Is Democracy really the ideal form of goverment?

[Sleeker]

What ever type of goverment, you should notice, no one suggested socialism, communism, or the monarchs.

Communism=everyone owns everything, and is used for the "comon" good,decidedby the people in charge.
MOnarchy; a single person leads and decides what the country will do with its resources.

I actually briefly mentioned monarchy and said it's the best theoretical government.

I'm going to have to one-up you by saying that the most ideal form of government is a benevolent dictatorship, as opposed to a monarchy. Monarchs rarely actually rule. Since they are chosen by divine intervention it is usually considered beneath them to actually participate in the country's government.

I believe he was using Aristotle's version of the monarchy which he actually defines it as a benevolent dictatorship. I used the same definition as well.

Like I said earlier:
Monarcy - Best government in theory
Aristocracy - Best possible government in practice, but very unlikely to last.
Democracy - Best government in practice

 

[Moros]

1) The US is a constitutional republic, not a democracy
2) direct democracy (such as in switzerland) seems to be a good idea, provided the government be given enough veto power. For example, if the govt. wants to build a bridge, it's put to a vote. But if the bridge is necessary and the people vote against it, the govt. should have veto power over that.

 

[Christ4Life696969]

Is Democracy really the ideal form of goverment?

Yes. This is America, love it or leave it.

END OF DISCUSSION

 

[Peacebestill]

Quote

Is Democracy really the ideal form of goverment?

Yes. This is America, love it or leave it.

END OF DISCUSSION

Read the thread much there noob?




======================

 

[Pseudonym]

I believe he was using Aristotle's version of the monarchy which he actually defines it as a benevolent dictatorship. I used the same definition as well.

Yeah I was thinking of monarchy in more of a modern term.

"Revolutions" are not typically open battle with 2 different standing "armies" opposite each other. Revolutions more commonly use guirella warfare and harrassment to make itself ungoverneable, effectively ending whatever gov there was that could no longer govern. The idea in a revolution is to constantly put never ending pressure on the occupying army and kill them whereever they sleep.


I dont know what you mean by "those sort of weapons". A revolutionary who shoots a soldier, now possesses all the weapons, the same weapons, that the soldier used to have. A revolutionary would not want, use, or need tanks or jet fighters, since is motives are not to destroy his own land. For that matter, a gov trying to hold onto power also would not want to destroy his own country in order to hold it - who wants to rule over complete desolation in his own country? - there is no point to it.

If only one region in the US wanted independence/overthrow that is a different story - the south lost. YOu really cant have a successful revolution with just one small regional fraction of the people rebeling. The revolution, resistance, overthrow of a dictator, must be universal, giving the occupying army no rest, no safe place, and death no matter where a soldier sits down to eat.

Wow, i agree with you. Well said.

 

[Pseudonym]

Benevolent or no dictatorships place a huge number of decisions on the vision of a single imperfect person.

This means that those this person favors with their decisions are going to be hugely rewarded, and those this person doesn’t favor will be hugely undercut.

So, even if your dictator is benevolent, the dictator may simply be incompetent to deal with every problem that the nation faces as a whole, and their expertise may not be trustworthy on all subjects, leading to huge mistakes. In fact they may not be trustworthy on very difficult matters like how to best grow an economy.

With no one capable of second guessing the dictator once that dictator’s mind is made up, this will unavoidably spread massive corruption and inefficiency.

Your capability of thriving in this day and age with a dictator will depend on the vastness of your dictator’s expertise, the expertise of the advisers this person relies on, and how that combined expertise matches up with the problems facing the country.

No, I don't. I am simply debunking that benevolence is enough for a dictator to lead to a thriving country. Benevolence must be added to expertise, because the dictator is the ultimate authority on so many things. The dictator may simply not have competent advisors, or listen to the wrong ones opinions. You see, the dictator has to determine which advice is the best, even if he has the best advisors, and must pick his advisors according to the vision the dictator has. People are prone to bias, so your dictator is likely to pick advisors who agree with them, this is unwise, but it is almost inevitable.

I was going on the assumption that the dictator would be reasonably competent and aware of what his people would want. I think everyone who has posited their idea of an ideal form of government in this thread has gone on this assumption too. All governments can be run by an incompetent leader(s). Those who said that a theocratic monarchy would be ideal are going with assumption that Jesus would be a competent ruler.

I do not deny that a benevolent dictatorship is hard to come by though. As far as I know, there are none in existence right now. In the past however, the closest system to a benevolent dictatorship that comes to my mind is Salazar's corporatist government in Portugal.

 

[k]

Yes. This is America, love it or leave it.

END OF DISCUSSION

Uh. That's strange considering the US is NOT a Democracy.

 

[susanann]

Of course, true democracy would only be possible with far more advanced technology, where everyone could efficiently decide on every issue, assuming they also had the time and information to decide.

"The people", thru their votes in the "democacy" primaries, decided that the most qualified people in all of America to become president, i.e. our 2 best and brightest candidates for office, was bush and gore.

Do you really want them to vote on every issue?

 

[variant]

I was going on the assumption that the dictator would be reasonably competent and aware of what his people would want. I think everyone who has posited their idea of an ideal form of government in this thread has gone on this assumption too. All governments can be run by an incompetent leader(s). Those who said that a theocratic monarchy would be ideal are going with assumption that Jesus would be a competent ruler.

I do not deny that a benevolent dictatorship is hard to come by though. As far as I know, there are none in existence right now. In the past however, the closest system to a benevolent dictatorship that comes to my mind is Salazar's corporatist government in Portugal.

Ok then, we have been in agreement that benevolence is not enough.

If you found such a person, you would be very lucky indeed, though to have it be the ideal form of government you would need a succession of them. Because, to have an ideal government from the system you propose it would require that it could last past the death of one person.

Unless you propose that longevity is not part of your ideal system.

My criticism is that these people would have to govern in the real world, and this is almost always too much a task for any one person to do correctly when unchallenged by their peers, even if they would want to govern properly. Finding one person up to the task would be a modern day miracle, finding a way to have a succession of them is nearly impossible.

Democratic governments with separated powers, on this point, do a great deal better in the real world, as the system can overcome the shortcomings of one person.

There are few to no ideal people, so why should an ideal government (a system that must deal with un-ideal people) be allowed to rest on the premise that it could come to be run by one.

What use are ideals if you can’t apply them to reality?