The Contest

[Dante]

This topic is My Imperialist Monarchy vs Emprworm's Democratic Republic. It has been debated, and you are all now welcome to comment, as we have finished the Contest proper. Debate free!

Phase 1, the Induction:

Democracy has proven time and time again that it cannot function as efficiently as an autocratic society. A parliment/senate of some form or another is just a glorified committe (spelling) and look what good they do! A council cannot make decisions because people disagree. That's why it takes months for laws to be passed and decisions to be made. With a King/Queen/Emperor/you get the idea, decisions are instant, or at least if they aren't they are undisputable. Autocratic power is the only means by which to achieve efficiancy.

Your turn :)

[emprworm]

First of all, thank you DustScout, for the privelegde and honor of this debate. I hope that others in the forum will have the respect that you have asked of them and allow this thread to be uncouthed from external posts.

I read your opening statment. I will now present mine:

Given the nature of human beings, a democratic republic, with all its flaws is the most superior form of government that can exist. It is not as efficient as an autocratic system, however I argue that efficiency is not an appropriate standard upon which to judge the quality of a society. Getting things done fast does not equate to a better world. I believe that ideally, the best government of all is a monarchy under a just and perfectly fair ruler who utilizes power only for the perfect happiness, peace, and contentment of his people. Yet history has shown us time and time again that the nature of a human being prevents such a ruler to ever exist. Historical examples of autocratic rules have a unilateral tendency to oppress people, therefore making such a system ideally perfect, but realisticly inept. Power given to humans results in abuse, lust, corruption. Yet at the same time it takes a great amount of power to run a society. SO what do we do? On one hand power is a corrupting force, on the other hand it is required in order for a society to have order. Therefore, the best system that we have, in which we know can actually exist given the nature of human beings, is a democratic rebulic- where power is not focused on a single individual or autocratic center, but dispersed among the people so that no man has inherently any more power than another. The people may choose to grant power to others through elections- but this does not mean an elected official has inherent power greater than someone else. This is society voluntarily allowing someone to have limited power over them for a limited time.

[Dante]

Excellent, this is going well. I'm very pleased you accepted this.

Perhaps efficiancy is not the most deciding factor for governments. However; With a democratic system of fairly distributed power throughout the people, there is a common fault. Human nature, as you said, makes fair governemt for an autocracy close to impossible, and this works for democracy as well. Democracy being the left of the political spectrum, sooner or later it becomes communism. Communism is an idealist's government, as it is perfect on paper but in reality cannot work because the position of power that the one voted into it recieves is so easily abused.

The far right, on the other hand, with it's autocratic dictators, cannot be abused as it is already unfair. With power concentrated in an aristocratic élite it is protected from even worse abuse. To clarify; An elitist society will always abuse power to achieve their own ends together. An abused democratic society will abuse power in the interests of singular people, as none of them trust each other. They cannot work together as they are all equal, but with a heirachy, there is a level of trust as all the nobles are in the same boat.

Thus, democracy is more open to abuse than any other system of government, and when abused the effects are far worse than in an autocratic one.

[emprworm]

please allow me sufficient break time to formulate my response to your well written reply. I will think about it and respond tonight. I want to avoid doing to you what people have accused me of....i want to consider every point you make. I will respond tonight or tomorrow. i am hoping we can take our time with this debate.

[Dante]

Naturally. I am not able to continue tonight either, it's late, and my parents will soon tell me to pack it in. And we can hardly debate properly with that going on can we?

Take as much time as you want.

(Within reason ;) )

[emprworm]

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

I TYPED MY REPLY AND THEN THE FORM CLEARED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

man i spent a long time on it too. ARGH!

>:( >:( :-[

i dont feel like retyping it right now. i'll have to do it again later. oh man that sucked bad.

u notice that if you type a post and click submit, and get an "htm error" then click your back button....YOUR POST IS EMPTY! argh, i hate that.

[Dante]

Right, I found this on page two (understandably, thank you all who are not Emprworm for not replying, I really appreciate it) and so I'm just bumping it up to make it easier to find for Emprworm and I.

