Democracy is the worst form of government...

[Bradskii]

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.

Again, in this discussion, we must assume that the ship will float is a given. Policies are secondary to that.

In other words, I would not see a politician as trustworthy if they would support a majority view that was stupid.

I think this reflects what @Whyayeman said, that we should vote for people who will make the difficult and complex decisions for us. Brexit a classic example

 

[Bradskii]

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

Good point. I should have posted it in the politics section.

 

[childeye 2]

Again, in this discussion, we must assume that the ship will float is a given. Policies are secondary to that.

Okay, we've just had the big lie spectacle that culminated in an attempt to bring in fake electors and a riot. There were many elected representatives that were complicit and many current politicians that still spread the lie or downplay the significance of undermining a democracy on many levels of government including the supreme court. We have so called news outlets that serve as fixed campaign mouthpieces to spread gossip, and even though they have been sued for defamation they still continue to draw and deceive masses. I feel all those actions were predictable just because these same types of people consistently show autocratic tendencies. They don't want the ship to float.

I think this reflects what @Whyayeman said, that we should vote for people who will make the difficult and complex decisions for us. Brexit a classic example

I think it speaks to the susceptibility of voters to propaganda when they vote for those who lie and live in an alternate reality. I don't think I'm doing a good job of cheering you up.

 

[Bradskii]

Okay, we've just had the big lie spectacle that culminated in an attempt to bring in fake electors and a riot. There were many elected representatives that were complicit and many current politicians that still spread the lie or downplay the significance of undermining a democracy on many levels of government including the supreme court. We have so called news outlets that serve as fixed campaign mouthpieces to spread gossip, and even though they have been sued for defamation they still continue to draw and deceive masses. I feel all those actions were predictable just because these same types of people consistently show autocratic tendencies. They don't want the ship to float.

What the op was really asking was 'In a perfect world, what would be the system of ensuring the best system of governance.'

I appreciate that we live in a far from perfect world. But that doesn't stop us trying to workout what that best system could be. If it's decided that democracy in some form is the best, we then can look at what needs to be done to ensure it works as well as possible. But if we start investigating how to combat propaganda and how we get a trustworthy media and how we ensure that the electorate are educated enough to make reasonable decisions before we decide on what system we want .then we're putting the cart before the horse. Although I appreciate it's all part of the same problem.

 

[o_mlly]

What the op was really asking was 'In a perfect world, what would be the system of ensuring the best system of governance.'

In a perfect world, you ask? In a perfect world no system of governance would be needed.

“If Men were angels, no government would be necessary" (Madison, Federalist Papers).

Since the world is not perfect who is in need of governance? Answer: The imperfect men who are governed and the imperfect men who govern.

Now, what constitutes the imperfections in need of governance? In the Christian tradition there are seven root imperfections: pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth.

If self-governance fails then which of those seven imperfections leads to acts which have spill over consequences such that the commonweal suffers and government intervention is necessary?

And we’re back to issues of morality: what acts ought the collective to proscribe or prescribe upon individuals?

 

[Bradskii]

In a perfect world, you ask? In a perfect world no system of governance would be needed.

How would decisions regarding society as a whole be determined? How would it work in practice? If it does work then you may be right. But I think it's obvious that I wasn't talking about some idealised utopia. Just suggesting that for the purpose of discussion, those that end up in charge by whatever means have our best interests at heart.

 

[stevevw]

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

But how can you say that. You have no evidence either way. Doesn't the moral naturalist claim we cannopt derive a fact from morality. But yet morality is lived out in reality as though it is objective. As though one side is right and the other wrong. Thats because thats how morality works. So actually I don't think this is clearede up and is still an issue that has to be dealt with.

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".

Well I think it depends on what you mean by "no other god". If we mean that the State or entity in control or claims to be in control is the only law giver and what they say is above all other claims. Then yes the State often does this. In Canada if you don't use certain language accoredeing to State legislation you will be punished.

That is more or less saying 'no other gods before me' because no other beliefs are allowed and they are the law. When the State says you must wear a mask or else that is declaring they are god in this situation. When they claim they hold the truth about these issues they are claiming no other opinion is worthy.

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.

There are many laws that are underpinned by morals. Forcing vacines and masks is a moral issue. Allowing abortion is a moral issue, anti descrimination laws are moral issues. Murder aned stealing are moral issues. Underage sex is a moral issue. Environmental issues are moral issues. Apart from by laws and tax laws most is a moral issue.

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.

