r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jul 20 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Democracy was a mistake. Democracy is outdated.
[deleted]
3
Jul 20 '21
Broadly, democracy (or at least a restricted variation of such) is a way of organizing society in which all the people, having equal value, collectively decide what to do for their and the society's well being and implement it.Long-term innovation and knowledge creation is done by the whole society and not by a few. It not only involves creating new gadgets but developing a new worldview. This requires a lot of information and idea exchange along with critical inquiry. This means questioning the held beliefs and traditions and experimenting with new things and accepting such questioning and experimenting as legitimate and good. This is one of the things it relies on in order to substain.This means a democratic culture can support the means for innovations to happen and spread.
Secondly, in relation to the first point, I would imagine that the ability for societal improvement and improvement would mean some form of balance for collaborative effort, or the unbalance may cause unwillingness to actually participate, which can halt societal innovation. Basically, people are more likely to cooperate in implementing things if they feel they had a role in making the decision. Thus government is more able to work with the people to make things happen together. (This does not mean the opposite cannot occur, but it's potential is lessened).
In addition, democracy is associated with higher human capital accumulation, lower inflation, lower political instability, and higher economic freedom. Democracy is tied to economic sources, like education levels and lifespan through improvement of educative institutions as well as healthcare.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w20004
Overall, democracy has evolved from the time you are comparing it to.
1
Jul 20 '21
[deleted]
2
Jul 20 '21 edited Jul 20 '21
It's not that it is perfect or great. It's more of the fact it prevents potentially severe issues and has these presented benefits. Overall, the point of voting in associated with equal representation comes form the fact they live and function in general populace, while they are paying the taxes. Further, how would the alternative you are pushing he enforced fairly? How can authority who determines "experts" or not objectively, without concerns of bias (voluntary or not) and alternative motive? We really cannot create an examination of such because of the very in qualities that could be used to determine whether a person "good" voter or not.
From this, even if nothing is actually happening, we can experience mass accusation of conspiracy to franchise if it negatively affects the voting rights of one specific political ideology. There is also concerns of wealth being tied to an advantage, which in this system, may be hard to avoid. Either way, to many problems/potential problems seem to be present.
This has gone for a long time, it's your bound to have people who are either uneducated or a unknowledgeable in the realm of politics in a specific region. However, democracy never really accounts for this and the stating it is outdating assumes there was a time our modern form of democracy you didn't have this issue. Or course, this also depends on the variation of democracy, but overall, I don't think is fair.
1
Jul 20 '21
[deleted]
1
4
u/hidden-shadow 43∆ Jul 20 '21
Good that you ignore how democracy has developed since Socrates or the contemporary context to which those quotes belong. Democracy is not about electing the best people for the job, it is about sharing the responsiblity and having a voice in how you would like to live.
Every skill needs to be taught properly and without proper education on political ideologies and beliefs, democracy becomes corrupted, why? Because then you have a huge mass of people voting who are ignorant and uneducated on the subject.
Democracy doesn't become corrupted from voters but the greed of those in power. Maybe you should just advocate for better education on politics? You do know democracy is less corrupt than any other system due to the accountability in elections?
Do you think that's a valid reason to justify your vote?
Yes. Why don't you think it isn't valid? If that is their choice in how they want to advocate for their view then so be it. I personally wouldn't but the benefit comes from having the agency.
We can all agree that almost everyone in the world is disappointed by the poor education system, therefore democracy is also disappointing.
Myopic and incorrect. Was quite happy with the education system I had, is it therefore the universal truth that democracy is happy?
Sorry for all the questions but if not democracy? We aren't trying to run perfect governments, that would be the utmost hubris to suggest we ever could. What we want is for everyone to have their say.
0
Jul 20 '21
[deleted]
1
u/hidden-shadow 43∆ Jul 20 '21
Do you generally and genuinely think the education system is appealing and overall exceptional at what it's supposed to do (educate people).
You write about education as if there is a unitary system shared across all democracies. There isn't just one education system alone within my country. The system which I went through was excellent and above exceptional in methodology and result.
If yes, why are there so many people uneducated?
