Democracy: a road to utopia, tyranny or anarchy?

[BorkBot]

Nick made a post made in the Democratic People's Republic group where he brought up a reference to Plato's Republic about too much freedom leading to "a demand for tyranny."

This got me thinking.

Of all forms of government, democracy offers the most opportunities to rise to power.

It only takes one ambitious and charismatic individual in the right place at the right time to seize the attention of a small community. When the teachings of that small community spread to other communities, so does its sphere of influence. Another possibility for such an individual is to simply join an existing company/party and work their way up from there.

Democracy seems to be designed so that any leader with a silver tongue can endlessly compete with others like him in a struggle to get what he wants by trying to convince others that it's what they want as well, often by making empty promises to get more sheep to join the flock. Another strategy is to convince the majority that what he wants is at least not so bad for the majority as what another leader wants.

Who suffers from democracy then? The minority groups is the most obvious answer. But what about the sheep who get deceived into thinking that the leader wants what's best for them? In the end, the majority of people doesn't get what they really want. The only true winners in democracy are the leaders themselves, who impose their will on everyone else one way or another, and make "concessions" that harm themselves the least.

On another note, children these days are encouraged to be selfish, greedy and ambitious to get what they want. It's glorified not only in pop culture, but by the educational system and through parenting as well. It's all about success. Happiness is supposedly derived from having success in society. Idealistically, all this "freedom" is supposed to create equal chances for everyone. But people without leadership qualities and people who are modest and charitable get the short end of the stick in modern society.

In recent years, I've noticed more and more that various democratic nations' elections have been neck and neck, and more and more smaller alternatives arise on the sides. People are very much divided in what they want, and they all want to force their will upon others. What happens then when a majority can no longer be formed (hello Belgium)?

The situation might resolve itself eventually if the divide is still manageable, but if it's not (which I think will happen somewhere eventually), it seems like the only outcome is chaos, or anarchy. A group might take this opportunity to use whatever resources they have to beat everyone else into submission, and then you have tyranny again.

The most notable advantage of democracy is that the majority can depose a leader when his rule is no longer deemed adequate by a majority. So you can kick a tyrant out again (after a struggle), and then you can start the cycle all over again.

Looking at it this way, were the forms of government of old such as monarchies and oligarchies really that bad? The elite competed amongst each other, but the vast god-fearing majority of people could simply ply their trade and accepted what they had and what they were given. Sure they were pawns in a way, but at least they weren't surrounded with greedy, ambitious bastards seeking success over the backs of others.

I think I could live happily in a society like that.

[BorkBot]

yeah, Democracy helped people like hitler to gain power but Democracy forces it's leaders to make it's people happy if they want to stay in power.

I wouldn't want to be ruled by a dictator that only cares about himself.

I'd say it mostly forces its leaders to keep up the illusion of potential happiness (or at best satisfaction) for most, and genuine happiness for but a few. True intentions of democratic leaders are often very, very vague. They have to walk the middle road a lot when it comes to their reputation and diplomatic relations. Politicians don't only lie to each other, they also lie to their voters.

Dictator is too strong a term for the example of monarchy/oligarchy I intended. While there have been good kings and bad kings, councils of elders or other elite groups to rule, they didn't have nearly as much of a hidden agenda as modern day politicians. They were often just honest to their subjects, probably because their rule was undisputed and they didn't need to win them over.

And congratulations on your 1000th post.

Thanks ;)

[Numbertwo]

Dictator is too strong a term for the example of monarchy/oligarchy I intended. While there have been good kings and bad kings, councils of elders or other elite groups to rule, they didn't have nearly as much of a hidden agenda as modern day politicians. They were often just honest to their subjects, probably because their rule was undisputed and they didn't need to win them over.

People cared less about politics and who ruled their country back in the days. Befeore nationalism was discovered they mostly just cared about their own farm and how mutch taxes they were paying. People were less dependant on their government to get what they needed, unlike today.

[BorkBot]

People cared less about politics and who ruled their country back in the days. Befeore nationalism was discovered they mostly just cared about their own farm and how mutch taxes they were paying. People were less dependant on their government to get what they needed, unlike today.

