Is Democracy a casualty of the Age of Ideology?

[Kujako]

In philosophical sense, you must believe in some fundamental things to live your life. You can't be truly skeptical about everything.

Being skeptical does not negate belief.

[Wildmoon]

Being skeptical does not negate belief.

I know that being skeptical only mean you are not committed to certainty but I truly doubt that there are people who live their lives being skeptical about everything. There are things people are certain about tacitly.

[Reeve]

Isn't every age "the Age of Ideology?"

[Elegiac]

Isn't every age "the Age of Ideology?"

Yep.

But facts make buzzwords less fun.

[Kujako]

I know that being skeptical only mean you are not committed to certainty but I truly doubt that there are people who live their lives being skeptical about everything. There are things people are certain about tacitly.

I try to live being skeptical about everything, but I could be wrong.

[nextormento]

Were is the disaster of the French First Republic?
Or are you saying its important to maintain the lie of democratic input even though its irrelevant?

It's not the illusion of choice but rather delineate what we should have a popular choice in.
If we debate the topic in abstract, you could argue that anything not voted is un-democratic. But there are, oh!, so many things we never voted on, and that we wouldn't dare to vote on, that makes the contention just that: an abstract.

See for instance:
We don't vote if we want to put a city water deposit at the lowest point of a valley. No, we objectively know how gravity functions and put it on high ground.
We don't vote on any industry standard. Houses need withstand X exact wind load? I never voted that!.
And on and on.
Trustee models are not an abstract choice: they happen because we live in reality. Some policies are not subject to ideology.

Democracy with suffrage may just be a passing paradigm. We've experimented with it for a couple centuries, and perhaps we're ready to pinpoint exactly what pieces don't function. Long term decisions is something they struggle with. So I would not be surprised if, in a few decades, democratic nation states crafted methods to relinquish certain aspects to some form of bureaucracy. Or, in larger scales (in the case of the EU, for instance), surrender aspects of sovereignty to the dreaded technocrats.


The 1st French Republic was a disaster because there was too much change in too short a span of time.
The Convention failed to address hunger and riots. Eventually they passed agitators under the guillotine. In two years they had Roberspierre guillotined and the Jacobines closed. In short: the people for whom they were governing were not liking it very much. They were, like their monarchic predecessors, Tout pour le peuple, rien par le peuple.
Unrest didn't end until elections were codified into the Constitution (and then it was still highly unstable until the very end in coup). The elite need be reminded of more basic needs; and that's what suffrage does, or should do: deal with more simple aspects than, say, climate change.


If we want to analyze it in very abstract terms, it was an illusion all along. But nevertheless, suffrage appears to be desirable for issues closer to what the people perceive.

[May90]

The problem with "ideological certainty" is that not all people will necessarily accept this ideology. One of the main purposes of democracy is to find consensus, when people have different opinions on how the country should be run. Ideological certainty means that only the people accepting the current ideology will be happy with how the country develops, while everyone else will not have any real say in the matter. In fact, if the ideology is defined, the alternative ideologies essentially becoming marginal, even illegal, and eventually things like Stalin's camps happen. Democracy (in theory, at least) insures that everyone's word is considered, while ideological certainty assures the opposite.

Speaking of Trump, as much as the guy disgusts me (I really didn't believe such a person could have any chance of success in American presidential race - it seems our standards are lowering), he should be allowed to speak. Shutting him down is essentially what he wants to do towards his opponents. If he is free to speak his mind and people oppose him in real discussions, then he will be demolished by more sensible opponents and leave the race eventually. Otherwise, banning him will only rally his supporters, since people are naturally attracted towards the oppressed, regardless of their views.

That say, representative democracy itself has quite a few inherent contradictions that theoretically make it eventually decay. After people have voted for the representatives, they are essentially excluded from running the country for a certain period. Those representatives there are free to do whatever they want, as long as they don't break the law. But the law can be rewritten by themselves... Essentially, representative democracy as it is implemented in most Western countries nowadays is a series of dictatorships, since, despite separation of branches of power, there is still no one to control all those branches at the same time, and if one branch goes rogue and the other two follow it, then there is nothing people can do about it, other than start an armed rebellion and take down the usurpers.