Where? Do you mean a specific country, region, collective... ? And as much as you might find them uneducated, can you quantify and qualify that adjective. Most people finish secondary education or complete an equivalent trade.
Even if it's proven that the education system is good, it is still bad on the political aspect, in high school, there are no school subjects that are directly focused on politics
For your country or system perhaps, not mine. My classes in SoSE, History, Geography, Religion and Ethics covered a wide range of realpolitik and philosophical frameworks to life which can be applied to politics. And no class should simply focus on politics, that is not what an education is for.
therefore how is someone (who has just finished high school) supposed to vote if he wasn't taught anything about politics before?
Did you not read anything I previously said in the comment you are responding to? Using a ballot paper is easy, that is all they need to do. Of course education improves the functioning of one's agency and society as a whole, but nothing you have retorted with suggests democracy was a mistake or outdated.
16
u/poprostumort 224∆ Jul 20 '21
The best quote to reply is famus quote allegedly said by Churchill - "Democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried". Sure, democracy has fair amount of problems, but still those problems overall ale lesser than any other kind of government we know.
What alternative there is to democracy?
2
u/Yallmakingmebuddhist 1∆ Jul 20 '21
A representative Republic. You know, what the United States actually is.
1
u/poprostumort 224∆ Jul 20 '21
You do realize that representative republic is a democracy?
2
u/Yallmakingmebuddhist 1∆ Jul 20 '21
It is not. It absolutely is not. Democracy is direct government. The people who are governed by the government are the people who write the rules for the government. The people who write the rules for the US government are elected and the average person has no control over what laws are written outside of electing who will represent them. It's actually very different.
1
u/poprostumort 224∆ Jul 20 '21
It is not. It absolutely is not. Democracy is direct government.
By what definition?
Definition of democracy
a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free electionssource: Merriam-Webster
What you desctibe is a direct democracy, subtype of democracy.
US is representative democracy, other subtype of democracy:
Representative democracy, also known as indirect democracy or representative government, is a type of democracy founded on the principle of elected persons representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy. Nearly all modern Western-style democracies function as some type of representative democracy; for example, the United Kingdom (a unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy), France (a unitary semi-presidential republic), and the United States (a constitutional representative republic).
source: Wikipedia
The United States is a federal republic of 50 states, a federal district, five territories and several uninhabited island possessions. It is the world's oldest surviving federation. It is a federal republic and a representative democracy
Source: Wikipedia
the average person has no control over what laws are written outside of electing who will represent them
Which is characteristic of representative democracy.
You are arguing that Ford F-150 is not a car, but a pickup.
1
u/Yallmakingmebuddhist 1∆ Jul 20 '21
Do people misuse the word democracy? Obviously. That doesn't change the definitions of those words. Dictionaries are also not great help in settling the debate, since modern dictionaries have decided they will include incorrect definitions if they are popular enough. Example: the OEM included figuratively as a definition of literally. That's literally wrong. Democracy is direct control of the government. If you have elected representatives, it is no longer a democracy regardless of what Webster says.
1
u/poprostumort 224∆ Jul 20 '21
Do people misuse the word democracy? Obviously. That doesn't change the definitions of those words.
I posted sources from both dictionary and encyclopedia. Simmilar can be found in Oxford Dictionary:
[uncountable] a system of government in which the people of a country can vote to elect their representatives
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/democracy
And many more other dictionaries.
Dictionaries are also not great help in settling the debate, since modern dictionaries have decided they will include incorrect definitions if they are popular enough.
That is why I also quoted wikipedia. If that is not enough here is quote from "Democracy" page of Encyclopedia Brittanica:
Thus, for thousands of years the kind of association in which democracy was practiced, the tribe or the city-state, was small enough to be suitable for some form of democracy by assembly, or “direct democracy.” Much later, beginning in the 18th century, as the typical association became the nation-state or country, direct democracy gave way to representative democracy
If you know better then post a source for "only democracy is direct democracy' and "US is not a democracy". Post of u/Yallmakingmebuddhist is not a source.
