4 ms·

The problem (if you want to call it that) with democracy is that it reflects societal problems at the government level.

YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
I think that's actually a feature, not a problem. A representative government will be, well, representative, of the people who elected it into power. The various social currents in beliefs and morals will find an expression in the persons of elected leaders. What is really a problem, I think, is the lack of responsible and well-informed citizens as well as competent and altruistic leaders. This seems to be the case in modern, western-type democracies: we vote incompetent idiots in power, because there's no good alternatives and we wouldn't know one if it hit us in the head with a bundle of fasces. The idea that you can replace responsible citizens and competent leaders with a ruling elite of (more or less) enlightened individuals given catholic powers for life is an idea at least as long as democracy itself (possibly discoursed over even earlier than Plato's The Republic). Personally, I'm not sympathetic to it. There are other altneratives. Many of my friends and some intellectuals I love to listen to facour anarchy, but I dont' think that sort of thing really works for any length of time. And, if we could solve the big problem of how to govern ourselves, we would probably soon afterwards find solutions to the bigger problems that confront us as a species: climate change, nuclear proliferation, poverty etc.
- pavel_lishin 9y ago
  > The idea that you can replace responsible citizens and competent leaders with a ruling elite of (more or less) enlightened individuals given catholic powers for life is an idea at least as long as democracy itself (possibly discoursed over even earlier than Plato's The Republic). Personally, I'm not sympathetic to it. Isn't this just royalty, and the concept of noblesse oblige? One of the very things that the United States was formed as an antithesis to?
  - bllguo 9y ago
    Only if you conveniently ignore the word "enlightened," which also happens to be the most important word there. More like a meritocratic oligarchy?
    - YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
      I did say "a ruling elite of (more or less) enlightened individuals" :)
    - pavel_lishin 9y ago
      You think the monarchs and nobility didn't think they were enlightened? Or do you just mean enlightened by your standards?
- TimTheTinker 9y ago
  I think what you said is actually an excellent argument against a major feature of modern liberalism: namely, seeking to fix society’s problems (and not problems caused by government’s failure to do it’s own job) with government-based solutions. If the government will necessarily reflect societal problems, how can it hope to be the solution to them? To think it could do so without ceasing to be a true democracy invokes a paradox of sorts. In other words, your vote can only go so far. If you want to make an even bigger difference, go love your neighbor as yourself also.

I think that's actually a feature, not a problem. A representative government will be, well, representative, of the people who elected it into power. The various social currents in beliefs and morals will find an expression in the persons of elected leaders. What is really a problem, I think, is the lack of responsible and well-informed citizens as well as competent and altruistic leaders. This seems to be the case in modern, western-type democracies: we vote incompetent idiots in power, because there's no good alternatives and we wouldn't know one if it hit us in the head with a bundle of fasces. The idea that you can replace responsible citizens and competent leaders with a ruling elite of (more or less) enlightened individuals given catholic powers for life is an idea at least as long as democracy itself (possibly discoursed over even earlier than Plato's The Republic). Personally, I'm not sympathetic to it. There are other altneratives. Many of my friends and some intellectuals I love to listen to facour anarchy, but I dont' think that sort of thing really works for any length of time. And, if we could solve the big problem of how to govern ourselves, we would probably soon afterwards find solutions to the bigger problems that confront us as a species: climate change, nuclear proliferation, poverty etc.

pavel_lishin 9y ago
> The idea that you can replace responsible citizens and competent leaders with a ruling elite of (more or less) enlightened individuals given catholic powers for life is an idea at least as long as democracy itself (possibly discoursed over even earlier than Plato's The Republic). Personally, I'm not sympathetic to it. Isn't this just royalty, and the concept of noblesse oblige? One of the very things that the United States was formed as an antithesis to?
- bllguo 9y ago
  Only if you conveniently ignore the word "enlightened," which also happens to be the most important word there. More like a meritocratic oligarchy?
  - YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
    I did say "a ruling elite of (more or less) enlightened individuals" :)
  - pavel_lishin 9y ago
    You think the monarchs and nobility didn't think they were enlightened? Or do you just mean enlightened by your standards?
TimTheTinker 9y ago
I think what you said is actually an excellent argument against a major feature of modern liberalism: namely, seeking to fix society’s problems (and not problems caused by government’s failure to do it’s own job) with government-based solutions. If the government will necessarily reflect societal problems, how can it hope to be the solution to them? To think it could do so without ceasing to be a true democracy invokes a paradox of sorts. In other words, your vote can only go so far. If you want to make an even bigger difference, go love your neighbor as yourself also.