Some individuals complain that their country is not really a democracy. This is true of not only myself, but also many others. Everyone wants to live in an entirely free country, but could one of these even successfully exist? The only kind of country in which residents are completely free would be an anarchy, something that has only been possible on the small-scale. The fact is, when government is established, the focus usually moves from the people (where it belongs), to other meaningless entities. But without a governmental power of any kind, could a peaceful society thrive? I'm not saying the society we live in now is peaceful, but would a lawless one be any better? A true democracy is something that can be strived for, but could never actually prosper. Or could it?

You be the judge.

actually, this age of technology makes it possible that a true democracy would be possible on a large scale for the first time in history (the NWO will never let this happen, of course)...a true democracy would mean EVERYBODY has a vote on EVERYTHING, and with the internet accessible to everyone, this is theoretically possible...imagine if the vote on GMO was put to 200 million eligible voters? there is no way that all of our food supply would be poisoned right now by that sh--...how about the same amount of people voting about spraying corexit in the gulf? or continuing on with the massive ponzi scheme known as the economy? its pretty clear what would happen if everybody was knowledgable and had a say...imagine all the people.......

Originally posted by Iamschist
My understanding is that America is a Democratic Republic, not a democracy.

I am not claiming that America is a true democracy (which it obviously isn't). What I am saying is that although we talk of living (or someday living) in "free" countries, could a truly "free" country even exist peacefully?

Nope. History has proven that.
Next question?

Democracy is an immoral institution that purports to claim 51% of the people have the right to run the lives of the other 49%.

In reality, no one has any right to impose their beliefs on anyone, no matter how many people are in favor of something.

People have a right to their life and property, they do not have a right to the lives and property of others.

The original post seems to confuse the idea of Democracy with Freedom. They are not the same thing. (apologies if i'm reading it wrong).

Democracy is simply governing by the will of the people. As opposed to Autocracy which is governing by the will of one person (or small group) unaccountable to the people.

It is possible to have a high level of personal freedom in either system, or to have very little. It depends on the will of those with the power. (Democracy is no guarantor of freedom as people are quite good at voting their or other peoples freedom away).

Democracy comes in certain flavours. Its either direct (a referendum) or some form of representative democracy where the majority select a smaller group to make the decisions on their behalf for a defined period. All modern democracies are representative democracies of one form or another.

In future technology may make a direct vote democracy possible. Im certain it will. There are advantages, it becomes very much more difficult for any narrow interest group to impose its will to the detriment of the majority. The downside is such a system may be inclined to produce gridlock, and also unpopular decisions are sometimes necessary for national survival...

The representative system we currently employ is less prone to gridlock but is a fast breeder reactor for corruption. Much of what gets done is directly in opposition to the needs of the majority and its so opaque that people don't even know how badly they are being failed.

The other often overlooked potential alternative is a form of Demarchy (sometimes referred to as lottocracy). This has a smaller randomly selected sample of citizens voting on specific policies. Personally I think a combination of Representative Democracy and Demarchy is the ideal. You would still have politicians and govt elected the normal way but the 2nd house to approve and amend bills would be randomly selected as a separate 'jury' for each bill.

For example. In UK terms, the house of lords would be replaced by a separate Jury to vote on each bill proposed by the government. It better than either another lot of corrupt politicians, toffs or cronies of previous governments.

just my 2 cents.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
In reality, no one has any right to impose their beliefs on anyone, no matter how many people are in favor of something.

People have a right to their life and property, they do not have a right to the lives and property of others.

Why/why not?

Depends on how you define "work."

Mab rule works really well. When 20 skinheads agree to lynch the one black guy in the room democracy is working at 100% efficiency.

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

Sir Winston Churchill

Until we can come up with something better, this'll have to do.

A true democracy would be the worse thing in the world. Imagine the millions of idiots in this country voting on each and every bill. We would be ruined. Democracy is just too dangerous and not worth it. Why should someone who works at walmart be able to vote on a bill have to do with the economy. He has no credentials and his vote would not help.

We need a Meritocracy. Democracy is a popularity contest between the rich. Meritocracy would actually revolutionize human life. Imagine if all the nations economists only voted on an economic bill. I'm sure professionals would be much more effective.

A free market is the only true form of democracy that is free of coercive force.

The market decides which companies make the best shoes by having people vote with their dollars.

Those companies who produce shoes inefficiently, expensively, or of low quality will be run out of business because people will not vote for them with their dollars.

In the same way that the market decides which companies produce the best shoes, the market can decide which companies can offer the best protection of property and life. There is no reason why police can not be privatized and managed by voluntary funding.

Americans voluntarily gave more than $307.75 billion to their favorite causes despite the economic conditions in 2009.

There are roughly 800,000 full time police officers in America. If each officer made 100,000 dollars a year, the total cost would be 80,000,000,000. Easily within the funding capacity of an entirely voluntary funding system. The same is true of the courts.

Given that full funding of the police and courts falls within the current spending limits of voluntary charities alone, it seems entirely logical to conclude that private police and courts could be funded through a voluntary free market, with police services to the poor being provided entirely by charity.

Given this is true, there is no reason to have a government that is funded coercively through violent taxation.

If a police department is operating inefficiently and providing low quality service, they should go out of business and be replaced by one that can provide high quality security at low cost.

Everything else in society can be privatized as well.

Yes, it could work and is possible. However I have my doubts as to whether it would be any better than today's systems.

IMO as long as we have TV's in everyones houses, and the MSM steering public opinion, the answer is no.

A good example of this is how the MSM announced GW Bush's winning of the presidential elections prematurely in 2001, and downplaying calls for a recount.