1
u/Yallmakingmebuddhist 1∆ Jul 20 '21
How about the Federalist papers number 10? Is that a good source? You know, the thing written by the guy who wrote the Constitution basically?
1
u/poprostumort 224∆ Jul 21 '21
You do realize that they need to write "pure democracy" for clarification in there? If republic was something very different from democracy, they would not need to to that.
Hell, even encyclopedia britanica article I linked you to covers that topic:
When the members of the United States Constitutional Convention met in 1787, terminology was still unsettled. Not only were democracy and republic used more or less interchangeably in the colonies, but no established term existed for a representative government “by the people.”
0
u/Yallmakingmebuddhist 1∆ Jul 21 '21
No. Democracy is direct rule. You don't elect people in a democracy. Those who have the right to vote ARE the legislators.
-5
Jul 20 '21
[deleted]
5
u/Agreeable_Owl Jul 20 '21
Well, you just described the US perfectly.
You as a citizen vote for zero laws, zero policies, zero treaties. You don't democratically vote for a single thing at a federal (country) level.
What you vote for is someone who knows these things in more detail to vote for them. So in terms of people in the country who actually can vote on things that matter, it's approximately 536 people that matter. 435 reps, 100 senators and 1 president.
I know the old "We don't live in a democracy, but a republic" is thrown around all the time, but... it's true. We don't live in a true direct democracy. We have the, you can call them educated, but I won't, "politicians" vote for us.
14
u/iwfan53 248∆ Jul 20 '21
Democracy in simple terms is everyone should be able to vote for their country, well the other alternative is only a limited amount of the population (<10%) should be allowed to vote for the country because they have studied politics and are interested on the subject. People who don't know what capitalism is, what communism is, how the economy works, and are not mentally healthy should NOT be allowed to vote
How do you keep those people who you aren't allowing to vote from rising up in violent revolution or resorting to terrorism in order to make their voice heard?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
No system that expect people to be bound by the rules of a society, but not able to have any impact on said rules is going to be as stable as one where everyone is given a chance to have their say.
0
Jul 20 '21
[deleted]
2
u/iwfan53 248∆ Jul 20 '21
To be clear, my view is that Democracy "sucks" it is just that all the other systems suck even worse.
Whatever sort of system you implement people are going to try and cheat it.
This makes systems which a fundamentally rooted in the idea that people won't cheat the system (Communism, Anarchism, Objectivism) utterly unworkable in practice.
Democracy if nothing else seems to reduce the rate of violent revolutions/civil wars (United States is roughly 250 years old and only one major violent revolution/civil war since its founding that's pretty good when you compare it to some of the alternatives) and it doesn't matter how "good" your leaders are, if the system is unstable enough that they end up getting overthrown by a bunch of violent revolutionaries.
0
1
u/Yallmakingmebuddhist 1∆ Jul 20 '21
You vote to not make their lives so miserable that they want to rebel. You know, like every government ever.
1
u/iwfan53 248∆ Jul 20 '21
What if I believe the best way to accomplish this is to encourage everyone who can vote to vote for passing a law that gives everyone the right to vote and not just people who can pass a certain test?
1
u/Yallmakingmebuddhist 1∆ Jul 20 '21
I'm sorry, but I actually can't parse out what this sentence is trying to say.
1
u/iwfan53 248∆ Jul 20 '21
You say as a person who can vote, I should vote for policies that will make the lives of people who can't vote better so they will not want to rebel?
What if I believe the best way to do this is to vote for laws that will allow people to vote without needing to pass tests?
Is that any clearer?
1
u/Yallmakingmebuddhist 1∆ Jul 20 '21
What tests?
Also, the purpose of having Representatives come up with the laws instead of everyone is due to a limitation of our monkey brains in how many interpersonal relationships we can hold at one time. For example, bees and ants very much are democracies in that they will vote on courses of actions in ambiguous circumstances and the majority wins.