Nationalism already existed ages ago, as did some limited forms of democracy (where the elite allowed the plebs to have a voice in their councils).

Anyway, it seems to me that the dependency on government is directly related to the amount of influence individuals have on establishing the composition of the government. If everyone wants the freedom to elect their own local, provincial and national leaders from the general populace, those same people who attain seats of power will impose rules and regulations that apply to the daily lives of all citizens, because that's the main thing they're concerned with.

We have democracy to thank for all the annoying complications of bureaucracy. And frauds and exploiters of loopholes profit while those who don't want to bother spending years of their lives sorting through the maze of rules that decides what they are or aren't entitled to according to the law just pay extra to compensate for the profiteers.

Why does democracy have to make life so complicated?

[Necroplant]

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb debating what to eat for dinner."

We've learned this in the last general election in Canada, where a party got 38% of the vote but still got in power because the other 4 parties each could not get a higher %.

This means that 38% of Canadians have subjected the rest of us to the "Safe Streets and Communities Act", which guarantees higher imprisonment rates, higher costs per inmate, and more prison time for drug-related offenses, and less prison time for molesting kids. They knew what the Conservatives were going to do to Canadians and voted them anyway for the "economic failsafe" theory, that voting the anti-human pro-$$$ party will somehow stimulate things?

Our debt actually got worse. There's another upcoming, and many of the candidates want to slightly change the system to make it more representative and "more democratic", as much as can be. Because a dominance of the 38% is not true democracy.

[vornksr]

We have democracy to thank for all the annoying complications of bureaucracy.

This is manifestly untrue. The Chinese Han Dynasty (roughly contemporaneous with the height of Rome), the Umayyad Caliphate, Metternich's Austria, and the Russian Empire (the government overthrown in 1917) all had bureaucratically organized state apparatuses, and they were all profoundly undemocratic in many ways.

[Admiral]

Have fun getting beheaded for accidentally glancing at your Emperors wife.

[Necroplant]

Have fun getting beheaded for accidentally glancing at your Emperors wife.

Admiral, you have that in the United States currently. A man who put his hands on Cheney's shoulder at a meeting and said closely to him that he found his foreign policy in Iraq disgusting was arrested and detained for awhile by the Secret Service. Or the time George Bush visited MLK's grave on Martin Luther King Day, and he had his security team make sure NOBODY could visit it while he was in town, especially black people.

While these are disguised as attempts at protecting the physicality of the leader, the gentle hand-on-shoulder at Cheney's event was totally harmless. Bush not wanting anybody near him was a sign of cowardice. When a world leader has to maintain total and complete distance from his subjects, he has almost lost all legitimacy. Obama, however, seems like the individual who is insanely protected by his Secret Service but takes rogue actions sometimes and says "Fuck it, let's go and grab a burger and shake some people's hands, whatever happens - happens."

An example of a world leader with BALLS is Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Canada's greatest Prime Minister. After he was elected PM for the first time, he was attending a St. Jean Baptiste Day parade in Montreal, and people were throwing bottles and rocks at him, and were yelling "Trudeau to the gallows!". Despite his lack of military service and the wishes of his security team to get him immediately to safety, he kept going and braved the onslaught. This boosted his popularity rating massively. Stephen Harper, our current PM, Is a Canadian version of Bush and a lot of us want him to leave office.

[Nick]

Don't worry Borkbot. We ain't moving toward tyranny. We are moving backwards to oligarchy. Crush the poor!

[Mugy]

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb debating what to eat for dinner."

We've learned this in the last general election in Canada, where a party got 38% of the vote but still got in power because the other 4 parties each could not get a higher %.

This means that 38% of Canadians have subjected the rest of us to the "Safe Streets and Communities Act", which guarantees higher imprisonment rates, higher costs per inmate, and more prison time for drug-related offenses, and less prison time for molesting kids. They knew what the Conservatives were going to do to Canadians and voted them anyway for the "economic failsafe" theory, that voting the anti-human pro-$$$ party will somehow stimulate things?

