Democracy is not truly democracy - here's why

[Deleted]

The political system commonly referred to colloquially as "democracy" is a very flawed, pliable, and prone to exploitation by elite special interests. Despite this, it seems to be the only system of governance in the modern era that has successfully integrated the social consent of the people with the governing authorities. The issue, however, is that the social consent of the people is essentially controlled by exclusive elite segments of society, such as the media and monetary donors. This can be witnessed without effort in countries like the United Kingdom and the United States.

The US government has become adept at manipulating public opinion to sponsor whichever policies it chooses to pursue. As a result, political sovereignty is no longer held by the people, it is held by the governing elite. This system essentially results in a quasi-oligarchy with most of the people being oblivious to who truly rules them, with a minority understanding who truly rules them (in the case of the United States, it is a select group of individuals who operate banking cartels and other corporate transnational giants).

Thus, social consent is undercut and the people are no longer granting consent to be governed: the governing authority grants itself to govern endlessly. As a natural result, the governing authority pursues its own interests indefinitely (until the system crashes).

This is self-evident for anyone who understands how the federal reserve works, for anyone who understands that over 97% of the gains in GDP over the past 20 years have gone to the top 1% of individuals in the economy, according to the International Monetary Fund.

This begs the question -- what's a better alternative?

It's simple, actually: a politburo system with a certain ideology as the governing rationale. This ideology does not necessarily have to be democratically accepted, but it should incorporate social consent in one way or another (usually through religious means or something analogous).

This seals the governing authority off to special interests that exploit governance in pursuit of greed. That is the central problem with democracy.

Great historical example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasid_Caliphate

[Kellhound]

Dictatorship with me as the benevolent dictator.

[GennGreymane]

Dictatorship with me as the benevolent dictator.

I've heard they are a dime a dozen, almost never a bad egg, I hope you are diff

[Deleted]

Dictatorship with me as the benevolent dictator.

A politburo with an altruistic governing committee that leads according to a nationally agreed-upon ideology is the best alternative.

[taliey]

The political system commonly referred to colloquially as "democracy" is a very flawed, pliable, and prone to exploitation by elite special interests. Despite this, it seems to be the only system of governance in the modern era that has successfully integrated the social consent of the people with the governing authorities. The issue, however, is that the social consent of the people is essentially controlled by exclusive elite segments of society, such as the media and monetary donors. This can be witnessed without effort in countries like the United Kingdom and the United States.

The US government has become adept at manipulating public opinion to sponsor whichever policies it chooses to pursue. As a result, political sovereignty is no longer held by the people, it is held by the governing elite. This system essentially results in a quasi-oligarchy with most of the people being oblivious to who truly rules them, with a minority understanding who truly rules them (in the case of the United States, it is a select group of individuals who operate banking cartels and other corporate transnational giants).

Thus, social consent is undercut and the people are no longer granting consent to be governed: the governing authority grants itself to govern endlessly. As a natural result, the governing authority pursues its own interests indefinitely (until the system crashes).

This is self-evident for anyone who understands how the federal reserve works, for anyone who understands that over 97% of the gains in GDP over the past 20 years have gone to the top 1% of individuals in the economy, according to the International Monetary Fund.

This begs the question -- what's a better alternative? I would say there are several, but most of them are essentially just hypothetical systems that have not been tested in any practical application, and so remain largely unknown to people.

'Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.'

You think we're not trying?

[Deleted]

'Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.'

You think we're not trying?

It's not that "we're not trying," it's that the present system benefits those at the top echelons of society, and so they seek to keep the system in inertia so as to keep benefiting from it.

There have also been better systems of governance in the past than democracy, so your quote is false.

[Deleted]

There have also been better systems of governance in the past than democracy, so your quote is false.

Like what?

[taliey]

It's not that "we're not trying," it's that the present system benefits those at the top echelons of society, and so they seek to keep the system in inertia so as to keep benefiting from it.

There have also been better systems of governance in the past than democracy, so your quote is false.

I wasn't attempting to say that the quote is true, as I was trying to say that your post reminded me of that saying (which was 1947 at the time).

And better forms of governance? Please do tell, I'd be more than willing to listen/read to your opinion.

[GennGreymane]

Like what?

Honestly.... good question.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean a benevolent dictator would be great, but those guys..... I mean..... I know they are super common and all

[Kellhound]

I've heard they are a dime a dozen, almost never a bad egg, I hope you are diff

Elect me as Grand Dictator for Life and we can find out. I can't be worse than the idiots in Washington D.C.

[taliey]

Elect me as Grand Dictator for Life and we can find out. I can't be worse than the idiots in Washington D.C.

That's fucking sad.

[GennGreymane]

Elect me as Grand Dictator for Life and we can find out. I can't be worse than the idiots in Washington D.C.

We could get kim jung un! I think hes worse. Only Sony is afraid of him

[Deleted]

Like what?

I'll name 2 examples of historical political systems that worked better for the people they governed than democracy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasid_Caliphate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qing_dynasty

In both states, sovereignty was governed by two unique ideologies that were not subject to change, and sovereignty was ultimately only possessed by those ideologies. The average person in the Qing dynasty was far more wealthy than even the average American during the late 19th century.

[Deleted]

Why am I not surprised you linked a caliphate.

[Deleted]

Why am I not surprised you linked a caliphate.

Unless you're a racist ignorant of all history, there's nothing wrong with linking the Abbassid caliphate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age

[GennGreymane]

I'll name 2 examples of historical political systems that worked better for the people they governed than democracy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasid_Caliphate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qing_dynasty

In both states, sovereignty was governed by two unique ideologies that were not subject to change, and sovereignty was ultimately only possessed by those ideologies. The average person in the Qing dynasty was far more wealthy than even the average American during the late 19th century.

Should go ask those guys how they did it, I mean surely such greatness would still be around.

[apepi]

United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.

[Deleted]

Unless you're a racist ignorant of all history, there's nothing wrong with linking the Abbassid caliphate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age

If it was so great it wouldn't have crashed. Caliphate is just another word for islamic fascism.

[Deleted]

Should go ask those guys how they did it, I mean surely such greatness would still be around.

The Mongol Horde obliterated the first one. The second one was undone by world war 2. Not unreasonable at all.

- - - Updated - - -

If it was so great it wouldn't have crashed.

The effectiveness of its governing system has nothing to do with its ability to resist the Mongol horde (the cause of its destruction).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Baghdad_%281258%29

Saying that it crashed because its governing system was lackluster is to be ignorant of all history.

[Herecius]

The only great dictators, kings, and absolute leaders tend to be the ones that loathe the power, that do not want it, and so they don't rule for themselves, but rather for their people.

These people are usually assassinated by people who actually want the power.