Democracy is the worst form of government...

[zippy2006]

Just to nail this one: . . . There may be aristocracies that are not hereditary but they of no significance too this discussion; the real aristocrats are born to it and have a seat denied to the rest of us Brits in the halls of power.

Wow, nailed it. Very impressive. It's remarkable that they haven't offered you a seat in Parliament.

 

[Whyayeman]

Wow, nailed it. Very impressive. It's remarkable that they haven't offered you a seat in Parliament.

Thanks very much. The only seats available are in the House of Lords. 'They' only offer seats to 'their' cronies, and I don't qualify.

It is a sad fact of British political life that Prime Ministers regularly give seats in the upper chamber of Parliament, the House of Lords, to their supporters, political hacks and yes-persons, as well as party donors. In this respect representative government in this country is sadly deficient.

 

[stevevw]

I had never heard that. Interesting.

I learned 'Freedom of religion' was grounded on the Reformation, when Protestants said churches should be free to worship how they think. Freedom of religion was meant to protect against, say for example, the Lutheran denomination from taking over. All denominations could co-exist & the State couldn't tell you which were true & false teachings in your church.

But the phrasing was flexible enough to allow paganism to flourish. I don't believe it was written w/ them in mind tho, either for or against, the concern was their church.

I'm not the one complaining

Yes the Constitution supported freedom of religion and was designed to stop any one Christian denomination from becoming a State religion. But this did not mean that they did not believe Christianity was not integeral to the foundation of society.

This was evidenced by the many Christian churches throughout the land and the moral norms and language employed which reflected Christian beliefs. Considering that around 90% of people were Christians it seems silly that Christianity itself was disallowed as an influence on society and government. In other word though the Constitution stated freedeom of religion and the State should not side with one religion in practice they did.

For example

Even John Adams, under whose presidency the Treaty of Tripoli was finalized and sanctioned by Congress, and then signed by Adams himself, forthrightly affirmed the role of Christianity in the founding of the Republic. In a letter he wrote to Thomas Jefferson, dated June 28, 1813, he explained that the great foundation of the nation is Christianity:

The treaty was assuring the Tripolitan Muslim warlord that the government of the United States would never show hostility toward his country based on America’s intimate affiliation with Christianity.

The January 1787 treaty with Morocco (“Treaty of Peace…,” 1846c, 8:100-108) contains the following references: “In the Name of Almighty God” and “trusting in God” (p. 100). It also refers to “the Christian powers” (in Article X, p. 102), “any Christian power” (in Article XI, p. 102), “the other Christian nations” (in Article XVII, p. 103), and “any of the Christian powers” (in Article XXIV, p. 104)—the last two references clearly implying that America is among them. Article XXV states: “This treaty shall continue in full force, with the help of God, for fifty years
Article XI places “Moors” in juxtaposition to “Christians” (Article XI, p. 104), and the “Additional Article” contrasts “Moorish” with “Christian Powers” (p. 104).
The Treaty of Tripoli and America's Founders - Apologetics Press

John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams and 6th President, declared:
From the day of the Declaration, the people of the North American Union and of its constituent States, were associated bodies of civilized men and Christians, in a state of nature; but not of Anarchy. They were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of the Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct (1821, p. 26, emp. added).

So though it may be true that the United States government did not enforce a specific sect of Christianity, it certainly wasn’t neutral when it came to religious matters. In fact, religion was viewed as necessary to a civil society and the government of the United States, through its executive, was willing to incorporate Christian beliefs and Christian symbolism into its affairs.
Secularists, please stop quoting the Treaty of Tripoli

 

[Whyayeman]

Yes the Constitution supported freedom of religion and was designed to stop any one Christian denomination from becoming a State religion. But this did not mean that they did not believe Christianity was not integeral to the foundation of society.

This was evidenced by the many Christian churches throughout the land and the moral norms and language employed which reflected Christian beliefs. Considering that around 90% of people were Christians it seems silly that Christianity itself was disallowed as an influence on society and government. In other word though the Constitution stated freedeom of religion and the State should not side with one religion in practice they did.

For example

Even John Adams, under whose presidency the Treaty of Tripoli was finalized and sanctioned by Congress, and then signed by Adams himself, forthrightly affirmed the role of Christianity in the founding of the Republic. In a letter he wrote to Thomas Jefferson, dated June 28, 1813, he explained that the great foundation of the nation is Christianity:

The treaty was assuring the Tripolitan Muslim warlord that the government of the United States would never show hostility toward his country based on America’s intimate affiliation with Christianity.

