Limited Democracy

[Grooveman2007]

2500 years?

The Greeks.

[Hologram]

F1fth - how would a true democracy work? By calling a referendum on every single issue? What we have is not perfect, but it's practical. Four years in the US or five in the UK - we DO have the opportunity to change our local representatives, our national leader and our mayor (i live in london) if we want. But you have to put some faith in the national or local consensus to elect politicians with the most popular programme of policies.

Oh, don't get me wrong here. I have no problem with the system we have because, as you said, it's the most practical option we have. I was just making the point that the U.S. is not a democracy because the people do not rule. We elect representatives to rule, making us a republic. It's a big difference because one way, the people take responsibility for the actions of the country. The other way, the officials we elect do.

Maybe I'm arguing semantics, but meh. I don't think I am.

I've heard it being referred to before as a democratic republic. Now, I don't know really what the difference would be, but I'd imagine that it has something to do with an increased franchise so as to make the system more democratic while still retaining the qualities of a republic.

You also have to consider at the state level such things as the referrendum where the population gets to vote directly on somewhat controversial bills.

[got tonkaed]

2500 years?

got tonkaed to the history class....got tonkaed to the history class...
(in nfl matchup type style)
What we have here is a claim of a lineage that dates back 2500 years. How did we get there? Lets look at the film....

roughly 500 B.C. weve got these folks called the Ancient Greeks and BAM those athenians hit the line hard with an agressive blitz of direct democracy. These folks hit the ground running and were making some quick turnovers. But boy did they get decleated in the war of ideas vs the Romans in this timeperiod as well.

The romans developed a grind it out strategy that worked for about 1000 years with a whole lot of control from the star players...the senate and the caesar... and then pow the Nomadic tribes really laid the hammer down on them.

So then we ran into a virtual stalemate of a defensive struggle of feudalism for about 1000 more years and snap, we came outta that half time with all kinds of energy in the renaissance. Moving the ball left and right up and down, people all over the west coast offense were prepping us for democracy.

Then boom!!! Famous enlightenment thinkers start suggesting ideas of universal suffrage for white landowners....the crowd goes crazy! at least those guys in the skyboxes.

After a review, the call on teh field stands and the colonies have scored all over hail britania.


well i got tired but im pretty sure thats his line of thought.

I dont actually agree with it but i tried ot have some fun.

[InkL0sed]

2500 years?

The Greeks.

And nothing in between...

[Hologram]

2500 years?

The Greeks.

And nothing in between...

The Greeks started it. And once the idea of democracies and republics got out it stayed in peoples' minds, even though it fell out of favor many times to autocracies and feudalism.

[Grooveman2007]

2500 years?

The Greeks.

And nothing in between...

The roman republic, the magna carta, the renaissance, the enlightenment, all of those things gradually prepared western civilization to evolve into a free thinking, democratic society. Other cultures simply don't have the history to prepare them for the responsibilities of a free society. When Joseph II freed the serfs and tried to apply enlightened ideals to the Habsburg Empire, they revolted because they weren't quite ready to tackle all the duties of a free person.

[muy_thaiguy]

2500 years?

The Greeks.

And nothing in between...

The Greeks started it. And once the idea of democracies and republics got out it stayed in peoples' minds, even though it fell out of favor many times to autocracies and feudalism.

And monarchies of various sorts. Ranging from the Emperors of Rome and the Byzantine Empire, to the two Kings of Sparta, etc.

[InkL0sed]

2500 years?

The Greeks.

And nothing in between...

The roman republic, the magna carta, the renaissance, the enlightenment, all of those things gradually prepared western civilization to evolve into a free thinking, democratic society. Other cultures simply don't have the history to prepare them for the responsibilities of a free society. When Joseph II freed the serfs and tried to apply enlightened ideals to the Habsburg Empire, they revolted because they weren't quite ready to tackle all the duties of a free person.

Well, that's one way to look at it.

Can anyone say historiography?

[Neoteny]

I was just questioning the linearity of the number. If it were completely linear, we probably wouldn't have needed all those revolutions. Additionally, since I love semantics, western thought has only striven toward democracy. It hasn't really been achieved on a large scale.

