Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hitman
Looks like the democracy won again :hmm:
Anyone else willing to defend democracy as a good government system?
I can right now remember that Hitler also reached the power through an election....
Aristhoteles said it already 2500 years ago: The democracy is the government of the majority and the majority are unfortunately the idiots. Great.  |
What majority? Palestinian majority? French majority? Universal majority?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Type941
If you are so fond of democracy, you need to at least open up your eyes a little to what's happening in the world (georgia, ukraine for instance). And as the poster above said, Hitler was elected democratically, by majority. This all goes to this idiotism that's going on around the world these days on how communism and fashism are the same thing (first is a form of ideology exploited by the monsters in power while the latter is a purely anti-semetic, racial, ultranationalistic and disgusting idiology).
|
Elections are a vital part of Democracy, however, Democracy is not an Election, elections are commonly used to make-up or justify a government, that is a mistake.
Democracy is a process, elections are a mere tool to bond the past and future. It's the results and continuity that makes a Democracy, not a single election, not an instant in time, not a referendum, it's what comes after the election itself and what remains or changes from before that characterizes a Democracy.
To reduce an analysis of Democracy to Hitler is to give credit to minority, Hitler was alone, he gathered a bunch of little friends, a minority of nations from all over the world, and he even lost the war to the Majority, to the Major Alliance, to an Alliance of many democratically elected governments, most of the world.
What's important to remember is that a Democracy is not stuck in time, what was democratic in 1910's is no longer democratic today, and vice-versa actually, because of modern extremist proponents of direct democracy.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skybird
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." (Lord Acton)
I often made the observation that a single individual may appear to be intelligent. But the more people are crowding together and building a mass, the more their signs of intelligence are fading, and the more behavior is collectively ruled by by an anonymous authority - may it come from social pressure; may it come from a hierarchy of lobbyists (mostly egoists); may it come from a believe of the individual that now he has not to take care himself about thinking, because all the others now surely would do that; may it come from the belief that when all others are doing something, the majority probably is right and so it cannot hurt to do the same oneself. The bigger a crowd, the more stupid human beeings turn out to act, it seems to me. The more isolated a human beeing is, the more he tends to make use of his own brain. --- What tells this about democratic decision finding processes...?
|
Contradiction, this tells the democratic decision finding process serves the interest of the minority, a political elite, an economical elite, lobbyists, dumb masses won't notice corruption, dumb masses won't notice populism, dumb masses won't demand any different, hence, a majority elected government when faced by dumb masses will serve their own self minority interests.
You point the problem to be in the masses, various causes, various points, hence the problem is not Democracy, but the people who make the Democracy, I agree about the mass phenomenon, however, according to your own logic, intelligent politicians will act intelligently when isolated, I find it to be quite the contrary, when politicians are isolated from the rest of the country, they act even more to serve their own interests. To use the same example: Hitler, do you think Germans would vote for him if he told them Berlim would be torn to ashes? Do you think Germans would vote for him if they knew he would split Germany in half? Do you think Germans would vote for him if he told about the holocaust? The Nazis would.
But Hitler is a phenomenon derived from WWI, and WWI was the suicide of Europe, but what led to WWI was exactly the lack of Democracy, Democracies in turmoil, if the Democracy is made by the people, the people of 1910/20's are to blame, not their form of government.
There are many winds of lack of faith in Democracy that blow from Europe, stagnant Europe who fails to re-invent itself since the end of WW2, that's an European problem for Europeans, what is a fact is that no other form of government managed to improve the life of the developing world, don't forget the point: A Democracy is not a legitimally elected government, it's the process.
How could the dumb uneducated masses of the 3rd world progress with Democracy then? If they can, why can't the Europeans? Is there not an inversion here? Shouldn't it be the contrary?
Makes you think, where are the dumb masses afterall.