Democracy Failed... right in front of our very eyes... Now what the hell do we do?

turn to communism... its the way out
Just kidding... communism is probably 100 times worse than democracy... it seems to me that we should jsut revolt

Originally posted by atagadu
turn to communism... its the way out
Just kidding... communism is probably 100 times worse than democracy...

Both communism and capitalist "democracy" have the same end result : the tyrannical rule of a tiny financial elite over a huge undeveloped underclass. There are just different ways towards that end.

Originally posted by atagadu
it seems to me that we should jsut revolt

Perhaps that's the answer, since I don't think we will ever find agreement on the details of what new government should be like.

Democracy failed because some people wouldn't play by the rules. They did whatever it takes to gain power and change the system.

But be careful when you use the word "democracy." Our government wasn't designed to be one, though I know what you mean.

Originally posted by 30_seconds
Democracy failed because some people wouldn't play by the rules. They did whatever it takes to gain power and change the system.

That's what "democracy" has always been about, at least to those in power.

reply to post by Doomsday 2029


Ignoring the polluted association of "Republic" and "Democracy" (that discussion is a dead end) you need to limit the power and scope of a corporately controlled central government.

IMO, that can only be done through secession from the union, which is in the hands of the citizens of each state.

Only then can you create further parties with a more suitable mindset, detached form financial interest and corporate involvement, to lead a very limited central government.

Central government should only ever be in place to facilitate military DEFENSE of a nation, and the voting mechanism for electing members of states to represent them.

Each state should be responsible for their own affairs, taxes, education, employment, agriculture... Having a 'one rule for all' scenario creates clones, no originality and variation. You would not be in the economic state you are now if individual states had the ability to focus on their own commerce under their own leadership, with their own goals and ambitions.

For those who suggest that this wouldn't work and that states would fail...
Fair law, success and economy would be maintained in each state through the will of the people to remain there. You rise and fall on your own abilities and your own way of doing business. And how would that be any riskier than some areas like Michigan? The union hasn't safeguarded anything there has it?

Unfortunately, you don't have any other way of doing things other than to go down the secession path. Any formation of a new party would be attacked and destroyed by the existing machine while you are in the present state. To better safeguard the formation of new parties you have to first begin to break from the power of the Federal Government IMO, allowing for greater autonomy.

It is now inevitable that things will have to change. Obama was the last chance for change, and he's failed to do anything beneficial for the people, destroying any remaining trust many millions of people had in government.

It's unfortunate, I thought he was going to be remarkable too. IMO he's nothing more than another Bush, only a better actor and speaker.

He's created this tsunami of disappointment. And eventually that wave will crash at the shore. The only question is, will you build flood defenses to protect the status quo, or will you let the wave destroy everything to rebuild from the beginning, with your own vision for what America should be?

Interesting times indeed.

Democracy did not fail. The form of democracy where people passively allow the elites to chose a couple of bloodlines to vote for, isnt democracy. Party line proportional democracy is about the only kind that is. Transferable vote proportional democracy isn't, it makes fewer parties and less women. The first kind comes really close and give a lot more power to people with way better services. By the way everyone keeps calling this fascism system socialism. Nope.

Social democracy that is substantive equality amongst people, with good education systems and the highest standard of living in the world, like Norway and the Scandinavian countries, are the only real form of democracy, as they empower the grass roots people, not just the driven workaholic sharks who forge success out of ripping people off.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by Unity_99]

Originally posted by Unity_99
Democracy did not fail. The form of democracy where people passively allow the elites to chose a couple of bloodlines to vote for, isnt democracy.

Unfortunately, that type of government is the only kind of democracy that exists today and that has existed during the 20th century. As such, democracy failed to be truely democratic...

Jefferson said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Mark Vonnegut said that the price of eternal vigilance is psychosis. The latter may have a point there. Jefferson was also quite clear that we needed a well-educated public in order to have any hope of remaining a democracy. Among other things, we've turned our backs on that one and you can see the great dimming unfolding.

reply to post by Doomsday 2029


Well if corporations and private power are undermining the democratic process, maybe we should advocate a complete worker takeover of the means of production and if that fails, advocate the abolition of private power altogether.

Your God was invented by a Roman Emperor. Your country was invented by good and decent men.

You are obviously a Catholic, go live in Rome with your Pope. Representative Democracy wasn't made for twits like you. You and people like you need a keeper.

Democracy did not fail. Last time I checked, we still elect our leaders. With all their failings they do seem to be an accurate reflection of ourselves.

But if you think Democracy has failed because your party did not win, therefore the other party is voting in policies with which you disagree, then you clearly do not understand what democracy is.

It is simple really and doable. Our current system was great way back when most people could not read. We have the internet, web, wireless etc...

Change the system so congressmen can only propose legislation, ALL the people can vote for or against and only a 3/4 vote of house and Senate can prevent the bill from going to the President for signature once the people have voted a bill in.

Bottom line is you add the American people to vote on legislation directly rather than through their representatives. This would be as close to true democracy as would be safe to get to.

We have the technology and means to allow every American to safely vote from their phone or computer if they so chose to go this way.

Wouldn't that be a wild place to live. Were everyone's voice was counted.

Democratic societies start with good intentions but rapidly degrade to selfishness. The vector of choice is the individual, and individuals become accustomed to being fooled by their leaders and the lobbies that oligarchs covertly establish, and for that reason shrug and start acting for their own interests. Society becomes a marketplace of individual material interest. At this point, every known avenue for "the common good" has become corrupt and so people give up on it, and then forget they've given up. They labor in a negativity of outlook brightened only by the thought of personal material acquisition. This enables society to decay until it is near third-world levels of disorganization and criminality and corruption, at which point a "strong leader" - inevitably a front man for some oligarch or another - steps in and leads it to a final state where a few avaricious parasites rule over a horde of confused, simplistic, dumb people.

The enemy of such decline is culture, because where cultural values exist, people can point to a common good that is independent of all political parties. Culture is the philosophy of a people. When that population sees a proposed action conflicting with its cultural values, it can deny that action on the basis of it violating the basic creed of a society. Naturally, a pluralistic society has no common creed and is easier to rule, and for this reason all democracies oppose the existence of anything but pluralistic democracies worldwide. End-stage democracies of this type are called "liberal" democracies, because while they may have putatively conservative leaders, the underlying assumption of the society is liberal.

That assumption takes many forms but all originate in the root of utilitarianism as interpreted through the assent of the majority: the individual as a vector of self-interest making society work together. Adam Smith's "invisible hand" that he presupposed guides capitalism toward good fits into this category, as do the concepts of anarchism and libertarianism, its conservative variant. Materialism arises through a lack of common values; humanism addresses the fears of the individual; egalitarianism insulates the individual against any sense that this order is insane; capitalism is created by democracies to empower individual material self-interest; and moralism results as a device to construe any who do not agree as "evil" so the majority will agree to war against them.

Utilitarian and democratic societies are psychologically unhealthy. They enforce a normative, or averaging, impulse on the citizen, because a crowd fears nothing more than those who might rise above it. Further, by encouraging people to see only personal interest, they alienate those same people from the world around them and confine them to small bubbles of personal want and fear. We feel best when we can both give and receive, because it connects us to a larger process than ourselves, and therefore we avoid neurosis and self-doubt because we have a more realistic view of where we fit. The only antidote to democracy is an organic society unified by one cultural values system and ruled by leaders selected for competence and not popularity.