It doesn't really matter if it works so long as no one can convince enough people that another system would work better.

Fascism, Aristocracy, Oligarchy...

The people aren't smart enough to elect competent leaders, so let those who are qualified do the leading...

The problem with not being smart is that part of being smart is evaluating when you're not being smart.

Circle peg in the square hole. We don't have democracy, we have a constitutional republic. Comparing what we have to the standards of a democracy doesn't make an adequate fit. Hell, even our current system has been skewed due to executive power creep since the south seceded.

Democracy isn't a government, its a convention governments can decide to use to prevent revolts in exhange for a little of their power being in the hands of the people.

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

-Winston Churchill

@Fasces: What makes you think that it is the most qualified that would end up doing the leading? The skill it takes to crush opposition is not the same skill thats needed to take a country forward. In a fascist system, how'd you ensure that people with the latter skill become the leader, and not the ones with the former?

Fasces are you really a fascist? I mean your name is Fasces... ie the root of the word Fascist... Is it really true that you are a fascist?
But back too the question, the Winston Churchill quote is pretty good that would be my only defense it's the best that we seem to be able to manage up until now. But really it's major flaw is that the elected has to constantly worry about reelection and retaining power. I believe one of the guiding forces behind government should be to make itself unessecary, but it would take a lot of time to educate people to not be dumb shits and to be able to live in harmony, peace, etc. So that boils down to... No I can't make a perfect defense of democracy because it is flawed

@ Smiley - I read that story. Good, entertaining read. Could've kept reading more imo.

@ Manas - that's the one kink in the fascist wheel. If the right people are in power, wonders can happen, but the wrong people, in power, you get ww2 all over again. There is no certain way of making sure only qualified people run it, because all humans will eventually become corrupted by greed and excess in one form or another. Soooo, have computers run the planet? lol

Goldfinger do you truly believe that the only problem with fascism is who's at the top?

I don't think Democracy's failed us as much as I think we've allowed corrupt people corrupt Democracy for us. Politicians that are more concerned with pleasing the crowd and their sponsors rather than making the unpopular decisions cause the system to fail. I believe that term limits across the executive and legislative branch should be lengthened by 25 - 33% and sit at 1 term. No re-elections.

"The problem with not being smart is that part of being smart is evaluating when you're not being smart."
But 90% of people are idiots, they don't know the difference. And yet they still vote...

"Democracy isn't a government, its a convention governments can decide to use to prevent revolts in exhange for a little of their power being in the hands of the people."
And in the USA the people have to much power...

"@Fasces: What makes you think that it is the most qualified that would end up doing the leading? The skill it takes to crush opposition is not the same skill thats needed to take a country forward. In a fascist system, how'd you ensure that people with the latter skill become the leader, and not the ones with the former?"
Politics, the skills required to crush opposition in a democracy is far different then that in an oligarchy. In in democracy its all about how you present your points and is mostly about crushing your opponent.

But in a one party system, your all working for the same party, its not about proving everyone else wrong, because everyone else is playing for the same team. It will be about getting your ideas through, and as long as we keep the oligarchy in a position where its in their best interest to help the people there will never be a conflict of interest.

AND YES THIS HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST!

"Fasces are you really a fascist?"
No I am not, depending on my mood I am either an Oligarchic Neo-Liberal Meritocracy or I am an Aristocratic Traditionalist.

" I mean your name is Fasces... ie the root of the word Fascist... Is it really true that you are a fascist?"
Its my nickname from school developed from my right wing anti-democratic sentiment.

"But back too the question, the Winston Churchill quote is pretty good that would be my only defense it's the best that we seem to be able to manage up until now."
But that isn't the case, most successful countries in the past have not been democratic, and China the up and rising power is far from democratic.

The Economist admits that democracy is the reason Japans debt is so bad and that America is going in the same way. Democracy is the root to all the inefficiencies in government.

Of course I am still a decentralist. One way to prevent absolute power is merely enforce a decentralized governing body.

" I believe one of the guiding forces behind government should be to make itself unessecary, but it would take a lot of time to educate people to not be dumb shits and to be able to live in harmony, peace, etc. "
Educating masses? What would that do. Intelligence can't be gained through education, only knowledge can. People will still make mistakes and there will still be a government required.

"Goldfinger do you truly believe that the only problem with fascism is who's at the top?"
Its a fact.

"I don't think Democracy's failed us as much as I think we've allowed corrupt people corrupt Democracy for us. Politicians that are more concerned with pleasing the crowd and their sponsors rather than making the unpopular decisions cause the system to fail. I believe that term limits across the executive and legislative branch should be lengthened by 25 - 33% and sit at 1 term. No re-elections."
You'll run out of competent leaders in a heart beat... However you have pointed out the reason why democracy failed us. But as a politician who wouldn't be concerned about pleasing crowds when you need reelection? Its the reason why democracy will never work cause getting votes matters more then good decisions.

