Democracy and the inferiority complex.

[TMA_1]

Democracy by itself, with no outside influences, is wonderful. It enables a population to control itself by the majority rule, and though there are flaws in it, it seems to have the least amount of flaws in any governmental system. It and monarchy in my opinion are the best systems of government, being equal in their diametrical opposition.

The flaws that democracy though are very large ones, and I have noticed that. It seems that democracy panders to those who have an inferiority complex. The screwtape letters talks about this. There are those who think "I am as good as you". They really dont believe taht though! if they did they wouldnt need to say it. These kinds of people, when grown into a majority by a decline of culture and civility, begin to take charge. This is possible because democracy teaches the rule of the majority. Once this happens, then the democracy panders to the lowest common denominator. The last straw is the public education system. This is the most dangerous aspect, as it teaches children to stay within a specific boundary. Those who would excell in liturature, science, theology, theatre, and other educated arts are no more in this perverted governmental system. They are held back with those who cannot advance like those who have the capability to do so. Eventually after some decades, the people of this democracy are so numb that they have absolutely no standards of excellence. The only people who do are high up elitists who have taken advantage of the stupidity of their people.

Though communist russia had an almost identical numbness in the common people, it was at least possible to achieve excellence if you really wanted it and had the ability. Scouts would go to the public schools and note those who had a natural genius, and they would have the ability to continue on with high education and perform for their government the best possible way. I respect that.

I just think that america is going down the direction I have mentioned. Though we are actually a republic, we hold many, many ideals of a democracy. It seems that lately we are catering more and more to people with an extreme inferiority complex.

[gryphon]

Democracy has also the downside that people who have no knowledge and more inportant no insight in certain things have the right to talk with equal right to vote about it.

Passing down the information of importance is impossible cause people who have other things to do dayly then follow evry new aspect of society. While when it comes up they will have the right to talkt about it equal righted. [ in other words, you can not keep track of new army technology, new phisical things and changes in forgeins governments, while you in a democracy do have the right to vote about it. People this way are voting about things they know nothing about. ]

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Democracy is indeed wonderful, but the problem is.

The ruling party abuses this to make the people believe that they are in might, but in the present days politicians abuses the ideology.

If you voted for anything that the 'politics' think it won't be profitable for them, they will ignore it.

They think that they can sweet talk people with the ideology.

Vote our comrades!

51% of the votes will win!!!!!!!

Later......

There are new rules, 80% of the votes will win.

80% wins...

They make a excuse or ignore the votes and make proganganda with: 80% actually voted no, so there will be no change! We winnnnnn!

[Acriku]

A bad situation with democracy would be a certain religion, or lack thereof, or race or whatever preference with an agenda holding the majority. Thus, they get whoever they want in power, consequently make their own country. Catering to the minority addresses this problem, and it's worked so far.

[gryphon]

@ Sardaukar-Kirov [ and Acriku I noticed ;) ]

There is no ruling party in democracy. With evry important "governmental" desission all the people of that democracy will have to vote again about it.

[ The "democracy" we have in The Netherlands as example is not a democracy as a true one should be. We have no right to vote about anything besides thevote to elect people who are going to do the ruling of the country on a day-to-day base. When was the last time you had to go to the voting boots to vote about a war in Iraq yes / no, or abandon the JSF yes or no ?. Those things are in the political programm of different parties, although in no remote way you are effecting it in a demorcatic vote ]

[TMA_1]

Catering to the minority leads to many problems, and makes those who are in the majority suffer, which is illogical. Concerning religion, if america worked correctly, it would all be fine. People could discuss religion whenever they wanted, whether they believe in a religion or not. Government workers or officials would not condone or hold back religion though, so that all can have a voice and that the government would stay non biased. Lately though there is an infringement on people speaking for or against religion. people mistake the seperation of church and state for free speech. For example some kids cant talk about their religion at school. That is against the freedom of speech though. They can talk about it anywhere they want on public grounds, just as long as say a teacher doesnt, or any governemnt worker. The government cannot favor or attack any religion, and by disallowing that you are taking away a fundimental right that people have. You should be able to say whatever you want as long as it doesnt do any harm, and as long as those who are in governmental position dont say things that favor or take down a side. Iwas told not to talk about religion when I was confronted with teh situation by another person. I explained though that I had a right to as I was not a government worker. I therefore was not speaking on behalf of the government and breaking the seperation of church and state. See what I mean?

Religion isnt the enemy, it is the government that is the enemy in these situations. Religion is just one expression that can create problems. Religion isnt the problem in society, it is how people use religion or any other agenda that creates problems.