[Hologram]

I was just questioning the linearity of the number. If it were completely linear, we probably wouldn't have needed all those revolutions. Additionally, since I love semantics, western thought has only striven toward democracy. It hasn't really been achieved on a large scale.

No, it definitely wasn't linear. There were huge gaps were there was nearly no democracy whatsoever. What we're getting at here is the fact that the seed had been planted 2500 years ago, and started coming to fruition in the 17th and 18th centuries.

[Neoteny]

I was just questioning the linearity of the number. If it were completely linear, we probably wouldn't have needed all those revolutions. Additionally, since I love semantics, western thought has only striven toward democracy. It hasn't really been achieved on a large scale.

No, it definitely wasn't linear. There were huge gaps were there was nearly no democracy whatsoever. What we're getting at here is the fact that the seed had been planted 2500 years ago, and started coming to fruition in the 17th and 18th centuries.

I'd argue it was a different seed. The first was well-snuffed out by... certain factors...

[Hologram]

I was just questioning the linearity of the number. If it were completely linear, we probably wouldn't have needed all those revolutions. Additionally, since I love semantics, western thought has only striven toward democracy. It hasn't really been achieved on a large scale.

No, it definitely wasn't linear. There were huge gaps were there was nearly no democracy whatsoever. What we're getting at here is the fact that the seed had been planted 2500 years ago, and started coming to fruition in the 17th and 18th centuries.

I'd argue it was a different seed. The first was well-snuffed out by... certain factors...

Do tell.

[Neoteny]

I was just questioning the linearity of the number. If it were completely linear, we probably wouldn't have needed all those revolutions. Additionally, since I love semantics, western thought has only striven toward democracy. It hasn't really been achieved on a large scale.

No, it definitely wasn't linear. There were huge gaps were there was nearly no democracy whatsoever. What we're getting at here is the fact that the seed had been planted 2500 years ago, and started coming to fruition in the 17th and 18th centuries.

I'd argue it was a different seed. The first was well-snuffed out by... certain factors...

Do tell.

The middle ages in general were not conducive to democracy. There was a sense of rediscovery of Greek democracy, but the application was wholly different. Equality of humans has been much more fleshed out in modern democracies.

[Hologram]

I was just questioning the linearity of the number. If it were completely linear, we probably wouldn't have needed all those revolutions. Additionally, since I love semantics, western thought has only striven toward democracy. It hasn't really been achieved on a large scale.

No, it definitely wasn't linear. There were huge gaps were there was nearly no democracy whatsoever. What we're getting at here is the fact that the seed had been planted 2500 years ago, and started coming to fruition in the 17th and 18th centuries.

I'd argue it was a different seed. The first was well-snuffed out by... certain factors...

Do tell.

The middle ages in general were not conducive to democracy. There was a sense of rediscovery of Greek democracy, but the application was wholly different. Equality of humans has been much more fleshed out in modern democracies.

Well, yes, you can't expect to go through 1400 years of almost no democracy of any kind and expect that the ideas will be applied the same way. The point is that during the Renaissance and Classical periods when philosophers would look back on Roman and Greek society they'd learn from those points and try to reapply them. Thus the seed was planted in Athens, went without watering for a while, and then garnered various degrees of care through the Renaissance to the modern day.

[Neoteny]

I was just questioning the linearity of the number. If it were completely linear, we probably wouldn't have needed all those revolutions. Additionally, since I love semantics, western thought has only striven toward democracy. It hasn't really been achieved on a large scale.

No, it definitely wasn't linear. There were huge gaps were there was nearly no democracy whatsoever. What we're getting at here is the fact that the seed had been planted 2500 years ago, and started coming to fruition in the 17th and 18th centuries.

I'd argue it was a different seed. The first was well-snuffed out by... certain factors...

Do tell.

The middle ages in general were not conducive to democracy. There was a sense of rediscovery of Greek democracy, but the application was wholly different. Equality of humans has been much more fleshed out in modern democracies.