Direct democracy isn't perfect either, since it leads to unqualified people making decisions that affect the society in general.

I don't know which system is the best. Representative democracy seems to be working relatively well, but it is also a bit unstable, since common citizens have very little influence on the government, and there is nothing to assure that people's ideals do not contradict where the country is going to. In fact, I am quite surprised the system works as well as it does: I would expect all democracies to be replaced with dictatorships in a few decades after their formation. The indirect influence people and companies have on the government seems to be much stronger than one would assume.

[Independent voter]

Doesn't Ideological certainty essentially erase the need for Democracy?

When you're 17 you tell your dad that you know everything. You're dad replies back that that's amazing because the older he gets the less certain he is about anything.

[Deleted]

.... After they failed at the plebiscite vote, yes they found other ways to get what they wanted voted on. Considering the Lisbon Treaty failed a popular vote in Ireland, YET would be voted on again, Likely had it failed a second time it would be continuously voted on over and over until passed. So this is a perfect example, popular will did not exist but they found a way.

But it didnt. And no, people dont just change their mind only because you change a treaty and put it out for voting once again. I get you dont like the lisbon treaty. Seems most other voted representatives of the countries did, and so the treaty got signed. Democracy also means you are able to handle the defeat of your idea.

No, democracy did not fail because of one treaty that was voted against, refined, and put back onto the agenda. The only threat to democracy is the people that give power to criminals willingly.. as like in Turkey where 50% of the people voted for Erdogan, knowing he actually is a criminal who wants to get rid of democracy to stay in power forever. Same happened with hitler. Same happened in russia.. The end of democracy happens, if the majority of people are against it. If the majority people are willing to defend it, it will stay.

It is up to us to defend democracy whenever possible. It is up to governments to protect the constitutions of democratic societies.

[Alwek]

But it didnt. And no, people dont just change their mind only because you change a treaty and put it out for voting once again. I get you dont like the lisbon treaty. Seems most other voted representatives of the countries did, and so the treaty got signed. Democracy also means you are able to handle the defeat of your idea.

No, democracy did not fail because of one treaty that was voted against, refined, and put back onto the agenda. The only threat to democracy is the people that give power to criminals willingly.. as like in Turkey where 60% of the people voted for Erdogan, knowing he actually is a criminal who wants to get rid of democracy to stay in power forever. Same happened with hitler. Same happened in russia.. The end of democracy happens, if the majority of people are against it. If the majority people are willing to defend it, it will stay.

It is up to us to defend democracy whenever possible. It is up to governments to protect the constitutions of democratic societies.

60% of the votes? In what election did that happen?

[Deleted]

60% of the votes? In what election did that happen?

Corrected that. It was 50%.

[Theodarzna]

But it didnt. And no, people dont just change their mind only because you change a treaty and put it out for voting once again. I get you dont like the lisbon treaty. Seems most other voted representatives of the countries did, and so the treaty got signed. Democracy also means you are able to handle the defeat of your idea.

No, democracy did not fail because of one treaty that was voted against, refined, and put back onto the agenda. The only threat to democracy is the people that give power to criminals willingly.. as like in Turkey where 50% of the people voted for Erdogan, knowing he actually is a criminal who wants to get rid of democracy to stay in power forever. Same happened with hitler. Same happened in russia.. The end of democracy happens, if the majority of people are against it. If the majority people are willing to defend it, it will stay.

It is up to us to defend democracy whenever possible. It is up to governments to protect the constitutions of democratic societies.

Apparently it doesn't since even if voted down, other means are found to do the exact same thing.

It seems like your just hyper invested in the fairy tail that we are a Democratic society. I would argue precisely the fact that there is a pre-set agenda and that no matter what you vote to do the same things will always happen, than your vote is meaningless input. We are merely managed people.

Much like SOPA, CISPA, ect and the many iterations of E-Censorship, or the TTP, TTIP, many projects of the elite governing classes move forward no matter what the popular resistance is to it. Essentially what one is saying is that Democracy is meaningless in the absence of choice.