"Democracy has also the downside that people who have no knowledge and more inportant no insight in certain things have the right to talk with equal right to vote about it.

Passing down the information of importance is impossible cause people who have other things to do dayly then follow evry new aspect of society. While when it comes up they will have the right to talkt about it equal righted. [ in other words, you can not keep track of new army technology, new phisical things and changes in forgeins governments, while you in a democracy do have the right to vote about it. People this way are voting about things they know nothing about. "

I totally agree gryphon, those are really wise words.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

@ Sardaukar-Kirov [ and Acriku I noticed ;) ]

There is no ruling party in democracy. With evry important "governmental" desission all the people of that democracy will have to vote again about it.

[ The "democracy" we have in The Netherlands as example is not a democracy as a true one should be. We have no right to vote about anything besides thevote to elect people who are going to do the ruling of the country on a day-to-day base. When was the last time you had to go to the voting boots to vote about a war in Iraq yes / no, or abandon the JSF yes or no ?. Those things are in the political programm of different parties, although in no remote way you are effecting it in a demorcatic vote ]

Ruling party? Sorry, there is a ruling party in democracy.

The president or premier, chairman, whatever you call it.

Anyways, people still abuse the democracy.

If we all voted no for war against Iraq, we still go at war with Iraq because "they" want it.

The voting most of the time is just optional, if you like it or not, the politicians still changes things against our favor.

And our democracy is more like a Fascist/Democracy hybrid.

"Parties" are trying to gain people and treat the people like objects, you MUST vote. And if you don't... well........

Anyways, I don't know what our ideology is, I and the people sure don't like it.

[Edric O]

Democracy has its problems, of course. After all, nothing is perfect. But a democratic system is ALWAYS better than a non-democratic one, because in a non-democratic system the government can do absolutely anything it wants, with no regard for the needs (or even the lives) of the people.

However, don't make the mistake of thinking that the current political systems in the western world are anywhere near a true democracy. The people don't actually have any real power over the government, other than a very limited choice of leaders once every few years. This semi-democratic system is best described in this quote:

"The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them."

- Karl Marx

In a real democracy, people could vote directly on laws and decisions, instead of electing politicians to vote in their place. Of course, there will still be some decisions that the general public can't vote on, because they require special knowledge. But the simple and straightforward decisions (like going to war in Iraq or not going to war in Iraq) should always be taken by the people themselves, not by useless and corrupt politicians.

[Acriku]

Since when does catering to the minority make the majority suffer? Did white people suffer when black people (the minority) were catered to? In a good way, yes. In your world, the minority has no voice. In the real world, the minority does have a voice, no matter who the majority is.

^^^^^^TMA^^^^^^^^

[Edric O]

Just a small note: Acriku, please make some indication of who you're talking to. I was really confused by your post at first, until I realized that you were talking to TMA...

[gryphon]

Ruling party? Sorry, there is a ruling party in democracy.

The president or premier, chairman, whatever you call it.

Anyways, people still abuse the democracy.

If we all voted no for war against Iraq, we still go at war with Iraq because "they" want it.

The voting most of the time is just optional, if you like it or not, the politicians still changes things against our favor.

on't like it.

The president or whatever is not a part of a democracy, it's like Edric O mentioned.

In a real democracy, people could vote directly on laws and decisions, instead of electing politicians to vote in their place.

The thing you mentioned is an addapted form of democracy.

Democracy has its problems, of course. After all, nothing is perfect. But a democratic system is ALWAYS better than a non-democratic one, because in a non-democratic system the government can do absolutely anything it wants, with no regard for the needs (or even the lives) of the people.

Sorry Edric O, but is always better ?

First of there might be a better way of country leadership besides democracy. And second, when something is not a democracy that doesn't mean that a totalitarian government is automatically in controle. ...

[Egeides]

How do you believe a democracy could be ameliorated? Should it have more control by the people or should it have some othermodification?

Also, EdricO, could you say me what Marx thaught of the one party system of USSR, and how he saw it? I did read some Marx and he was often sophistic, thus bringing his ideas to be half-truth because the bases (definitions) were from the beginning generalizations and such. Dp you think his system doens't work litterally because of this? Exemple: "Rich people are bad persons wanting to control poor ones." It's not always true even if it can be for some...

[Edric O]

gryphon:

First of there might be a better way of country leadership besides democracy.

Yes, but that would require a leader who is always fair and just, who always puts the good of his people above everything else, and who never makes any mistakes.

In other words, it would require a leader who is not human.