Well, yes, you can't expect to go through 1400 years of almost no democracy of any kind and expect that the ideas will be applied the same way. The point is that during the Renaissance and Classical periods when philosophers would look back on Roman and Greek society they'd learn from those points and try to reapply them. Thus the seed was planted in Athens, went without watering for a while, and then garnered various degrees of care through the Renaissance to the modern day.

How about the seed was planted in Greece, got crucified during the middle ages, and was then cloned using bits of DNA and rebuilt so that it was better; stronger; faster... at least theoretically.

PS You can stop reading my posts now. I'm contrarian by nature...

[Hologram]

I was just questioning the linearity of the number. If it were completely linear, we probably wouldn't have needed all those revolutions. Additionally, since I love semantics, western thought has only striven toward democracy. It hasn't really been achieved on a large scale.

No, it definitely wasn't linear. There were huge gaps were there was nearly no democracy whatsoever. What we're getting at here is the fact that the seed had been planted 2500 years ago, and started coming to fruition in the 17th and 18th centuries.

I'd argue it was a different seed. The first was well-snuffed out by... certain factors...

Do tell.

The middle ages in general were not conducive to democracy. There was a sense of rediscovery of Greek democracy, but the application was wholly different. Equality of humans has been much more fleshed out in modern democracies.

Well, yes, you can't expect to go through 1400 years of almost no democracy of any kind and expect that the ideas will be applied the same way. The point is that during the Renaissance and Classical periods when philosophers would look back on Roman and Greek society they'd learn from those points and try to reapply them. Thus the seed was planted in Athens, went without watering for a while, and then garnered various degrees of care through the Renaissance to the modern day.

How about the seed was planted in Greece, got crucified during the middle ages, and was then cloned using bits of DNA and rebuilt so that it was better; stronger; faster... at least theoretically.

PS You can stop reading my posts now. I'm contrarian by nature...

Hahaha, sounds about right. We'll go with that.

[radiojake]

To explain fairly briefly, limited democracy is a system of "democracy" under which only certain people can vote. The United States was, at one point, a limited Democracy; the right to vote was limited to people of a certain race and gender. We are still a limited Democracy, although less so- now the only real restriction is age.

Now, when I said I'm warming up to limited Democracy, I'm not saying I want to return to the old ways of suffrage based on race, gender, etc. I think that everyone should have to right to earn their right to vote. My thoughts on this have been inspired by a few factors.

First, I've been studying recent elections in my history class, and I've been following this one very carefully. More and more I'm starting to see people vote for someone based on race, gender, or something similar that they can identify with. Selfish voting, I guess you could call it. Voting based on people's own interests as opposed to people voting with the interests of the country at heart. Black people vote for a black candidate, for instance. Evangelicals vote for an evangelical. Policy becomes less and less of an issue.

These fairly independent observations I've been making have been coupled by a book I recently read: Starship Troopers, the Heinlein novel, not the crummy movie series. Aside from being an interesting read, it contains ideas about government which I found interesting. I'll have to summarize for now, because I need to leave for school soon, but basically the idea is that ANYONE can vote... as long as they have spend two years in the armed services.

This is bound to be a controversial idea, but I think it's pretty well-founded. Here's the reasoning: Anyone who is willing to put their life between a society and its enemies is clearly willing to put that society above their own interests.

This is not limited democracy where the right to vote is based on intelligence. It is limited democracy where the right to vote is based on a person's sense of social responsibility.

And theoretically, once you join the military, it's very easy to drop out without fuss if you find it too physically or mentally challenging. This weeds out those who figured they'd just join up to get their right the vote and sail smoothly through their two years.

Further, the right to vote is the ONLY right afforded to veterans that's not afforded to other people. Everyone else has all the same rights, but sovereignty lies solely in the hands of the people who have shown they value it, because these people have demonstrated through their service that they can and will put the larger group before themselves.

Of course, no system is perfect, and this one has its flaws, but it makes more sense to me than the current one. People just take the right to vote as a given, and do nothing to earn it. As such, they take it for granted. When the people are sovereign, the fact that the people take their sovereignty for granted is dangerous.

And a key note: active duty military personnel can't vote. Only after they have completed their time of service are they allowed to do so. This means that sovereignty is not with the military.