Our debt actually got worse. There's another upcoming, and many of the candidates want to slightly change the system to make it more representative and "more democratic", as much as can be. Because a dominance of the 38% is not true democracy.

The real problem here is the "first past the post" system, it's almost the worst voting system, slightly better than Electorial College which is pretty much First Past the post with an uncertainty(not to mention outrageous unequal voting).
But yeah, I believe Democracy will probably lead to anarchy under the current voting systems. Minority rule is ridiculous.
Why don't more countries use MMP? ಠ_ಠ

[BorkBot]

This is manifestly untrue. The Chinese Han Dynasty (roughly contemporaneous with the height of Rome), the Umayyad Caliphate, Metternich's Austria, and the Russian Empire (the government overthrown in 1917) all had bureaucratically organized state apparatuses, and they were all profoundly undemocratic in many ways.

I suppose bureaucracy exists in all forms of government one way or another, but in a democratic state the systems have a tendency to be much less transparent because every leader wants something else. And it's not like a new ruling party overrides the old systems and starts new (efficient and simple) ones from scratch, but they keep the old systems intact and patch something of their own on top of it. And that's the bureaucratic mess I was referring to.

The real problem here is the "first past the post" system, it's almost the worst voting system, slightly better than Electorial College which is pretty much First Past the post with an uncertainty(not to mention outrageous unequal voting).
But yeah, I believe Democracy will probably lead to anarchy under the current voting systems. Minority rule is ridiculous.
Why don't more countries use MMP? ಠ_ಠ

Yeah, the problem with minority rule is that it undermines the foundation of democracy, which is a government that's chosen by the people.

Ask yourself this. What type of government would you have less complaints about?
- A government established by birthright
- A government that was elected, but not chosen by you
- A government that was chosen by you, but that doesn't do what it promised during elections

I lean towards the no. 1

Another negative side-effect of an elected government is that it creates distance between the people themselves. They find it distasteful that Bob from next door voted for the party that opposes their own favourite. It creates more focus on differences than what people have in common. A nation will stand less united under a democratic regime.

Don't worry Borkbot. We ain't moving toward tyranny. We are moving backwards to oligarchy. Crush the poor!

Does this thought have a serious basis or is it just a jesting remark? If the former, I'd like to hear why you think so

[TimeTrx]

An example of a world leader with BALLS is Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Canada's greatest Prime Minister. After he was elected PM for the first time, he was attending a St. Jean Baptiste Day parade in Montreal, and people were throwing bottles and rocks at him, and were yelling "Trudeau to the gallows!". Despite his lack of military service and the wishes of his security team to get him immediately to safety, he kept going and braved the onslaught. This boosted his popularity rating massively.

Until he enacted the war measures act. >.>

Stephen Harper, our current PM, Is a Canadian version of Bush and a lot of us want him to leave office.

A lot? He won the popular vote by far. Far more people want him in then out. Get your facts straight.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ca...l_Election.svg

[Nick]

I'm lazy so I used Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy

Oligarchy is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, or military control.

I heard a certain island country in Europe is selling off their public services to politician's crony companies. Or providing slave labor to huge corporate companies. Or how media is their respective billionaire owners' propaganda machine. Exaggerations of course.

Minority rule = broken election system. Time to move away from two party election system.

[Nick]

They only good thing about democracy is that you can say:

"YOU DESERVE A SUCKY GOVERNMENT, STUPIDS!"

[BrockSamson]

After majoring in Political Science, I can safely say that I do not want to talk about this.


hmm...I wonder why I'm even here...

[BorkBot]

I'd actually be interested to hear your perspective

[louiswill]

Democracy is the only mature idea so far that is able to contain the most devastating human society competition's by-products, but People should be put in the center in order to create a utopia than a government.
(please tips me some Rep.)


Root of Chaos and success

No matter in what era, there are people who are ambitious and dare to do what ever they can.

Those people are like me, but most of us are destructive: Chaotic character.

No matter they are good, evil or neutral. Chaotic people aim and do things for the short term goal.

