What's so great about democracy and human rights?

[lovemuffin]

In order to have made a point, he would have to actually provide some sort of reasonable substantiation for the claim made. Instead, both of you are engaged in argument by hand-waving, based on your prejudicial presuppositions that it's just obvious that ethnic minorities make voting decisions purely based on the race of nominees, or that ethnic minorities are more prone to be low information voters than (for example) poor white people. I actually supplied the only relevant data that exists, and the data doesn't support his (or your) argument. So where is the point?

 

[YmirGF]

In order to have made a point, he would have to actually provide some sort of reasonable substantiation for the claim made. Instead, both of you are engaged in argument by hand-waving, based on your prejudicial presuppositions that it's just obvious that ethnic minorities make voting decisions purely based on the race of nominees, or that ethnic minorities are more prone to be low information voters than (for example) poor white people. I actually supplied the only relevant data that exists, and the data doesn't support his (or your) argument. So where is the point?

Beats me, I don't get it either.

 

[Mycroft]

In defense of the average moron isn't it a tad unrealistic to expect the electorate to wade through thousands of pages of documentation in order to make their choices?

Of course. But that is only more evidence for why Democracy doesn't work.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

"The cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy."
"Democracy is absolutely the worst form of government, except for all the others."

There are good points and bad points to any form of government, both in theory and in practice. I'll point out that most of the criticism laid here are aimed at certain forms of representational democracy, not at the idea of democracy itself, and not the practice as it occurs in many places. And I'm not at all certain that being uninformed, partially informed, or emotional in expressing electoral preferences is necessarily a bad thing. I would certainly prefer that everyone be well-informed and vote deliberately rather than emotionally, but then, we're dealing with humans here, not Vulcans...

I think the more important issue is not the form of government, but how government, and society in general, treat the rights of all individuals, not just the wealthy, powerful, educated, informed, party members, etc. That most if not all nations still fail in treating all equitably, the ideals of democracy are more likely to see to human rights than are other forms that observe an intractable hierarchy.

 

[Mycroft]

the only point I was interested in is the one where you assert, contrary to the evidence and without justification, that millions of black voters voted for Obama merely because he was black.

Not merely because, but certainly a contributing factor.

People do vote with their emotions. That is why politicians' speeches are all crafted to win approval. If you hear something that reflects your emotional bias on whatever issues, you will vote for that person. Whether or not their actual policies reflect what they say, or whether those policies are any good for you in the long run.

 

[YmirGF]

Of course. But that is only more evidence for why Democracy doesn't work.

That's all very well and good, but what is your alternative?

 

[lovemuffin]

As far as I'm concerned the onus is on you to supply any evidence whatsoever in support of your claim. Generalities about emotions don't cut it. Otherwise, you are only engaged in perpetuating negative racial stereotypes that contribute to a system of white supremacy and injustice. I don't think that is your intent at all, and I know you are not even in the US, but that is all that your claim accomplishes, I find it repugnant, and that is why I argue against it fairly strenuously. If you want to demonstrate that people vote emotionally, or without sufficient information, I will agree with that (although I may disagree that it is enough to disqualify democracy), but I will suggest that you can find arguments in support of that conclusion that you can actually substantiate, and which do not have the very real downside of perpetuating ugly racist propaganda.

 

[Mycroft]

That's all very well and good, but what is your alternative?

A higher standard of relevant education whereby people can arrive at intelligent decisions for themselves without the need for an obsolete system such as politics.

 

[YmirGF]

A higher standard of relevant education whereby people can arrive at intelligent decisions for themselves without the need for an obsolete system such as politics.

Hehe... again, an admirable goal, but how would you do that? How do you put such educational standards in place to make sure that everyone is included? Or is this just for a few special snowflakes?

 

[Mycroft]

As far as I'm concerned the onus is on you to supply any evidence whatsoever in support of your claim. Generalities about emotions don't cut it. Otherwise, you are only engaged in perpetuating negative racial stereotypes that contribute to a system of white supremacy and injustice. I don't think that is your intent at all, and I know you are not even in the US, but that is all that your claim accomplishes, I find it repugnant, and that is why I argue against it fairly strenuously. If you want to demonstrate that people vote emotionally, or without sufficient information, I will agree with that (although I may disagree that it is enough to disqualify democracy), but I will suggest that you can find arguments in support of that conclusion that you can actually substantiate, and which do not have the very real downside of perpetuating ugly racist propaganda.

Of course I'm not perpetuating racist propaganda. The problem isn't limited to race, it happens wherever someone has and emotional bias toward certain issues.

In Britain, people voted for Cameron because of his stance on same-sex marriage and his promise of a referendum on the EU (largely). This without any regard for his intent to abolish the Human Rights Act, his intent to slash funding for front line services across the board, his intent to abolish the Care Act, his intent to make it significantly harder for union workers to go on strike, etc.

 

[lovemuffin]

Of course I'm not perpetuating racist propaganda.

When Obama was running for president, millions of African Americans voted for him 'Because he da black guy! He da black guy gonna make it awwwwright!'

Come again?

 

[Mycroft]

Hehe... again, an admirable goal, but how would you do that? How do you put such educational standards in place to make sure that everyone is included? Or is this just for a few special snowflakes?

