Can modern democracy work?

[Orton's Arm]

I'd like to discuss the type of results modern democracies produce in the real world. To get things started, ask yourself to evaluate democracies in general along the following dimensions:

 

For each thing on the list, ask yourself first should the government be doing something about it, and if so, what kind of a job do democracies generally do?

- Environmental policy (Excellent, good, average, poor, terrible)

- Fiscal responsibility

- Immigration policy (is the government doing what's best for the country?)

- Resistance to social parasites (think: frivolous lawsuits, some welfare recipients, etc.)

- Protection of morality

- Protection of the gene pool

- Protection of big businesses' right to fairly compete

- Protection of small businesses' right to fairly compete

- Providing basic social services

- Protecting individual liberties

[Simon]

Can modern democracy work?

No, it's a fatally flawed and ultimately doomed political system because of its vulnerability to the basic human characteristics of ambition and avarice.

[mead107]

will not work without Unions

[JimBob2232]

Interesting questions. I will start by saying that I think the most pressing issue in America today is that any segment of the population can be held captive by another, larger, segment of the population. Whether that small population be blacks, hispanics, the rich, the poor or even smokers, everything today is being played (by both parties) for maximum political gain. Every decision is being made with a calculated decision on how to gain the most votes in the next election. This leads to politicians trying to pander to the majority opinion without regard or even thought as to the right decision for the country. Despite all of GWBs faults, I at least respect him for being able to counter this very important point in most manners of his presidency, even if he is wrong on the particular issue at hand. Democracy will fail if the majority get their way on every issue.

 

As for the governments role in morality...this needs to be better defined. What is morality if not religion based? If not for religion, how do we know murder or adultery is wrong? This is why i think it is a mistake to continuously turn our back on the religous history of this country. We have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

 

Immigration - This country champions being a melting pot. Thats fine. But we have laws. You want in...welcome! But follow our laws to get here. It amazes me that people will break the very laws that make the country great just to get here. It is a role of government to protect our borders.

 

You make a couple other points which I dont really care to comment on, but I do feel our democracy is failing us. But not because of the things we typically think of as the reason. We have career politicians (by and large) only care about their political future. Lets install term limits and see where that gets us. This track we are on is not working.

[Simon]

What is morality if not religion based? If not for religion, how do we know murder or adultery is wrong?

Oh spare me that elitist crap. I have no religion whatsoever and I am one of the most moral people I know. I don't need some self-serving dogma to tell me what's right and wrong.

We have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

So you think that none of us should be free from religion, whether we want to be or not?

I think you have a tenous grasp on the meaning of the land of the FREE.

[Alaska Darin]

I think you have a tenous grasp on the meaning of the land of the FREE.

Welcome to generations of public school education. Land of the Moron, Home of the Tard.

[JimBob2232]

Oh spare me that elitist crap. I have no religion whatsoever and I am one of the most moral people I know. I don't need some self-serving dogma to tell me what's right and wrong.

 

So you think that none of us should be free from religion, whether we want to be or not?

I think you have a tenous grasp on the meaning of the land of the FREE.

 

Wow, I wrote a (fairly) well thought out and non-controversial post and you come back at me with "elitist crap". I really shouldn't be surprised knowing this board, but for some reason it amazes me every time.

 

Im not saying you have to be religious (note, at no point in my post did i mention a particular religion). You have just as much a right to not believe as I do to believe. But you have no right to cry about religious persecution if I mention the "G" word in public. But I guess you're right. My position is definitely self-serving and elitist.

[Orton's Arm]

Interesting questions. I will start by saying that I think the most pressing issue in America today is that any segment of the population can be held captive by another, larger, segment of the population. Whether that small population be blacks, hispanics, the rich, the poor or even smokers, everything today is being played (by both parties) for maximum political gain. Every decision is being made with a calculated decision on how to gain the most votes in the next election. This leads to politicians trying to pander to the majority opinion without regard or even thought as to the right decision for the country. Despite all of GWBs faults, I at least respect him for being able to counter this very important point in most manners of his presidency, even if he is wrong on the particular issue at hand. Democracy will fail if the majority get their way on every issue.