When people like us raised in to a dictatorship, things can be very very very wrong...
I certainly aware of my self's potential chaos.


competition

Because those kind people are in the world, the competition is expanded in every direction.

Lets think about competition of raising in power first:

as a average citizen, do you prefer join any competition of raising to power of below:

who is more beefy bulked-up?

whose gun is bigger?

who is richer?

who is more charismatic?

who is more brilliant?

who has more heritage?

who is a better choice of puppet?

etc...(I think you can come up other good, effective compete ideas)

Notice that none of those above involved a thing called "humane", "peace" "content" or "love"
---Almost no one compete humane, peace or love, though I do like the idea of compete it.
I am not going to arguing the background reasons of this phenomenon.

It is obviously, most citizens would prefer silver tongue + brilliant competition.

reasons are simple by excluding:
violence is not enough to generate long term success.
Most hero end up being martyr.
Gang Revolutionists end up fighting everyone.
etc etc etc

Biological advantage wore out in ages. No one is immortal.

Money establish more enemy than allies.
(Only continues trading generate good relationship, but if two companies do not become one, they will against each other on the margin profit.)

Heritage would went on lose if owner are terrible. There are never enough bastard sons of greatest leaders world wide.
(Sara Palin...good lady with an average level kid...Hope it will be better after the kid grown up...)

As a person who has none power, the worst thing can happen was being humiliated, being bullied, being over powered, or other things worse than you can know --- Run over by Israel tanks as Palestinians or run over by Chinese tanks as protesting citizens...

Since the people has power is significantly less in population than the people do not.
Democracy is favored by the majority as long as it doesn't perform too bad in practice.


Seeking of Leadership

Despite what society is, internal and external conflict challenge keeps coming.

Therefore, if democracy is the high way for people to raise in power, it actually means democracy is functional and effective.
On the other hand, if democracy can not generate a great leader when things happens.

For example, back to around WW2,
god blessed America got a F.D. Roosevelt, German got Hitler and China got Chiang Kai Shek.
Though Hitler is a terrible choice over all.
Hitler handled the economical recession when German needed it the most.
F.D. Roosevelt is even better, he saved both the country and capitalism.

Some other countries like China: Chiang Kai Shek and Mao Zedong are the two brilliant ones but none can raise to power democratically and easily enough to save China from sever loss in WW2.
They had to literately fought they way through political enemies by any means.

Luckily, Chiang Kai Shek raised to power before WW2 and prevented Japan invasion just in the nick of time. However, China could have done better if the authoritarians not blocking each others ways. - Chiang Kai Shek and Mao Zedong are busily fighting each other to death when Japan is approaching with deadly army.

Democracy is functional when people raise to power relative easily.

Supporters of Democracy

However, so far no system can be relied on.

The people are the ones who make things work and making things worse.

A democratic society filled with people who doesn't care is terrible.

A monarchy government with loyal supporters and ethical leader is great.

Today's society still have many people who cared.

Myself disapprove gay marriage being called marriage, but I would respect the people who fight for it.

It is considered as a form of 'Caring' to me.

I am really heartless, so that I easily feel the warmness when people care.

However, people are doing as much what they should not as what they should.

Though there are personal interests driving the behavior, but why and who started?

Monarchy, Rules of Ruling and purpose of government

Democratic Republic could be rotten inside. People live unethically and walk dead.

However, monarchy is still more relatively corrupted for Two reasons.

First is due to unsteady power transfer over generations.
---some idiot sons of bastard will get power and dissolve the nation economically and politically.

not only Monarchy,
All power centralized government facing just a same question : Who is Next?

Unless there is a god who is leading the society,

the power will be passed from one mortal to another.
often one group to another,
From king to aristocrats, to new raised capitalists,
to mercenary groups, to militarists, to revolutionists and workers
---who knows? How did Osama bin Laden raised to power?

Often in Traditional Monarchy, Winner take all.
In extreme,
One prince will literately butch other brothers, sisters, aunt or other branch family into bloody pulps.
As we all know, the leaders are nothing but normal people.
If the leader is unable to sustain the guilty,
kin-slayers are highly relativity evil and wick leaders.