[emprworm]

Greetings, Dustscout. Please accept my apologies for the delayed response. THis will be the second time I have to type this after my most unfortunate incident. This time, I am typing it in notepad so I wont lose it.

Let me begin with my first rebuttal to your response to my opening statement.

I am glad we have agreed upon efficiency not being the most important standard upon which to judge a society. But I do not know if we agree on what the most importand standard is. I believe the most important standard in which to judge a society is the happiness/contentment of its people. When we measure a society, we must take in to account all people that inhabit it, giving all voices equal credence (not just the political leaders or upper class, if they exist, but the lower classes as well, if they exist.). We both agree that human nature has an inherent lust for power, and we both agree that power is a corrupting force on humans (this is what I gathered from your post, correct me if I am wrong).

However, I agree with you that pure democracy has a tendency towards communism, but not a democratic republic. Let me now quote from The Communist Manifesto-

<quote>

"Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes...

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance...

5. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

....When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character.

Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another.

-Karl The Mannifesto of the Communist Party, Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels

</quote>

As we see above, the first and foremost mark of communism is the abolishment of private property. Furthermore, as we also read from Marx that in order to implement this full power must go from the people to the state and then once "class distinctions have disappeared the public power" will be dispersed.

A pure democratic society puts all power ultimately dispersed among its populace.

In this scenario right and wrong are defined by the people. Inherent rights do not exist, because laws may be enacted that can strip humans of inherent rights. There is no absolute moral law that exists above society, the only right and wrongs in this society are defined by the state through the people. Since right and wrong are simply decided upon by the whims of the majority, such a state will be in a flux of moral chaos and vulnerable to immense evil (known as "tyrrany of the majority" or "mob rule") In this context, to avoid moral chaos, any democracy will be subject to inevitable moral decay and have a tendency towards communism (to rescue the collapsing society, people volunteer to give power to the state).

But I do not think a pure democracy is an ideal society. I am not arguing for pure democracy. I am arguing for a democratic republic. In a republic, all citizens are given inherent rights . These are rights not assigned by the state. Moral law supercedes the state law. By virtue of being a human being, all citizens have certain inalienable rights that no court or "popular vote" can take away. (example: even if 99% of the population votes that "slavery of blacks" is legal, it will still be illegal. This is in contrast to a pure democracy). In order for this society to evolve into communism, the power must leave the hands of the populace and be given fully to the state temporarily, which requires a morally relativistic model. I contend that this could not happen in a democratic republic where moral law is absolute, not relative. Inherent rights are impervios to human abuse of power. A right that human power cannot touch, is a wonderful right indeed!!

In an autocratic society, this problem is seen in its full extreme. RIght and wrong for all citizens belong soley in the hands on one man. Inherent rights do not exist. Personal liberty does not exist. Independence does not exist. When the inherent rights of a human being have been stripped, this represents a very grave situation indeed. Any government that exists where its citizens lack inherent rights will always be inferior to one that doesn't. In a pure democracy, inherent rights do not exist. THis society ultimately is just as bad as an autotratic one. In a democratic republic, all citizens have inherent rights, and this will always be superior to an autocratic society where full power is given to one human.

Logged Logged

[Dante]

Good idea, I'm doing it too now, just in case.

Let me see If I can surmise what you say, correct me If I am incorrect :) .

That the best society obeys a set of rules inherant to human decency, or instinct for compassion. This society cannot be altered as the rules cannot be altered. Yes?

You also state that different people have different meanings for what makes a government desirable. You state that efficiency is not this variable, but the contentment of the people.

Perhaps not efficiancy, but contentment is difficult to obtain and even harder to keep. For the sake of argument ( ;D ) we shall say that your society has been reached in country A. However, in country B it has not. The people are opressed and frightened. The people in country A do not like this but according to their moral code they should not interfere as it is none of their business. On the other hand, it also tells them to help the masses as all people are people. Herein lies the rub. Country A, if following perfectly it's code, would have no army, and no ability to interfere. If it did, for some reason, have a military, it would have ceased to be perfect as the very nature of the military is autocratic. Even worse, the very presence of Country B is upsetting the civilians in A. Thus the people are not happy.

