why do people want democracy when its doesn't work?
the more you tell the truth the more people hate you. the only way to make people follow you is to lie.
democracy is a political system of lies. it encourages people to live in a little fantasy world of their own choosing. unlike a dictatorship which forces you to live in a fantasy world of someone else's choosing.
obviously the best system of government is to have an enlightened dictator. of course you wouldn't be happy because you would be forced to face reality. but eventually people would evolve to accept reality. and isn't that better in the long run?
no dude, thats with normal dictators. you need an enlightened dictator, like the dali llama.
discover, before the chinese took over tibet wise men would search the whole country for the next dalai lama (i spelled it dali llma as joke, haha). they pick the next dalai lama as a child and they train him to be the next leader. its hard for westerners to understand because we've never had a system where people don't seek power for their personal pleasure.
fur, i think having a direct democracy would make it even worse. and the definition of democracy is not a system of lies. what i'm saying is that it creates a system of lies.
i like anarchy, but no one has made it work yet...
drocki, i think all those freedom fries are affecting your typing haha.
yea, i heard that tibet had slavery until the chinese took over. part of me wonders if that is just chinese propaganda to justify taking the country, but there is no way to know. its doesn't really take away from the idea though. we had slavery in the united states. the greeks had slavery too. you wouldn't dismiss democracy just because we had slavery at one time.
the athenians had direct democracy and had they the same problems that we do. it wouldn't help the situation.
have you heard of bhutan? we judge a country by economic standards (GPD), but they judge the value of their country by how happy the people are. so in our eyes they are poor, but in their eyes they are rich.
bigcherry, athens had a direct democracy and they failed. they had exactly the same problems that we do. they rich would convince everyone to fight wars that were in their best interest but not in the interest of the country and it eventually led to their downfall. america has the same problems. and this is just one way that we are similar to athens. there are more.
katie, thats true, but its a catch 22. people will never vote for a better education system because the rich will always convince the poor that they need to spend that money on things like the military. the wealthy profit from the wars and military spending which ensures that their children are always educated. if they allowed the poor to be educated then they would lose their money and power. then when people like me say the truth they say its a conspiracy theory and call me an enemy of the states. then i go to jail or i am killed.
all you guys talking about direct democracy, look up socrates. he tried to keep athens from ruining itself and they didn't listen. so after they lost their power they blamed him and then they killed him! direct democracy is horrible!
zaphod, someone pissed in your mom.
you ask for facts but you provide none. you misunderstand, and they talk about being clever. you don't even do the most basic of research, and yet you pretend to know what you are talking about.
T, at least you admit you have nothing to add without being like zaphod. congrats.
drocki, so far you make the most convincing argument.
and actually, i just thought of something which ruins my whole theory. fidel castro is the enlightened dictator. all cubans have health care and high degree of education. no one starves.
but in order to maintain his system he has to control the economy so much that there is no prosperity. he also has to control information so much that there is no freedom. and even though people are are better off than before castro, they would rather live in the united states (overall, not everyone).
of course there is the embargo. so its possible that it would succeed economically if the embargo was lifted. but the failure of the soviet union make me think otherwise.
T, i see you changed your answer. but its still not an answer, you are only asking questions.
- Anonymous7 years agoFavorite Answer
WHAT'S THAYT? I CAWN'T HEAR Y'ALL OVER THE SOUND OF MY FREEDERM, GO TER AIN'T-ARCTIKA EF YEW DUNT LAKE IT YEW SOCIALIST COMMUNIST TERRERIST
In all seriousness though, it's an interesting question. I do think that having a benevolent dictator would be a good system, but unfortunately every dictatorship gets corrupted. Using your example of the Dalai Lama, have you heard what medieval tibet was like, or even relatively modern tibet? It was horrible. http://canterburyatheists.blogspot.ca/2008/12/dala... This was the first link that came up that seemed in-depth, but there are more. That's not to say that China hasn't done bad things in Tibet, but you could make a good case that it was even worse for most people before the invasion.
I like the idea of direct democracy. Athens had it alright for a while, medieval Iceland had it even better, neither was perfect. But unfortunately it's really hard to maintain, especially as the nation grows, and sadly people with other forms of government tend to take advantage of that.
EDIT: It's pretty well established that pre-invasion Tibet ... wasn't good for your health. Robert Ekvall (American Missionary and Anthropologist) reported human sacrifices and he was in Tibet between 1923-1938.
Sir Charles Bell (traveled extensively 1905-1920 ish and published the first book on Tibetan language) reported seeing two children ‘slain for the purposes of a religious ritual’. The Lama himself has said that Tibet was never a Utopia, and that the ideal we have of it is a myth (Sorry about the atrocious translation) http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&...
The reason I'm mentioning this is to establish that a dictatorship can turn rotten so easily that it's not worth the risk, even if it was started with the very best of intentions. No one is free from prejudice, and even as social animals there's only a finite number of people we can think of as humans, not just statistics. We evolved living in small groups, so we're wired that way. That's why you'd be extremely sad if a close family member died, but not nearly so much if you heard a thousand people had died in a natural disaster or a war a thousand miles away. The same thing happens to dictators, or anyone in a position of power. They de-humanize their subjects and think of them primarily as statistics. That social phenomenon is called the Monkeysphere or Dunbar's Number, if you're interested. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkeysphere
I think you'd be interested in dark age and early medieval Iceland, though. If I had to pick a culture to be dropped into where I wouldn't know my race, gender, or social standing beforehand I'd pick medieval Iceland. Everyone except the thralls (slaves) was equal, regardless of race or gender and thralls would often be freed and become successful businessmen. Usually they weren't even thought of by others as former slaves.