That doesn't seem real in that the simple fact that the Party that gets in will have a different philosophical worldview than the other. The Leftist policies and laws represent a more progressive way of seeing the world as opposed to the Right. The major parties who end up using minor parties to get into power are being dictated to by a different ideological position such as the Greens (environmentalism) or the Gun lobby or the Pot party whatever happens to get into that position of power.

So already each party is having a edifferent ideology and this often clashes morally. The Left are pro choice and SSM for example and the Right are opposed. So if the Left get in and push certain beliefs and moral positions that others disagree with then it follows logically that one party os enforcing their moral worldview on others.

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.)

if they are entirely in our own hands then how can one side claim authority over the other. Surely they must do so because they believe they are right objectively and not just maybe. When States overturned Roe and pro choicers objected wasn't that enfocing one moral position over another as though they were objectively right. When the State forces people accept their ideas about sex, gender, race ect isn't that forcing their view. How can they do that if there is no moral truth.

 

[stevevw]

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.

I think its more than an assumption. We can test that assumption to see if the government is doing the best for the electorate.

If by electorate you mean the people within a zone or State or even nation then wouldn't it stand to reason that different parties are going to have policies that some or the majority of the electorate in some cases think is not the best for the electorate. The Left will have different ideas that the Right may disagree with. As no electrorate is entirely Left or Right then some if not many will believe they are not represented by what is best.

Perhaps this is the problem in recent times that the parties have become more polarized and therefore people are more divided on whats best. I remember seeing the news when Trump won the election. many on the Left especially women were devasted, crying that someone who they fundemnetally opposed got into power because they represented something they believed was not best for the country. Its the same when the Left gets in and the Right protest.

So I find it hard to believe we can assume that just because a particular party gets in power that we should all agrre and accept that this is in everyones best interest.

Then when you add the minor parties influence which often allows minority ideas to influence policy which the majoirty disagree with. Or when big corporations influence decisions and policy I don't think we can say that any party in the current system is truely looking out for our best interests. Its all smoke and mirrors to keep power.

 

[stevevw]

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

I think its related because this may be a contributing factor as to why democracy is failing. It actually eats itself by allowing undemocratic politics by allowing minorities to dictate policy. If democracy is government by the people but the majority view are not being reflected in the outcomes then something is going wrong.

Maybe it wasn't so bad in the past when I think parties were more middle of the road and ideas converged for the most part. But now it seems we are more polarized and divided so opposite party ideas are now seen as detrimental and even dangerous. So people percieve more is at stake. Minor power influences can take us down a path in which the majority disagree and yet have little say in changing things.

 

[Robban]

I think its more than an assumption. We can test that assumption to see if the government is doing the best for the electorate.

If by electorate you mean the people within a zone or State or even nation then wouldn't it stand to reason that different parties are going to have policies that some or the majority of the electorate in some cases think is not the best for the electorate. The Left will have different ideas that the Right may disagree with. As no electrorate is entirely Left or Right then some if not many will believe they are not represented by what is best.

Perhaps this is the problem in recent times that the parties have become more polarized and therefore people are more divided on whats best. I remember seeing the news when Trump won the election. many on the Left especially women were devasted, crying that someone who they fundemnetally opposed got into power because they represented something they believed was not best for the country. Its the same when the Left gets in and the Right protest.

So I find it hard to believe we can assume that just because a particular party gets in power that we should all agrre and accept that this is in everyones best interest.

Then when you add the minor parties influence which often allows minority ideas to influence policy which the majoirty disagree with. Or when big corporations influence decisions and policy I don't think we can say that any party in the current system is truely looking out for our best interests. Its all smoke and mirrors to keep power.

That's about it, in a nutshell.

As for governing much of if not all of our daily lives are governed by the law.

 

[o_mlly]

How would decisions regarding society as a whole be determined? How would it work in practice? If it does work then you may be right. But I think it's obvious that I wasn't talking about some idealised utopia. Just suggesting that for the purpose of discussion, those that end up in charge by whatever means have our best interests at heart.

Assume that the society under examination is a pluralistic widely divergent one.

How would decisions regarding society as a whole be determined?
In a pluralistic widely divergent society, employing the most democratic means possible would be preferred. Unfortunately, in a pluralistic widely divergent society, the lowest common denominator rule applies, ie., only those values (morals) that the majority agrees upon would be subject to governance.

How would it work in practice?
Employing the principle of subsidiarity seems preferable. The government that governs least is always the better government.