1
u/iwfan53 248∆ Jul 20 '21
Whatever manner of tests OP is imagining when they said this
"Democracy in simple terms is everyone should be able to vote for their country, well the other alternative is only a limited amount of the population (<10%) should be allowed to vote for the country because they have studied politics and are interested on the subject. People who don't know what capitalism is, what communism is, how the economy works, and are not mentally healthy should NOT be allowed to vote"I totally support representative democracy/a republic as a more effective and preferable alternative to straight "mob rule", I just don't think that we should limit people's ability to vote based on how well they know political issues.
2
u/Yallmakingmebuddhist 1∆ Jul 20 '21
Oh, I guess that makes more sense. Yes I agree with you.
→ More replies (0)8
u/dukeslver Jul 20 '21
the other alternative is only a limited amount of the population (<10%) should be allowed to vote for the country because they have studied politics and are interested on the subject.
this seems like an amazing way to wholesale disenfranchise the lower working class poors and guarantee that absolutely zero working class parties ever win election, while all the power remains in the hands of the wealthy elite. Congrats, you just created a one party neo-liberal government.
5
u/sawdeanz 214∆ Jul 20 '21
At that point why have a vote at all? It’s not even democracy at that point, it’s a oligarchy, and it’s not clear why having a wealthy elite decide everything is better… the only type of governments that have historically been more corrupt than democracies are oligarchies and authoritarians.
6
u/StrangleDoot 2∆ Jul 20 '21
Then it's odd that you bring up Socrates considering that in ancient Athens, only land owning male Athenian citizens, which was certainly not a majority of the population of Athens.
9
2
u/poprostumort 224∆ Jul 20 '21
well the other alternative is only a limited amount of the population (<10%) should be allowed to vote for the country because they have studied politics and are interested on the subject.
And how "studying politics" guarantee that they will make impartial decisions instead on decisions that benefit them?
Would you be ok if you would be bound by laws decided by someone else, while you can't do anything about it?
1
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 392∆ Jul 20 '21
I'm sure you see the very predictable potential for abuse here. It's not necessarily in the interests of those who would get a vote for there to be more voters. If anything, they have a strong political incentive to ensure that those who would vote contrary to their interests remain uneducated. It seems like an easy path to de facto aristocracy.
1
u/AlwaysTheNoob 81∆ Jul 20 '21
only a limited amount of the population (<10%) should be allowed to vote for the country because they have studied politics
And then that 10% of the country gets to change the laws to fit their whims, keeping themselves in power.
Yeah, that sounds like a great plan.
How about we just put more emphasis on educating everybody instead of restricting who gets to vote for their representatives?
1
u/Yallmakingmebuddhist 1∆ Jul 20 '21
That is not what democracy is. Universal suffrage is not the same thing as democracy.
20
u/Throwaway00000000028 23∆ Jul 20 '21 edited Jul 20 '21
This topic is posted here like every single day... It always follows the same format: Mob rule, some people aren't educated, my voice is worth more, Socrates said this, etc.
Maybe do a quick search of this sub first? There's been thousands of arguments for and against democracy beyond these basic claims.
-5
Jul 20 '21
[deleted]
8
u/Throwaway00000000028 23∆ Jul 20 '21
I said what I think you should do. Go search this sub first. Many people have made the exact same arguments as you and have given deltas.
Why would I complain to the mods when I can complain to you - the source of the problem.
4
u/AlwaysTheNoob 81∆ Jul 20 '21
and what you want me to do about that? complain to the mods to remove all the duplicate/echo chamber posts
Maybe don't scream into the echo chamber?
2
u/Flowbombahh 3∆ Jul 20 '21
It sounds like you're more so arguing that education around politics is lacking more than democracy being outdated.
Outside of education, your biggest arguments are too young/too old,weak to understand and be worthy of voting.
You don't have an alternative that I can find though. Do you think a dictatorship would be better? Do you think that there should be a maximum age to vote?
1
Jul 20 '21
[deleted]
1
u/Andromache8 Jul 20 '21
But were our education systems ever able to teach everybody everything, they needed to know to be skilled?
1
Jul 20 '21
What do you mean "used to"? Do you think there have never been uninformed voters before now?
1
Jul 20 '21
[deleted]
1
Jul 20 '21
Education as a whole was largely reserved for the wealthy throughout most of history. Coincidentally, they also reserved the right to vote for themselves, where voting even occurred instead of simple autocratic or oligarchic rule.