 

As for the governments role in morality...this needs to be better defined. What is morality if not religion based? If not for religion, how do we know murder or adultery is wrong? This is why i think it is a mistake to continuously turn our back on the religous history of this country. We have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

 

Immigration - This country champions being a melting pot. Thats fine. But we have laws. You want in...welcome! But follow our laws to get here. It amazes me that people will break the very laws that make the country great just to get here. It is a role of government to protect our borders.

 

You make a couple other points which I dont really care to comment on, but I do feel our democracy is failing us. But not because of the things we typically think of as the reason. We have career politicians (by and large) only care about their political future. Lets install term limits and see where that gets us. This track we are on is not working.

Thanks for the well thought-out post. I'd like to add a few things though: it's true the majority can oppress certain minorities, but it's also possible, indeed common, for minorities to oppress the majority. Consider the parasitic way many special interest groups act, and the types of laws these special interest groups are able to have passed.

 

My own thoughts about morality are somewhere between yours and Simon's. On the one hand, America must not become rootless; and Christian-inspired morality is part of this country's heritage. On the other hand, morality can exist in the absence of religion. Cats, for example, seem to know hunting rats is acceptable, but hunting rat-sized kittens is not. The ancient Romans had concepts of honor, courage, and self-sacrifice, which existed long before their conversion to Christianity, and seemingly independently of whatever pagan religions they practiced. The existence of Roman morality was instrumental in the rise of the Roman Republic; and its dissolution was largely responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire. I'd argue something similar is at the root of the success of ant colonies: individual ants are perfectly willing to sacrifice their own lives for the good of the colony. Like people, ants are able to achieve far more in strongly unified groups than they possibly could as selfish individuals.

[KD in CA]

will not work without Unions

 

 

That's right. Can't have a workable system without millions of lazy morons who "won't get out of bed for less than $27/hour"

[JimBob2232]

Thanks for the well thought-out post. I'd like to add a few things though: it's true the majority can oppress certain minorities, but it's also possible, indeed common, for minorities to oppress the majority. Consider the parasitic way many special interest groups act, and the types of laws these special interest groups are able to have passed.

 

My own thoughts about morality are somewhere between yours and Simon's. On the one hand, America must not become rootless; and Christian-inspired morality is part of this country's heritage. On the other hand, morality can exist in the absence of religion. Cats, for example, seem to know hunting rats is acceptable, but hunting rat-sized kittens is not. The ancient Romans had concepts of honor, courage, and self-sacrifice, which existed long before their conversion to Christianity, and seemingly independently of whatever pagan religions they practiced. The existence of Roman morality was instrumental in the rise of the Roman Republic; and its dissolution was largely responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire. I'd argue something similar is at the root of the success of ant colonies: individual ants are perfectly willing to sacrifice their own lives for the good of the colony. Like people, ants are able to achieve far more in strongly unified groups than they possibly could as selfish individuals.

 

I tend to agree with your first point. Minority groups can occasionally oppress the majority. Doesn't happen often, an usually happens in the presence of extreme amounts of money or political favors that plague our system. Its all calculated for political gain, and thats the real issue.

 

On the second point, I dont know that you can really compare human beings to cats or ants. Many species are known to eat their young, and some species routinely kill other adult members of the same species, without any real visible disdain from other members of the population. I tend to think that human beings are so complex and so much more developed than other species to make this a worthwhile comparison. But the point I was trying to bring up really wasnt that morality is or is not religious based, though thats where we went and I understand why, but my point really was that its difficult, if not impossible, to legislate morality. What one person considers as immoral may be perfectly acceptable by another. Clearly murder is an extreme case which is generally accepted by all, but how about stealing the cash drawer out of a walmart cash register to pay for your dying sons kidney dialysis? What defines moral behavior? How do we as a society develop a set of laws which are acceptable to everyones moral standards? Its a very difficult discussion to have without injecting religion into the conversation as a baseline for morality.

