• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are people too stupid for democracy to work?

Are people too stupid for democracy to work>

  • Yes

    Votes: 24 57.1%
  • No

    Votes: 18 42.9%

  • Total voters
    42
Maybe democracy can't work unless it's by a public show of hands. Can't work well, anyway, without being subverted by ill-intended groups of cronies.

That wouldn't work either in a community of substantial size.

Democracy always advances the most pompous and boastful.
 
No system of government will run without issues.

True, but not all systems are equal. Some, such as monarchy, are a great deal better.
 
True, but not all systems are equal. Some, such as monarchy, are a great deal better.

The history of monarchies don't support that statement, since the very premise of them is basically a warlord who was so amazing and suppressing everyone else that they forced their progeny down everyone's throats for generations.
 
The history of monarchies don't support that statement, since the very premise of them is basically a warlord who was so amazing and suppressing everyone else that they forced their progeny down everyone's throats for generations.

Every system of government starts with armed force being used to establish it. There's literally never been any state that came into being otherwise.

The benefit of monarchy is that the ruler is trained from birth in how to rule, and that the ruler is not required to actively seek out rule, and thus is free to be humble.

Democracy advances the most boastful, since in order to win elections you have to be able to convince others of your own virtue, which is something that the vicious are better at.

I might also add, that if you look at the record of Christianity, its pretty unequivocal how it is aligned. Christianity used the imagery of monarchy even though Rome was legally a republic (and that was the case until after it became Christian). From the fall of Rome until the enlightenment, Europe's Christian governments were almost universally monarchist, and the secular forces of the enlightenment were democratic.
 
That wouldn't work either in a community of substantial size.

Democracy always advances the most pompous and boastful.

There's a canton in Switzerland where they vote by show of hands. Men carry a weapon to the voting place because you have to show you're ready to fight if called on, and women got the vote only recently.
 
There's a canton in Switzerland where they vote by show of hands. Men carry a weapon to the voting place because you have to show you're ready to fight if called on, and women got the vote only recently.

Interesting.

But the arguments against democracy are still applicable.
 
Every system of government starts with armed force being used to establish it. There's literally never been any state that came into being otherwise.

The difference is that one doesn't do it in perpetuation and expense of the following generations. It's the difference between dispersion of power and consolidation of power.

The benefit of monarchy is that the ruler is trained from birth in how to rule, and that the ruler is not required to actively seek out rule, and thus is free to be humble.

Democracy advances the most boastful, since in order to win elections you have to be able to convince others of your own virtue, which is something that the vicious are better at.

I might also add, that if you look at the record of Christianity, its pretty unequivocal how it is aligned. Christianity used the imagery of monarchy even though Rome was legally a republic (and that was the case until after it became Christian). From the fall of Rome until the enlightenment, Europe's Christian governments were almost universally monarchist, and the secular forces of the enlightenment were democratic.

Because monarchs were totally defined by their humbleness and doesn't breed entitlement and contempt for the lower castes...
 
The difference is that one doesn't do it in perpetuation and expense of the following generations.

No government has ever intentionally been established for only a generation. Every single one was founded with a mind toward lasting in perpetuity. So that is not a difference between types of government, but a commonality between them.

It's the difference between dispersion of power and consolidation of power.

In theory, neither is more likely to consolidate power. It's true that in practice democracy consolidates power much more so than monarchies (in general), but I don't consider that a good thing.

Because monarchs were totally defined by their humbleness and doesn't breed entitlement and contempt for the lower castes...

There's a reason that there's never been a sainted president.

It's not my assertion that all monarchs are good, but rather that they could be good.
 
The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens (the majority of them, at least) can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea, when they see it. But a growing body of research has revealed an unfortunate aspect of the human psyche that would seem to disprove this notion, and imply instead that democratic elections produce mediocre leadership and policies.

Read more: People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say | Why the Best Candidate Never Wins | Psychology

I don't think most people are too stupid, because we have people on tv, radio, and online that break down complicated things for us. I think we have a hard time finding good candidates because so many of them lack the integrity and/or ability to do what they say they they're going to do. We leave them in office until there's a catastrophe or massive scandal because we don't have faith that the next politician won't do the same.
 
Interesting.

But the arguments against democracy are still applicable.

Despotism is never preferable to even the worst form of democracy. Democracy at it's worst concentrates power in the hands of a few wealthy, powerful people but despotism puts power in the hands of one. Society under despotism is best where it's least touched by the dictator/monarch/mogul, whatever you want to call him. You and Ignatius J. Reilly may long for a benevolent medievalism where a paternal feudal system and stern religious authority maintained strict order but that ideal has never been any more real than Ward and June Cleaver and the myth of the '50's.
 
True, but not all systems are equal. Some, such as monarchy, are a great deal better.

I would prefer a Christian (read conservative Protestant) Theocracy.
 