Not going to go on too much here, Ambrose, because most people already have. But your Limited Democracy, sounds alot like Doublespeak ala Orwell's 1984 -

It's probably the worst idea I've seen come from you - and here I was hoping for some nugget of wisdom I hadn't yet heard. Ah well

[OnlyAmbrose]

I really haven't heard too many legitimate arguments beyond "that's fascism." Though there have been a few (nod to heavycola and gt) and I'll get to them.

First of all, this is purely hypothetical. A Plato's Republic, if you will. The idea could never be implemented under the current societal conditions.

Secondly, the idea isn't new. It basically IS a Plato's Republic, with a major difference. Under Plato's hypothetical "Utopia," sovereignty rested in the hands of the most intelligent. In my proposed idea, sovereignty rests in the hands of those who have proved that they are willing to place their own lives before society. Now, to address the issues raised:

i shirk away from systems that take away the right to vote.

I've been doing a little thinking "outside the box" lately, and the following thought struck me: why should everyone have the right to vote? I couldn't really come up with a particularly good reason...

Can you really describe black people voting for obama, or women voting for hillary, as selfish? If you were black, and you felt obama was going to better represent a group that you belong to, why wouldn't you vote that way?

Yes. They're voting for the interests of their own group as opposed to for the interests of the society as a whole.

National service: is the army the best place to adopt a balanced world view?

The purpose of the military in terms of the voting population is NOT to indoctrinate people with certain political beliefs. The military itself would be apolitical because no one in the military would have the right to vote. The purpose of the military is to weed out those who don't care enough about their vote to be able to wield that right.

Should pacifists be denied the vote because they don't hold the correct opinions?

Meh, the idea of pure "pacifism", ie that war is inexcusable under any circumstances, is naive at best. For those not interested in killing, there are plenty of jobs in the military that don't involve it. Seventh-day adventists have traditionally served as medics, because they're not allowed to kill under any circumstances, but love their country anyways.

Can we honestly say that fighting in Iraq is in the best interests of our country?

No. But the war in Iraq was legislated under our current system of basically unlimited democracy.

In many countries, military service is simply "what you have to do"

True, but that's not what I'm proposing for this hypothetical country. I'm proposing that military service be perfectly easy and not dishonorable to avoid, and also perfectly easy to drop out of once joined.

Once again, EVERYONE - regardless of race, gender, etc., has the right to earn the right to vote. But it's not something you are just handed, because you will just take it for granted as the majority of voters do.

The beauty of our society is that we have the freedom to do as we choose.

That would not change under my proposed society.

It seems to me that anyone who thinks that certain folks shouldn't be allowed to vote because they aren't voting for the right reasons has an over-inflated opinion of his own judgment. Who are you to say that someone else's motives for voting the way that they do are wrong?

Who are you to say that everyone should have the right to vote? My opinion is simply this, and I think it's very supportable: a voting body which earns the right to vote through difficult service to society is more likely to cast that vote for the betterment of society.

Ambrose, there is a taxi here waiting for you.
Its heading for Berlin, 1933 i believe.
Hop in-you'll fit right in.

YOU FOOL_LIMITED DEMOCRACY IS FASCISM.


Get a grip.

I guess it could be construed as "fascism," with one difference. Here's the definition of fascism: Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. My proposed society is not authoritarian. And even beyond that, my hypothetical society is not divided based on race, religion, or gender as fascist states of the early 20th century were. Furthermore, power is not vested in solely one man.

Not going to go on too much here, Ambrose, because most people already have. But your Limited Democracy, sounds alot like Doublespeak ala Orwell's 1984 -

It's probably the worst idea I've seen come from you - and here I was hoping for some nugget of wisdom I hadn't yet heard. Ah well

Sorry to hear it, but I've never been one to change my views because other people don't approve of them.

That's all I have time for right now, so goodnight everyone.

[fumandomuerte]

Yeah, foment war and lets kill each other defending our countries!!!

...I was joking of course.

Costa Rica doesn't have an army and nobody has trouble with them, am I right?

[MeDeFe]

In many countries, military service is simply "what you have to do"

True, but that's not what I'm proposing for this hypothetical country. I'm proposing that military service be perfectly easy and not dishonorable to avoid, and also perfectly easy to drop out of once joined.

