We must never allow status

[Chicknoodle]

to dictate our esteem for human beings. Respect is earned!!! Speaking of respect which leads way into authority here's my question of the day:

If you could choose between a dictatorship or a true democracy which would you choose and why?

 

[Jasmine]

Depends.

Is there really a such thing as a true democracy? In reality, everyone's opinion won't always be heard. That's the way a democracy (especially the U.S government's branches) is set up.

At least in a dictatorship, you won't be fooled into thinking your opinion matters.

 

[Chicknoodle]

No more along the lines of the peoples voice is what matters. Not how our votes are "suggestions"

So a con would be: the majority of voters are idiots who vote based on propaganda from commercials. The majority wins out and you're stuck with a horrible president.

 

[Jasmine]

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. In reality, the "people's" voice(s) won't always be heard, and in fact, usually aren't heard.

But yeah, majority rules can definitely be a con.

 

[Chicknoodle]

ohh i see. Alright

 

[karkat]

does a kindly kingly figure count as a dictatorship

 

[Goddess]

Depends.

Is there really a such thing as a true democracy? In reality, everyone's opinion won't always be heard. That's the way a democracy (especially the U.S government's branches) is set up.

At least in a dictatorship, you won't be fooled into thinking your opinion matters.

Ahh now this really opened my eyes. I never thought of it that way before, that's very insightful Jasmine .

 

[Alionette]

No more along the lines of the peoples voice is what matters. Not how our votes are "suggestions"

So a con would be: the majority of voters are idiots who vote based on propaganda from commercials. The majority wins out and you're stuck with a horrible president.

Isn't a true democracy just majority rules? What exists in the US is representative democracy.

To answer the question, neither. I honestly would rather have no government than either of these options :P As mentioned in the other thread, if you have a dictatorship, you will almost guaranteed end with tyranny. The same lies in what Madison addressed as the "tyranny of the majority" where the will of the majority blocks out the needs of the few.

 

[Chicknoodle]

yeah i misunderstood her response. hahaha i like your response though. heil anarchy!

 

[VOLTAIRE]

yeah i misunderstood her response. hahaha i like your response though. heil anarchy!

+119876543223098765432234567894567890

 

[Alionette]

+119876543223098765432234567894567890

I don't think Voltaire would agree THAT much with anarchy

 

[Graham]

depends
am i the dictator?

 

[Chicknoodle]

yes of course

 

[karkat]

praise stalin great leader

 

[Thrill]

Is there really a such thing as a true democracy? In reality, everyone's opinion won't always be heard. That's the way a democracy (especially the U.S government's branches) is set up.

A direct democracy works a lot differently than a republic. In a republic, people campaign on principles and turn their backs on them, and they somehow get re-elected (because no one pays attention, I guess). In a democracy, we'd have people seeing the actual content of the laws.

 

[Jasmine]

A direct democracy works a lot differently than a republic. In a republic, people campaign on principles and turn their backs on them, and they somehow get re-elected (because no one pays attention, I guess). In a democracy, we'd have people seeing the actual content of the laws.

See I feel that people are led to believe that a democracy is "everyone's voice matters", but in reality, it's majority rules. I'm not sure if it's just a misconception, or if that's how it's intended to come across...

 

[Thrill]

See I feel that people are led to believe that a democracy is "everyone's voice matters", but in reality, it's majority rules. I'm not sure if it's just a misconception, or if that's how it's intended to come across...

It is majority rules, but I think that people are pretty reasonable when they actually get some kind of responsibility. In the modern system, everyone is hands-off. They vote maybe three times a year, check off a party name, and then proceed to complain about the government. Under direct democracy, only people who are willing to have some level of actual understanding (not just parties) are going to vote regularly, and these people are the most qualifiied to vote.

Direct democracy is great for societies that are 1) well-educated and 2) really tolerant (I'd think that these things correlate pretty well). Under these circumstances, the majority opinion is bound to be one that is based on sound logic. America is getting to this point, slowly. There's still a fair bit of racism, sexism, religionism, etc., but these things become weaker all the time.

 

[Jasmine]

It is majority rules, but I think that people are pretty reasonable when they actually get some kind of responsibility. In the modern system, everyone is hands-off. They vote maybe three times a year, check off a party name, and then proceed to complain about the government. Under direct democracy, only people who are willing to have some level of actual understanding (not just parties) are going to vote regularly, and these people are the most qualifiied to vote.

Direct democracy is great for societies that are 1) well-educated and 2) really tolerant (I'd think that these things correlate pretty well). Under these circumstances, the majority opinion is bound to be one that is based on sound logic. America is getting to this point, slowly. There's still a fair bit of racism, sexism, religionism, etc., but these things become weaker all the time.

I think a "democracy" works pretty well for the U.S, but as for the OP's question, I still say it just depends on the situation. Different stokes for different folks... I guess the same can be said about countries :S.

 

[Graham]

praise stalin great leader

live 4 stalin
love 4 stalin
be da stalin

 

[Alionette]

It is majority rules, but I think that people are pretty reasonable when they actually get some kind of responsibility. In the modern system, everyone is hands-off. They vote maybe three times a year, check off a party name, and then proceed to complain about the government. Under direct democracy, only people who are willing to have some level of actual understanding (not just parties) are going to vote regularly, and these people are the most qualifiied to vote.

Direct democracy is great for societies that are 1) well-educated and 2) really tolerant (I'd think that these things correlate pretty well). Under these circumstances, the majority opinion is bound to be one that is based on sound logic. America is getting to this point, slowly. There's still a fair bit of racism, sexism, religionism, etc., but these things become weaker all the time.

I still can't imagine direct democracy working for any appreciable large government, regardless of how educated/tolerant/moral everyone in the population is. It's human nature to be greedy, at least to some extent, so unless we can convince everybody that they should vote for what's best for everyone, people will still tend to vote for what sounds best for themselves.

I do agree, then, that if the population as a whole votes based on logic, a direct democracy will be effective. I just don't think that we would ever reach that point.