrelevant and unnecessary.

0 Replies

@amist,

Quote:

it forces the government to take into account the needs of the people

It also forces the government to take into account the whims and flights of fancy of the people.

Quote:

You could say that when people vote they become invested in the country and in the system of government

Why is this a good thing? On the one hand being invested in the country is positive, however it is absurd to say that everyone should exercise some power over the government. Clearly the vast majority of the people won't be qualified for reasons I have gone over ad nauseum.

Quote:

with all the complaining about people not talking about what you wanted to talk about.

yeah, I totally have an axe to grind because I want people to stay on topic!

Quote:

Presenting your own case as obvious and the others as obviously false doesn't help.

I'm frankly confused whether I should be insulted or astounded by this one. On one hand, I should be insulted because what you're insinuating is that I've just started this thread and said nothing but 'DUR I'MRIGHTANDURWRONG' the entire time, which is clearly very insulting. But on the other hand, it is quite, to use your phrase, obviously what I have not done. I have addressed most valid points in as much detail as they required at the time and given as much clarification as I felt necessary when asked for it. I just got done posting what would probably come out to two and a half god damned pages double spaced in response to another post. See, this is where I'm just astounded by either

a. how little you've been paying attention to this thread, yet insist on commenting anyways

or

b. how stupid you are, since you have interpreted all of my post as simply claiming that I am right and others are wrong.

But this is getting tangential. Have any better arguments in favor of democracy?

---------- Post added 02-13-2010 at 12:25 AM ----------

prothero;127750 wrote:

At least my statement has the merit of being an argument of sorts (even if poorly constructed, poorly presented, or irrevelant) and not a personal attack of any sort. Your statement on the other hand smacks of pure opinion and was surely both irrelevant and unnecessary.

Why did you post it if you admit it was poorly constructed? Anyways, this thread has nothing to do with how preferable the United States is to other forms of government in the world. Why should every schmuck who isn't a violent criminal get to decide who the people running your state are? You clearly can't argue 'because they're qualified to do so'. If you can, I'd love to hear this argument articulated. So, what is your defense of this system of choosing the leaders of this nation? Perhaps one stronger than 'other countries suck more'.

0 Replies

@amist,

Well, I am being off topic here amist. I am talking about the best way to do this kind of philosophical argument. You are doing it wrong. Emil is too.

You are interested in democracy etc? Then the best way is to read (at the SEP for example which has a nice summary), and ask and discuss with people to understand why they believe in it. That is the way to go, if you are genuinely curious and interested.

0 Replies

@amist,

Look, I've been asking people to explain their position. Sound reasonable? Sure. They've been giving me explanations, justifications, whatever. And I've been giving counter arguments to arguments which I have deemed invalid. What is so stupid about that?

1 Reply

@amist,

amist;127757 wrote:

Look, I've been asking people to explain their position. Sound reasonable? Sure. They've been giving me explanations, justifications, whatever. And I've been giving counter arguments to arguments which I have deemed invalid. What is so stupid about that?

You will get more input from them if you make them want to talk about it. In my experience, you get far less useful info when you approach the issue in a combative way. There's a lot of pointless bickering in this thread, yeah?

Democracy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

This has arguments for and against if you haven't read it already.

0 Replies

@amist,

Debate is intellectual combat. I'm here to debate not to make friends, and inane arguments make my patience run thin. If I'm too rough for you then you don't have to participate.

2 Replies

@amist,

amist;127760 wrote:

Debate is intellectual combat. I'm here to debate not to make friends, and inane arguments make my patience run thin. If I'm too rough for you then you don't have to participate.

Intellectual exchange is fun.
Intellectual honesty is admirable.
Intellectual arrogance is insufferable.

0 Replies

@amist,

amist;127760 wrote:

Debate is intellectual combat. I'm here to debate not to make friends, and inane arguments make my patience run thin. If I'm too rough for you then you don't have to participate.

So your goal is debate. But this is not a debate forum, it is a philosophy forum. We come here because we are interested and curious. Debate is useful as far as it helps us discover the truth or at least refine the question in a useful way. If that isn't antagonistic enough for you then you don't have to participate.

0 Replies

@amist,

Within philosophy are contained arguments. An argument versus another argument is for all intents and purposes a debate. I get irritated when, during the course of philosophical discourse or debate or whatever you want to call it, people keep bringing up points that have been refuted, or to which counter arguments have been made, without the counterarguments or refutations even having been mentioned. That's not proper philosophical discourse or debate or whatever you want to call it, that's just wasting peoples time, and stuff like that irritates me. I'm not going to live forever, get to the points, make them as good as you can. That's all I want. If the best of your ability is rehashing random points that have standing, as of yet unaddressed counterarguments against them, then don't be surprised when I get irritated with you. Shall we get back to the topic?