So what should you do as citizen? or..what CAN you do when things went wrong?

Another reason of monarchy power corruption is the rules of ruling.

A man in power want to eliminate all competitors.
The man become paranoid.

The finally a brilliant and corrupting idea comes up: Extreme Manipulation

A ruler should make all its people foolish and weak so that none of them will and can fight back.

---
This idea is so evil and extended itself outside of monarchy.

Nazi using it : Lets make everyone racists so that we can kill! Rob their money
Soviet Russian using it : Lets make everyone the cult of communism so that they will happily live in poverty
Corporation using it : Lets keep workers more stupid so that they will work and ask none of payment
Marketing is using it : Lets make consumers more stupid so that they will spend money
Commercial prompt using it : Lets create a pop culture infested with fast food, sexuality, violence so that even the most unwanted thing can sale, big sale!

---
The culture and society is changing, and someone is taking advantage. It is okay.

What if the changing can be forced, controlled?

Then it would be great so that we can create the greatest culture as we want!

Of course, but also someone doesn't care.

Living under a great caring King such as Gilgamesh maybe not bad.

What's next?

overtime,
Eventually the monarchy government lost its purpose of being a government.

A government was not organized for the advantage of society but rather a tool of personal interests.

Same thing happens to bad commercialization.

Business lost purpose by not creating higher standard products for the benefit of customers.

Or worse,

Business lost purpose when it purposely running bankruptcy for some Executive's personal income.

Those are just wrong.

A good system

Since all good system likely go wrong someday, then

I believe the best system is not the one which make less mistakes, but the system can correct itself.

For a government style,

Democracy is the one which is able to correct itself the most in respect to developing.

That's why we need the rights of bearing firearms, impeach presidents or ministers etc etc etc..


In conclusion,

I think the humane, peace, love.. etc are the things can make a society Utopia but not some sort of government alone.

I think this makes democracy the best choice over all.

If today's society is in chaos, then people are the most responsible to it.

Government certainly shall be blamed, but correcting government is not effective.

The minority groups already suffered much less than it does in other sort of societies.

--- don't you think you can live peacefully by not helping the society grow ethically.

You can think how slave will be if America has no respect to equality. And democracy is the political wing of equality.

OF course, everyone has some parts of goodness. Utopia is not as far as it seems in plato time.

Quote:

An example of a world leader with BALLS is Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Canada's greatest Prime Minister. After he was elected PM for the first time, he was attending a St. Jean Baptiste Day parade in Montreal, and people were throwing bottles and rocks at him, and were yelling "Trudeau to the gallows!". Despite his lack of military service and the wishes of his security team to get him immediately to safety, he kept going and braved the onslaught. This boosted his popularity rating massively. Stephen Harper, our current PM, Is a Canadian version of Bush and a lot of us want him to leave office.

[jebediah26]

Admiral, you have that in the United States currently. A man who put his hands on Cheney's shoulder at a meeting and said closely to him that he found his foreign policy in Iraq disgusting was arrested and detained for awhile by the Secret Service. Or the time George Bush visited MLK's grave on Martin Luther King Day, and he had his security team make sure NOBODY could visit it while he was in town, especially black people.

While these are disguised as attempts at protecting the physicality of the leader, the gentle hand-on-shoulder at Cheney's event was totally harmless. Bush not wanting anybody near him was a sign of cowardice. When a world leader has to maintain total and complete distance from his subjects, he has almost lost all legitimacy. Obama, however, seems like the individual who is insanely protected by his Secret Service but takes rogue actions sometimes and says "Fuck it, let's go and grab a burger and shake some people's hands, whatever happens - happens."

An example of a world leader with BALLS is Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Canada's greatest Prime Minister. After he was elected PM for the first time, he was attending a St. Jean Baptiste Day parade in Montreal, and people were throwing bottles and rocks at him, and were yelling "Trudeau to the gallows!". Despite his lack of military service and the wishes of his security team to get him immediately to safety, he kept going and braved the onslaught. This boosted his popularity rating massively. Stephen Harper, our current PM, Is a Canadian version of Bush and a lot of us want him to leave office.