The January 1787 treaty with Morocco (“Treaty of Peace…,” 1846c, 8:100-108) contains the following references: “In the Name of Almighty God” and “trusting in God” (p. 100). It also refers to “the Christian powers” (in Article X, p. 102), “any Christian power” (in Article XI, p. 102), “the other Christian nations” (in Article XVII, p. 103), and “any of the Christian powers” (in Article XXIV, p. 104)—the last two references clearly implying that America is among them. Article XXV states: “This treaty shall continue in full force, with the help of God, for fifty years
Article XI places “Moors” in juxtaposition to “Christians” (Article XI, p. 104), and the “Additional Article” contrasts “Moorish” with “Christian Powers” (p. 104).
The Treaty of Tripoli and America's Founders - Apologetics Press

John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams and 6th President, declared:
From the day of the Declaration, the people of the North American Union and of its constituent States, were associated bodies of civilized men and Christians, in a state of nature; but not of Anarchy. They were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of the Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct (1821, p. 26, emp. added).

So though it may be true that the United States government did not enforce a specific sect of Christianity, it certainly wasn’t neutral when it came to religious matters. In fact, religion was viewed as necessary to a civil society and the government of the United States, through its executive, was willing to incorporate Christian beliefs and Christian symbolism into its affairs.
Secularists, please stop quoting the Treaty of Tripoli

I think the freedom of religion was freedom from the oppression by the established Church in England. The Pilgrim Fathers left England to be able to worship 'freely' without interference from the King.

 

[stevevw]

I think the freedom of religion was freedom from the oppression by the established Church in England. The Pilgrim Fathers left England to be able to worship 'freely' without interference from the King.

Yes freedom from all oppression Royal, religious but also by the State. Hence the God given natural Right to Life, Liberty and the persuit of Happiness. The US set the standard for a free society where people could choose by their conscience rather than being dictated to by any power.

But as governing involves ethical considerations I don't think any government can truely detach itself from belief. They all have a philosophical belief about how the world is and how it should be ordered. Its just not package in the same way traditional religions apply their beliefs.

So though it may not be called Christian, Protestant, or any paticular religious denomination today there is still a State religion in some ways at play influencing policy and laws. I think its impossible to seperate State and religious belief and that is why the early settlers though professing seperation still held onto Christian belief or at least for some belief such as Deism as their guideing moral basis.

 

[childeye 2]

Yes freedom from all oppression Royal, religious but also by the State. Hence the God given natural Right to Life, Liberty and the persuit of Happiness. The US set the standard for a free society where people could choose by their conscience rather than being dictated to by any power.

But as governing involves ethical considerations I don't think any government can truely detach itself from belief. They all have a philosophical belief about how the world is and how it should be ordered. Its just not package in the same way traditional religions apply their beliefs.

So though it may not be called Christian, Protestant, or any paticular religious denomination today there is still a State religion in some ways at play influencing policy and laws. I think its impossible to seperate State and religious belief and that is why the early settlers though professing seperation still held onto Christian belief or at least for some belief such as Deism as their guideing moral basis.

I like this post, and for what it's worth I feel your articulation is about as good as it gets in dealing with the semantics that arise between terms like religion and God. The framers of the constitution wanted to acknowledge God as unimagined and therefore refrained from ascribing any imagery according to the state.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes freedom from all oppression Royal, religious but also by the State. Hence the God given natural Right to Life, Liberty and the persuit of Happiness. The US set the standard for a free society where people could choose by their conscience rather than being dictated to by any power.

You invoke the language of the DoI, a document without legal standing. The Constitution of the United States does not invoke any deity to give it standing, but rather the collective sovereignty of the people.

But as governing involves ethical considerations I don't think any government can truely detach itself from belief. They all have a philosophical belief about how the world is and how it should be ordered. Its just not package in the same way traditional religions apply their beliefs.

Ethical considerations most certainly can be seperated from supernatural beliefs and religions (traditional or otherwise).

So though it may not be called Christian, Protestant, or any paticular religious denomination today there is still a State religion in some ways at play influencing policy and laws.

No, there isn't a "state religion" in the US.

I think its impossible to seperate State and religious belief and that is why the early settlers though professing seperation still held onto Christian belief or at least for some belief such as Deism as their guideing moral basis.

It's really not that hard. Just don't use religion when functioning in government. Keep it in your personal life where it belongs.

 

[Whyayeman]

But as governing involves ethical considerations I don't think any government can truely detach itself from belief.

This seems obvious. I cannot think of any ruling body that was without some kind of philosophical framework. Certainly the British Constitution requires that prayers are said a the beginning of every session. They are said to an almost empty House every day.

