Is Democracy the real way to go?

Forums: Philosophy, Democracy, Government
Email this Topic • Print this Page

What is Democracy? it is a government in which we all make sure our opinion counts. how ever, what is it really? in a democracy a majority will always win out. in a democracy, a minority never wins. in a democracy, two sides can become opposed over a matter to the point of violence. is this the way to go?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 2 • Views: 5,602 • Replies: 84

No top replies

The United States constitution attempts (and often succeeds) to protect the people from the tyranny of the minority, and the tyranny of the majority. For example, the Senate and the Electoral College serve to protect against majoritarian tyranny. The power of the purse strings in the House of Representatives serves to protect against minoritarian tyranny. Even within the Senate, the powers are balanced. Two thirds of the Senate must approve treaties--but executive appointments are subject to a simple majority.

Whether or not a democracy inevitably entails a conflict of interests between groups, the success of a democracy will always depend upon how powers are distributed within the government.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

in our congress. what about electing a president? wars have already been fought over that...

1 Reply

@hamilton,

There are many ways democracy can play out. In Norway it often plays out in such a way that we have close to 5 million dictators all policing eachother.

0 Replies

@hamilton,

Wars? One, at a stretch, could allege that the South started a war after Lincoln was elected. But that's a stretch, and i suggest that you're indulging hyperbole.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

well, wars sounds better than war. but still, if democracy were a worldwide government, then wars would be a definate affect, resulting in two world governments, at least.

1 Reply

@hamilton,

I don't swallow statements from authority--maybe you could explain why you claim that would be true.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

if two sides believe strongly in different oppinions, and there it is a world changing idea, then there will definately be conflict.
simple as that. in the world there are enough crazy people to set off a spark that could begin a wildfire.

2 Replies

@hamilton,

Note your own use of "if" and "could." You haven't made your case. Nor is any of this wool-gathering pertinent to a discussion of whether or not democracy is "the real way to go."

1 Reply

@hamilton,

"The true test of democracy is not whether the majority rules, but whether the minority is tolerated."

0 Replies

By the way, if you don't think that democracy is "the right way to go," what to you propose rather than democracy?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Make someone with downs syndrome the president?

0 Replies

Imagine a democracy in which everyone was highly educated (and I don't just mean trained for technical jobs). Wonderful! But without high levels of education democracys fall grotesquely short of their potential. Obviously. Nevertheless there's nothing better.
The problem is not which kind of political system should we promote; the problem is how can we achieve universally high levels of education.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

I would say that higher levels of education all around is vital for a succesful democracy, but as long as this education is just another tool for a person to use to promote self interest, would we really have advanced in any way? Perhaps education of the heart is just as vital as education of the mind?

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

I cannot agree. Germany in the 1930s had both high levels of education, as well as large numbers of highly skilled technical workers. Hitler came to power because he was able to exploit the system which Bismarck had basically created for his own use when he constructed the German "democracy." The details of forms of governance matter, and matter without regard to the level of education of the people.

3 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Note your own use of "if" and "could." You haven't made your case. Nor is any of this wool-gathering pertinent to a discussion of whether or not democracy is "the real way to go."

i thought that this was supposed to answer a question, not to criticize my word choice. if you wanted to do that, then you ought to find something to do that suits those interests. also, you criticizing my word choice and not my views shows that you simply have no point to make to contest those views.

1 Reply

@hamilton,

hamilton wrote:

if two sides believe strongly in different oppinions, and there it is a world changing idea, then there will definately be conflict.
simple as that. in the world there are enough crazy people to set off a spark that could begin a wildfire.

and you are right, setanta, i should have said When two sides, and Would begin a wild fire.

1 Reply

@hamilton,

Your response couldn't be more delusional. I asked you to explain upon what basis you allege that a one world government would inevitably lead to war. But your response is prefaced with "if" and the most active verb in your response is "could." That's not criticizing your choice of words--it's pointing out that when asked to defend your thesis, you begin havering, you equivocate about the possibility of such an outcome when you earlier made it a statement from authority.

That is most definitely a criticism of your point of view, and you're just indulging fantasy now to attempt to avoid being obliged to defend what you've written.

0 Replies

@hamilton,

You still haven't established that conflict of the intensity of war is inevitable in such a situation. Neither have you established that such conflicting views are inevitable. Finally, your remarks are predicated upon some imagined "one world" government, which is a complete departure from the original proposition, and really, a non sequitur to the question of whether or not democracy is "the real way to go."

It seems to me that you're attempting to cobble together an argument to the effect that democracy is 'not the real way to go." That's why i asked you what type of government you would prefer to democracy--a question you haven't answered.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Germany in the 1930s had both high levels of education, as well as large numbers of highly skilled technical workers. Hitler came to power because he was able to exploit the system which Bismarck had basically created for his own use when he constructed the German "democracy." The details of forms of governance matter, and matter without regard to the level of education of the people.

After the 1932 election, the Nazi Party became the largest party in the German parliament because they won 37% of the vote with 63% of the vote being thinly spread among twenty other parties. I have often wondered whether this makes a "two party system" better than having multiple parties. The question that started this thread does not seem to take into account that there are a variety of models for democratic government.

1 Reply

Is Democracy the real way to go?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know