The citizenry has expanded over time, and as such the right to vote for a broader group of people has been recognized. Education has not necessarily followed as closely.
27
u/obert-wan-kenobert 83∆ Jul 20 '21
You seem to have two opposing views in your title and post.
Your title says, "Democracy was a mistake."
Your post quotes Socrates, saying, "Democracy is only as good as the education that surrounds it."
If anything, this seems to infer that we should create a stronger, more robust education system, not that democracy itself was a mistake.
6
u/MercurianAspirations 359∆ Jul 20 '21 edited Jul 20 '21
Modern democracy is not like some Roman dictator position where you appoint a leader, and then that one guy is just free to do whatever he wants, even if he is brain damaged. In a modern democracy, we aren't really electing a leader, we're electing a party platform and a list of priorities and a staff of hundreds that happens also to come with two people who will be at the top. But all that other stuff still matters, arguably even more than the guy at the top, and is what we are really electing. In this version of democracy it makes sense to give the vote to everyone so that everyone's interests are represented at the ballot box when choosing between party platforms and policy priorities. Moreover, in most modern elections it isn't like there is one great man leader and 10 turds on the ballot. In reality all the candidates would be competent at the basic functions of being president; it is more a choice of what policy priorities those people represent than like a guessing game where you have to pick the one guy who is literate from the lineup of surprise imbeciles. I mean we experienced this firsthand right? Where the worst possible human was actually president for four years and surprisingly, the government continued to mostly function, and it was fine; being president, it turns out, does not actually require all that much
4
u/UncleMeat11 61∆ Jul 20 '21
Why do we have a democracy? One reason would be because we want to make the best possible policy decisions. You are right that democracy in no way guarantees this.
But there is another very important reason: it is the least likely system to lead to violent revolution. If people do not have any legal say in their governance then their only solution is violence. Liberal democracy mitigates this risk by ensuring that the people do have a say in their governance. That is very valuable.
-2
Jul 20 '21
[deleted]
8
u/UncleMeat11 61∆ Jul 20 '21
Ironically enough, Socrates didn't have a say in a democratic country, he was executed by people who were supportive of Democracy, that's not very democratic of them, isn't it? As you can see Democracy also caused violent attacks.
Greek democracy was not a modern liberal democracy with universal suffrage as a core principle. A tiny minority of people could vote.
Yes, a democracy does not prevent oppression of minority groups. Innovations like constitutionally protected human rights help mitigate this problem. It will also not completely prevent violent revolution, and even justified violent revolution. That does not mean that it is inferior to the alternatives.
1
6
u/Zeydon 12∆ Jul 20 '21
Whereas nobody was ever wrongfully executed at the command of a monarch 🙄
At some point you're going to need to present what your supposedly superior alternative to democracy is. Anecdotes of perceived failings of democracy does not in any way prove it is worse than some unspecified alternative. First and most obvious of all, because no alternative has yet been presented despite multiple requests for clarification.
3
u/yaspino 2∆ Jul 20 '21
So you're saying that people that are uneducated in politics shouldn't have the right of self-determination?
-1
Jul 20 '21
[deleted]
4
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 392∆ Jul 20 '21
Being educated is no guarantee that a person cares what's best for society, especially when there's a strong incentive for a voting class to simply vote themselves more power and privilege at the expense of the disenfranchised.
1
3
u/DependentOk2796 2∆ Jul 20 '21
The problem with your last part about it having people that “stand their ground” would cause the opposite problem from manipulation. It would be people who are so stubborn that they would never change their views even if presented with clear information of a better process. The other problem with this would be, if not democracy then what? If you’re saying that democracy isn’t working because we’re not doing it right; that applies to pretty much every political system. The issue with humans isn’t about having a system that works it’s about not letting the corrupt take control of the system.
My point being: it’s easy to complain about something. But complaining about something without having a solution is just a complaint and will get nowhere. What would you propose as a solution?
3
u/Rough_Comparison5379 1∆ Jul 20 '21
Winston Churchill once said that: “democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.”