Once again, EVERYONE - regardless of race, gender, etc., has the right to earn the right to vote. But it's not something you are just handed, because you will just take it for granted as the majority of voters do.

Well, good luck with removing the social factor, it's easy to create a utopian model of a state if you can influence every factor down to sentiments held by the general populace, but if you want to make a serious proposal you'll have to work out the difficulties or at least show that they are unlikely to occur. As it is you're doing the former in saying that there would be no pressure on individuals by society, either as a whole or by parts of it (like family, friends, peer group pressure).


I'm looking forward to your response to the rest of my points.

[heavycola]

Can you really describe black people voting for obama, or women voting for hillary, as selfish? If you were black, and you felt obama was going to better represent a group that you belong to, why wouldn't you vote that way?

Yes. They're voting for the interests of their own group as opposed to for the interests of the society as a whole.

National service: is the army the best place to adopt a balanced world view?

The purpose of the military in terms of the voting population is NOT to indoctrinate people with certain political beliefs. The military itself would be apolitical because no one in the military would have the right to vote. The purpose of the military is to weed out those who don't care enough about their vote to be able to wield that right.

Should pacifists be denied the vote because they don't hold the correct opinions?

Meh, the idea of pure "pacifism", ie that war is inexcusable under any circumstances, is naive at best. For those not interested in killing, there are plenty of jobs in the military that don't involve it. Seventh-day adventists have traditionally served as medics, because they're not allowed to kill under any circumstances, but love their country anyways.

Thanks for the reply Ambrose. You have an interesting brain.

Re: my first question: I think you are being naive here. It is idealistic to suggest that the national interest is always easily apparent, or that anyone can distinguish between self-interest and national interest.
The hypothetical black Obama voter may well believe that policies that further the cause of equal rights, or affirmative action, may be in his country's best interests. The minimum wage white guy might believe the opposite. To suggest that voters never feel their interests are aligned with those of their country is a little patronising, even if we acknowledge that these voters might be wrong.

Second Q:
A military is never apolitical, whether or not its members can vote. An army functions through conformity and hierarchy. I am not suggesting it sets out to indoctrinate people, but it requires a common purpose beyond that of serving the country's best interests. In the army, someone above you always decides what that is. Again, this is not going to churn out a rainbow of concerned voters.

Pacifism is naive? That's as maybe, but my point was that by demanding military service you are immediately weeding out potential voters because of their beliefs. Which IS skirting close to fascism

[MeDeFe]

We already went into detail on the first 2 on page 1, cola.

[greenoaks]

limiting those who can vote in a country like the usa is limiting it to the most stupid people in your society. your military is full of people who joined not because of a great pride in their nation and wish to put it first but because they are poor, down-trodden, uneducated people with little hope of ever amounting to anything.

it is only by underfunding your public schools & keeping wages so low that an individual must beg for tips from strangers (customers) so that they can put food on the table and a roof over their families heads that you are able to make joining the military a potentially exciting, viable choice for one's life or career.

[suggs]

Ambrose, I stopped reading your post after you admitted that your "idea" IS basically Plato's Philospopher Kings.

Now yer man Plato had some good ideas, BUT THIS WAS NOT ONE OF THEM.
Incredibly influential yes-and you know which movement he most influenced (via Hegel and Nietzsche)..yep, FASCISM.

You say you havent heard much of a counter argument than "its fascism"-but there is no further argument.
Plato's idea was to have the intellectual elite rule the Republic. He also proposed infanticide and eugenics as a way of getting rid of the weak.

There is a reason why Karl Popper's masterpiece "THE OPEN SOCIETY AND ITS ENEMIES" had one volume on Marx, and the other on Plato-because Plato is the enemy of democracy and equity/equality.

Don't read Plato-read Rousseau, and have some HOPE in your fellow man.

[MeDeFe]

suggs, you are aware that Rousseau also displayed some highly totalitarian tendencies in his Contrat Social. I'm supposed to write a short essay on the book so I might even be able to give you examples if you like, and if I ever get started on it...