Why some people are against the democracy ?

[troubled soul]

I am reading the forum . In one topics I see @Martin Everson says He is against the democracy.
I really curious to know Why ?
Let's Discuss.

I think democracy is only way poor or backward people can reach to the top or rule the country with his hard work or smartness.
You can see in so many democratic country Poor people become a President or Ruler of country.

What is your opinion ?

Why some people are against the democracy ?

P.S.
Tread [where to store value?]

 

[void]

this is the funniest subject I have ever read on the forum

democracy is a dysfunctional system or society organization and is the cause of the disruption of the world

it just another form of dictatorship - instead of one dictator there is a majority that dictates the minority

it inevitably and logically leads to socialism, which leads to prosperity of irresponsible and dependent people which have more children (naturally of the same habits and character) which increases the problem and HERE WE ARE TODAY

all people are different, not equal (in every single aspect of the life), have different goals and preferences, different problems, backgrounds... - democracy denies all of this and violently promotes unification

it's so obvious

 

[glengoolie]

democracy, direct democracy, is a mob rule. even socrates didn't like it back then

and plato as well

the democracy in itself is not a problem, it is the context where and how it is used. so we can safely assume we are talking about the voting and government here. in which case democracy is stupid as s**t because every vote counts the same. the stupidest moron that has no idea where sky is has the same voting power as someone who has PhD in history, economics, law or whatnot. a soldier that fought to defend the country has the same voting power as someone who's on welfare and does fuckall all day.

in the past, voting was restricted but with time it was loosening up to include more and more people. age was being lowered and so on. like in usa where you can vote, be drafted but cannot drink. inherently, there is always more losers than winners. more consumers than producers. more unsuccessful people than successful. more poor people than rich people. hence democracy will inevitable end up in communism or deep leftis socialism(socialism is everything in between communism and capitalism, it's just the scale of it). it will always result in successful people being dragged down instead of unsuccessful people being pulled up(ie. income disparity, if you have overall higher quality of living, why do you care if you are considered poor, compared to having low disparity but loser quality of life). that's nature.

i don't know what exactly you want to talk about, there are too many aspects, so maybe provide some context.

 

[manukahoney]

The problem with the democracy is that it by definition implies everyone is equal, at least in terms of voting. That leads to a pseudo-majority rule that in fact is heavily influenced by rich and powerful via news outlets, social media, lobbing and even direct bribing the crowd.

There should be a way to evolve the democracy in the meritocracy. The only problem is to define how does one calculate the power of a person's vote? The simplest approach - by the amount of taxes paid between election periods, logarithmically adjusted (so a billionaire will get like 10 votes comparing to average Joe, not millions). But how do you count non-financial contributions from scientist, teachers, doctors, artists? Probably we'll need some adjustment table for different professions as well.

The thing is - it's a very slippery road and there is no way something like that will happen in a democratic way - people just won't tolerate the idea that someone is better than they are. Nowadays they at least have an illusion of being equal during elections and they will hold on to it.

 

[void]

There should be a way to evolve the democracy in the meritocracy. The only problem is to define how does one calculate the power of a person's vote? The simplest approach - by the amount of taxes paid between election periods, logarithmically adjusted (so a billionaire will get like 10 votes comparing to average Joe, not millions). But how do you count non-financial contributions from scientist, teachers, doctors, artists? Probably we'll need some adjustment table for different professions as well.

it's usually called anarchocapitalism

 

[glengoolie]

just to expand. the best setup would be the net tax payer scheme where only people who pay taxes and do not receive a single cent form the government would be allowed to vote. simply because they have a horse in the race. otherwise people will vote themselves other people's money, which we have now, when the rich are the only net tax payers.

the present democracy is like having a joint equity company and on the board meeting you would have people who hold no stocks and have no stake in the company, come in, and be allowed to vote on how the company should do business.

also a bit off topic but look up the "political trichotomy" chart. you might be surprised that the left vs right is not as simple as we might be lead to believe.

source TFM:

 

[Martin Everson]

In one topics I see @Martin Everson says He is against the democracy.
I really curious to know Why ?

Democracy favors the 51% and the rest can go to hell . As a system it marginalizes and can often alienate and radicalize huge parts of a population.

 

[glengoolie]

Democracy favors the 51% and the rest can go to hell . As a system it marginalizes and can often alienate and radicalize huge parts of a population.

that assumes 100% of people vote. in reality, very few active voters can take power over the majority of population that does not vote. which is even more evil. you could literally buy 80% of voting citizens with incentives through massive media campaigns and let your 20% of voters cast votes which would turn to 100% of votes for you. effing crazy.

 

[KJK]

I find it hard to argue against democracy because the alternatives usually do not work well or do not work for a very long period of time.

Democracy = rule of the people (literal translation)
Autocracy = rule of one person
Aristocracy = rule of the best (literal translation)
Oligarchy = rule of the few/rich
Meritocracy = rule of people by merit (achievements/education/skills)

The problem with democracy is that it is a game you cannot win. Or to be more precise - when you think about it in terms of game theory - the winning strategy in a democracy is populism, lying and manipulation. A politician who is honest is a loser that will lose, a politician who tries to be "apolitical" is also a loser.