And second, when something is not a democracy that doesn't mean that a totalitarian government is automatically in controle...

No, but it means that the government can become totalitarian at any moment, and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

Egeides:

How do you believe a democracy could be ameliorated? Should it have more control by the people or should it have some othermodification?

More control by the people.

The people should have DIRECT control over nearly all decision making. In the case of decisions that require special knowledge, special councils made up of experts should be the ones in charge.

Also, EdricO, could you say me what Marx thaught of the one party system of USSR, and how he saw it? I did read some Marx and he was often sophistic, thus bringing his ideas to be half-truth because the bases (definitions) were from the beginning generalizations and such. Dp you think his system doens't work litterally because of this? Exemple: "Rich people are bad persons wanting to control poor ones." It's not always true even if it can be for some...

Karl Marx died in 1883... He never even heard of Stalin (who was at that time just a 4 year old boy living in his native village in Georgia). But seeing how Marx always despised oligarchies of any kind, he would have probably hated Stalin's guts and supported Trotsky in his fight against the stalinists.

And the reason why Marx's definitions might seem like generalisations to you is because they deal with society as a whole and with social classes as basic units, not with individual persons. For example, it doesn't matter that some individual rich people don't want to control and exploit poor people, as long as the rich class in general controls and exploits the poor class (the working class).

If you're going to analyze society, you need to look at the actions of entire masses of people as a whole. Otherwise, you miss the big picture.

[nemafakei]

A system of representative democracy which coexists with an economic system in which large amounts of capital can be accumulated is inevitably destined for corruption, since representatves can be easily bribed. Donations to parties, for example. Do businesses not sponsor Bush for $34,000,000? And are their interests not represented somewhat more under him than those of the general populace?

[TMA_1]

the jim crow days were not even an issue in the minority majority dilemma. Black people, as well as other races did not have the fundimental rights that they deserved. It was a fight for all americans to gain justice for all. So that all would have an equal say. The civil rights movement was not just for the minority, it supported all races and was made to correct fundimental problems in the government system. Now, groups like the naacp are so currupt, that they dont even make choices that help the black community. around 60 percent of the black population supports vouchers for example, and the naacp is staunchy against vouchers because of their own personal agenda. If any politician says anything about the naacp, they are black listed and looked upon as racist. This is a perfect example of how a minority group can cripple people in the majority. There is no true equality, because with true equality, both the minority and the majority would be equally supported. Also you are dealing with the minority of races compared to whites. Whites are turning into a minority in america (I personally think that is a great thing to level our society) so that you have seen many groups that dont represent interests of the various races, try to make choices for them! Edric said something true, that there is no true democracy in western civilization. If there was one, you wouldnt have special interest groups like the naacp, making choices for a community they really dont care about. My dad was a card carrying naacp member ever since the 60s, but left the membership in the late 80s. Groups like it are becoming currupt. Majority standards are kept in this society because we hold to a democratic republic, which supports the majority vote. is it always right? no, but it is how it works.

[gryphon]

In other words, it would require a leader who is not human.

I'm not suggesting in any way that that evry other form besides democracy should be an monocracy in any way. A group of leaders, or a monarg that changes evry X years. And yes, that to can fail, but evry form is subjectable to bad influances and change. . so is communism. . .one day some one mught read something about it and start a revolution. . but mistakenly interpreted one aspect wronfully [ knowingly or unknowingly ] . . sound familliar. ;) My point, just saying democracy is always better then any other form of government [ government is not the right term but you get my drift ] is not a realistic proclaiment.

No, but it means that the government can become totalitarian at any moment, and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

First you say it can become like that, and then there is nothing you can do to stop it. But it could become like it. . not it will become like it. . .

And secondly, evrything is subjective to that corrupting change.

[Caid Ivik]

As I've just came back, sorry for pointing only on the first post.

Democracy without influences. That is the biggest nonsense I've ever heard. Democracy is a choosing between multiple political alternatives of solving a social problem, i.e.governing. So if there will be everything same, what should we vote for? Anyway, it is as well impossible to restrict people to think. It is just...technically impossible.

[Tenzul]

Democracy will "never" work because people are naturally

materialistic, egoistic and immoral.Therefore they can't

get the power to decide in important things such as interruptions etc.

[Acriku]

Define 'work' Tenzul.

[Tenzul]

"Work" as satisfying peoples' lives as a form of government

and to keep by it's own rules.

People aren't naturally able to do that.

[Acriku]

Meant to add this, but what do you mean 'important things such as interruptions' and 'they can't get the power to decide'? It's just difficult to comprehend.