- - - Updated - - -

I believe humans can be made better because going back in our history we were much worse then we are now. So - if, say, you go into the future 1000 years, would you see the future humans as "better" or worse?

If trends stay as they are, the probability is high that we will be better.

But if you do not believe me, or the trends there are other people in "Authority" that are saying the same thing:

History and the Decline of Human Violence
In a magisterial new book, Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker argues that humanity's "better angels" are triumphing
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...uman-violence/

Will We Continue to Get Smarter? The Flynn Effect Says Yes
Ever-rising IQ scores suggest that future generations will make us seem like dimwits in comparison
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...fect-says-yes/

Flynn effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

Is this a certainty? No. But it is the most likely future, based on current trends and data.

IQ is culturally relative and realistically we can't assess easily the relative rates of violence in any period of history since records were widely kept on the sort of thing. More over I tend to resist the presentism of assuming today is the absolute best sum of all progress in some triumphal wig narrative of eternally marching progress. Things happen, things change, sometimes its good, sometimes its horrifying.

Pinkers study in particular isn't full proof. It presumes that by merely being modern we can effectively end problems, we rarely address the price tag of how this was made or how much slaughter was required to make it so, and how much more will be sacrificed to make your utopia happen.

[Deleted]

Apparently it doesn't since even if voted down, other means are found to do the exact same thing.

Once again.. it was voted down in one single country. And was refined then. And got signed in the refined version. No matter if you personally like it or dont.

It seems like your just hyper invested in the fairy tail that we are a Democratic society.

Contrary to your idea that we live in a dictatorship. No, we dont. My country has different parties, left wing, right wing, center, liberal.. and you are able to be one of many voices to actually vote the current government out of office. The american republicans are very different to the american democrats, and yes, you are able to vote a president out of office and replace him by votes from the people. So yes, we have a democracy. And no, even your worst conspiracy theories will not change that.

In my country, you are able to talk about the idea merkel is incompetent. As you may do that in the united states about Obama. If you would do that in turkey, if you would talk negative about erdogan, you would be put into court. Boris Nemzow, a russian opposition politican, got killed because opposing Putin. In China, dissidents are being held captive and are being tortured, as like examples like Ai Wei Wei or Liao Yiwu.

I would argue precisely the fact that there is a pre-set agenda and that no matter what you vote to do the same things will always happen, than your vote is meaningless input. We are merely managed people.

Thats just wrong. As we see in Poland now, where a right wing party was voted into office, which currently does everything to remove democracy. As we see in turkey, where erdogans AKP is being fanatized to attack the opposite press openly.. And this is also possible in a country like the us of a, where the people could vote Trump as a right wing populist or a tea party creationist into office. It is possible to change the country by giving the voice, even if it is just one of a million of voices. At the end, every single voice decides about the political future of a country.

And that is the valuable part about democracy. To be able to vote the government out of office and replace it. While dictators never would allow that. While they would hype your country for war. While they just do everything to stay in power. While they make their people poor and use them as cannon fodder.

Much like SOPA, CISPA, ect and the many iterations of E-Censorship, or the TTP, TTIP, many projects of the elite governing classes move forward no matter what the popular resistance is to it. Essentially what one is saying is that Democracy is meaningless in the absence of choice.

Essentially you are one of those who want to replace democracy. And your only argument is that you think democracy is an illusion. And that because you are sick of politics. But believe me, those politics are still the best way to find a solution. Compared to a leader noone questions. You are against TTP, TTIP, CISPA and SOPA? Well, its up to you to join those who oppose to sign those treaties.. but it seems that the majority of the european politicians currently wants to sign them, which just cant only have the reason "because the templer want them to".. at the end those contracts actually have their benefit, which you just probably dont see. If you dont want politicians to sign the treatie, discuss with them. Vote for those who oppose it. And be able to accept that the majority does not share your conspiracy theory, if its about time to vote them into office.

[May90]

It seems like your just hyper invested in the fairy tail that we are a Democratic society. I would argue precisely the fact that there is a pre-set agenda and that no matter what you vote to do the same things will always happen, than your vote is meaningless input. We are merely managed people.

