Democracy is the worst form of government...

[childeye 2]

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.

Well, I'm on record as saying I'm talking about reasoning in degrees between two absolutes when I use this dichotomy; Democracy/Autocracy. I know you're not talking about that, but in that sense that I am reasoning upon a dichotomy, to stay true to the terms I would need to see a single person ruling the entire world geopolitically to be a true autocracy.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Actually I think its true for everyone. If the State cannot seperate itself from belief, from adopting some moral norms for society then no matter whether religious or non religious as some political ideology then the same applies to everyone.

Good in theory but unreal in practice. What is written is often based on belief and morality. Look how words, language and narratives are now deemed as authorative even to the point of creating what is real and causing people to be cancelled. The written word is holy according to the Postmodernist belief.

Words are expressions of our beliefs so I cannot see how any belief or system of morality can be detached.

Yes but in that disagreement it is implied that one is right and the other wrong. So no matter which side you want to take secular or religion we cannot avoid the fact that whoever happens to be in power to apply their belief and morality they will apply it as though it is objective over the other. So anything the secularists claim about religion has to be applied to themselves.

No system of morality is completely objective. Understanding this should clear up some of the confusion.

When you consider that even the State can become the moral law giver in its own way by taking a moral position which usually goes hand in hand with secular ideological beliefs and how they enforce that onto society it sort of represents the same ideas as the law to 'have no other gods but Me'.

The state is not a god professing in a totalitarian fashion that there should be no other gods. Not if you don't proclaim that specifically, and no one here is trying to make the state in to a "god".

That is why I think in reality we cannot seperate morality from the State or any secular idea about morality and the idea that a moral system needs to be authorative and universially applied regardless of the different subjective and relative morals. Its just one moral system replacing another.

The law is not morality, it is law. There are many things which are not immoral, but are illegal and vice versa. A "moral system" that is "authoritative" is just someone trying to impose their position by fiat and that is certainly not univeral.

The State is quite happy to be the god proclaiming that 'no other gods should be used' to determine the moral law it applies. We already see this happening where society has moved away from God and is applying a new secular morality through laws and regulations. Where its agents like the High priests are enforcing the gospel of ideology through the institutions. Its no different to how the same secularists viewed the church.

It would really help if you stopped trying to view the state (or other secular institutions) with some sort of religious framing. Referring to the state as "a god" or government employees (agents) as "priests" is a distortion of reality. This is exactly why governments should remain secular (not religion-based). Not to "replace" religions or be a religion-like institution themselves, but to be independent of them and vice versa. This kind of thinking is going to lead you to the view that the local garage is some sort of car-cult if you are not careful.

The point is through all this it implies there is some higher authority and truth about how we should behave and order society. That implies a moral lawgiver who is above reproach, someone who is not subject to the biases, self interest and ideaological beliefs that get it so horribly wrong as we fallible humans do when left in our own hands.

Nothing about the nature of human morality and society implies this. We have a lot of people *claiming* to speak for the higher authority (either directly or through interpretation of the words of the higher authority), but no direct, indisputable claims of the intent of such a "higher authority". This means that the choices we make about morality, society, and law are *entirely* in our own hands. The sooner we realize this, the better. (To be a little more explicit: the leaders of your church are humans, not gods. The fallible element when you interpret scripture is you.)

 

[Robban]

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.

Why does the mention of "Leader" xcare so many,

Obviously there have been so many ruthless rulers or so called leaders.

If we were to swop leader for Shepherd,

The shepherd of a nation.

That would put a little more meat on the bone.

But party politics only divide.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Does one does not need to be "convinced" of the truth?

That's the point of indoctrination. Evidence is not required, just the force of authority.

If a member rejects the truth proclaimed by the autocrat then they ought leave the group.

And I did. In this case it was the "truth" proclaimed by the authority that "there is a god" which I rejected and thus left. It was not the "we are the true inheritor of Jesus and Peter" claim.