[Simon]

Im not saying you have to be religious......

You said "We have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion."

How can I avoid being religious if I don't have freedom from religion?

 

you have no right to cry about religious persecution if I mention the "G" word in public

Your free to mention god anytime you feel like it. But when somebody starts telling me I can't have freedom from religion, I'm going to tell them to get stuffed.

 

But I guess you're right. My position is definitely self-serving and elitist.

Your churches are definitely self-serving. And if your position is that only the religious can be moral, then you're also elitist; not to mention woefuly wrong.

[Orton's Arm]

I tend to agree with your first point. Minority groups can occasionally oppress the majority. Doesn't happen often, an usually happens in the presence of extreme amounts of money or political favors that plague our system. Its all calculated for political gain, and thats the real issue.

 

On the second point, I dont know that you can really compare human beings to cats or ants. Many species are known to eat their young, and some species routinely kill other adult members of the same species, without any real visible disdain from other members of the population. I tend to think that human beings are so complex and so much more developed than other species to make this a worthwhile comparison. But the point I was trying to bring up really wasnt that morality is or is not religious based, though thats where we went and I understand why, but my point really was that its difficult, if not impossible, to legislate morality. What one person considers as immoral may be perfectly acceptable by another. Clearly murder is an extreme case which is generally accepted by all, but how about stealing the cash drawer out of a walmart cash register to pay for your dying sons kidney dialysis? What defines moral behavior? How do we as a society develop a set of laws which are acceptable to everyones moral standards? Its a very difficult discussion to have without injecting religion into the conversation as a baseline for morality.

I tend to think of morality as existing in multiple layers. The bottom layer is the willingness to sacrifice one's own selfish interests to help the larger whole--much like individual ants do with respect to their colonies. People who are missing this bottom layer will find it difficult or impossible to truly embrace the higher, uniquely human layers of morality.

 

Government legislation can't take a group of fundamentally selfish people and make them moral. On the other hand, it's possible for misguided actions to make people less moral, by taking away their opportunity to become part of something larger than themselves.

 

What defines moral behavior? Anything which helps the nation as a whole will generally be moral; and anything which hurts it will generally be immoral. This type of basic morality should guide our thinking about the environment, immigration policy, and other important issues. But what about issues like pornography, gay marriages, prayers in schools, that sort of thing? When it comes to things like that, it's a tight balance between one man's freedom to do as he pleases, and another man's freedom to live in a decent environment. If the guy down the street watches a porn video in his own home, it doesn't infringe on any of my freedoms. But if that same guy puts a pornographic billboard on his front lawn, he directly infringes on the right of families to raise their children in a decent environment.

[JimBob2232]

You said "We have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion."

How can I avoid being religious if I don't have freedom from religion?

Athiesm is also a religion.

 

 

Your free to mention god anytime you feel like it. But when somebody starts telling me I can't have freedom from religion, I'm going to tell them to get stuffed.

You contradict yourself. I can mention God, but you have the right not to hear me say God? What if I dont like french fries? Do I have the freedom to not see French Fries?

 

 

Your churches are definitely self-serving. And if your position is that only the religious can be moral, then you're also elitist; not to mention woefuly wrong.

I disagree churches are self-serving, but assuming they are, so what? They should not be government funded or controlled or be treated any differently by the government than any other religious organization.

 

And no, I dont feel only people believing in a higher power can be moral. But I do believe that morality, even for those who do not believe, is based on a religious undertone and history.

[Simon]

Athiesm is also a religion.

You can use whatever labels you like or play whatever semantics you want. I'm just a guy who knows he doesn't know squat and I want nothing to do with any of your belief systems that claim to know something and expect me to live according to that illegitimate knowledge.

 

You contradict yourself. I can mention God, but you have the right not to hear me say God? What if I dont like french fries? Do I have the freedom to not see French Fries?

I never said I have the right not to hear you say god. You're just building straw men again.

How about you can have the freedom not to eat french fries and I can have freedom from religion?

 

Churches.....should not be government funded or controlled or be treated any differently by the government than any other business.