But - so what? The business of government is coloured by other considerations. When electors choose their representatives their religious belief is not generally taken into consideration (let's not discuss Northern Ireland!); rather their party allegiance and some assessment of character and demeanour. And a good many vote according to whim.

Could we get back to the conduct of affairs in a democracy? How representative government can be more representative, fairer, and maybe just better at doing its job?

 

[childeye 2]

Nations aren't bars, though, arguing over beer money.

In reality, citizens are typically held together in a modern nation by common stories about who they are as a people. If you can attack, change, or cause to doubt those stories, without giving people a better alternative, they are bound to lose trust in one another. In those cases, the nation has to be held together by upholding a sense of fairness in government (like in a country such as Singapore, for instance), which builds trust in the government as an institution in itself.

The US and Britain, on the other hand, failed the first and can't deliver on the second. Both are are dominated by wealthy oligarchs who play by a different set of rules, often with impunity, and that breeds low social trust and less faith in the government's ability to deliver a just and peaceful society.

Your post in comparison to others is like an expose on how faith/trust and cynicism/distrust are both self-fulfilling. Furthermore, you begin by pointing out the false equivalency of a Nation and a bar. It seems to me that many times those who are speaking against Democracy are reasoning on absolutes rather than considering that the dichotomy of Democracy/Autocracy exists to contemplate why there must be a balance in degrees between Democracy/Autocracy. There are pros and cons for both positions that need to be neutralized through adjustments of correction similar to tacking the wind in a sailboat.

 

[Whyayeman]

... Democracy/Autocracy exists to contemplate why there must be a balance in degrees between Democracy/Autocracy. There are pros and cons for both positions ...

What are the pros of autocracy? I think when a democratic election has taken place the successful candidte has a mandate. This is defined by his stated policy upon which he was chosen. Other business always comes up on which he or she has never taken a position. In my view the representative must have some autonomy; she or he must have some freedom of action to exercise judgments in such cases, but that is not what we generally mean by autocracy.

 

[childeye 2]

What are the pros of autocracy? I think when a democratic election has taken place the successful candidte has a mandate. This is defined by his stated policy upon which he was chosen. Other business always comes up on which he or she has never taken a position. In my view the representative must have some autonomy; she or he must have some freedom of action to exercise judgments in such cases, but that is not what we generally mean by autocracy.

There's a reason that the dichotomy of Democracy/Autocracy exists as a left/right or east/west dichotomy, as opposed to a up/down or North/South dichotomy. It exists as such (Left/Right) so as to deal in degrees between two absolutes and subsequently determine an objective center between two opposing subjective views. So, when you ask what are the pros of Autocracy, it's the same as asking what are the cons of Democracy. To put a point on this I am stating that when I speak about autocracy or Democracy you need to understand I'm talking about degrees, and attempting to ascertain the proper balance between two opposing absolutes.

Having said that, I would next point out that neither Democracy nor Autocracy can be sustainable as absolutes in the delegation of power. The fundamental Con of democracy is that you can never de-centralize power to an absolute perfection where each and every individual has an equal and fair say on setting the best policy for the whole. The fundamental Con of autocracy is that you cannot centralize power to the point where one single person is able to equally and fairly set the best policy for each individual. That is another way of saying that either way factions will form for various reasons, some legitimate and some not, but generally understood as each faction having their own views of an equitable give and take.

So, to finally answer your question. The basic Pro of autocracy (in degrees) is that rather than attempting the futile endeavor of calculating and delivering a fair and equal delegation of power to each individual person, instead we agree to elect a certain number of representatives that are entrusted to honestly represent the people fairly as their constituency to the best of their ability.

Hence, we are supposed to be a Democratic Republic here in America. Unfortunately, I feel we're presently more of an Autocratic Republic which means the elected representatives ultimately end up serving an autocracy. You state that you vote according to certain policies a candidate is supporting, while I would say that I vote for candidates who I think will set policy according to what will best represent their constituents.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Furthermore, you begin by pointing out the false equivalency of a Nation and a bar. It seems to me that many times those who are speaking against Democracy are reasoning on absolutes rather than considering that the dichotomy of Democracy/Autocracy exists to contemplate why there must be a balance in degrees between Democracy/Autocracy. There are pros and cons for both positions that need to be neutralized through adjustments of correction similar to tacking the wind in a sailboat.

There is no balance between democracy and autocracy to find. Autocracy is an abomination and an anathema to freedom. It must be opposed.

 

[childeye 2]

There is no balance between democracy and autocracy to find. Autocracy is an abomination and an anathema to freedom. It must be opposed.