If The Church had possessed the power of the state or over the use of violence then such a move on my part to leave the group would have been met with harshness. (Instead, they didn't even notice my departure.)

The is exactly why authoritarianism in government (back to the topic at hand) is such a bad idea in government and should be opposed before it takes hold. No exceptions.

 

[FireDragon76]

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.

That's a very American way of looking at government, as an imposition on human beings' freedom.

 

[stevevw]

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).

Ok so what input if any guides good governance.

 

[stevevw]

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.

Ok religion aside do you think ideological or philosophicqal beliefs are associated with politics. For example they underpin how a political party sees the world and how we should be governed.

 

[childeye 2]

I don't think the first actually exists.

To me this is probably why the derogatory "politician" carries a negative connotation as opposed to a public servant. It's a cynicism towards anyone who would seek office. I believe public servants do exist or at least should, and their duty is primarily to not mess up in upholding the constitution. If I may use an analogy, I want someone who will first makes sure the ship won't sink and is inhabitable, so I'm more skeptical of those who have already charted a course according to a grandiose narrative.

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.

Okay, so you do believe the first exists in some measure, but you want some idea of how they would weigh matters before you vote for them. I'm the same way in that respect.

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.

I can understand that. But I don't mean to imply a blank slate as you describe. I would think the minority needs protection from a majority when basic rights are being infringed upon. To best represent the people, one has to understand the people in all its facets as well as be able to see how to navigate a system. If I were to describe a blank slate in a positive connotation it would be one who is willing to learn and not operate out of prejudice or be predisposed to stereotypes. That wouldn't mean they should not have good ideas on how to govern.

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.

Well, I feel we're talking past one another here. It's a given that every politician is asking the voter to trust them, and I want to hear their views on policy. But respect is something earned so being "trustworthy" is at the heart of the issue. In other words, I would not see a politician as trustworthy if they would support a majority view that was stupid.

 

[childeye 2]

That's a very American way of looking at government, as an imposition on human beings' freedom.

I see my fellow human being as an imposition to my freedom so that I can see Love/compassion as a sacrifice of self. Hence the greatest are those who serve the rest, and those who speak as though it's greater to be served by the rest are not getting my vote.

 

[o_mlly]

...

The is exactly why authoritarianism in government (back to the topic at hand) is such a bad idea in government and should be opposed before it takes hold. No exceptions.

Agreeing firstly on what evidences good governance seems in order. I offer this one: Good governance establishes and promotes policies that increase economic growth and insure broad distribution of society's wealth. In other words, good governors provide more bread and circus to their citizenry.

 

[childeye 2]

Why does the mention of "Leader" xcare so many,

Obviously there have been so many ruthless rulers or so called leaders.

If we were to swop leader for Shepherd,

The shepherd of a nation.

That would put a little more meat on the bone.

But party politics only divide.

I see my fellow human being as an imposition to my freedom so that I can see Love/compassion as a sacrifice of self. Hence the greatest are those who serve the rest, and those who speak as though it's greater to be served by the rest are not fit to lead nor worthy to follow and they are not getting my vote.

 

[stevevw]

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.

Yes that is what I am trying to determine. What makes for good governance. So I guess we should start with some definitions

Democracy is a system of government in which state power is vested in the people, or the general population of a state.[2] In a direct democracy, the people have the direct authority to deliberate and decide legislation. In a representative democracy, the people choose governing officials through elections to do so. Who is considered part of "the people" and how authority is shared among or delegated by the people has changed over time and at different rates in different countries.

Democracy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

List of Political Ideologies
Anarchism, Authoritarianism, Communitarianism, Communism, Conservatism, Corporatism, Democracy, Environmentalism, Facism, Identity politics, Feminism, Liberalism, Libitarianism, Nationalism, Popularism, progressivism, Socialism and their subtypes.