There, I fixed that for you.

[justnzane]

just a little wisdom about democracy from Walker and Texas Ranger

 

Walker: [the boys are running around when they should be in Sunday school]ANARCHY! ANARCHY!

Texas Ranger: I don't know what that means, but I LOVE it!

[JimBob2232]

You can use whatever labels you like or play whatever semantics you want. I'm just a guy who knows he doesn't know squat and I want nothing to do with any of your belief systems that claim to know something and expect me to live according to that illegitimate knowledge.

Thats certainly your opinion, which you are more than entitled to have.

 

 

I never said I have the right not to hear you say god. You're just building straw men again.

You said you had the right to be free from religion. In my mind, this means you have the right not to be around it. Not to see it, not to hear it.

 

How about you can have the freedom not to eat french fries and I can have freedom from religion?

I dont go around tryin to make french fries illegal and ban them from every public venue.

 

There, I fixed that for you.

So, in your perfect world, churches would be allowed to publicly endorse a candidate for political office. They would be allowed to accept government subsides, file for bankruptcy protection, be able to purchase companies and force all employees of the for-profit company to pay union dues to the church, and in turn, use that money to support the political candidate of the church's choice, all the while maintaining a legitimate non-profit status and paying no taxes to state federal or local goverments. Is this your plan?

 

Look, there is a reason religious orgainazations have an exemption. Its called the constitution.

[Alaska Darin]

I dont go around tryin to make french fries illegal and ban them from every public venue.

That's positively ridiculous. You let me know when the French Fries are responsible for starting wars. There's a reason the Founding Fathers wanted a secular government and the freedom for each person to worship (or not) as they see fit.

 

So, in your perfect world, churches would be allowed to publicly endorse a candidate for political office. They would be allowed to accept government subsides, file for bankruptcy protection, be able to purchase companies and force all employees of the for-profit company to pay union dues to the church, and in turn, use that money to support the political candidate of the church's choice, all the while maintaining a legitimate non-profit status and paying no taxes to state federal or local goverments. Is this your plan?

You mean that doesn't happen now? Please. Do some research.

[molson_golden2002]

I'd like to discuss the type of results modern democracies produce in the real world. To get things started, ask yourself to evaluate democracies in general along the following dimensions:

 

For each thing on the list, ask yourself first should the government be doing something about it, and if so, what kind of a job do democracies generally do?

- Environmental policy (Excellent, good, average, poor, terrible)

- Fiscal responsibility

- Immigration policy (is the government doing what's best for the country?)

- Resistance to social parasites (think: frivolous lawsuits, some welfare recipients, etc.)

- Protection of morality

- Protection of the gene pool

- Protection of big businesses' right to fairly compete

- Protection of small businesses' right to fairly compete

- Providing basic social services

- Protecting individual liberties

Wow, that's quit a question! I guess my answer would involve the circumstances the democracy was to survive in. If say, tomorrow, there is a major energy crisis that lasts for years or requires major changes in the way we live very quickly, that could cause major problems and threaten democratic government. Masses of formerly middle class people unemployed, losing their homes and with nothing to do would be an unhealthy situation. So would several major terrorist attacks. I could easily see a fascist movement develop in this country with a combination of economic uncertanty and terrorist attacks.

 

I don't know what you mean about protecting the gene pool, but fiscal responsibility is a big issue. The baby boomers are retiring and we are already running deficits, wasting money in Iraq and cutting taxes. I read the other day we spend something like $55 billion a year on nursing homes already. Think what that number will be in 10 or 15 years! That could be trouble with that, SS, other medicare and evertything else. That's going to be a mess.

[Ramius]

Modern Democracy doesnt work, and for 2 very big reasons.

 

1. modern democracy gives every retard a voice. case in point: when that happens, you end up with the top 5 threads on PPP all being started by either holcombs arm or molson golden. if modern democracy did work, then these 2 would be wouldnt be allowed to freely spew their idocy.

 

2. there are no unicorns. you need lots of unicorns.

[D_House]

protection of the gene pool?