"The true interest of an absolute monarch generally coincides with that of his people. Their numbers, their wealth, their order, and their security, are the best and only foundations of his real greatness; and were he totally devoid of virtue, prudence might supply its place, and would dictate the same rule of conduct."
— Edward Gibbon

Well if you believe that the only problem with fascism is who's on top you are a fascist are you not? For instance if Nazism were the same as Italian Fascism apart from German versus Italian ( I'm not sure if it's true ) hitler truly believed Musollini had it all wrong ( didn't stop him from cooperating but that's beside the point) just because Musollini was the wrong type of fascist, an Italian fascist, not a german fascist. Fascism can be any set of xenophobic exclusivist nationalist ideals applied to a model. So if you're only problem is who's on top, you're just a fascist with a different set of xenophobic exclusivist nationalist ideals.

"AND YES THIS HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST""
May i ask when? And it should be an instance where there was a system to RELIABLY produce a leadership whose interests are aligned with those of the country, not just an instance where a good leader happened to come in power. Because there are instances where bad leaders have caused a lot of damage as well.

Of course democracy works, unless of course you are delusional and believe that human society can attain some type Utopia.

American democracy works perfectly. It reflects the deep divide in American society between the productive class and the freeloaders who feel they are entitled to a standard of living they can't achieve with their own abilities, intelligence, work ethic, or ambition,

This isn't ancient Rome with plebians and patricians. The isn't some insane Marxist delusion with no connection to reality.

This is America where you can achieve whatever you have the will to achieve.
The problem is there is a large segment of society whose desires aren't matched by their energy, and who want government to provide them want they can't provide for themselves.

"Well if you believe that the only problem with fascism is who's on top you are a fascist are you not?"
cause no good leader would rule a fascist nation :P (they would turn it into Neo-Liberal Oligarchic Meritocracy.

Also I am really tired right now.

"For instance if Nazism were the same as Italian Fascism apart from German versus Italian ( I'm not sure if it's true )"
Far from the truth.

"hitler truly believed Musollini had it all wrong ( didn't stop him from cooperating but that's beside the point) just because Musollini was the wrong type of fascist, an Italian fascist, not a german fascist."
Well Musollini was Fascist Hitler was a Nazi...

"Fascism can be any set of xenophobic exclusivist nationalist ideals applied to a model."
Not that there is anything wrong with nationalism.

"So if you're only problem is who's on top, you're just a fascist with a different set of xenophobic exclusivist nationalist ideals."
I am surprised, Denis actually thinks logically for one +1 Denis

The founding fathers had a much more apprehensive view of government power.
They believed government power corrupted politicians and was malignant.
The left wing big government statists claim that government power is benign and benevolent.
All you have to do is look who was bailed out.
GM, the bankers, and people who bought houses they couldn't afford.
They all should have gone belly up just like they used to, and the FDIC should have paid off the depositers.
All the big wigs with tons of money invested should have been cut loose in the breeze.

That's the creative destruction of capitalism and the only thing that prevented it was the statists in the US government who were corrupted.

You solve that problem easily. You take away the power of the government to bail out anyone.

What a concept!!!!!! You limit government power. The founders had it right.
FDR, LBJ, and the other statists took the country on a very bad wrong turn that has corrupted our democracy.

Okay well the hitler and Musollini thing was just an analogy... And I admit I'm not sure as to how different their two exact set of principles were but it was meant to be an simple analogy with a simple difference like nationality to distinguish their two sets of xenophobic exclusivist nationalist ideals.
"So if you're only problem is who's on top, you're just a fascist with a different set of xenophobic exclusivist nationalist ideals."
I am surprised, Denis actually thinks logically for one +1 Denis
So you admit you are a fascist?

"The founding fathers had a much more apprehensive view of government power.
They believed government power corrupted politicians and was malignant. "

Correction: some founding fathers had an apprehensive view of governent power. Others viewed it as necessary. Were they more apprehensive than we are? Of course, they lived in a world where population and institutions as a whole were much more sparse. But relative to the time several founding fathers, such as Hamilton and federalist allies wanted a powerful government.

Live game: gameID=64909 - 2 more needed! , starting in 4 minutes.
Full-press, Classic, PPSC, low stake, 5 minute/turn.

"It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes." - Josef Stalin.

@Tettleton's Crew: I would agree that those parties that took the risk should indeed pay, but I fear that because you said "left wing big government" and mentioned bail outs in the same breath that you're suggesting the left was behind the bailout. As a democrat I thought the $800 billion bailout was an absolute and total waste and was appalled that government could list a business as "too big to fail".

While I'm in the Democrat fold, I understand the Republican side as well though I don't agree with it. What really concerns and irks me is not the party lines but the contributions that elected officials receive, swaying their vote one way or another if they'd like to be re-elected. I simply believe corporations hold too much political power.

The fonding fathers sure as hell did some bailing out in their day, they bailed out the holders and speculators of war bonds with pleasure

"Of course democracy works, unless of course you are delusional and believe that human society can attain some type Utopia. "
@TC: Almost every issue you bring up here is against popular support, its the reason why you have to bring them up.


"American democracy works perfectly."
Say that to California who just lost there A- Credit rating. Say that to the President who has an under 40% approval rating. Say that to the congress that has a 34% approval rating.

