Why Western-Style Democracy Sux

[Anonymous]

I found this little gem recently. My biggest complaints about universal suffrage are;



1. People without skin in the game get to decide how money is spent. There should be restrictions on people without jobs or property voting.



2. All votes are equal. Are all people of equal intelligence? Do all people contribute equally to society/taxman? Pure fucking madness!!



One of the foundations of democracy is the assumption that all votes are equal. Well, that's the theory—but in fact it is rarely so (more on that later). It assumes that all opinions are worth the same, which is quite a big leap of faith, since we are putting the same value on the opinions of the educated and the ignorant, and the law-abiding citizens and crooks. Even if you think that all people are created equal, it is obvious that their environments are very different—and as a result, so is their character. By assuming that all opinions are equal you are also assuming that most people are able to reach a rational, informed decision after seriously exploring all pros and cons.



A common criticism of democracy is that in the end it devolves into a popularity contest. Polls don't decide who is right—that's simply decided by whoever is most willing to say what people like to hear. As a result, many candidates to political office resort to populism, pursuing policies that focus on the immediate satisfaction of whims instead of long-term improvements. Populist leaders focus on emotion before reason and "common sense" over more academic wisdom, which often produces bad ideas that will be defended with the stubbornness of a mule, regardless of whether they are good or bad.



Let's be honest here: mankind has not evolved much since the Stone Age. Yes, we have tamed the forces of nature and discovered a lot of things—and this Internet business is amazing. But human nature remains the same, more or less. We still think in tribal terms, "my people vs. your people". Call it class struggle, xenophobia, nationalism, or whatever you like—the thing is that most of us identify with one group or another, and almost every meaningful group has alliances or enmities with other groups. This is part of human nature, and can work peacefully . . . or not.In a democracy, tribal mentality is very dangerous, because it will make you vote "for your team" instead of voting according to issues. That means that whoever leads "your team" can rest assured that they have your vote, and instead of focusing on your interests, they can proceed to deal with their own. Unfair legislation can be passed if there are vocal groups in the majority (by oppressing the minority) or in the minorities (by entitling them to privileges that the majority can't enjoy).



Another side-effect of democracy is that if the State starts providing a service or a pay to someone, they begin to feel entitled to it. So if someone tries to stop providing it—well, they just made a large number of deadly foes. When Margaret Thatcher cut coal subsidies, for example, coal miners felt that their jobs had been threatened and became bitter enemies of Thatcher and her ilk. Most people will never vote for the party of someone who "took their jobs", no matter how long ago this might have happened.



An unrestricted democracy means that the majority decides over the minority. This leaves the minority relatively powerless—and the smaller it is, the less power it wields. Which means that the smallest minority of all—the individual—is effectively depending on his agreement with the majority. To account for this problem, mature democracies have developed a set of checks and balances in an attempt to make sure that it doesn't happen; chief among these is the separation of the powers of the State. But this actually makes a system less democratic, since it interferes with the principle of "people's power."

[Anonymous]

I found this little gem recently. My biggest complaints about universal suffrage are;



1. People without skin in the game get to decide how money is spent. There should be restrictions on people without jobs or property voting.



2. All votes are equal. Are all people of equal intelligence? Do all people contribute equally to society/taxman? Pure fucking madness!!



One of the foundations of democracy is the assumption that all votes are equal. Well, that's the theory—but in fact it is rarely so (more on that later). It assumes that all opinions are worth the same, which is quite a big leap of faith, since we are putting the same value on the opinions of the educated and the ignorant, and the law-abiding citizens and crooks. Even if you think that all people are created equal, it is obvious that their environments are very different—and as a result, so is their character. By assuming that all opinions are equal you are also assuming that most people are able to reach a rational, informed decision after seriously exploring all pros and cons.



A common criticism of democracy is that in the end it devolves into a popularity contest. Polls don't decide who is right—that's simply decided by whoever is most willing to say what people like to hear. As a result, many candidates to political office resort to populism, pursuing policies that focus on the immediate satisfaction of whims instead of long-term improvements. Populist leaders focus on emotion before reason and "common sense" over more academic wisdom, which often produces bad ideas that will be defended with the stubbornness of a mule, regardless of whether they are good or bad.



Let's be honest here: mankind has not evolved much since the Stone Age. Yes, we have tamed the forces of nature and discovered a lot of things—and this Internet business is amazing. But human nature remains the same, more or less. We still think in tribal terms, "my people vs. your people". Call it class struggle, xenophobia, nationalism, or whatever you like—the thing is that most of us identify with one group or another, and almost every meaningful group has alliances or enmities with other groups. This is part of human nature, and can work peacefully . . . or not.In a democracy, tribal mentality is very dangerous, because it will make you vote "for your team" instead of voting according to issues. That means that whoever leads "your team" can rest assured that they have your vote, and instead of focusing on your interests, they can proceed to deal with their own. Unfair legislation can be passed if there are vocal groups in the majority (by oppressing the minority) or in the minorities (by entitling them to privileges that the majority can't enjoy).



Another side-effect of democracy is that if the State starts providing a service or a pay to someone, they begin to feel entitled to it. So if someone tries to stop providing it—well, they just made a large number of deadly foes. When Margaret Thatcher cut coal subsidies, for example, coal miners felt that their jobs had been threatened and became bitter enemies of Thatcher and her ilk. Most people will never vote for the party of someone who "took their jobs", no matter how long ago this might have happened.



An unrestricted democracy means that the majority decides over the minority. This leaves the minority relatively powerless—and the smaller it is, the less power it wields. Which means that the smallest minority of all—the individual—is effectively depending on his agreement with the majority. To account for this problem, mature democracies have developed a set of checks and balances in an attempt to make sure that it doesn't happen; chief among these is the separation of the powers of the State. But this actually makes a system less democratic, since it interferes with the principle of "people's power."