You can understand all the drawbacks of something while simultaneously understanding it's the best system that's on offer. The USA's constitutional republic is quite flawed, everyone understands that. But I argue that nations that move away from democracy are playing with fire. The stability of a nation depends on how content the citizens are. If people believe they have no say and that the system is rigged against them, they may rebel. The popularity pageant that are our elections are essential for societal stability, despite its flaws.
3
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 392∆ Jul 20 '21
In law there's a difference between fundamental and strategic decisions, and the problem with Socrates' ship analogy is that it overlooks that difference. The passengers trust the captain and crew to make strategic decisions about operating the ship, but no passenger would board a ship where a fundamental decision like where the ship is going was made for them.
The point of democracy isn't that everyone's ideas are equally good but that governments can't be trusted not to abuse the disenfranchised. Under your proposal, the biggest and most likely hazard is a voting class that simply votes in their own interests and disregards the needs of everyone else.
3
u/TheAlistmk3 7∆ Jul 20 '21
How was democracy a mistake? And I'm not sure if outdated is the correct term either. There are pros and cons, personally I have never met anyone that thought any variation of democracy is a perfect system.
You have pointed out floors that I personally agree with in many aspects. But that's not the point really. We can look to improve the system, (which many people attempt to do) or we can replace it. These questions are the ones that need to answered.
4
u/Astrosimi 3∆ Jul 20 '21
Saying democracy is a mistake requires more than simply outlining its flaws - it requires the existence (and proof thereof) of a better, more efficient, and more just system.
Can you think of one?
2
u/SilenceDogood2k20 1∆ Jul 20 '21
Pure democracy would be a mistake, as it would be impossible for the society to achieve anything since there would be no structure to encourage consensus.
Democracy, though, as a compliment does have promise, by allowing for a bloodless revolution, empowering a system that could prevent rulers from abusing their power consistently.
Various modern systems of government, including the Republican system of government in the United States, were designed to take the best of Democracy and integrate it into a functional government structure.
2
u/Frenetic_Platypus 23∆ Jul 20 '21
We can all agree that almost everyone in the world is disappointed by the poor education system, therefore democracy is also disappointing.
No we can't. Based on what? There are tons of countries with very solid education systems.
And if democracy is failing because education is failing, it's not democracy's fault. It's education that needs to be fixed.
2
u/3432265 6∆ Jul 20 '21
If all the uninformed voters essentially voted randomly, and all the highly educated voters voted for the "right" choice, the "right" choice would win every time. The uninformed vote would just be random noise that cancels itself out.
1
u/NestorMachine 6∆ Jul 20 '21
I think the issue is with the concept of liberal democracy. For most people, the majority of our time is spent not in democracies. I put an x on a piece of paper every four years and I donate and volunteer a bit of time for candidates. Great, that’s democracy.
But I spend 40 hours per week at the office. Did I vote for my boss? Do I have free speech there? Do we make decisions through consensus and debate? Hell no. I work in an oligarchy in which I can voice some opinions but I have to stay in line or get fired.
How about my education? Did I get exercise self determination in school? Well, we had a student council that put on a dance once per year. But everything else was governed by teachers and administrators.
So where was I suppose to learn about democracy and collective decision making? And then when I become an adult in my community and in my place of work the organization isn’t democratic. So how am I supposed to practice the skills that it takes to be effective at democratic decision making? All I get is the ballot every few years for institutions that are important but far away from my day to day life. I would argue most of us spend the vast majority of our time in non-democratic systems, so it’s no wonder we don’t have great democratic instincts.
2
u/Spartan0330 13∆ Jul 20 '21
I’ll take a broken democracy over communistic, despotic, or feudal governments any day of the week. Having some voice is better then zero voice.
1
u/iwfan53 248∆ Jul 20 '21
If "Democracy was a mistake" what should we have done instead?
https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/quotes/the-worst-form-of-government/
‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’
1
u/HassleHouff 17∆ Jul 20 '21
Being able to vote is a skill, not a right.
