Democracy, coming to an end?

[Pekka]

I mean, I have problems with the current status of democracy in .. many places. The idea is good, but I think we're implementing it so bad these days, that it just.. it's becoming almost useless.

It might work, but we have chosen paths that are not working. Like for example, representative democracy obviously assumes, that the citizens are active, so the policy making can follow the consensus that is clear to the politicians.

Now, instead of being interested what the people are saying, it's all about the position of your own party. Sure, you need to have power in your party so that they can force the issues they see important, however, it leads to party politics, where the issues are left secondary in importance.

I don't like the idea, that you have to join a party to have your say. That would be contributing into the party and its power struggle against others. And then I'd suddenly silently agree with all the other positions the party takes, even though they are the opposite of what I think.

And the biggest problem I have is the fact that most of the people who are decision makers are not really that smart to begin with, I mean, we have much more qualified people in private sector. Sure, we have all kinds of experts who give their opinion for the politicians, so they can make informed decisions, but they carry so little weight in ALL countries, that it is disgustingly stupid.

Most of the voters are also not that smart. People are pretty stupid, the average person is not really that clever. Since we aren't going to follow the libertarian way of individual liberties anyway, I think the next best thing today might be to be lead by the smartest people we can get. Competent leaders, where party politics is just forgotten.

The boss shouldn't be the guy with the least clue.

And it's all about hey, but if we can vote these guys, then we have power. No you don't. That's an illusion of power and equality these days. It works in smaller circles, but in the magnitude of a country, given the structures it already has, it doesn't make a difference. Difference, as in, we are still voting politicians, who belong to a party. It's like I have a choice to vote for a skanky hoe, or an overweight stripper. What's the point? It's not like things are going to get done anyway, it's the same **** every single time.

[Proteus_MST]

Yes,
democracy ifs far away from the best system possible,
yet still the best system we currently have in the world.

Although there are differences:
IMHO the best form of democracy is the direct democracy which AFAIK at the moment only exists (in some form) in Switzerland.
In it the citizens don´t have only power at the elections after which the policy is determined by the elected party (until the next election) but instead the citizens have great political power via referenda.

One thing that, for example, was determined via Referendum was the decision, that all transit cargo traffic across switzerland has to cross switzerland via train. A decision which has been the right one, as it seems, both for ecological reasons as well as for economical reasons (As you don´t have so much trucks damaging the streets and the swiss rail earns lots of money by transporting the cargo )

I doubt that Switzerland had made this decision if it had been a representational democracy (like almost all other democracies in the world)

[Pekka]

Yeah. The idea is, if we're going to hire someone to be a manager, let's at least pick the very best candidates, who can do things. Also, demolish the power politics between the parties. Let's just make sure we have the best guys doing the job, not the ones who promise the most or can get face time and marketing behind him.

Also, it seems to be a fact, that lots of stuff flies in the public sector, where you'd be in serious trouble had you been in the private sector. And I don't mean only getting fired because you screwed up bad, or couldn't accumulate any real results, but also ethical as well as .. I mean you can screw up very little or you'll be going to court. In public sector? Not really, you don't even have to show up if you don't feel like it.

[kittenOFchaos]

I love this adoration for the private sector when on the same page we have a thread about for posting again losses of over $12 billion.

[Solly]

This thread, coming to an end?

[Barnabas]

In the simpsons I always see that the people from springfield get together to vote, that Is something I like very much, but only possible in small cities I guess

Can someone from the USA explain how is that? is it in all states?

[Spec]

Democracy enables greedy bastards to do almost as they wish. Democracy combined with capitalism enables the Darwin law among people. The more money you make, the more power you have, the more you can crush, the more money you make....and so on.

That is why I think the system should be a combination of dictatorship mixed with capitalism. But the dictator should be wisely chosen, one that is neutral and compassionate, not tamed by power.

Its evident that anybody we put to power with the democracy system we have now, will only let him think of him and his friends first. If he stands to much behind real problems like the environment and poverty and really wants to make a change, the economic after-math would be to much. He would surely be killed/blown up. Otherwise, he's better off living in an unbreakable glass bubble from the start of the election up to the end of his term.

Spec.

[Barnabas]

I think the best would be a centrally planned economy with scientists as the elite of the country

[Solly]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
I think the best would be a centrally planned economy with scientists as the elite of the country

Don't be a cretin. You see what happens when scientists get power when you see the mess the climate debate is in. They abuse their power just like anyone else.

[Barnabas]

Scientists rule? I dont think so...

The only scientist ruler I remember right now is M Thatcher , she is a chemist methinks.

[Harovan]

Angela Merkel is a physicist. And M. Thatcher ruling?

[Barnabas]

Well, former

[Chemical Ollie]

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

~ Winston Churchill

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

~ Winston Churchill

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
Scientists rule? I dont think so...

The only scientist ruler I remember right now is M Thatcher , she is a chemist methinks.

I think several of the recent Chinese leaders had M.Sc. degrees. But as the topic is democracy, that doesn't matter.

On a vaguely related issue, my corporation will soon be ruled by a M.Sc. after ages of M.B.A-cracy.

(As you understand, I have a M.Sc myself)

[Pekka]

CO, as you know, M.Sc is the minimum we should ever accept. Not a proof of anything, lots of idiots get those too.. I think it's more a show that you can finish something you started, something fairly long term. That's it. THEN after that it all depends how good your thesis is. Is it crap? Great, 4-5 years wasted .. if it's good? Well, then it paid off...

I never really understood the fuzz about GPAs.. people go on and ona bout how high their GPA is. TO me, this doesn't matter. It just shows you were able to complete the course. What shows more is how your actual work was done, that required a bit more.