People are whiny, complaining, snivelling ants. It doesn't matter how hard you try, they are always going to be unhappy. Whether it is the threat/moral dilemma of a country like B or something else like a flood or a murder that upsets them. The very nature of our lives revolves around death of people by accident, design or natual causes. We see the world and are depressed by what we see.

If, however, you managed to get everyone happy, no country B, no floods, free houses, etc. They'd STILL not be happy because they'd be bored. And you can't keep everyone happy anyway, farmers and tourists have different attitudes to rain, for example.

Here is the answer; If you can't keep everyone happy, don't bother trying. It's just a waste of effort. And if you can't help other people, help yourself. If you can't make a million people happy you might as well make one person happy.

Happiness of the people and efficiancy of the country are both matters to consider but they both pale beside one other. Survival. Everything comes down to survival. Country A's morale will plummet even with free chocolate and wine on Wednesdays, if their survival is threatened by B. What good are happy people if soon they will be dead people? People can die, the masses are masses, it's no big loss. Even the leader can die, another will replace him/her. But the country MUST SURVIVE. If the country does not survive then the people's happiness is even more immaterial than before.

In summary; Why bother keeping everyone happy? It's a lost cause. Concentrate on yourself. If helping people makes you happy then you'll always be miserable because so are they. And happiness is forfeit to survival. If a country must adopt another form of government it has not survived. The nation must endure. That is paramount to everything but one thing. The happiness of it's leader.

[emprworm]

Greetings, Dustscout. You have been a worthy opponent thus far. In tradition with formal debates, I propose that after my response, each of us make 1 more rebuttal, and then closing statements.

Dustscout, you very successfully argued with excellent logic why a pure Democracy should not interferre with the affairs of an external country. But I do not argue for a pure democracy. I am representing a democratic republic. Inherent human rights are not given to someone by their society. By virtue of being a human being, you possess certain unalterable rights. The ultimate function of human government is not to grant rights, but to protect them. Thus, the inferiority of a pure democracy or an autocratic government where humans have no rights except those given to them by the state...which could be anything or none at all. In a soceity where human rights supercede human government, moral code not only grants, but it requires to liberate all peoples on earth whom these fundamental rights are being oppressed. A human being who is in chains tilling someone's crops while his children are sold at auction is such an example. In a pure, morally relativist democracy, it is fully possible that such a scene could be legal...and not just legal, but morally "right." Not the case in a republic, where such a scene would be morally wrong... anywhere on earth . It IS the job of a democratic republic to do whatever it can to secure the inherent rights that all humans are granted by virtue of being human. The right to live....the right to freedom of belief...the right to pursue happiness. When these rights are infringed upon by either an individual (committing crime) or an entire government (committing enslavement and oppression), a democratic republic should do whatever it can to liberate those people from their state of oppression. It is my position that no human is happy being a slave.

In regards to your second point: people are never happy, I agree with this to an extent. The job of government is not to ensure people are happy with their lives...as it is that people are happy with their government. In most cases people who are "unhappy" in a democratic state are indeed very happy with the freedoms they possess. Someone who says "I am so unhappy"...if asked the question "are you happy that your government gives you the freedom to believe/disbelieve in God?" they will respond "yes." People who express unhappiness if asked the question "are you happy that your government gives you the freedom to express your unhappiness?" will answer yes. But as you say there will always be some not happy with their government under any circumstances...but there will be many that will. We KNOW that no human government can make all its citizens happy. Why? Simply because no human government is perfect. Therefore the best human government possible is the one which results in the maximum amount of happy people....(since we know it wont be everyone). Due to the corrupting force of power, I contend that there will always be a greater number of happy citizens in a state where they have inherent rights that cannot be taken away vs. a state where they have no rights and must live in servitude and submission to a single human entity. If the happiness of one is all that matters, and the happiness of everyone else is expendable, then the "one" who has such a view has been fully corrupted and represents an evil force that must not have power over someone else...at any cost.