Obama has never and will never say "Fuck it, let's go and grab a burger and shake some people's hands, whatever happens - happens."

Obama had SS protecting him while he was RUNNING for President. He was the first to have this level of protection before being President. The fact that you think he would walk around unprotected speaks volumes about your understanding on this subject and as such I have no in interest in debating anything with you. You are gravely ignorant on this subject, as clearly evidenced by this post.

Im so proud your PM had rocks thrown at him, but here in America, he would be shot without a team protecting him 24/7.



The problem as others have mentioned, notably Mugy, is not with Democracy. How Democracy - which btw, is all about Power to the People, from the People - could be bad for the people is beyond me. The problem comes from the voting system: gerrymandering, the electoral college, FPTP, etc...

Someone actually said they would prefer a government chosen by birthright. Hello, do you not know what the French Revolution was about? Government by birthright is a disgusting abomination which does nothing but further drive apart the social classes.

Democracy and Capitalism are the only way to allow individuals to prosper and have a say in their rule. Any other system ends almost immediately in catastrophe for the lower classes, or in some cases, for any non-ruling class. I will gladly counter anyone who states otherwise.

[krixi]

Democracy is an idea. Can we really say, so community is ruling? It's just a political system in which power is considered to come from peoples choice and not from military strength, birthright or god.


In practice, ordinary people's position as always depends on their actual possibilities to know and act. Without real power, they would be fully dependent on rulers good will. Even massive protests can be eventually ignored if people aren't dangerous or needed. There wouldn't be any opposition, if no one knows there's something wrong. It's true for every political system and that's why propaganda is so important. False claiming have a long history in politics. People can be affected and they can be lied about community's own choices (like forged voting results, common sense, majorities opinions).

Road to power was always somewhat open to all people. It's hard to maintain full control of everything without complete invigilation. There were people travelling, bandits, it was possible to play someone else. Someone willing to change his social position needed to claim a new one. It involves a social cost I must admit. Anyway, joining social group is pretty similar nowadays - just origin doesn't need to stay hidden. There also were ways of sharing someone's power. It's said so there were leaders, kings and oligarchs ruling, but in practice: is it possible to rule single-handed? On that scale? Seems unlikely nowadays, with all that tech.

In my eyes, Democracy seems like system aroused from anarchy and utopian visions, that tries to maintain some order and run things quite natural way. Gives quite true picture of power-related mechanisms. Biggest disadvantage is probably that, so pretenders needs their focus on actually fighting for wealth and power and securing that. There's not many room for serious decisions.


Summarizing, IMHO government organization is different thing than relation between community and it's rulers. Tyranny occurs when society is weak and their leaders are willing to go rough. It quite often and naturally comes from anarchy. In free competition power is likely won by smartest, but from among them the most dedicated, flexible and ruthless have greatest chance to rule. Anarchy, with it's undefined and elastic rulings, is pretty vulnerable to aggression and sociotechnics. Even so I wouldn't say so too much freedom creates a demand for tyranny. The problem is that it might attract tyrants if people aren't protecting their freedom, which comes hard without good organization.

[ypmagic]

The United States is becoming a Socialist Republic. It's no longer following the Constitution that states "the people have the right in the government". We try to protest peacefully on the streets of D.C? The S.W.A.T teams come running through and beat up the peaceful protesters. The people no longer have the right on the government. Our senators and representatives are so idiotic and retarded... there's no such thing as democracy anymore. And I mean it.

[vornksr]

The US was never supposed to be a democracy. Level of political freedom (e.g. to protest publicly) has very little to do with approximating some ideal of a direct democracy.

[jebediah26]

The US was never supposed to be a democracy. Level of political freedom (e.g. to protest publicly) has very little to do with approximating some ideal of a direct democracy.

US was never supposed to be a Democracy?