A good way to think of Dark Age/Medieval Iceland is like a combination of the Shire from the Lord of the Rings and Tortuga from Pirates of the Caribbean.
@ Katie, I like your answer, kudos to you.
- 7 years ago
1) 'the more you tell the truth the more people hate you."
Opinion is not equivalent to fact. While there are examples of this, your statement doesn't necessarily apply to the majority of leaders in the more or less democratic countries.
2) "democracy is a political system of lies. it encourages people to live in a little fantasy world of their own choosing. "
Opinion is not equivalent to fact. Democracy is a political system of consensus. There will always be those, like yourself, who are unhappy and disillusioned with what the majority decides. You are also residing in your own little fantasy world.
3) "obviously the best system of government is to have an enlightened dictator."
Why is this obvious? If you're going to make such a statement, back it up with facts.
4) "eventually people would evolve to accept reality."
This is an assumption that has so far never been borne out in practice. If history is any indication, you overestimate the capacity of people to accept not having a choice. You are blind to the modern world.
5) "you need an enlightened dictator, like the dali llama."
The Dalai Lama is not a dictator and he is not a political leader. He is a spiritual leader. He dictates nothing, he only suggests. I will agree that he is enlightened more than most.
6) "i spelled it dali llma as joke, haha"
You're not that clever. ha ha.
7) we've never had a system where people don't seek power for their personal pleasure.
False once again. While there are and have been many egotists in democratic governments, many others have had altruistic motivations for seeking public service.
p.s. the USA is a republic, not a Democracy. There are many countries such as the USA with democratic ideals, but there are no real Democracies in the world. See for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...
- Anonymous7 years ago
After fixing up your writing skills, perhaps you can pursue proving a theory where democracy is based on objectivity?
My first question, that came to mind, was how is democracy flawed? The majority is stronger in their conclusions, judgments, and desires, and even if the majority is objectively wrong, wherein is the flaw?
If twenty people want the world to be like x, what makes you think you should have the power to make the world like y? Or any person, who wants to overide the democracy?
What more, in realization of minority of majority, we see the emergence of dictatorship, do we not?
If we consider the existence of an objective future, we soon realize that that the future itself is only determined by the strength of the intentions and workers geared towards it. Fairness, in a political sense, is about giving everyone a chance to determine the structure of society, and therein the future for their next generation.
- 7 years ago
Democracy works quite well if the populace is educated actually. Granted that humans are subject to some inherent flaws. They have a tendency to like oversimplifications and flashy stunts. They fall for stunts and speeches that amplify their egos. They hear what they like to basically. However, all these traits however human are usually found to a much reduced degree in educated populations. In fact I believe the founding fathers of the US had a educated class of men in mind when they developed their scheme for a self ruled nation.
An education is not simply for increasing wage earning capacity despite the commonly held views of the middle class today. It opens the mind, releases boredom, open you mind to a much wider world, and of course increases potential for a democratic society to function. Sadly education has a bad name in america. The view is reinforced in every aspect of social life today. Education is underfunded and standards for teaching high and middle school are quite low. The problem lies here. I truly believe if we don't begin to put an emphasis on education we're actually quite indisputably doomed. Cheer up though at least you see the problem.Source(s): mathematician, mathematical platonist, freedom lover...
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 7 years ago
I agree with your basic premise that Democracy doesn't work.
However, I disagree with you on the details and especially on your idea of an 'enlightened dictator'.
An enlightened dictator is good, sure, but then he dies and some nimrod comes to power again.
>>democracy is a political system of lies.
No, Democracy refers to a system where the people hold power over their government. What we have around the world at the moment is 'representative democracy' as opposed to Direct Democracy. Replacing representative democracy with direct democracy would be a good start and scrapping government altogether should be our eventual goal.Source(s): Small Furry Anarchist
- DiscoverLv 47 years ago
There are never any enlightened dictators because that whole concept almost borderlines on being an oxymoron. Its like having a libertarian King or president. If one is truly enlightened they seek power over themselves first because they understand that the outside world merely reflects the inside. As above so below. What you put out is what you keep for yourself.
- bigcherrybombLv 77 years ago
true democracy works, what we have is a republic. ours has problems but no alternative is any better. socialism has similar if not worse problems. marxist communism would probably work but it asks of humans to put aside our faults such as greed for the good of everyone. it calls for no government. so far we humans haven't been able to do that so it hasn't worked outside small groupings. maybe some day.
anarchy works so long as everyone is playing by the same rules but then so does just about every form of government. the reason so many fail is that people change the rules in the middle of the game to suit their own personal goals. they want to "win" by hook or crook and have no care for what it does to the rest of the world.
- 7 years ago
Problem solved. Pick someone, and designate them as your dictator. Do everything they want you to do, and every rule they provide for you. Nothing is stopping you from having your wish. Go for it, unless that sounds stupid now that you think about it.
- Caysie101Lv 57 years ago
You could make some nominations for benevolent dictator and I'm sure some of us would help vote him/her in.
- Uchiha ItachiLv 47 years ago
How do you know it doesn't work? We haven't even tried it yet...