... those that end up in charge by whatever means have our best interests at heart.
Lord Acton's insight still applies. Presume that the political power to control others will always tempt and eventually corrupt those that govern. Limiting that corruptible power seems a good idea. Some career politicians may resist being corrupted but most will not. Term limits or other such means that eliminate politics as a career would do more good than not.

 

[Bradskii]

Unfortunately, in a pluralistic widely divergent society, the lowest common denominator rule applies, ie., only those values (morals) that the majority agrees upon would be subject to governance.

Morality seems to want to creep into the discussion. I don't want government to be concerned with morals.

Employing the principle of subsidiarity seems preferable. The government that governs least is always the better government.

Possibly. But an alternate view might be a government that leads rather than takes a laissez faire attitude. One that is active in advancing society in ways that the electorate on their own could not.

Limiting that corruptible power seems a good idea. Some career politicians may resist being corrupted but most will not. Term limits or other such means that eliminate politics as a career would do more good than not.

Agreed.

 

[o_mlly]

Morality seems to want to creep into the discussion. I don't want government to be concerned with morals.

Possibly. But an alternate view might be a government that leads rather than takes a laissez faire attitude. One that is active in advancing society in ways that the electorate on their own could not.

Agreed.

Morality seems to want to creep into the discussion. I don't want government to be concerned with morals.
Governance, the power to control, ie., limit or require the human acts of those governed, has an inherent moral dimension. There's just no getting around that fact. All human acts are moral acts. As rational beings, our acts always have some end in view. The end in view is either morally good or bad.

Possibly. But an alternate view might be a government that leads rather than takes a laissez faire attitude. One that is active in advancing society in ways that the electorate on their own could not.

I agree that government, the collective, ought to do what the individual cannot, iff, what is done collectively advances society. So, the question remains: To what ends is government action justified? What processes ought we employ to resolve disagreements among the governed as to what governmental acts advance or retard society? For instance, few would disagree that that government has the obligation to provide for the common defense. And, few would agree that aborting a child in the last trimester is good.

 

[Whyayeman]

Possibly. But an alternate view might be a government that leads rather than takes a laissez faire attitude. One that is active in advancing society in ways that the electorate on their own could not.

I certainly want the people we choose to lead the country to actually do some leading.

Examples of good leadership are everywhere but let's go back to the OP and Churchill. He was a great leader in a time of extraordinary peril - and was rejected by the voting public at the war's end. His replacement, Clement Attlee, led the country through a different kind of crisis. Both Prime Ministers achieved great things which could not have happened without them.

Perhaps there is not all that much wrong with the processes of democracy if it can produce these two. Maybe it iss simply that our political landscape is now peopled with dwarfs where once trod such giants.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But how can you say that. You have no evidence either way. Doesn't the moral naturalist claim we cannopt derive a fact from morality. But yet morality is lived out in reality as though it is objective. As though one side is right and the other wrong. Thats because thats how morality works. So actually I don't think this is clearede up and is still an issue that has to be dealt with.

It's not really hard to say there is no objective morality. All moral systems have some subjective component. An objective morality would have to be baked into the fabric of the universe, would it not? If God is the moral law giver, then it is *God's* subjective choice of what is moral. If there is an objective morality, then God would be subject to it as well, rather than its author. (If God bakes morality into the Universe, it is still his choice.)

Well I think it depends on what you mean by "no other god".

I thought it was obvious. I even used a well known phrase from your book. If they prohibit worship/belief. ~~~The dreded **STATE ATHEISM** ~~~

If we mean that the State or entity in control or claims to be in control is the only law giver and what they say is above all other claims. Then yes the State often does this. In Canada if you don't use certain language accoredeing to State legislation you will be punished.

That's not what I meant and I don't care what is up in Canada.

That is more or less saying 'no other gods before me' because no other beliefs are allowed and they are the law. When the State says you must wear a mask or else that is declaring they are god in this situation. When they claim they hold the truth about these issues they are claiming no other opinion is worthy.

No, not what I said. See above.

There are many laws that are underpinned by morals. Forcing vacines and masks is a moral issue. Allowing abortion is a moral issue, anti descrimination laws are moral issues. Murder aned stealing are moral issues. Underage sex is a moral issue. Environmental issues are moral issues. Apart from by laws and tax laws most is a moral issue.

Most law is quite dry and bureaucratic. Even things that seem to have a "moral basis" such is lost in the text of them. No one is saying people don't make laws because the represent popular moral opinions. No one at all.