[Dante]

So that's this post, one of yours, and then a finishing argument from both, yes? Right.

Very well, you argue that a democratic republic would obey a moral code of ethics that are inherant to all; e.g Freedom of belief and freedom to pursue happiness.

BUT

People who, when asked if they are happy with their freedom to believe/disbelive in God would reply "Yes." Could very well go on to say "But I wish that the government would give people in occupation a pay rise." We now come back to the point about people. It doesn't matter what kind of governemt they have, they all want to be happy. Republics in the past (I think of the Weimar) have been destroyed by their own inhabitants. To clarify, a man who is happy with his rights (the moral code) is also unhappy with his wages. There are two governments to choose from in the vote, one which will advocate peace and freedom for all, the other will give people in his profession a pay increase that he could retire on in a year; provided that all children under the age of six work in a mine. The man's children are all over six.

Human nature, no matter what morals, states "Look after number one." The man would think "Hmm, well, it's a shame but I want the money." And he would vote for the one which gives him the money.

The weimar fell to Hitler because (among other reasons certainly) he promised them better times. No matter how good their life was, if people were happy with their rights, they voted for him because the last governemt had the misfortune to hit an economic plunge. He we have the point.

What if this democratic republic suffered a crisis? A volcano, a flood, an economic depression? Then the government, no matter how good, would be voted (VOTED) out even though they had no control of the incident. People are like that. The thought being "We had a plague under that government so I'm voting for this other one even though it'll put my neighbour's children down a mine."

In an autocratic society this cannot happen. No matter how unhappy the people are, they can't do anything about it, and they know it, so they just get on with their miserable lives.

Also, a person who only looks afer themself may not be evil. They may simply be ecotistic, or stupid. Perhaps they want to care for everyone but have seen the futility of it. More likely though, they have been corrupted by the pleasures of power. Dune has a reference to this somewhere. Something about power not corrupting but attracting the corruptable. Only the people who don't want power should be given it as they are the only ones who wouldn't be corrupted.

Another problem. In a democratic republic, the 'head' person must willingly campaign for power (notice it's still called power, even though there's very little actual power in it?). Therefore they desire it. Whether to make things better for themselves or others is immaterial, they desire it, and are therefore corruptable or corrupt already. Therefore ANYONE in power is corrupt.

How to avoid this? Give power to someone who doesn't want it. But this is an abuse of their rights by forcing them to do something (governa nation) which they do not want to do. It is a dilemma which cannot be solved. The only option is to use a form of government that functions regardless of the will of the people. That way there is no confusion, no grey area, just a rule that cannot be broken.

Your statement, and then a closing one, yes?

This has been really good, shall we have another one afterwards? You can choose the topic if you want.

[emprworm]

Well dustscout, I am in agreement with much of what you said. Human nature, at its core, says "Look out for number 1". Yes indeed. And this is the very argument why an Autocratic system is inferior to a democratic one. The autocrat, like all humans, will be no different. He will be "looking out for number 1". His people will be "number 2"...if even that.

Meanwhile the people under an autocratic system will resist it because their ability to "look after number 1" will be at odds with the dictator. Thus the definition of oppression. I believe history shows us that humans naturally resist dictatorships. people want to have the freedom to "look after number 1", and that freedom is impaired in an autocratic government. In an autocratic government, the people come second, the dictator comes first. Coupled with absolute power, (which is a corrupting force), the inevitable result is a plunge into evil and oppression.

IN a democratic republic, evil and oppression is a POSSIBLE result (as you point out), but not an inevitable one. Thus, making it the better form of government.

[Dante]

Very true, and very good logic.

By the way, thank you whoever removed the two errant posts. :)

Now, in my finishing speech... ;)

You say that a Democratic Republic can be corrupted, but it is not inevitable. And that an autocratic society is always corrupt. Perhaps. But what's wrong with corruption? Corruption can last for centuries. And it is strong.