0 Replies

@amist,

Insty;127576 wrote:

lol, I saw the post and I wasn't pretending that it didn't exist. I deliberately refrained from responding because I thought you didn't want to discuss those issues anymore and instead wanted to focus on the "INTENDED TOPIC OF DISCUSSION" (about which, I confess, I'm still confused). Anyhow, I would be more than happy to reply. It may take me awhile to trudge through your post, but I assure you that I'll get to it before too long.

I feel obligated to tell you that, after reading through your post again, I've decided not to respond to it. It was clear to me that I wouldn't be able to say anything that would be helpful to you.

0 Replies

@amist,

Quote:

...after reading through your post again, I've decided not to respond to it. It was clear to me that I wouldn't be able to say anything that would be helpful to you.

What do you mean by you wouldn't be able to say anything helpful? If I've made an error, please point it out. If you'd like to make a concession, please make it.

1 Reply

@amist,

amist;127771 wrote:

What do you mean by you wouldn't be able to say anything helpful? If I've made an error, please point it out. If you'd like to make a concession, please make it.

I don't have any concessions to make. You have made errors, but that's not really why my comments won't be helpful to you. The problem is a familiar one. Your attempts to explain your position reveal that you are operating on the basis of theoretical assumptions and principles that are entirely alien to me (e.g., doing away with the "atomic" family). I suspected as much, and this is part of the reason that I pressed you to explain your view more fully in the first place. It has become clear to me that any argument I might make concerning democracy and meritocracy would require you to seriously rethink some of your basic assumptions and principles. I don't get the impression that you're prepared to undertake that task at this time. Which is understandable enough. If you ever do change your view about these things, I reckon that it will be because you've outgrown them, not because you have been argued out of them.

For awhile as I was reading through your post, I thought that I might be able to offer you some useful advice about your rhetorical style, quite apart from the substance of your arguments. But I now doubt that too.

So I am happy to stand down and wish you well in thinking about these issues.

0 Replies

@amist,

As a matter of fact, the way I came to my current views concerning government was my being argued out of them. I used to be of the popular persuasion with regard to government, that is pragmatism and liberal democratism, however when confronted with certain arguments I eventually found them far more convincing than my best efforts to defend my previous position, and at that point I came to the position that I am today on them. I feel to point out that your post is far from clear about what sense you mean certain words. You make frequent use of the word 'assumptions' when I myself never stated any, so I wonder what you are referring to when you say this.

Quote:

any argument I might make concerning democracy and meritocracy would require you to seriously rethink some of your basic assumptions and principles.

O Arrogance! O Irony! You accuse me of being closed minded and pig headed in so many words and yet the only reason any argument on this issue cannot proceed any further is because I am the one who would need to rethink some of my 'basic assumptions and principles'.

Quote:

If you ever do change your view about these things, I reckon that it will be because you've outgrown* them, not because you have been argued out of them.

On top of all of this, the only possible way I can ever come round to a different position than the one I currently hold is by outgrowing it! O wise one! O mature one! Teach me your ways! Nonsense!

How long have you known it would be hopeless to not respond to any of my counter arguments against your position? Why didn't you tell me so sooner, so that I would not have had to restate them again and again in ever growing detail?! I am at a loss for words at your audacity sir. I myself am about to give up on any hope of your input providing anything useful to this thread. So, at the risk of getting cited for flaming, I am happy for you to stand down and wish you well in not wasting my time in the future.

*Italicization added by myself for emphasis

0 Replies

@amist,

An argument that has been offered in support of democracy is that it is representative of the people (this only applies to representative democracy then). I have a friend who is interested in politics, member of a local political group etc. and that is usually the best she can do. I don't think she ever seriously considered the issue of whether democracy is a good governing form. The argument is not very good as the crucial premise "it is good that the governing form is representative of the people" is not one that a meritocrat would accept. The premise is question begging.

I have so far not seen anyone try to defend it. I imagine the following defense: It is good because that if the governing body is disconnected from the people, then the people will feel that they are without influence. Further, that people feel that they are without influence will make them depressed/unhappy (maybe even try to establish a causation here based on historical evidence from non-democratic governing forms in the past and the present).

First, I'm not so sure that there really is a causal link between the two, but there may be.

Second, let's accept for the sake of argument that there is a such causal link. Now, how strong is it? How much depressed/unhappy will the population be if we introduced a more meritocratic governing body? The answer is rightly unknown to me and maybe also to all other people. Further more, is it not possible to change people's views about whether being in power is a good thing? Before the widespread introduction of democracy around Europa, it was perhaps not an uncommon view. If it was not, then perhaps it could be changed back. Further again, studies have shown that people are very good at having stable happiness levels even though they are heavily influenced by outside factors. Even a large increase in money is known not to cause any serious long term happiness. So even though the population may be initially unhappy about the governing form change, they will probably normalize their happiness levels in time. Link to study.

Third, it is unclear how much attention the governing body ought to pay to its people's well-fare. Maybe it is fine that the people feel unhappy. This last defense doesn't seem very good to me.

0 Replies

@amist,

Never mind. Withdrawn.

0 Replies

Supporters of American Democracy, defend yourselves.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know