Is Democracy A Failed System ?

[khairyexpat]

And I don`t mean it in a facetious way.

Democracy is 1000`s of years older than religions, where it is the duty and belief that one ½ of the country has the responsibility to point out and raise the awareness of the other ½ half`s flawed logic and irrational reasoning.
Doing the same for 100`s of years (becomes frivolous and nonsensical).

I don`t know what would the future bring in terms of a new and a drastically different NEW SYSTEM.

May be segregation in peace is better than coexisting with fiery passionate endless debates.
One ½ of the people happy with everyone having guns.
The other ½ living in peace with no guns.

No one will try to convince no one..
Everyone is at peace happily ever after.

It took a civil war to end and abolish slavery debate from the constitution.

 

[Rich One]

Democracy Is not suitable for all people's

 

[Pensador]

Its a failed system for many reasons. My personal opinion. You cannot fix stupid and they the stupid vote even the stupid population is rapidly out growing the not stupid population.

 

[goodboyjakey]

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”

Churchill

 

[steveinbsas]

Democracy is 1000`s of years older than religions...

Organized religion may be about 4000 years older than democracy.

A temple area in southeastern Turkey at Göbekli Tepe has been dated to around 9,500 BCE. https://en.wikipedia.../wiki/Neolithic

Democracy can be traced back to 6th Century (BCE) Athens. https://en.wikipedia...ry_of_democracy

And I believe the Greeks actually had religion before they had democracy.

 

[ElQueso]

May be segregation in peace is better than coexisting with fiery passionate endless debates.

OMG - do we have a libertarian convert?

This is actually one of the basic tenets of modern-day libertarian philosophy. It's called the Non-Aggression Principle. Basically, one should be free to associate, or not associate, with whomever one pleases without being forced to believe or associate as a "majority" dictates. That is true on an individual level, all the way up the line to large organizations of people (which are still possible under libertarian philosophy).

Funny thing about the US Civil War is that it didn't really solve anything - because rarely is anything "solved" by violent means (not to say that things are not ended by violence, or that at times violence isn't needed perhaps). In point of fact, it was about Lincoln wanting to force who people could associate with - i.e, the South wanted to break away and Lincoln feared the breakup of the United States more than he did killing hundreds of thousands of humans

If anyone thinks Lincoln was such a saint about freeing the slaves - read some more other than what the government approves for children to learn in school. If anyone thinks Lincoln solved anything, look at a country with such huge central power that dominates hundreds of millions of people directly and influences billions around the world, and a country where the pain of that civil war some 150 years ago is still around is proof that violence in that instance didn't resolve anything.

Churchill was right about democracy and government. In my book, that's exactly the point. The best that there is isn't good enough when talking about government. Anyone who thinks that the "majority" forcing their views on the minority is just is either brainwashed (as I admit I used to be), without imagination, or complicit when it comes to politics and managing human interaction.

 

[Ceviche]

you Ok? khairy dude? Hows life treating u?

 

[gpop]

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]Democracy was a good idea corrupted by crooked people. So was communism for that matter. Idealistically you could argue that any political system is/was a good idea. All have flaws and all have merits. The constants are people and people who know how to exploit other people.[/background]
[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]It's always the power-hungry types and [/background]bureaucrats that seem to get involved in [insert any political system here] and mess it up.

 

[lamarque]

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]Democracy was a good idea corrupted by crooked people. So was communism for that matter. Idealistically you could argue that any political system is/was a good idea. All have flaws and all have merits. The constants are people and people who know how to exploit other people.[/background]
[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]It's always the power-hungry types and [/background]bureaucrats that seem to get involved in [insert any political system here] and mess it up.

No system is good if you don't consider the user, is like if i make and incredible Operating sistem that can do all and that has no bugs but it dosn't care about the user and the user interface, it just suck unless that system was supose to be only used by experts, so only the sistems that add the user into the equation can be good.

 

[bobg]

... <snip> ...

Anyone who thinks that the "majority" forcing their views on the minority is just is either brainwashed (as I admit I used to be), without imagination, or complicit when it comes to politics and managing human interaction.

But couldn't a democracy reserve some inalienable rights which cannot be taken away by the majority. Say freedom of thought and exp<b></b>ression, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly.

I have a very shallow understanding of libertarianism. Unless it promotes complete freedom for everybody, who, if not the majority, decides on which freedoms are restrained?

Bob