Look at the old Empires; the Roman, Greek, Austro-Hungarian, Russian, British, Persian, Ottoman, Egyptian... In their prime they were strong empires, powerful and rich. They controled vast areas of land, had billions of citizens, and those who fell, fell only to another Empire or to the weakness of democracy spreading through their inards.

Egyptian and Greek, fell to Roman.

Roman, rotted from democracy and over-stretching.

Austro-Hungarian and Russian, pretty much fell to each other.

Ottoman... I'd better not say, I might upset some people.

Persian, Fell to Greek and Egyptian (in part) which both fell to Roman.

British, Once the biggest of the lot. Rotted from within, democracy again. The freedom of Austrailia, India, bits of Africa, America.

If people under an autocratic society are unhappy then they should be crushed, not pandered to. That is showing weakness and weakness kills an autocracy. Look what happened to the British Empire! It starts to give land back and before you know it in less than a century we are reduced to saying that we proudly govern... the channel islands.

Autocracies may be corrupt and only seek to make the leader/s and élite happy but so what? They are powerful, rich, centuries-spanning nations. And they last. What good is a democratic republic that will fall in two hundred years time? Could a puny, ineffective, pathetic little Britain of today ever stand against the old British Empire? Never.

Democracy may make it's inhabitants happy (which we have discussed before, they won't be), but it is short-lived, pathetic and weak form of society. It may be open to corruption but so what? A corrupt leader is to be welcomed if he/she will preserve the nation to live and fight again! Someone who will oppress people and make their lives a living hell may bring vast trade gains, military conquests, and riches to the nation (although not to the plebs, naturally). Misery for the masses is a small price to pay for a great nation.

You say that this is a

plunge into evil and corruption

Forgive me for being so blunt but, so what? Corruption has been dealt with above and evil, well, that depends on a number of factors. A large one is if you care. In other words, "So what?"

And you also say

humans naturally resist dictatorships

But resistance is, in a very very real sense, futile. What good will resistance of the workers do if the soldiers all come round to shoot the invalids, the old and young, and then tell the people fit enough to get back to work? If an autocratic nation keeps to (autocratic) military under it's control, generally easy by making the military part of the élite, then no matter how much the workers resist, it won't do any good. And while they suffer and die, the nation prospers.

It's not a perfect system, there's no such thing. But it isn't weak, it isn't corruptable (as it is already corrupt from the beginning), it is efficiant, and the benifits far outweigh the very slight losses.

Right, your closing argument. And then maybe we can open the thread to other's opinions? Or lock it to preserve purity ( ;D ) ? What do you think?

While we're at it, another match perhaps?

[emprworm]

Mr. Dustscout, this has been an elightening debate. Here is what I learned from this debate, thanks to the skill of your debating: morally relativistic democracies have a tendency towards communism. Your arguments caused me to think about this, with my eventual agreement. I hope perhaps maybe you learned something as well.

If my closing arguments, I will comment on the concept of corruption. As you just stated, "But what's wrong with corruption?" seemed to imply that corruption itself is not an undesirable state for government. The problem with this is that the whole notion of "autocratic is better than democratic" requires a concept of corruption. Without corruption being defined as "undesirable" there is nothing left to use to say that "autocratic government is better than a democratic one" since that very statement itself requires an understanding of corruption as an undesirable state of being.

Corruption at its very simplistic meaning can be described as "chaotically deviant" or "decay". It is something that is deviant from something else in a chaotic and/or undesirable state so that it becomes "less than" its ideal state. Where there are humans, there will be deviance (i.e. corruption). Corruption is always less than the ideal, and the only way to determine the best of any human system is to ask "which system has a lesser propensity towards corruption?" and that system, in my opinion, is always the system that grants the least amount of power to any individual human being, thus a democratic republic.

Thank you, DustScout, for this debate. You are a worthy opponent, and you argued your case well.

My verdict for this contest is: TIE

[Dante]

Ahh, you've got the idea that I pondered. If corruption isn't a bad thing, there is no 'better' as there is no standard. And yes, I have learned somethig from your efforts. That there can be a distinction between forms of democracy. That not everything is as it seems. That's the important stuff anyway.