This recession was not caused by enemy person currently in Congress. It was caused by a real estate bubble that since 2001 seemed evident that it was about to explode. I know people who made money off the recession simply because they were able to predict it was collapsing.

Some members of Congress called in 2003 for new regulations to be put on the housing market so it wouldn't collapse. (Ironically it was the democrats who turned this one down).

I am not saying a dictatorship could have prevented this crisis, but what I can guarantee you is that if we had a competent dictator in charge during this recession they would have handled it much better.

"It reflects the deep divide in American society between the productive class and the freeloaders who feel they are entitled to a standard of living they can't achieve with their own abilities, intelligence, work ethic, or ambition,"
It doesn't, thats my issue with it.

"May i ask when? And it should be an instance where there was a system to RELIABLY produce a leadership whose interests are aligned with those of the country, not just an instance where a good leader happened to come in power. Because there are instances where bad leaders have caused a lot of damage as well."
Hundreds of examples:
Rome: For 5 generations there were requirements that someone had to attain before become emperor. (that were specifically designed so people like Nero couldn't become emperor) Those 5 emperors have been nicknamed the 5 good emperors and it was during them that Rome hit the peak of its power and a golden age and started adopted pacifist ideals.

Marcus Aurelius, the 5th of these emperor, disbanded the system because he wanted his son, who wasn't qualified, to inherit the throne. Obviously the system needs improvement, but it had a 100% success rate back in Rome compared to the significantly lower success rate we have had in choosing Presidents and Prime Ministers.

2. Singapore: A modern nation has thrived under its dictatorship. However I am honestly not sure how its succession is chosen.

3. China: The future world powers up and coming is mostly due to its dictatorship.

Singapore's succession is direct election, although the last guy was elected unopposed as the rest of the competitors were disqualified. And its a parliamentary republic. And I'm not sure you would want to live in china, Fasces it's not exactly a gem all around regardless of its military and economic prowess.

"The founding fathers had a much more apprehensive view of government power. "
Incorrect.

"GM, the bankers, and people who bought houses they couldn't afford.
They all should have gone belly up just like they used to, and the FDIC should have paid off the depositers. "
Agree

"That's the creative destruction of capitalism and the only thing that prevented it was the statists in the US government who were corrupted. "
But your founding fathers didn't do any better. Infact had we still been using the same system as the founding fathers had, corruption would be more frequent.

"So you admit you are a fascist?"
I don't recall saying that.

""It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes." - Josef Stalin."
Which is why (almost) all modern dictatorships have fixed elections...

"The fonding fathers sure as hell did some bailing out in their day, they bailed out the holders and speculators of war bonds with pleasure"
If what you idiot is saying is true he has a point...

Alright, Fasces and I float in and out in agreeing for each other here. I am a history buff, and I can't recall a system where competent people were consistently elected to power. Byzantines, Turks, Ottomans, French, English, Romans...all have had their stellar leaders as well as their corrupt or weak leaders. The downfall of such an absolute system is that you *need* a benevolent, wise leader at its head, and that is *virtually* impossible.

Both systems, fascism and democracy, are great in principle. But both have their faults. Fascism has little to no guarantee that your government will have a good leader, or the one that your want. And once he's in, you're stuck with him. Democracy, on the other hand, has little to no guarantee that your government will have a good leader, or the one that you want. However, he can be kicked out.

So why then, am I bashing democracy? Because the system has become too bogged down and is ineffective. A few things in particular annoy me. First of all is elections. For members of the house, they are too close together. With only 2 years between elections, they have nothing to do but campaign and campaign, because they want to keep their jobs and power. Instead of caring about what is good for the country, they care about what will get them elected again in 2 years. So if term limits were imposed, then *hopefully* these politicians can put their minds into business and get some actual work done. Term limits could be implemented for senators too. Another thing about elections that I hate is how much damn money it costs. There is *no* need for multi-million dollar campaigns in order to get elected to Congress! The sheer quantity of money that needs to be raised to conduct a successful campaign prevents many quality candidates from having a shot. On top of that, no way each senator needs 50 staff members and a budget for the year of over $1 million. Complete and utter waste.

Second thing I hate about democracy? Partisanship. God damn partisanship. I prevents anything from being accomplished.

http://news.icanhascheezburger.com/2010/11/04/political-pictures-philosoraptor/

I mean, this debt deal could have been solved a long time ago, but for the political gain that Republicans sought from blaming it on Democrats, and vice versa. Politics just sickens me, to the point that I can barely stand watching the news any more. Everyone has their own agenda, and won't make any sacrifice of their political standing to make things move. I actually really respect Obama for caving into the Republicans demands, rather than let the country default....like the Republicans were willing to do.

So, in retrospect I'm not really bashing democracy, but the people who have been put there. Its the same problem as the problem of fascism, really, but it is just as easy to happen. The choice is between the inefficiency, corruption, and stagnancy of the democratic system, or the fascist system, which does get things done, but with the wrong person in charge, can have catastrophic results (see: Hitler)