You teach more relevant subjects to very young children in pre-schools. You teach them how they relate to nature, how they relate to each other, what makes people the way they are, etc. This is all very achievable with the right sort of education system which doesn't yet exist. Teaching small children how the world works and why it works that way, rather than Mary Had a Little Lamb, which is BS and doesn't teach anyone anything. The less relevant education you give a child, the more you harm it and, in turn, harm your future.

Furthermore all education should be free. That way people are free to retrain to do whatever it is they wanted to do in the first place rather than what they (mostly) settled for.

Ideally, the aim should be to scrap the monetary system altogether.

 

[YmirGF]

A higher standard of relevant education whereby people can arrive at intelligent decisions for themselves without the need for an obsolete system such as politics.

Further.... Who decides what "relevant education" is. Who decides what constitutes "intelligent decisions"?

 

[Mycroft]

Come again?

You perceive it as such. That doesn't make it the intent.

 

[Mycroft]

Further.... Who decides what "relevant education" is. Who decides what constitutes "intelligent decisions"?

An 'intelligent decision' is one that is always made out of social and human concern. 'Relevant' education are systems which enable people to do this.

 

[lovemuffin]

I've said repeatedly that I'm not suspecting your intent. My criticism is with your actual words and choice of example, which perpetuates a racist stereotype (and is also contradicted by the actual evidence) regardless of your intent.

 

[YmirGF]

You teach more relevant subjects to very young children in pre-schools. You teach them how they relate to nature, how they relate to each other, what makes people the way they are, etc. This is all very achievable with the right sort of education system which doesn't yet exist. Teaching small children how the world works and why it works that way, rather than Mary Had a Little Lamb, which is BS and doesn't teach anyone anything. The less relevant education you give a child, the more you harm it and, in turn, harm your future.

Furthermore all education should be free. That way people are free to retrain to do whatever it is they wanted to do in the first place rather than what they (mostly) settled for.

Ideally, the aim should be to scrap the monetary system altogether.

So, realistically, you don't have workable solutions. All you have is carping about current inadequacies. That is friggin' brilliant.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

• Freedom of the press makes possible the exposure of corruption.
This doesn't really exist anymore. Most sources of news are sponsored, and they'd never speak out against their own sponsors for fear of losing money even if they were aware of a corruption. This is not freedom. Also, most news is owned by about the same 10 people who all have pretty similar values.

•It gives them freedom to make choices about their lives
This also rarely happens. Nobody is independent. We all have something that keeps us in a set pattern of behaviour conducive to the State: a job, a mortgage, children, etc. People, also, are not educated enough to arrive at intelligent decisions for themselves. This is why anarchy, as a system, would never work.

•to develop their potential as human beings and to live free from fear, harassment and discrimination
Doesn't happen. If you can't afford education, you don't have the freedom to develop your potential.
Also everyone lives in fear of something, due to high dependancy. People are discriminated against and harassed.

•It gives them protection under the law and the right to elect legislators of their choice and to remove them if they do not perform to their satisfaction.
See my other post.

•Public officers such as Auditors General and Ombudsmen,
All bought out years ago. They pass most incidents off as 'business decisions' now.

•Such a democracy gives its members many opportunities to participate in public life.
Well you didn't get to vote on the last freeway expansion, or the demolition of this or that building, or the design of another building, or whether this or that traffic system should be put there, etc. Where's the participation?

Also, I find this ironic. The article is about Australian democracy. A country that take punitive action if you if you don't vote... So that isn't democracy. It is, again, just a word being used to placate you into accepting that system.

Points 1, 2, and 5 are problems with capitalism, not democracy or human rights. 1 and 5 are more apparent, but with 2, capitalism has allowed many, especially those at the top, to live with the delusion that they did it entirely of their own efforts, it was all them, and their hard work and dedication. Such things have given rise to the myth of the "self-made million/billionaire."
We have also been brought up, very strongly, to not even consider or educate ourselves about alternatives. Except, that is, the alternatives we are taught about in school, which are dictatorships, facism, and totalitarian tyranny, but even then we are only taught about those to a very limited degree.
Human rights are great though. Without them women are controlled, humans are property, caste systems exist, and inequality runs rampant. However, there is a problem, which is nationalism, which has convinced many (especially in America), that their national ways are the pinnacle of human rights, even though their is an abundance of evidence to the contrary.
A system that is based on profits and wealth is also another grave problem, because it cannot work unless you have a class of poor, and this class is largely determined by nothing more than circumstances of birth.

 

[Mycroft]

I've said repeatedly that I'm not suspecting your intent. My criticism is with your actual words and choice of example, which perpetuates a racist stereotype (and is also contradicted by the actual evidence) regardless of your intent.

Fair enough. I concede the point on the Obama thing. That doesn't diminish the overall point though.

Ask yourself why you voted for whoever it is you voted for. Was it because you had read and analysed their entire policy and objectively made a decision that that politician was the best?

America, England, whatever, it doesn't matter the problem is the same: people make their political inclination part of their identity. 'I'm a Democrat!', 'I'm a republican!', 'I'm a liberal!' etc.

This makes it extremely unlikely that such people will ever make an objective vote.

 

[YmirGF]

An 'intelligent decision' is one that is always made out of social and human concern. 'Relevant' education are systems which enable people to do this.

Okie dokie.