Democracy is the worst form of government...

[Bradskii]

That seems to imply that the secular law is the ultimate objective measure of what is morally right.

I'm not interested in discussing morality. I made it clear that morality per se has no input on governance (or at least should be rejected as being valid input).

 

[Bradskii]

Can you elaborate as I am not sure what you mean.

Religion is not 'just a set of ideological and philosophical beliefs'. There's a tad more to it than that and it all needs to be excluded from the conversation. This is politics. Not theology.

 

[Bradskii]

But if according to the secular idea that morality is subjective...

Whether it is or it isn't is a matter for other threads. I'm not interested in discussing how morality might affect political decision making. In fact, policies aren't required to be discussed. We're trying to decide the best means of forming a government. Not which political stripe that government might be.

 

[childeye 2]

I think that's a difference without a difference. Unless you are saying that you would vote for a candidate who would best respresent their constituents even though you disagreed with them. Surely we vote for policies that we think are the right ones, whether we benefit or not.

I'll admit that in local government elections I vote for what is best for me. But in federal elections, I vote for what is best for the country, even if there is a personal disadvantage (within reason).

I would begin to elaborate by saying that there is a difference between a politician whose interest is finding out what the people want, and a politician who is telling the people what they personally are for.

I admit it's a semantical construct and it at first appears as a subtle nuance, but it occurs to me that those who are true adherents to democracy would want to first understand what the people want so as to represent the people's interests equitably, particularly where the people's views are at odds.

Whereas a politician who is trying to convince people of his/her personal opinion of what is best for them seems to me to be leaning autocratic and authoritarian.

Also, politicians that say what they are personally for or against are more likely to be the same people that tell the people what they want to hear only to get elected. I think that may be what you were alluding to with your "Unless" statement above.

 

[FireDragon76]

The poster you are responding to is correct in saying a Father is a natural autocrat.

I've got a degree in anthropology and I can tell you that is a ridiculous notion to anybody with an education on the varieties of human societies. In some societies, the father doesn't make any important decisions in a family. In fact, there is a term for this in anthropology, the "joking father".

 

[childeye 2]

I've got a degree in anthropology and I can tell you that is a ridiculous notion to anybody with an education on the varieties of human societies. In some societies, the father doesn't make any important decisions in a family. In fact, there is a term for this in anthropology, the "joking father".

But that doesn't preclude the fact that politics are inevitable, and that there are degrees between Democracy/Autocracy that represent the fundamental distinction as pertains to centralizing and decentralizing of power through a democratic form of government.

I agree with you about some societies being different than others. I'm just saying the poster you were responding to was correct about identifying a father as a natural autocrat only in the intended scenario where he as the man of the house would have the final say. The same would apply for a matriarchal household.

 

[FireDragon76]

But that doesn't preclude the fact that politics are inevitable, and that there are degrees between Democracy/Autocracy that represent the fundamental distinction as pertains to centralizing and decentralizing of power in a democratic government.

I agree with you about some societies being different than others. I'm just saying the poster you were responding to was correct about identifying a father as a natural autocrat only in the intended scenario where he as a father would have the final say. The same would apply for a matriarchy.

In societies with joking fathers, they aren't matriarchal (in fact genuinely matriarchal societies don't exist). The basis for decision making isn't the immediate kin group, as in our society, but ones clan or band, depending on the decision being made. For raising a child, usually the mother's brother is involved in making decisions for the child.

This arrangement is actually not rare among traditional societies, such as African, Pacific Islander, or Native American tribes. It is the nuclear family that is exceptional, and has more to do with the rise of large-scale agriculture. It isn't any more natural than any other social arrangement.

 

[childeye 2]

In societies with joking fathers, they aren't matriarchal (in fact genuinely matriarchal societies don't exist). The basis for decision making isn't the immediate kin group, as in our society, but ones clan or band, depending on the decision being made. For raising a child, usually the mother's brother is involved in making decisions for the child.

This arrangement is actually not rare among traditional societies, such as African, Pacific Islander, or Native American tribes. It is the nuclear family that is exceptional, and has more to do with the rise of large-scale agriculture. It isn't any more natural than any other social arrangement.

I find that to be interesting. But it really doesn't disagree with or change what the poster meant as pertains to the delegation of power. The poster wasn't meaning to imply all societies are the same in my view.

 

[FireDragon76]

I find that to be interesting. But it really doesn't disagree with or change what the poster meant as pertains to the delegation of power. The poster wasn't implying all societies are the same in my view.

Band level societies aren't democratic or autocratic, they are based on group consensus. People don't exist as autonomous individuals in such societies.

 

[childeye 2]

Band level societies aren't democratic or autocratic, they are based on group consensus. People don't exist as autonomous individuals in such societies.

I find that interesting. I've seen a national geographic documentary about such societies.

 

[Bradskii]

I would begin to elaborate by saying that there is a difference between a politician whose interest is finding out what the people want, and a politician who is telling the people what they personally are for.

I don't think the first actually exists. At least when he or she is looking to be elected. I can understand a politician, when they are elected, investigating what their constituents actually want if it's a matter that hasn't arisen during the election. But I don't want someone who is effectively a blank slate standing for office telling everyone that he or she is the best person for the job and will simply represent the majority view.

Let's face it, that's what an election is about. People putting forward policies and hoping that the majority will agree with them and give them their vote. Otherwise you'll have someone who is asking you to trust them to represent the majority view. And how do we know what the majority view would be without having a vote on it? What you end up with is a constant repetition of referendums.