Respectfully, you're reasoning on absolutes which is not even acknowledging a left/right dichotomy that exists in reality (freedom/autocracy is not a true dichotomy). For example, in the delegation of power (politics), someone on some level above the fray will have to ultimately decide when one person's freedom is infringing on the freedom of another. That's true in every level of politics in society from the single household to geopolitics. There always has to be a balance of power in some degree in any form of governance. So let's not conflate governing over people with seeking to rule over all other people.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Respectfully, you're reasoning on absolutes which is not even acknowledging a left/right dichotomy that exists in reality. For example, in the delegation of power (politics), someone will have to ultimately decide when one person's freedom is infringing on the freedom of another. That's true in every level of politics from the single household to geopolitics.

I will make no time do debate with those that think autocracy (or its cousins like totalitarianism or faschism) is in anyway acceptable.

 

[childeye 2]

I will make no time do debate with those that think autocracy (or its cousins like totalitarianism or faschism) is in anyway acceptable.

Right, which means you misunderstood my post because you're thinking in absolutes. I'm saying that there are degrees in the delegation of power, as in how centralized or decentralized the power becomes. That's just a fact of reality. Subsequently there's a balance that ideally is equal for all people for the purpose of governing fairly, but as a practical matter, is realized as not realistically fully achievable. It's not realistic that every person is the boss, and no one is being told what to do.

 

[o_mlly]

There is no balance between democracy and autocracy to find. Autocracy is an abomination and an anathema to freedom. It must be opposed.

Autocracy in efficiency and effectiveness serves the more convergent community better than democracy. Similarly, in the more divergent community, democracy serves better.

Fathers are natural autocrats. Tribal chiefs or elders as autocrats serve well extended families who remain biologically close enough as evidenced by the respect and care each has for the other.

Only when the values of the community diverge does democracy become favored.

Catholicism, for example, is a 2000 year old surviving autocracy of a billion members based on common beleifs, most importantly charity toward all. You may rightly argue that in history the authority of the hierarchy has ebbed and flowed but the Pope still decides when members quarrel over matters regaring faith and morals. It's nice to have an umpire at home plate.

 

[childeye 2]

Autocracy in efficiency and effectiveness serves the more convergent community better than democracy. Similarly, in the more divergent community, democracy serves better.

Fathers are natural autocrats. Tribal chiefs or elders as autocrats serve well extended families who remain biologically close enough as evidenced by the respect and care each has for the other.

Only when the values of the community diverge does democracy become favored.

Excellent commentary. I am a Father and a natural autocrat in that sense. My Father was also a natural autocrat, and in our ignorance of why our freedoms were limited, there were times my siblings and I would have liked to vote against his policies.

 

[Pommer]

There is no balance between democracy and autocracy to find. Autocracy is an abomination and an anathema to freedom. It must be opposed.

Autocracy can be a boon to freedom if the new autocrat deposes the old regime and allows freedoms to thrive…the problems start after the new autocrat becomes the establishment and stifles freedoms to solidify and hold onto power until the next autocrat arises.
This can be from 10-50 years.

The problem with democracy is that it relies on good and true statesmen (and women) to steer the nation’s course to a better and more verdant climes; such people are rare and are almost never the same people who stand for office.

 

[Pommer]

I will make no time do debate with those that think autocracy (or its cousins like totalitarianism or faschism) is in anyway acceptable.

To be clear democracy is the best of the worst; the other systems have their advantages but getting to them (changing from democracy to autocracy) requires fundamental change which is usually upsetting to large swaths of people and should generally be discouraged.

Without getting too political, right now in the USA we are witnessing the formation of a budding plutocracy which needs to be nixed very soon, this will require raising the taxes of the super-rich before they’ve armed themselves…but we’re getting into areas outside the scope of the topic, (though I’d be willing to delve into them in another thread or forum).

 

[childeye 2]

Autocracy can be a boon to freedom if the new autocrat deposes the old regime and allows freedoms to thrive…the problems start after the new autocrat becomes the establishment and stifles freedoms to solidify and hold onto power until the next autocrat arises.
This can be from 10-50 years.

The problem with democracy is that it relies on good and true statesmen (and women) to steer the nation’s course to a better and more verdant climes; such people are rare and are almost never the same people who stand for office.

How true. Whether it's heading towards autocracy or democracy or somewhere in between, it's an irony that those who don't seek power are probably the more trustworthy to wield it. "Freedom" can be dangerous depending on if it's qualified as excessive and/or violating the freedom of another. But democracy/autocracy is fundamentally about the decentralizing and the centralizing of power in degrees which is why it is a left/right dichotomy.