Is that why the founding fathers of this nation based our Constitution and early government on that of the Greeks - heralded as the creators of Democracy? Is that why our Nation's capital has Greek architecture prominently featured, in order to show respect to those true creators of Democracy? Is that why in the Gettysburg address Lincoln echoed a National sentiment: "By the people, for the people"


No offence, and this may be extremely offensive, but it seems like most of you just watch the news and echo whatever you hear from the media...

SWAT team coming after peaceful protest? And sorry - you act like that is new? It has always happened to some extent, be it the Irish being barred from working, the blacks, the Jews... that has happened time and time again, that doesnt make Democracy any less real. Its just... agh... im not even going to get into this, because I would be quoting every single person who posted and pointing out your inaccuracies...


Please, please, please educate yourself on this topic. This is not something to be taken lightly. If you guys feel your civil liberties are really threatened, educate yourself, and do something about it.

[vornksr]

US was never supposed to be a Democracy?

No offence, and this may be extremely offensive, but it seems like most of you just watch the news and echo whatever you hear from the media...

I study the Enlightenment (like, professionally, as my job), the intellectual milieu of America's founding fathers. So, no, I'm not just echoing what I hear on Fox or MSNBC. Do you know what democracy is? Then you know that the electoral college, the presidency, the senate (as described in the Constitution), a bicameral legislature, and the Bill of Rights, and so on are all profoundly undemocratic institutions.

[BorkBot]

Someone actually said they would prefer a government chosen by birthright. Hello, do you not know what the French Revolution was about? Government by birthright is a disgusting abomination which does nothing but further drive apart the social classes.

Democracy and Capitalism are the only way to allow individuals to prosper and have a say in their rule. Any other system ends almost immediately in catastrophe for the lower classes, or in some cases, for any non-ruling class. I will gladly counter anyone who states otherwise.

Capitalism may well be the element of modern democratic nations that's poisoning the democratic ideals and bringing nations closer to anarchy.

As Nick briefly alluded to, corporations have a very significant influence on politics these days. More so than the individual's vote. Ambition, greed and selfish pursuits are encouraged within capitalism.

Look at the banking industry for instance. Some individuals got up top with their smooth talking management jobs, made some risky investments to make themselves even more rich, and when it all blew up, they left with a big bonus and it's no longer their problem. However much the mob complains now that the banks failed their responsibilities, those directors are still settled for life with far more wealth than they'll ever need and lasting influence in the corporate circles to boot. And the mess they left behind isn't their problem anymore. They were successful in capitalistic democracy. Modern day champions. Huzzah.

Another example was the recent weapon lobby in the USA. People wanted more strict laws on the ownership of guns, but they didn't come. Why? Because corporate interests and backdoor deals pollute the democratic principles. And generally speaking, politicians always want to do their friends in high places in the capitalistic hierarchy favours to secure their own future. And such interests often trump the interests of the majority.

A funny little satire from the movie The Dictator:

Capitalism is most definitely not about allowing all individuals to prosper, because it's not possible for everyone to be "successful." If someone prospers, it's almost always at the expense of another. Capitalism merely gives opportunities to some who possess certain (mainly social) skills and a bit of luck. What about those who lack the social skills, the connections, the interests, the intellect or the luck that's required to climb the ladder? They're left in the dirt just as much as medieval peasants were. Equal chances? Hardly.

But back to my original point, I think one of the main flaws of democracy is that it creates a wedge between groups rather than uniting the people of a nation. Everyone thinks that what they want is more important than what everyone else wants, and if the divide becomes great enough it may make nations impossible to govern with a backing from an actual majority. It just becomes a collection of minority groups that bicker among themselves.

In many ways, all for one and one for all just seems better than every man for himself. Ideal would be all for all, but even in its purest form, a capitalistic democracy doesn't bring that.

I realise I'm leaning towards a perspective that may ridiculed or shunned, but perhaps the best form of government for a nation that stands united and that's safe from anarchic developments is communism. And by that I don't mean the aberration many dictators of the past century have applied to oppress and exploit the masses, but the way it was envisioned by Karl Marx. Where everyone, including the leaders, works for the common good and not for their own personal gains. That's probably not realistic, but more utopian than a capitalist democracy will ever be.