 

[Whyayeman]

When you say the world is maturing in its morality that is just another way of saying the world is replacing one belief about morality with another.

Yes, a better one. Christianity has no right to 'being right' about moral issues. Many of us have moved on from Leviticus.

The problem is that with any moral system someone has to know best.

No, that is a problem for those who base their moral stances on authoritarian principles. That is Leviticus again.

Most of understand morality differently; that is a topic for another thread. Can we possibly get back to the practical business of the thread?

... a good autocrat would be a good and wise king who wielded his power fairly and truly cared about his people ...

Yes, of course.

Offhand I can think of one possible candidate, the Hohenzollern dynasty of Prussia. It did not end well. The difficulty here is precisely that there are few or no examples of such a ruler. Perhaps somebody could supply some.

 

[Robban]

I would begin to elaborate by saying that there is a difference between a politician whose interest is finding out what the people want, and a politician who is telling the people what they personally are for.

I admit it's a semantical construct and it at first appears as a subtle nuance, but it occurs to me that those who are true adherents to democracy would want to first understand what the people want so as to represent the people's interests equitably, particularly where the people's views are at odds.

Whereas a politician who is trying to convince people of his/her personal opinion of what is best for them seems to me to be leaning autocratic and authoritarian.

Also, politicians that say what they are personally for or against are more likely to be the same people that tell the people what they want to hear only to get elected. I think that may be what you were alluding to with your "Unless" statement above.

Is it not about electing a Leader?

If the dog leading a blind comes to crossing on the way and has to turn to the one it is leading for guidence.

What use is it?

 

[Whyayeman]

Perhaps we should return to Bradskii's original post, specifically:

There must surely be a way to improve the way we decide the major decisions that are needed to be made.

The 2014 referendum on Scottish independence failed because it did not meet the threshold set for it to succeed. 52% voted for independence and 48% against. 82% of the electorate took part. The threshold was that more than 50% of the electorate (not the turnout) had to vote for independence. So it failed and Scotland is still part of the UK.

If the same rules had applied two years later the UK would still be in the EU. Both were called by the British Prime Minister David Cameron.

I am not keen on having these plebiscites. I prefer to send my representative off to Parliament to represent me but to have some agency too. I want him (in my case it is a man) to be wise on my behalf, to take complicated decisions on the issues of the day and - if he fails, to answer to me. He is a Conservative and like all MPs on the government benches he will be looking fearfully at an angry electorate who are very likely to turn against him at the next election.

 

[Whyayeman]

Is it not about electing a Leader?

Not necessarily. In the UK we do not vote directly for a leader, though we do know the implications of our vote on who will be the next Prime Minister.

 

[Robban]

Not necessarily. In the UK we do not vote directly for a leader, though we do know the implications of our vote on who will be the next Prime Minister.

Not only UK either.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes, a better one. Christianity has no right to 'being right' about moral issues. Many of us have moved on from Leviticus.

No, that is a problem for those who base their moral stances on authoritarian principles. That is Leviticus again.

Most of understand morality differently; that is a topic for another thread. Can we possibly get back to the practical business of the thread?

Yes, of course.

Offhand I can think of one possible candidate, the Hohenzollern dynasty of Prussia. It did not end well. The difficulty here is precisely that there are few or no examples of such a ruler. Perhaps somebody could supply some.

Levitical law isn't the be-all, end-all of Christian ethics. There are other ethical traditions in Christianity besides biblicism. The Thomist tradition in Catholicism, for instance, is based or Aristotle, and modern mainline Protestants have their own ethical tradition based on personalism.

 

[o_mlly]

I've got a degree in anthropology and I can tell you that ...

Perhaps a newer type of fallacious argument could be labelled the argument "ad gnosticism". The discipline more likely to add productively to this thread is not anthropology but rather political philosophy.

The historical development of successful political organizations among human beings recognize the (fallen) nature of human beings and respond accordingly. Leaders who prefer persuasion to control members rather than coercion recognize that all members are innately free (although some, eg., masochists, may wish to escape that freedom). Successful leaders also recognize that self-interest, avarice, covetousness and a will to power pervade the human spirit.

Democracy is messy. Persuading takes time. Therefore, the less persuading required to gain consensus on how to employ or distribute scarce resources is a positive feature of an autocracy. Those groups who possess more in common values are more likely to prefer and be content with the efficiency of autocratic leadership.

When the values of members diverge, the autocrat who uses coercion to rule will rule over restless natives and, more likely than not, rule for only a short time. As values diverge, persuasion becomes the more effective and less efficient method to control the group.

 

[o_mlly]

I didn't leave Catholicism because it was an autocracy, but I should have. But that's what happens when they convince you they are the one true church and following in the direct line of authority from Jesus himself. Perhaps the autocracy of it wasn't fully visible.

Does one does not need to be "convinced" of the truth? If a member rejects the truth proclaimed by the autocrat then they ought leave the group.

 

[childeye 2]

Is it not about electing a Leader?

If the dog leading a blind comes to crossing on the way and has to turn to the one it is leading for guidence.

What use is it?

For those who lean autocratic it may be about electing a leader, but for people like me who lean democratic it's about electing a faithful servant to put in charge of an office that has a duty. The whole point of the constitution is to declare fundamental rights and form a union around basic principles, not principals. The whole point of a democracy is to hold government accountable to the people.