It's not something happening only in poor or corrupt countries - this situation plays over again and again everywhere, just in different forms. In Georgia you promise the voters they will get a 20 lari banknote when they exit the polling station, they'll vote for you. In Hungary you promise the voters that you'll protect them from African migrants, they'll vote for you. In Greece you promise the pensioners that they will have pensions higher than their former salaries, they'll vote for you. In Turkey you promise the voters you'll bring back the ottoman empire and they'll vote for you.

Another problem I see is that a mentally healthy and skilled person won't go into politics, perhaps at the local/municipal level at the very maximum. To get into politics, you must have some huge desire - for power, control, revenge, recognition - so at the top level, politics is full of sociopaths but those are exactly the politicians people voted for. So democracy "works" exactly as expected. And with current laws and constitutions, you cannot simply "switch" to meritocracy, dictatorship or ancap...

 

[melzvy]

I dont think democracy or any other form of government/system is the problem.
The problem is some group of people and the way they use the system in their favor trying to find the way to get power, money and everything around this, and also the other group of people allowing this to happen.

 

[Martin Everson]

I find it hard to argue against democracy because the alternatives usually do not work well or do not work for a very long period of time.

Would you say China is the exception to the rule?

 

[pipona]

What country is even a democracy these days?

In the western world we are under Oligarchy not democracy.

 

[Golden Fleece]

The United States began as a Constitutional Republic, which protected the rights of minorities with a Bill of Rights. As Benjamin Franklin noted:

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what they are going to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”​

This Constitutional Republic lasted for well over 200 years. The Founding Fathers designed the federal government for a well-educated and godly people -- and created a public school system and a public university system. Once socialism infiltrated the school and university systems (1960's) and eliminated God from the public schools (1962) that was the beginning of the end of the Republic.

 

[troubled soul]

I dont think democracy or any other form of government/system is the problem.
The problem is some group of people and the way they use the system in their favor trying to find the way to get power, money and everything around this, and also the other group of people allowing this to happen.

100% agree,
Any form of system works perfectly without Bad People.
It is the bad people that makes problem. And Create other life difficult.

 

[void]

100% agree,
Any form of system works perfectly without Bad People.
It is the bad people that makes problem. And Create other life difficult.

Nonsense - there is no authority that could say what (behaviour) is good or bad. Or how bad/good is it on a scale (you can't even define the scale).

 

[Golden Fleece]

Nonsense - there is no authority that could say what (behaviour) is good or bad. Or how bad/good is it on a scale (you can't even define the scale).

Of course such an authority exists. It is called the Holy Bible -- and the concepts of due process and the jury system of the Western world is based upon its tenets. The scale is the Ten Commandments. If people simply did not lie, covet, or steal, we would have good government with almost no theft in the form of excessive taxation. As I noted in an earlier post, the Founding Fathers in the U.S. designed the federal government for a well-educated and godly people. The problem is that the culture rotted and eroded over 250 years years and especially since the cultural revolution of the 1960's.

 

[Clip]

That's that I thought when I arrived to HK, if everything works so well and taxes are so low, why we need the democratic mesh we had in Europe?

 

[glengoolie]

as i have said, it always comes down to winners vs losers, no matter what type of system you have in place. losers always outnumber winners, they will get angry and start demanding equality. that's nature. since we have no alpha in the tribe or ruler to keep these people in check, you need to give the illusion of power so they won't rebel against you/the ruling class.

as mentioned above, religion used to be used for this purpose - to keep the stupid people in check. by scaring them with hell and whatnot. but since we have evolved pass that as a society, there is nothing to keep people in check. you cannot rule by force because UN will label you as dictator and terrorist and push your s**t in. so you have to do it in a civil way - by tricking people into submission out of their own will. hence democracy. if democracy would actually work, it would never be allowed because of these exact reasons i just mentioned. it's really not a joke when you hear this being said for laughs.

as i posted before, the greek philosophers themselves were not in favour of this system. they knew it was flawed from the get go. so it evolved into a system where the democracy works in a way that allows people to vote for the public figures of the government, every 4 years. but the people who really have the power, they are operating outside of this system and they do not abide by a term or will of the people. that is the only way the world can actually work - you need to trick the masses in order for thing to actually work and the society to progress.

i have been alive for some decades now and each new government is the same as the one before. the media writes the same stories, people complain about the same things. this is so blatantly obvious to anyone who has two brain cells. nothing ever changed because of politicians. they are just the puppets, the face of the machine. nothing more.

you may not like it but if you look at the big picture, there is no other option but to allow ellites to control and govern us. otherwise the world would turn into chaos and destruction.

 

[369]

Show me a single country in the world which has a real democracy.Switzerland just have a half one.

 

[Golden Fleece]

Show me a single country in the world which has a real democracy.Switzerland just have a half one.

You are correct. People confuse true democracies with Constitutional or Parliamentary Republics. That confusion is very common in the U.S. where the public schools no longer do their jobs.