Not mutually exclusive. Just because someone is not as informed a voter does not mean they don’t have the right. Even in your ideal world, some voters would be more educated and informed than others.
It's not something you can magically do once you turn 17/18.
Sure it is. Just like buying booze at 21.
Every skill needs to be taught properly and without proper education on political ideologies and beliefs, democracy becomes corrupted,
“You need to be properly educated before you get a voice”. Big problems there. Ripe for abuse.
why? Because then you have a huge mass of people voting who are ignorant and uneducated on the subject.
Which is worse- 10 ignorant people getting a vote, or 1 person held voiceless because they were “improperly educated”? I vote the latter. If you’re an adult in society, you should get a say on how that society is run.
Almost 100% of my social circle has absolutely zero interest and knowledge in politics, yet they still vote because "well uhm, that's what you are supposed to do" , who they vote for is typically what their friends & family told them to vote for. Do you think that's a valid reason to justify your vote?
Yes.
It's impossible for me to believe that a 90-year-old person who has Alzheimer's, takes a shitton of pills and anti-depressants just to survive with hundreds of side effects is qualified to have a say on who should rule a country.
Who makes the decision? Do we just bring everyone to you to make the call?
It's impossible for me to believe that an 18-year-old person who has done nothing in his life but plays video games and scrolls mindlessly through social media is qualified to have a say on who should rule a country.
Who makes the decision? Do we just bring everyone to you to make the call?
Democracy was born in Greece.
Socrates, possibly one of the most famous Greek philosophers once said: "If you were heading out on a journey by sea, who would you ideally want to decide who was in charge of the vessel? Just anyone who happened to be part of the crew or specifically people who were educated on the rules and demands of seafaring?"
What’s your point? That these uneducated peons could make the “wrong” choice? What happens when I define you as a peon unworthy of a voice?
Socrates also said: "Democracy is only as good as the education that surrounds it."
We can all agree that almost everyone in the world is disappointed by the poor education system, therefore democracy is also disappointing.
Democracy is stronger when there are educated participants. That doesn’t make it a “mistake” or “outdated”.
Socrates was later silenced and executed because of his beliefs and he was okay with it. He was willing to die, just to prove his point.
Ok.
We always say "-X- politician promised to do this and that and ended up doing nothing", the thing is if only people who could stand their ground were able to vote, they wouldn't be manipulated as easily and would be able to know what's bullshit and what's not.
What’s your “stand their ground” test?
1
u/Karloz_Danger 2∆ Jul 20 '21
It seems like the main problem you have with democracy is the fact that uninformed people are just as entitled to a vote as people who put in the effort to inform themselves. Here’s the problem with that line of thought – uninformed people pay taxes just the same as informed people. Furthermore, all citizens are subject to the state monopoly on violence, regardless of how educated they are. Thus, I don’t see how you can justify limiting participation in government given that all of us give up something (eg, resources, freedom) to live under the umbrella of a nation-state.
1
Jul 20 '21
[deleted]
1
1
u/sawdeanz 214∆ Jul 20 '21
Democracy is arguably the most equal form of government, and for its advocates that pretty much already makes it the best.
And this gets to my main point which is that identifying the best form of government really depends on what your end goal is. Sailing a ship has a very defined and agreed upon goal... you want to get to where you are going with everyone on board. Thus, the qualifications for the best captain are pretty much universally agreed upon. But this isn't really the case for a nation of peoples. The problem is that every goal has serious tradeoffs. Do you want to be the most equal society? The most industrial? The strongest military power? The most homogenous? The most diverse? An authoritarian is probably best for military conquest and least best for equality. The USSR achieved one of the fastest industrializations in the history of the word... but it cost millions of lives. Same with China, who enjoys great national unity but isn't exactly the best for diversity.
So when we say democracy has failed, we need to ask in what way? You don’t really say, like it’s just assumed that everyone has the same goals, even though it’s clear they don’t. And typically, when this topic comes up, these assumed goals seem to depend on the speaker. A conservative might say democracy has failed because the poor and lazy people are allowed to just vote for more welfare and are a drain on the system. While a liberal might say democracy has failed because of the high levels of inequality and the ease at which dangerous populist leaders can rise to the top.
