-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Any Political System Better Than Representational Democracy?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
You might want to define the term representational Democracy. Many might confuse it with direct Democracy.
I favor representative over direct.
I favor representative over direct.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
I think direct democracy as the Swiss have it is better than representative democracy. I think this because I think representatives come to believe themselves masters.
Wandered Off
Sporadic Driveby Member
I think a meritocracy would be ideal, but logistical issues will keep this just a theory. Representative democracy is probably the best we can manage.
Benevolent dicatorships generally result in greater welfare and happiness for the majority of people than so-called "representative Democracies" can ever hope to.
The good thing about Benevolent dictatorships is, if it all goes bad and the dictator turns evil against the people, there's only one guy/gal to execute and the whole thing comes tumbling down - in a so-called Democracy there's a whole System to take down as well if you try to overthrow or abolish Government, so people resign themselves to it (and their fate under it) because it's too difficult to get rid of (and under Socialism, it just morphs into unrepresentative State Capitalism, so there you go...).
Zephyr
Moved on
Sure, the dictator may be benevolent, but what about whoever comes after him? This is why it needs to be a robot.
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
I feel that a representative democracy is the best form of government to date.
While a benign dictatorship is certainly the most efficient and even the most beneficial to its subjects it lacks longevity and is limited to the lifespan of the benign dictator.
Direct democracy was proven not to work by the Athenians. Coming to a consensus takes so much time that little progress can be made and once the people realize they can vote themselves money out of the treasury, its all over.
Meritocracy is a wonderful idea but seems to fall short in practice. The Mongol Empire under Genghis Khan is the only example and that is more theoretical than actual anyway. Were it falls short is ensuring the merit of the people in power. As long as the person or persons making the selections are true to the ideal it works.
Socialism has the same problem as Meritocracy, it relies on the leaders to remain true to the ideal. There is the added complexity of relying on the people to remain true to the ideal which is from everyone according to their ability and to everyone according to there need. The question is always how do you police this? How do you enforce it when people refuse to provide according to their ability? Human nature is not adequately planned for.
Laissez-faire capitalism is not a form of government but rather an economic philosophy but I include it because some forms of government have their economic aspects inclusive to their ideologies, such as socialism. While capitalism promotes the highest amount of productiveness in a human being, I feel that laissez-faire capitalism is the wrong way to go because there is no protection for the people from those who would abuse them for profit. There has to be regulation and in my opinion, some aspects of socialism built into your government to provide balance.
A representative democracy that has a capitalist economy and socialistic programs may not be a perfect government but it allows the people to have a say, has a process that allows for progress, is individually productive yet caring for those in need and has longevity. It may not meet all of these aspects as well as you would want it to but at least they are all represented. Therefore, this is what gets my vote.
While a benign dictatorship is certainly the most efficient and even the most beneficial to its subjects it lacks longevity and is limited to the lifespan of the benign dictator.
Direct democracy was proven not to work by the Athenians. Coming to a consensus takes so much time that little progress can be made and once the people realize they can vote themselves money out of the treasury, its all over.
Meritocracy is a wonderful idea but seems to fall short in practice. The Mongol Empire under Genghis Khan is the only example and that is more theoretical than actual anyway. Were it falls short is ensuring the merit of the people in power. As long as the person or persons making the selections are true to the ideal it works.
Socialism has the same problem as Meritocracy, it relies on the leaders to remain true to the ideal. There is the added complexity of relying on the people to remain true to the ideal which is from everyone according to their ability and to everyone according to there need. The question is always how do you police this? How do you enforce it when people refuse to provide according to their ability? Human nature is not adequately planned for.
Laissez-faire capitalism is not a form of government but rather an economic philosophy but I include it because some forms of government have their economic aspects inclusive to their ideologies, such as socialism. While capitalism promotes the highest amount of productiveness in a human being, I feel that laissez-faire capitalism is the wrong way to go because there is no protection for the people from those who would abuse them for profit. There has to be regulation and in my opinion, some aspects of socialism built into your government to provide balance.
A representative democracy that has a capitalist economy and socialistic programs may not be a perfect government but it allows the people to have a say, has a process that allows for progress, is individually productive yet caring for those in need and has longevity. It may not meet all of these aspects as well as you would want it to but at least they are all represented. Therefore, this is what gets my vote.
tomspug
Absorbant
Good god... that's the worst kind of government I could think of. The last government I want is a soulless, emotionless processor of "greater good".
lunamoth
Will to love
Well, there'd probably be a lot fewer of those pesky, inconvenient humans running around then.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
sindbad5
Active Member
despite the drawbacks to this system, it's best what humans come to and apply.
it boosts the likelihood that better people get into decision-making positions, and lowering the chances of covering corruptions.
if the only factors become the interests of the nation and the morals, and things like lobbies are vanished, it'll be better though.
also, i think media empires should be controlled, i.e. to make laws to prevent someone or some organization from owning more than certain number of media entities.
Zephyr
Moved on
Then we'll give it a friendly, upbeat voice!
Although perhaps robots may have their downsides...
YouTube - Chiron Beta Prime
Practical in what sense?
