Randalizer Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 A question that has long fascinated me. Perhaps some of you would be so kind as to share your thoughts, your feeling, your perspectives, on a fundamental element of a democracy, or any system that allows a public to choose their leaders. Should the leaders do what is best for the social group as a whole? Should the leaders only do what they are told? If elements of society are to be favored over society as a whole, which group should be favored? My apologies if this subject has been covered here before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainAhab Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Its got to be whats best for the group as a whole imo..Provided that all sides get to have they're views expressed and that nothing is hidden and all truth laid bare...Then in an ideal world the leaders would make the most rational and viable decision...Then hope everyone is happy with the decision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bakedbean Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) e2a double post Edited July 25, 2009 by bakedbean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bakedbean Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) A question that has long fascinated me. Perhaps some of you would be so kind as to share your thoughts, your feeling, your perspectives, on a fundamental element of a democracy, or any system that allows a public to choose their leaders.Should the leaders do what is best for the social group as a whole? Should the leaders only do what they are told? If elements of society are to be favored over society as a whole, which group should be favored? My apologies if this subject has been covered here before. surely if they are leaders (why would you need a leader if it was truly democratic?)they would be the ones doing the telling(dictators). the democratic model answers your questions by allowing votes etc, the media does a lot of the group -favouring. aren't you just on about (theoretical) democracy? . cheers. i find it fasin8ing also. Edited July 25, 2009 by bakedbean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KKaeser Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) Under democracy they aren't really meant to be leaders, they are representatives, they represent the collective will of the majority. So, following that model, the representative "should" abide by the people's instructions, it is the peoples society, not the representatives. I personally think we need to refine democracy just a tad with relation to the ability of actually gaging what the people want on each issue, like that old french theorist suggested but without the angry mob aspect, with an overlaying check on the actions, such as a well written constitution like the German's. In that way the people will have more control over how they choose to live (the people being the majority, haven't got over that hurdle yet) As far as favoritism or distribution that depends on what society deems important, could be: Need, Utility, Process, Desert, Fairness, etc.. I personally vote for need, looking at the theory from a global viewpoint is a good way of seeing its obviousness, when you have humans starving to death in Africa and other humans eating themselves to death in the USA, it is disgusting to think we are letting fellow human beings die while others stuff their faces.... we should be ashamed. Prolly shouldnt have lit up. Edited July 25, 2009 by KKaeser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bakedbean Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Under democracy they aren't really meant to be leaders, they are representatives, they represent the collective will of the majority. So, following that model, the representative "should" abide by the people's instructions, it is the peoples society, not the representatives. nice conscise definition man. at the risk of sounding like a " conspiraloon" clearly the powers that be are dangerous nutjobs, not a fair representation of the collective's interests imho. i don't believve we are in a democracy atm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boojum Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Bit too drunk to say owt sensible, other than to say it amuses the fuck out of me when the US talks about bringing democracy to other countries, since the US is not a democracy, not even slightly. Is not now, never has been. The best the US can claim to be historically is a republic - sorry, but that's not a democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bakedbean Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 what's a republic? but I is lacking knowledge sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KKaeser Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Yeah I agree. Your voting option is directed and restricted within the rules of the system. The current system of democracy, I suggest, is only an empty shell of what it should have been, and has the potential to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KKaeser Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) Whether your a Republic or not doesn't change whether you have democracy. A republic is just a state without a Monarch? Edited July 25, 2009 by KKaeser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bakedbean Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 does anywhere have a democracy? it sounds to me like it could only exist in theory. it's used as a front imho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KKaeser Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 I think that as technology develops democracy will evolve towards the model I suggested previously, as the people will be able to state their opinion on each issue as the issue arises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boojum Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 I'm probably way too drunk to be in this thread Yep, a republic is a system of government without a monarch. But the US republic is not a democracy (nor, by the way, is the UK). A democracy by it's fundamental definition is one person, one vote, with each vote carrying the same weight. As such the only true democratic political system is one that has proportional representation - one person, one vote, each vote carrying the same weight. The UK is not a democracy, because one vote in a small constituency does not carry the same value as one vote in a large constituency. The US is not a democracy for the same reason. The US is even less of a democracy because of the nonsensical system of electoral colleges. Neither of us are democracies. And by the way, I'm not saying that I even consider democracies to be the best form of government, for the vote of an intelligent, well informed person to mean the same as the vote of a Daily Mail or Sun reader - fuck that. But I dunno the alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bakedbean Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) withnailed Edited July 25, 2009 by bakedbean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinhead1337 Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Isn't Bolivia the most democratic state in the world or something? The native tribes people got fed up with the democratic system so they all got together and nominated one of themselves, someone who represented their views to stand for election. That is a true democracy, rather than voting from a list of people you dont really know whos policies best match your opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now