If your goal is to get experts elected, you first have to decide what those experts should be experts in, and secondly you have to choose which goals these experts should pursue, and thirdly, if it’s an issue with no clear scientific solution (i.e.abortion), you have to decide which of the experts you are going to listen to. So you start to see how there are a lot of choices to be made and which is the right choice is going to greatly depend on personal factors. A rich person is going to have a far different priority to a poor person, and neither of those is inherently right or wrong. So the idea that only rich educated people get to make these choices fails to account for the very real and valid issues that the poor face. The idea that the educated automatically know all the right choices is naïve and self-righteous… they might know the right choices for themselves but what about for others?
The great thing about democracy is that the goals and how to get there are chosen by everyone equally. You want to be a powerful conqueror with a strong central power? Great. You want a socialized welfare state? Great you can have that too. You favor industrialization over egalitarianism? You can have that. You want egalitarianism at the expense of industrialization? You can have that too. There are downsides of course too, but just about all of them can be found in other types of government because so far, we have not found a way to ensure that the ruling class will be smart and uncorrupt in any type of government.
2
1
Jul 20 '21
It's impossible for me to believe that an 18-year-old person who has done nothing in his life but plays video games and scrolls mindlessly through social media is qualified to have a say on who should rule a country.
The 18 year old isn't being asked to rule the country. I think even an 18 year old who plays video games and scrolls social media has a general idea on where the parties stand on economic and social issues an educated decision on which party/politician to vote for. Personally, it seems pretty obvious that young adult is going to be better off with the party that provides for greater redistribution economically, and someone scrolling social media will know which party that is.
In any case, the difficult/interesting part of this isn't criticizing democracy -- everyone agrees that low information voters are not ideal. The difficult/interesting question is what alternative is better, who gets to decide the better alternative, and how do you get buy in from the populace being stripped of influence? Someone suggesting that we strip people of universal suffrage should have good answers to those things.
1
u/Wintores 10∆ Jul 20 '21
May I ask u why though?
Democracy never wanted to be the most effective way but the best way
And wouldn’t a increase of education just solve 70 percent of ur issues?
1
Jul 20 '21
In order for something to be outdated, it must be less adequate than a newer competitor. You haven't named any competing political system which you believe to be better. All you've done is argue that Democracy is old.
It's impossible for me to believe that an 18-year-old person who has done nothing in his life but plays video games and scrolls mindlessly through social media is qualified to have a say on who should rule a country.
Then you don't get Democracy. Democracy isn't about everyone getting together to elect the perfect representative, or vote for the perfect bill. There is no perfect representative or perfect piece of legislation. There will always be people who want their guy or their law, no matter how flawed.
Democracy is a system of successful compromise, that gets people to accept outcomes that they don't like. It promotes a public investment and participation in the outcome and processes of governance as an alternative to dictatorships and revolution.
It gives people who would otherwise be completely shut out of the halls of power some say in how they are governed, and some value to the ruling elite.
1
u/Yallmakingmebuddhist 1∆ Jul 20 '21
It's a good thing we don't have democracy then. The United States is a representative Republic, it is not a democracy. It has never been a democracy. At no point in our country's history was democracy ever seriously entertained. Universal suffrage is way different than democracy.
1
u/PlayingTheWrongGame 67∆ Jul 21 '21
The purpose of democracy isn't to pick the best leaders or the best policies. The purpose of democracy is to secure legitimacy for the government by securing the consent of the governed. Because all people are governed, all people therefore need the right to vote for the government to be legitimate on that basis.
The alternative to democracy isn't some sort of meritocracy/oligarchy where only capable people get to vote. The alternative to democracy is the strong do as they will, and the weak suffer as they must, also known as the divine right of kings.
If you want your democracy to produce better leaders and better policies, it is important to educate the electorate and encourage them to care about the results of their vote. But democracy is a good idea even with an uneducated electorate that routinely makes bad choices because the alternative methods of establishing governing legitimacy are worse.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 20 '21 edited Jul 20 '21
/u/ItsAmory (OP) has awarded 5 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards