People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say

Scientists say a bunch of BS things. Wonder what all the liberals are saying now, since apparently everything that scientists say is true acordding to them because of the "holy" scientific method. lmao

kingkong0124

So then you can't gain your freedoms back when they're taken away at a national level?Minishdriveby

Maybe you should reread what I wrote and then revise the question you've just asked. I don't see where I said that.

[QUOTE="Minishdriveby"]So then you can't gain your freedoms back when they're taken away at a national level?airshocker

Maybe you should reread what I wrote and then revise the question you've just asked. I don't see where I said that.

So if the majority of representatives take your freedoms away, democracy becomes useless with helping you keep or gain your freedoms back because on the national level, "the 'majority' matters very little."

[QUOTE="peterw007"]

Pure democracy is chaos because of crowd dynamics.

If the people get so roused that they become irrational, then they start to make irrational, dangerous decisions.

Irrational, disastrous decisions always lead to disastrous consequences.

-

Anarchy is chaos because it is unequal.

Countries that aren't anarchic would easily trump any anarchic society, as governmental structure implies efficiency.

Bloated governments are inefficient...but small, focused governments are much more efficient than no governments at all.

ghoklebutter

You're assuming that people have no idea what they want and that they inevitably drift towards the irrational. Even worse, you're assuming that people are always prone to becoming so dangerous and irrational as to cause great detriment to society. Your assumptions are entirely false, or at least very unrealistic. Surely, even if there are countless reckless and dangerous people in a pure democracy, there will also probably be many people who oppose the chaos and try to bring about order in society. After all, it is in their self-interest to live in peace. Moreover, it's not like caring and humanistic people are nonexistent.

Also, anarcho-collectivist organization can be very efficient. If you want a concrete example, read about the anarchist revolution in Catalonia.

If so, then why are we a war-mongering society?

Why have we built a military-industrial complex where our economy thrives...in a state of chaos?

I am exactly assuming that humans are a detriment to society, as they have emotions and impulses.

-

I agree.

The ultimate pursuit of any functioning society should be peace.

But that just doesn't happen.

-

In a truly rational society where peace is always everyone's priority, there would be no war and no conflict.

We try to justify our pursuits of war by saying "We're trying to correct misguided people," but we are the ones who need correction.

Even today, our irrational attitude leads us to threaten Iran with war.

Iran's irrational arrogance and Western intolerance coerce the USA into war.

The vast majority of humans can only lead horribly unstable societies doomed for collapse...because un-disciplined humans cannot accept peace as the only answer to all problems.

[QUOTE="dkdk999"]If the majority doesn't want you to have your freedoms you won't. airshocker

If the majority of representatives don't want me to, yes.

Direct democracy isn't practiced at the national level in the US. So the "majority" matters very little.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="dkdk999"]If the majority doesn't want you to have your freedoms you won't. dkdk999

If the majority of representatives don't want me to, yes.

Direct democracy isn't practiced at the national level in the US. So the "majority" matters very little.

Pure democracy is a strict definition that refers to a government system where the rule of the majority always sets the course of action for the society.

A democratic republic (like the USA) is where we elect leaders to perform democratic acts.

You said "If the majority of representatives don't want me to, yes. Direct democracy isn't practiced at the national level in the US. So the "majority" matters very little."

So if the majority of representatives take your freedoms away, democracy becomes useless with helping you keep or gain your freedoms back because on the national level, "the 'majority' matters very little."

Minishdriveby

I'm still not seeing what your statement has to do with what I said.

If the legislature decides to take our freedoms away, they'll be voted out. Again, refer to what happened in 2010. Democrats rammed Obamacare down our throats and they paid the price.

The majority does matter very little at the national level since representatives and senators are elected by state populations. For example, the majority of America is conservative-leaning, yet the lion's share of representatives in CA are liberals.

Isn't the "majority" thing kind of what makes democracy democracy ?dkdk999

What does this have to do with what I said?

[QUOTE="dkdk999"]Isn't the "majority" thing kind of what makes democracy democracy ?airshocker

What does this have to do with what I said?

If so, then why are we a war-mongering society?

Why have we built a military-industrial complex where our economy thrives...in a state of chaos?

I am exactly assuming that humans are a detriment to scoiety, as they have emotions and impulses.

-

In a truly rational society where peace is always everyone's priority, there would be no war and no conflict.

We try to justify our pursuits of war by saying "We're trying to correct misguided people," but we are the ones who need correction.

Even today, our irrational attitude leads us to threaten Iran with war.

Iran's irrational arrogance and Western intolerance coerce the USA into war.

The vast majority of humans can only lead horribly unstable societies doomed for collapse...because un-disciplined humans cannot accept peace as the only answer to all problems.

peterw007

In general, we need war to protect our lives and liberty. It's not pretty, but it's necessary sometimes. (I do disagree with the USA's reasons for going to war...just so you know.) That doesn't necessarily mean that humans would rather go to war then secure peace. Moreover, even though world peace is difficult to establish, I think it's possible.

Also, you're assuming that these social, economic, and political constructs you see are all inevitably the product of human nature. That's false, because there is always dissent and many people don't readily yield to the demands of the state. And although we have emotions and impulses, they aren't inherently distructive. People still like to live peacefully. They still have empathy with others and care for one another, even if it's not always altruistic in nature. And finally, if society goes in a bad direction, the consequences can affect everyone. Hence, the self-interest inherent in maintaining peace.

Lastly, you're assuming that all humans are un-disciplined. That's also false. And even if it were true, it's not a hopeless situation. People can still learn to be disciplined. It's not impossible.

Basically, you're approaching all of this with a narrow perspective of human nature.

[QUOTE="dkdk999"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

If the majority of representatives don't want me to, yes.

Direct democracy isn't practiced at the national level in the US. So the "majority" matters very little.

peterw007

Pure democracy is a strict definition that refers to a government system where the rule of the majority always sets the course of action for the society.

A democratic republic (like the USA) is where we elect leaders to perform democratic acts.

All the Republicans Ive ever met are either religious, orintolerant of gay people- or both... I totally think they are stupid. They don't understand basic equality...

You said our system has little to do with what the "majority" think because it's not DIRECT democracy. (correct me if i'm wrong).dkdk999

Correct.

[QUOTE="Minishdriveby"]

You said "If the majority of representatives don't want me to, yes. Direct democracy isn't practiced at the national level in the US. So the "majority" matters very little."

So if the majority of representatives take your freedoms away, democracy becomes useless with helping you keep or gain your freedoms back because on the national level, "the 'majority' matters very little."

airshocker

I'm still not seeing what your statement has to do with what I said.

If the legislature decides to take our freedoms away, they'll be voted out. Again, refer to what happened in 2010. Democrats rammed Obamacare down our throats and they paid the price.

The majority does matter very little at the national level since representatives and senators are elected by state populations. For example, the majority of America is conservative-leaning, yet the lion's share of representatives in CA are liberals.

Your main point is that having a "democracy" ensures keeping your freedom; however, how can this be the case if the majority of representatives decide to take your freedom away? They can't be voted out because they're the majority.

Minishdriveby

You don't understand how a representative democracy works, then. How did the democrats get voted out in 2010? They were the majority back then.

[QUOTE="Minishdriveby"]

Your main point is that having a "democracy" ensures keeping your freedom; however, how can this be the case if the majority of representatives decide to take your freedom away? They can't be voted out because they're the majority.

airshocker

You don't understand how a representative democracy works, then. How did the democrats get voted out in 2010? They were the majority back then.

[QUOTE="dkdk999"]You said our system has little to do with what the "majority" think because it's not DIRECT democracy. (correct me if i'm wrong).airshocker

Correct.

Tell me how?I'm assuming by the common people who are insignificant on a national level at making these decisions?

Minishdriveby

I never said they were insignificant.

So why then do you even want a democracy rather than a republic ?dkdk999

By democracy I meant republic.

[QUOTE="Minishdriveby"]

Tell me how?I'm assuming by the common people who are insignificant on a national level at making these decisions?

airshocker

I never said they were insignificant.

" the 'majority' matters very little." They sounded pretty insignificant to me... Anyway now that we've both come to the agreement that the laypeople actually do hold rank, we can go back to my original question: What if the majority takes away your freedoms, lets say, by electing representatives who can actually take away your freedoms? Then democracy/the republic fails and isn't the best form of government.Minishdriveby

Then you misinterpreted what I was saying.

And again, I've shown you what happens when a congress oversteps it's bounds. It gets shellacked in an election year.

This can't happen in any type of government other than a democracy, therefore a democracy, more specifically a republic, is indeed the best form of government.

If this is the case, then what are we waiting for? Anarchy here we come! :P

If this is the case, then what are we waiting for? Anarchy here we come! :P

gamerguru100

[QUOTE="gamerguru100"]

If this is the case, then what are we waiting for? Anarchy here we come! :P

dkdk999

I'll just say this. The opposite of pro is con, the opposite of progress, is Congress.

One thing that I've always found amazing is how willing most people are to have a strong opinion on something they're clueless about. It's like they feel that because they're entitled to an opinion, they must have one, no matter how baseless.

When I vote, if I'm unfimiliar with a ballot measure or the candidates for some minor office, I just leave that part blank.

I'll just say this. The opposite of pro is con, the opposite of progress, is Congress.

ConkerAndBerri2

[QUOTE="Minishdriveby"] " the 'majority' matters very little." They sounded pretty insignificant to me... Anyway now that we've both come to the agreement that the laypeople actually do hold rank, we can go back to my original question: What if the majority takes away your freedoms, lets say, by electing representatives who can actually take away your freedoms? Then democracy/the republic fails and isn't the best form of government.airshocker

Then you misinterpreted what I was saying.

And again, I've shown you what happens when a congress oversteps it's bounds. It gets shellacked in an election year.

This can't happen in any type of government other than a democracy, therefore a democracy, more specifically a republic, is indeed the best form of government.

I came in here expecting an Onion article. Tis a sad day when satire turns to reality.

theone86

Democracy supports what's popular, not what's good. A benevolent dictatorship is still the best system of government. Havelock Vetenari for 2012!Tylendal

WTF! we need to send you over to North Korea for a year or so. Then you can understand what a dictator ship is like. You would come back holding on to uncle sams leg saying im sorry Pleas don't make me go back

WTF! we need to send you over to North Korea for a year or so. Then you can understand what a dictator ship is like. You would come back holding on to uncle sams leg saying im sorry Pleas don't make me go back

Addict187

Look up the definition of "benevolent".

[QUOTE="Addict187"]

WTF! we need to send you over to North Korea for a year or so. Then you can understand what a dictator ship is like. You would come back holding on to uncle sams leg saying im sorry Pleas don't make me go back

Necrifer

Look up the definition of "benevolent".

Ok I Google it. But I live on planet earth and good luck finding someone that would not abuse that #$%@ like every one that clamed to benevolent in the past

Doesn't surprise me, people in this country still believe the earth is 6000 years old.

"when a congress oversteps it's bounds. It gets shellacked in an election year." That's only if the majority is affected. If it was a minority group that lost their freedoms the majority wouldn't really care because they didn't lose anything. They would care even less if they benefitted from the others loss of freedom and would probably re-elect the same politicians. So now we're back to my original statement. As long as you as the majority says you have your freedoms you're safe. As soon as you become a minority that the majority dislikes you lose your freedoms.Minishdriveby

And again, just because there's a majority in the house doesn't mean it can't be undone ie November 2010.

Yeah, we have you in this world.

[QUOTE="Blade8Aus"]

Why would that matter if democracy was replaced with something that was objectively 'better'? You'd only be missing out on the right to vote, if I'm not mistaken.

airshocker

Because there is nothing better? Nothing secures my freedoms like democracy does.

Personally, I woul prefer a Constintutional Monarchy with a Monarch having enough power to counter the Parlement and vice versa. Why would I want this? Well, let's be honest, most people are too stupid to vote. They either don't care or don't attempt to comprehend it. By not having to electa "Leader" you will take away the leader worrying about the next election, and actually focusing on keeping the country together (his head is on the line if he fails) and he will also be able to close loopholes (Tax, Lobbyists, etc.). While having an elected parlement with a term limit (so no more career politicians show up, IE the majority of US congress) will help new ideas enter the system (and hopefully reduce corruption, but I doubt it). Now obviously this is somewhat regressing when you think of it, as you can have a bad "king" "Emperor" "Dictator" what ever you wish to call it. But at the same time, Democracies and how they are setup will provide alot of bad officials.

Niether system is perfect. And obviously what I suggested has problems, but the current system is broken in most nations, and nothing really get's done. So what do you have to lose? Your freedoms? Well what about those people who wnat to smoke pot, or thsoe who wish to have Polygamy or even gay marriage, or abortions?

The current US system is doing great *cough* Gitmo *cough* NDAA *cough*. No matter the government, people will eventually lose their "freedoms" ( Freedom is subjective, example: Polygamy and Polyandry, the US allows neither, not to mention drugs etc. but is for another time) over time untill a new goverment type pops up which people will hype.

lordreaven

I'm a US citizen, gitmo doesn't affect me. Neither does the NDAA.

[QUOTE="lordreaven"]

The current US system is doing great *cough* Gitmo *cough* NDAA *cough*. No matter the government, people will eventually lose their "freedoms" ( Freedom is subjective, example: Polygamy and Polyandry, the US allows neither, not to mention drugs etc. but is for another time) over time untill a new goverment type pops up which people will hype.

airshocker

I'm a US citizen, gitmo doesn't affect me. Neither does the NDAA.

Obama changed the wording of the NDAA so it doesn't include American citizens.

Their advantage over dictatorships or other forms of governmentis merely that they "effectively prevent lower-than-average candidates from becoming leaders.kuraimen

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Their advantage over dictatorships or other forms of governmentis merely that they "effectively prevent lower-than-average candidates from becoming leaders.DaBrainz

harvard graduate with honors who volunteered to help the poor is lower than average?

TopTierHustler

Would you call President Bush lower than average? Just curious.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="lordreaven"]

The current US system is doing great *cough* Gitmo *cough* NDAA *cough*. No matter the government, people will eventually lose their "freedoms" ( Freedom is subjective, example: Polygamy and Polyandry, the US allows neither, not to mention drugs etc. but is for another time) over time untill a new goverment type pops up which people will hype.

Wasdie

I'm a US citizen, gitmo doesn't affect me. Neither does the NDAA.

Obama changed the wording of the NDAA so it doesn't include American citizens.

[QUOTE="DaBrainz"][QUOTE="kuraimen"]Their advantage over dictatorships or other forms of governmentis merely that they "effectively prevent lower-than-average candidates from becoming leaders.TopTierHustler

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

harvard graduate with honors who volunteered to help the poor is lower than average?

airshocker

Would you call President Bush lower than average? Just curious.

I still think his policies and beliefs were stupid though.

" the 'majority' matters very little." They sounded pretty insignificant to me... Anyway now that we've both come to the agreement that the laypeople actually do hold rank, we can go back to my original question: What if the majority takes away your freedoms, lets say, by electing representatives who can actually take away your freedoms? Then democracy/the republic fails and isn't the best form of government.Minishdriveby