That doesn't seem real in that the simple fact that the Party that gets in will have a different philosophical worldview than the other. The Leftist policies and laws represent a more progressive way of seeing the world as opposed to the Right. The major parties who end up using minor parties to get into power are being dictated to by a different ideological position such as the Greens (environmentalism) or the Gun lobby or the Pot party whatever happens to get into that position of power.

So already each party is having a edifferent ideology and this often clashes morally. The Left are pro choice and SSM for example and the Right are opposed. So if the Left get in and push certain beliefs and moral positions that others disagree with then it follows logically that one party os enforcing their moral worldview on others.

I think I already made any relevant answer. Let's not get twisted up in the various political positions. They are just a distraction to the topic of democracy.

if they are entirely in our own hands then how can one side claim authority over the other. Surely they must do so because they believe they are right objectively and not just maybe. When States overturned Roe and pro choicers objected wasn't that enfocing one moral position over another as though they were objectively right. When the State forces people accept their ideas about sex, gender, race ect isn't that forcing their view. How can they do that if there is no moral truth.

Because that's how democracy works. The people collectively agree to select leaders and decide things by majority rule and lay down some protections from a majority faction using that power to oppress others and the voila - democracy. Its not to hard to comprehend, it just takes some effort to keep it functions. (And I am NOT going to discuss moral truth with you on this thread. Period. Full Stop.)

 

[Bradskii]

Governance, the power to control, ie., limit or require the human acts of those governed, has an inherent moral dimension. There's just no getting around that fact. All human acts are moral acts. As rational beings, our acts always have some end in view. The end in view is either morally good or bad.

We make moral decisions all the time. But I agree with you in that I'd prefer the government not to involve itself in every aspect of my life. There's an overlap between what is immoral and what is illegal. But we don't legislate immorality in itself. And I'm sure we could find areas where there's be disagreement, but that's not the purpose of the thread.

I agree that government, the collective, ought to do what the individual cannot, iff, what is done collectively advances society. So, the question remains: To what ends is government action justified? What processes ought we employ to resolve disagreements among the governed as to what governmental acts advance or retard society? For instance, few would disagree that that government has the obligation to provide for the common defense.

Defence is a given (in fact, some people think that's the only function a government should take on). But is where we draw the line relevant to the system we employ to elect the government? I'd say that being informed about what someone would want to do if elected is actually part of the process. It certainly is at the moment. And I think that has to stay whatever else might change.

 

[Bradskii]

So I find it hard to believe we can assume that just because a particular party gets in power that we should all agrre and accept that this is in everyones best interest.

Again...I don't want to talk about specific policies. But if you are suggesting that we should be informed about what a government is likely to want to do when it gets into power, then I'd agree. We don't want hidden agendas. That some people would agree with what they want and some disagree is a given. There's no way around that short of the government doing nothing except maybe defence.

I don't agree with that at all. But it is an option.

 

[Bradskii]

Perhaps there is not all that much wrong with the processes of democracy if it can produce these two. Maybe it simply that our political landscape is now peopled with dwarfs where once trod such giants.

Winston was certainly the right man at the right time. Anyone else and perhaps wir wurden deutch sprechen, mein Freund.

And to be honest, that's what I think is the main problem as well. It's not really a fault in the system (although that needs improving). It's the candidates for office. And surely how they are selected is part of the system.

 

[Whyayeman]

Perhaps it worth reminding people here that Churchill in saying 'except for all the others' was actually defending the democratic idea despite acknowledging that it had weaknesses.

The moral aspect of government is the same whatever the regime. A despot is just as accountable morally for his actions as a democratically elected president or the prime minister of a constitutional monarch. How a government comes into being does not alter the moral framework.

I have regarded this thread as an opportunity to explore ways to improve democracy - and we have not got very far. I am not entirely sure that there is agreement about Churchill's preference for it. Maybe we could agree on just this one thing: democratic rule is better than dictatorship, however benign.

 

[Pommer]

Perhaps it worth reminding people here that Churchill in saying 'except for all the others' was actually defending the democratic idea despite acknowledging that it had weaknesses.

The moral aspect of government is the same whatever the regime. A despot is just as accountable morally for his actions as a democratically elected president or the prime minister of a constitutional monarch. How a government comes into being does not alter the moral framework.

I have regarded this thread as an opportunity to explore ways to improve democracy - and we have not got very far. I am not entirely sure that there is agreement about Churchill's preference for it. Maybe we could agree on just this one thing: democratic rule is better than dictatorship, however benign.

Unless the autocrat rhymes with “prump”.