Democracy makes the purpose of government and authority pointless.

[Philosophizer]

What is the role of government? It is supposedly to keep law and order in society, and this is not possible if everyone has a say as to how they should be governed. Government needs to keep society in line, yet that same society is the one choosing how to keep itself in line? I wonder how that will turn out; I'm sure it will pass laws that prevent itself from pursuing its own interests.

All arguments and comments are welcome, I await them eagerly!

 

[Bidoof FTW]

Everyone needs some form of restraint in their life whether they'd like to admit it or not, I feel.

 

[Philosophizer]

Yes, but how does allowing them to choose the rules they have to abide by accomplish that?

 

[Philosophizer]

What is the role of government?

The main purpose is to represent the populace, in order for that to happen, everyone should have a say in it. That's the reason why all representatives are elected first. It's quite controversial to say that this isn't possible if everyone has a say in it. The active participation of the people and the protection of human rights are essential, otherwise it wouldn't be called a Democracy.

If the government is supposed to represent the people, then shouldn't it allow the people to ignore laws that it passes that the people don't approve of?

 

[Kanzler]

If the government is supposed to represent the people, then shouldn't it allow the people to ignore laws that it passes that the people don't approve of?

If it allows people to ignore the law that certain people don't approve of, then wouldn't it, under your terms, not be representing the people who approve of the law?

 

[Philosophizer]

If it allows people to ignore the law that certain people don't approve of, then wouldn't it, under your terms, not be representing the people who approve of the law?

Pretty much, so in essence, Democracy doesn't represent everybody, it only represents the government passing the laws and some of the majority.

 

[Kanzler]

Pretty much, so in essence, Democracy doesn't represent everybody, it only represents the government passing the laws and some of the majority.

But what if there's the implicit understanding that those who live under the democracy will live by the democracy's decision, whether they like it or not? You could still be represented by the government without everything going your way.

 

[Philosophizer]

But what if there's the implicit understanding that those who live under the democracy will live by the democracy's decision, whether they like it or not? You could still be represented by the government without everything going your way.

Would you agree to live in a society that declares the majority has the right to enforce its laws on the minority if they win a vote, regardless if the minority objects to the decisions? Does a majority vote turn something bad into something good?

 

[Kanzler]

Would you agree to live in a society that declares the majority has the right to enforce its laws on the minority if they win a vote, regardless if the minority objects to the decisions? Does a majority vote turn something bad into something good?

Yes in principle, to the first. I'm agreeing to live in my society right now. Not necessarily, to the second.

There can always be protections for minorities within the context of a majoritarian system. These protections can be based in morality and rights, and can be to a degree separate from majority votes.

Majority votes don't confer morality on a decision per se, but the fact that a decision was decided in one way may speak to the superior morality of the winning position. But there's no cause-effect relationship like you've formulated in your question.

 

[Philosophizer]

Not necessarily, to the second.

I agree.

There can always be protections for minorities within the context of a majoritarian system. These protections can be based in morality and rights, and can be to a degree separate from majority votes.

Doesn't the government, acting on the behalf of the majority, decide these rights in the law? The law can be amended. Should rights exist regardless of what the law is?

Majority votes don't confer morality on a decision per se, but the fact that a decision was decided in one way may speak to the superior morality of the winning position. But there's no cause-effect relationship like you've formulated in your question.

It could, but as you pointed out, a majority vote doesn't guarantee the right decision was voted for.

 

[Kanzler]

Doesn't the government, acting on the behalf of the majority, decide these rights in the law? The law can be amended. Should rights exist regardless of what the law is?

I'm not really well-versed in the theory of rights, but what I think is that people generally believe that certain rights are self-evident and exist independent of laws (given some basic assumptions). So rights certainly "exist" to some extent regardless of what the law is. Should they? Well I don't really know how to answer that, they just exist regardless of whether we think they should or shouldn't.

It could, but as you pointed out, a majority vote doesn't guarantee the right decision was voted for.

Well no, it doesn't. But there are many decisions, which are decided by majority vote, that aren't really a matter of moral right and wrong. Take budgets, for example. Was the federal budget of Canada for 2015 right? I think it's more a matter of whether they're agreeable or not. A lot of decisions are being made within one budget, so there are a lot of moral considerations. To decide that it's right or wrong would mean you would have to judge between all these considerations and nobody could agree on that.