Political Ideologies - List of Political Ideologies, Their Subtypes

What is a political ideology? Anarchism, Authoritarianism, Corporatism, Democracy, Fascism etc. are famous political ideologies. Learn the meaning of types of political ideologies for the IAS Exam. Download PDF notes for free. For UPSC 2023 preparation, follow BYJU’S.

byjus.com

I think this is an important destinction that "Who is considered part of "the people" and how authority is shared among or delegated by the people has changed over time and at different rates in different countries". Because it may be that a democracy may end up allowing undemocractic governance if the people allow it.

Political ideology
A political ideology is a set of ideas, beliefs, values, and opinions, exhibiting a recurring pattern, that competes deliberately as well as unintentionally over providing plans of action for public policy making in an attempt to justify, explain, contest, or change the social and political arrangements and processes of a political community.

Political Ideology - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

www.sciencedirect.com

'
So Democracy comes under a political ideology (ideas, beliefs and values) about how to govern like Communism, Fascism, Libertarianism, Socialism, Environmentalism, Conservatism and Identity politics..

Political philosophy
political philosophy, branch of philosophy that is concerned, at the most abstract level, with the concepts and arguments involved in political opinion. The central problem of political philosophy is how to deploy or limit public power so as to maintain the survival and enhance the quality of human life.

Political philosophy studies what kinds of political institutions we should have. It analyzes, criticizes and defends major political ideologies like liberalism, socialism, and conservatism, and tries to give content to central concepts in political theory like power, liberty, democracy and the state.

Political Philosophy - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

www.sciencedirect.com

So I think Political philosophy is relevant to this thread as its about which form of governance should be applied, comparing one with another based on their ideological positions.

But it seems to me that under a democracy we can accommodate opposing ideologies such as Environmentalism or Identity Politics which may be in contradiction to democracy. Whereas if we take say Communism, Socialism or Facism I don't think they are really compatable with democracy or that any government applying these ideas would even allow democracy. So in that sense perhaps democracy is self defeating.

 

[Robban]

I see my fellow human being as an imposition to my freedom so that I can see Love/compassion as a sacrifice of self. Hence the greatest are those who serve the rest, and those who speak as though it's greater to be served by the rest are not fit to lead nor worthy to follow and they are not getting my vote.

No one is truly free until they have become free of self.

The righteous promise little and do much,

the wicked promise much and do not do even a little.

 

[stevevw]

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?

Ok yes Bradskii pointed this out. I just found it hard to seperarte the two thats all. I will try to link it back to the OP. So if we say that the Old Testament laws were a form of governance as compared to other forms of governance that were around at the time. Moses was the leader, the Prime minister perhaps. That was a form of theocracy as opposed to democracy.

So how do we tell what is a better form of governance compared to another. What is the measure. I know in a democracy its determined by the people. But is something determined by the people necessarily the best or representative of the people.

 

[childeye 2]

That's a very American way of looking at government, as an imposition on human beings' freedom.

That's an insightful definition of American.

 

[childeye 2]

The righteous promise little and do much,

the wicked promise much and do not do even a little.

These are very profound words and an excellent response to my post. Thank you. I don't recall ever hearing these sentiments expressed this way before. I pray they live in me.

 

[o_mlly]

I'm not interested in discussing morality. I made it clear that morality per se has no input on governance ...

If so then why, as the OP, did you post in this forum, ie., "Ethics and Morality"?

 

[Robban]

These are very profound words and an excellent response to my post. Thank you. I don't recall ever hearing these sentiments expressed this way before. I pray they live in me.

Said Rabbi Elazar:

The righteous promise little and perform much.

Abraham promised his guests "A morsel of bread"
Genesis 18:5
and then
"ran to the herd and fetched a calf tender and good,
and he hurried to prepare it."

On the other hand the wicked promise much and do not perform even a little.

 

[Bradskii]

Ok so what input if any guides good governance.

Doing the best for the electorate. This is, I would have thought, as assumption that needs to to be be accepted when deciding how the government is formed.

 

[Bradskii]

Ok religion aside do you think ideological or philosophicqal beliefs are associated with politics. For example they underpin how a political party sees the world and how we should be governed.

Yes. But that's not what we're discussing.