I don't think most people are too stupid, because we have people on tv, radio, and online that break down complicated things for us. I think we have a hard time finding good candidates because so many of them lack the integrity and/or ability to do what they say they they're going to do. We leave them in office until there's a catastrophe or massive scandal because we don't have faith that the next politician won't do the same.

Thanks. I love irony.
 
I would prefer a Christian (read conservative Protestant) Theocracy.

A kind of sharia but run by apostates?
 
Despotism is never preferable to even the worst form of democracy. Democracy at it's worst concentrates power in the hands of a few wealthy, powerful people but despotism puts power in the hands of one. Society under despotism is best where it's least touched by the dictator/monarch/mogul, whatever you want to call him. You and Ignatius J. Reilly may long for a benevolent medievalism where a paternal feudal system and stern religious authority maintained strict order but that ideal has never been any more real than Ward and June Cleaver and the myth of the '50's.

Autocratic power is in principle better than oligarchic, because while the oligarchs must engage in all sorts of shady dealings to obtain lower, the autocrat need only be born.

It's not a myth, it happened. You seem to be making the mistake of interpreting me as a utopian. I've never claimed that the Middle Ages were a utopia, just that they were the best era to have actually happened in reality.

I would prefer a Christian (read conservative Protestant) Theocracy.

Since Protestantism doesn't have a central hierarchy, literal theocracy (rule by clergy) would be impossible. So I assume you mean a Protestant confessional state, but then the question is still, what form of government?
 
Autocratic power is in principle better than oligarchic, because while the oligarchs must engage in all sorts of shady dealings to obtain lower, the autocrat need only be born.

It's not a myth, it happened. You seem to be making the mistake of interpreting me as a utopian. I've never claimed that the Middle Ages were a utopia, just that they were the best era to have actually happened in reality.



Since Protestantism doesn't have a central hierarchy, literal theocracy (rule by clergy) would be impossible. So I assume you mean a Protestant confessional state, but then the question is still, what form of government?

Think of the Plymouth colony.
 
Interesting how the PEOPLE who constantly point out how stupid PEOPLE are typically think this statement does not apply to them.

Even more amusing is how they also tend to believe that if they were in charge things would be so much better. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Interesting how the PEOPLE who constantly point out how stupid PEOPLE are typically think this statement does not apply to them.

Even more amusing is how they also tend to believe that if they were in charge things would be so much better. :roll:

Ad hominem.

And a false one too.
 
The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens (the majority of them, at least) can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea, when they see it. But a growing body of research has revealed an unfortunate aspect of the human psyche that would seem to disprove this notion, and imply instead that democratic elections produce mediocre leadership and policies.

Read more: People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say | Why the Best Candidate Never Wins | Psychology

IT is certain that most people cannot sensibly evaluate most more complicated policy issues, having not studies and worked in them. Without such experience it is impossible to understand much of what is said. Even those that have studies a lot and have been highly interested in politics and policy research cannot understand it all. Why, they can not even understand most of what goes on. There are just too many issues and the world is too big and complicated for the human mind to get around it all. Even in your own subject you are continuously confronted with questions, where it requires freshening up and scanning newer research and theories. So, yes. The question is a priori relevant.
That does not, however, point to an impossibility that democracy is better than its alternatives. Au contraire. Probably that is the greatest strength of that system over others.
 
Every system of government starts with armed force being used to establish it. There's literally never been any state that came into being otherwise.

The benefit of monarchy is that the ruler is trained from birth in how to rule, and that the ruler is not required to actively seek out rule, and thus is free to be humble.

Democracy advances the most boastful, since in order to win elections you have to be able to convince others of your own virtue, which is something that the vicious are better at.

I might also add, that if you look at the record of Christianity, its pretty unequivocal how it is aligned. Christianity used the imagery of monarchy even though Rome was legally a republic (and that was the case until after it became Christian). From the fall of Rome until the enlightenment, Europe's Christian governments were almost universally monarchist, and the secular forces of the enlightenment were democratic.

A-hem.

King John, Ivan the Terrible and Mary, Queen of Scots: 9 of the worst kings and queens in history | History Extra

25 Most Insane Rulers In History

The 5 Most Hilariously Insane Rulers of All Time | Cracked.com
 
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Un, Lenin, Robenspierre, the list goes on of bad democratic rulers.

Uh.....you have a very interesting idea of democracy, seeing as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc were all dicatators......
 
Uh.....you have a very interesting idea of democracy, seeing as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc were all dicatators......

They all ruled over democratic regimes.
 
What we all need is the ability to govern our own lives in such a way as to live in harmony with our fellow citizens. This requires good character and humility, with a touch of empathy. Politics attracts the very kind of person who is least equipped to govern wisely. One who loves attention and desires power. Humility and empathy do not abound in any of us. Once we are certain we have the answers is the very moment we declare ourselves unfit. I see no easy solution to this dilemma. But I think that pursuing a democratic republic in which power is shared by as many as possible is an ideal to keep reaching for. I believe it does appeal to something in the hearts of many people.
 
Back
Top Bottom