 

[Sopheria]

Well without democracy, who's keeping the government in line? Whom do the people in charge answer to? No one, which is why historically in almost every case where democracy isn't present, the people making the laws are the most lawless and corrupt individuals within society--and are consequently unfit to be the ones in charge.

 

[Philosophizer]

Well without democracy, who's keeping the government in line? Whom do the people in charge answer to? No one, which is why historically in almost every case where democracy isn't present, the people making the laws are the most lawless and corrupt individuals within society--and are consequently unfit to be the ones in charge.

Who decides when the government is out of line? If it's the people and they have the right to get rid of a government when they feel it is necessary, where is the government's authority? It's like saying: "You must obey the law! Unless you don't agree with it, then you can change or resist it."

 

[Sopheria]

Who decides when the government is out of line? If it's the people and they have the right to get rid of a government when they feel it is necessary, where is the government's authority? It's like saying: "You must obey the law! Unless you don't agree with it, then you can change or resist it."

That is true, in a democracy it's the people who decide when the government is out of line. But isn't that better than the alternative: no one? Democracy is far from perfect, but it's much better than any other system of government out there by various metrics. Is there a system that you feel is ideal? Or if not ideal then better than democracy?

 

[Philosophizer]

That is true, in a democracy it's the people who decide when the government is out of line. But isn't that better than the alternative: no one? Democracy is far from perfect, but it's much better than any other system of government out there by various metrics. Is there a system that you feel is ideal? Or if not ideal then better than democracy?

My ideal society would consist of: no one having the right to decide what is right and wrong over anyone else simply because they have the label of government and authority. Laws from government can be either good or bad, but all have to be followed while they are law regardless, which is ridiculous. I want society to believe they should be acting on what's right 100% of the time, not whenever the law tells them to.

 

[Somewhere_]

I am a Voluntaryist, so government has no role because it should not exist (except under select circumstances that I can explain elsewhere). However, I believe democracy is the best form of government because it allows for the most freedoms for the longest period of time.

 

[Philosophizer]

In an ideal world, that would be possible. But, that being implemented would mean a regress in time. Once again, the stronger would beat the weaker; there's absolutely no way to prevent that without democracy, because like it or not, democracy is the less of the evils.

The lesser of evils is still evil. The concept and institution of "government" allows those power-hungry who want to dominate to be seen as legitimate because they call their actions "law". Hardly anyone would obey or follow immoral orders if they didn't feel an obligation to because those giving the orders are seen as "authority".

 

[Philosophizer]

My point was: without democracy, what do you have? Without authority, the strongest will surpass the weak; without rules, anybody would do as they wish.

There would still be rules without "government", but society has to agree on them as a whole. Only those in government have the right to decide them via law, which turns them into a ruling and dominating class.

What will stop someone with a full black morality, to take over the country and do whatever they want?

How is anyone going to take over anything if people don't believe he or she should? They can use force in self defense; you don't need authority or law for that.

Do you want a monarchy?

Nope, like I said before, I don't want any form of government; it is immoral and destructive.

It's quite simple actually; those power-hungry who want to dominate, won't have to seem legitimate if democracy didn't exist.

Democracy allows them to seem legitimate because even if they commit evil crap, they can say "Hey you voted for me and had a choice, deal with it until the next election."

 

[Kanzler]

But if there's no government, I can do whatever I want. The person with the largest band of armed thugs gets to rule.

 

[mew_nani]

Philosophizer what your asking for is unfortunately impossible. Government is a great evil but a necessary one, because humans simply can't be trusted to be good and to be lawful. Perfect anarchy with no government only works if all the people are involved are good and aren't inclined to do evil things. The sad thing is the world doesn't function like that; there are a lot of bad people, and even good people often do bad things for personal gain. Bad people often thrive in anarchy because people either can't or don't want to govern themselves and do as they wish; they want to throw the responsibility to someone else, and often this someone else is an oppressive fiend that expunges liberty and lawfulness in their area of influence.

Our current government system is a variation of democracy called a republic, where we elect people we choose to decide laws and regulations and decide things that most people don't have time for. It's anything but flawless, and at the moment it's corrupted, but it's the best we can do. If we could live without government, we'd do so, but that only works with a population of pure hearted people thinking selflessly of everyone else without a single drop of evil in them, and humans just aren't pure like that.