Yet I have not changed my mind, and you have not changed yours. I never expected this thread to emerge as anything other than a drew really :) . It's not possible.

Still, it's over now. As I said above, shall we open the thread to further discussion? Or shall I lock it to preserve it?

Well done, worthy opponent.

[emprworm]

naaa, keep it open in case others want to comment. modify your first post to state "comments are now accepted" or something like that so mods don't delete comments from this point on.

:D

[Dante]

OK EVERYONE! COMMENT ALL YOU LIKE! THE CONTEST IS NOW OPEN TO ALL!

But please stay to the original subject. ;)

[Dante]

Sorry to post twice in a row, but I wanted to bring the thread to attention.

Specifically, Edric O! Could you please tell me what you think here? It'll be rather one-sided if you're still ignoring Emprworm but that's up to you. Either way, I'd like to know what you, and all the rest of you think, please.

I'd have IM'ed this to you Edric, but your Inbox was full. :-

[ken124578]

Alright, onw that i can post in this thread, what was it all about? ??? i'm too lazy to read everything :P

[emprworm]

Alright, onw that i can post in this thread, what was it all about? ??? i'm too lazy to read everything :P

well if you are too lazy to read everything, i'm too lazy to type for you a summary :D

[ken124578]

Well, i tried to read every #1 line in this topic and it seems to me that it's a contest of: "who's the most polite person, emprworm or dust scout?" :P

[Warlord Ripskar]

Democracy in the modern sence is dependant upon communications technology. Without a secure and reliable means of communication a country is forced to rely upon local rulers. In a Monarchy this creates the Nobility. The Monarch is forced to act through the Nobility and must maintain good relations with them.

Thus there is an element of accountability built into the system and outright oppression is not possible.

As communications improve so power becomes more centralised and the Monarch can exert more direct authority over the population. At this point oppression can occur.

Democracy becomes practicably possible due to the existance of improved communications, You cannot enforce the will of the people without the ability to know what the will of the people is.

The idea of democracy naturally follows the devlopment of the printing press, the Penny Black Stamp, the development of wireless communications, and the Telephone.

The requirement of having these forms of communication is the means to use them.

It is no good being able to send a letter if you are illiterate.

Thus education must be provided for the people if they are to express their will.

This is why Democracy has failed in the developing world. You don't have the communications technology available to support a democracy or the education of the masses required to use the technology.

Without that such countries inevitably fall to Millitary Dictators.

This can be demonstrated on this forum.

Of all the people who post here how many come from the developed world compared to the developing world.

People in shanty towns do not communicate with the world at large.

They cannot express their will thus democracy whilst a fine idea is not right for their circumstances.

Hereditary Monarchy is the best alternative to Dictatorship which is far more terrible.

Once democracy forms it rapidly degenerates into party politics which acts to suppress and cheat the will of the people thus you are no better off in a Democracy than in a Monarchy. To mitigate against the downsides of these systems a hybrid form of government has merits. This is composed of both democratic and hereditary elements so whilst it is the role of the democratic elements to interpret the will of the people so it is the role of the hereditary elements who do not rely on party affiliations for their power to provide a counter balence. In order for this to work effectivly the 2 groups must be well balenced in terms of power and 1 must not attempt to usurp the authority of the other.

[Dante]

Well, i tried to read every #1 line in this topic and it seems to me that it's a contest of: "who's the most polite person, emprworm or dust scout?" :P

That's because we don't spend our valuable time insulting each other :P .

And it's very true that a Monarchy (Or an Empire) is desirable compared to military dictatorship. But I've already put my points across above so... come on everyone! POST! PLEASE! Here I am just about saying "Stuff human rights" and nobody is disagreeing! What, do you prefer arguing with each other to me?!

[emprworm]

it seems to me that it's a contest of: "who's the most polite person, emprworm or dust scout?" :P

a refreshing change in this forum, don't you think?

[Dante]

Yes. But this topic doesn't seem to be interesting anyone so I'll just leave it to fall into the mists of time now... :'(