Well, this is an old philosophical debate about determinism. Suppose there is such thing as "fate": everything in the future is pre-defined, we cannot change it and can only flow slowly towards it - then what is the point doing anything at all? You will do what the fate demands anyway. But, once you start thinking this, your actions naturally change, hence changing the fate... But what if the fate has already defined that you would change your actions this way? But now that you thought this, your actions change again... Is there the end of this loop?

Now, regarding the democracy and the meaninglessness of the vote: it is not exactly meaningless. Even if the general trend in politics cannot be changed directly through the vote, minor aspects can, and those minor aspects on large time scales lead to significantly different scenarios. Butterfly effect. Plus, the vote is, by far, not the only instrument for people to influence the politics: every person influences it to some extent, since the government has to constantly monitor the society and trends in it and adjust appropriately. You are managed by the government, true, but you also influence the government, directly or indirectly. It is, again, an endless loop: you cannot say who in the end "controls" the system, since everything is intertwined.

Democracy does not exclude a pre-set agenda: in fact, I would argue that it irreversibly leads to it at some point, because the society is influenced by the current agenda and naturally strives to develop it, rather than change - much like a laser self-focuses to spread on the narrow path for extreme distances. Pre-set agenda however is only softly pre-set, not hardly, like in dictatorial systems: it still can be changed by the will of the population, both through a direct vote or indirectly through companies and influential people, if the need for it arises. If the current agenda leads the country into a deadlock, then the new political establishment will be required for the system to survive, and that establishment will arise, either through elections or natural processes.

I think though that people mean different things, when talking about democracy. I see democracy as a system in which the society controls the government and the government controls the society. In authoritarian systems, while the society still influences the governmental decisions, the pre-set agenda is hardwired, and whoever disagrees with it and tries to change it is repressed. In democratic systems, in contrary, the agenda is softwired and prone to change, if the need arises, regardless of what people in charge of the government think about it. If the overwhelming majority of citizens agrees with the current agenda, then it is unlikely to change in the nearest future, and that might be a problem, since the need to change might come faster than people recognize it and able to react - but I don't think such a situation justifies calling the system autocratic. It is merely a democratic system in the period of crisis. That will eventually pass, one way or the other.

[Hooked]

Obama and Kerry don't believe in the usa, they want global government. President Trump is going to make America number 1 again. Fuck the globalists.

[May90]

President Trump is going to make America number 1 again.

Number 1 political circus - sure... He has already made it so, I'd argue.

[Hooked]

Number 1 political circus - sure... He has already made it so, I'd argue.

Our adversaries don't practice your form of metrosexuality. They are lifting weights everyday and doing pushups in sewage filled gutters. They don't give one shit about your feminine complaints. They are just cranking out warriors and preparing themselves for battle. The world is a constant battle for who rules, sissy men never last long on the world stage. Their countries fall everytime to the more brutal armies.

[Raxis]

Democracy died because it was hard. It took effort.

No one wanted to understand the issues, all they wanted was pop one liners and 15 second media bites. They voted for who ever looked the best or promised the most. Ignoring the fact that their politicians would promise anything to get elected then do the will of who ever paid for their campaigns.

We have no one to blame but ourselves when the Oligarchy take over is complete.

[Hooked]

Democracy died because it was hard. It took effort.

No one wanted to understand the issues, all they wanted was pop one liners and 15 second media bites. They voted for who ever looked the best or promised the most. Ignoring the fact that their politicians would promise anything to get elected then do the will of who ever paid for their campaigns.

We have no one to blame but ourselves when the Oligarchy take over is complete.

They aren't taking over shit, trump is like a godsend for America. The pc bs needs to end or we are screwed.

[May90]

Our adversaries don't practice your form of metrosexuality. They are lifting weights everyday and doing pushups in sewage filled gutters. They don't give one shit about your feminine complaints. They are just cranking out warriors and preparing themselves for battle. The world is a constant battle for who rules, sissy men never last long on the world stage. Their countries fall everytime to the more brutal armies.

I couldn't care less about what they think or do. I know what I think and do though.