I don't really know what to say about this..



What I do know is that my father spent time in jail in Taiwan when he was a very young man because he wanted Taiwanese people to have the right to elect their own government.

[Anonymous]

^^Hardly anaologous. He had to deal with a repressive dictator.

[Romero]

So Western democracy sucks, people should be restricted from voting, yet you're going to vote. What kind of argument is that?



Ya know, there are some people who would say those who weren't born in Canada shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[Obvious Li]

So Western democracy sucks, people should be restricted from voting, yet you're going to vote. What kind of argument is that?



Ya know, there are some people who would say those who weren't born in Canada shouldn't be allowed to vote.[/quote]





and what is wrong with that.....there should be a set of criteria you have to meet prior to being allowed to vote....i prefer to include canadian citizenship, property ownership, payment of taxes, person of means, education, be used as the main criteria....country of birth is not so important but could be a consideration.....as a result of recent world events i would summarily exclude muslims and natives who proclaim non-canadian status......from the right to vote.....

[Romero]

All right then! You say there's nothing wrong with restricting those who weren't born in Canada, so that's Shen Li. Shen Li says there should be restrictions on people without a job, so that's you. You've both denied each other the right to vote!



But of course, you two would exempt each other. How convenient. This is as far from an actual argument as it can get. You two only want to restrict voting for those you don't like. There's nothing reasonable about this ridiculous idea.



How many Canadians would agree with your combined ever-growing list of Canadians you don't like? Not even 1%. Talk about a fringe minority with delusions of grandeur.  



I hate to break this to ya, but you're not better than the average Canadian. You're both simply playing pretend dictator. Your silly lists are like making lists of celebrities you'd like to fuck. Complete fantasy.

[Obvious Li]

All right then! You say there's nothing wrong with restricting those who weren't born in Canada, so that's Shen Li. Shen Li says there should be restrictions on people without a job, so that's you. You've both denied each other the right to vote!



But of course, you two would exempt each other. How convenient. This is as far from an actual argument as it can get. You two only want to restrict voting for those you don't like. There's nothing reasonable about this ridiculous idea.



How many Canadians would agree with your combined ever-growing list of Canadians you don't like? Not even 1%. Talk about a fringe minority with delusions of grandeur.  



I hate to break this to ya, but you're not better than the average Canadian. You're both simply playing pretend dictator. Your silly lists are like making lists of celebrities you'd like to fuck. Complete fantasy.

not sure about you Homy...which of those multiple criteria i listed would you be able to meet...?????

[Anonymous]

All right then! You say there's nothing wrong with restricting those who weren't born in Canada, so that's Shen Li. Shen Li says there should be restrictions on people without a job, so that's you. You've both denied each other the right to vote!



But of course, you two would exempt each other. How convenient. This is as far from an actual argument as it can get. You two only want to restrict voting for those you don't like. There's nothing reasonable about this ridiculous idea.



How many Canadians would agree with your combined ever-growing list of Canadians you don't like? Not even 1%. Talk about a fringe minority with delusions of grandeur.  



I hate to break this to ya, but you're not better than the average Canadian. You're both simply playing pretend dictator. Your silly lists are like making lists of celebrities you'd like to fuck. Complete fantasy.

I am a Canadian citizen now and both OL and I are property owners. We're good to go.



Voting should be a privilege for those that have earned it. Being a Canadian citizen is not enough to decide how resources should be allocated.

[Anonymous]

All right then! You say there's nothing wrong with restricting those who weren't born in Canada, so that's Shen Li. Shen Li says there should be restrictions on people without a job, so that's you. You've both denied each other the right to vote!



But of course, you two would exempt each other. How convenient. This is as far from an actual argument as it can get. You two only want to restrict voting for those you don't like. There's nothing reasonable about this ridiculous idea.



How many Canadians would agree with your combined ever-growing list of Canadians you don't like? Not even 1%. Talk about a fringe minority with delusions of grandeur.  



I hate to break this to ya, but you're not better than the average Canadian. You're both simply playing pretend dictator. Your silly lists are like making lists of celebrities you'd like to fuck. Complete fantasy.

One of those non house owners can have my vote, I have a job and own a house.

[Romero]

That's kind of you! A lot nicer than some people who egotistically and selfishly believe they can take away the rights of others.

[Obvious Li]

That's kind of you! A lot nicer than some people who egotistically and selfishly believe they can take away the rights of others.

what rights??? .....voting is an earned privilege.....not a right........if you do not contribute it only makes sense you can't be part of the decision making process of govt.......get a grip homy.... ac_beating

[Romero]

Voting is a constitutionally guaranteed right in Canada. Making a list of people you hate isn't going to change that.

[Anonymous]

We put restrictions on driving, serving in the army, jury duty, people who can enforce our laws, so why should there NOT be standards on people that choose our lawmakers?

[Romero]

What a great point you didn't intend to make. People without your "skin in the game", the unemployed and those who don't own property are not restricted from driving, serving in the army, jury duty, and law enforcement.



Canadians have the constitutional right to do all that and the right to vote. Having the right to vote isn't quite the same as being some drunk driver.

[Renee]

That's kind of you! A lot nicer than some people who egotistically and selfishly believe they can take away the rights of others.

what rights??? .....voting is an earned privilege.....not a right........if you do not contribute it only makes sense you can't be part of the decision making process of govt.......get a grip homy.... ac_beating

Your buddy Homy is completely ignorant on how voting rights were originally designed to work.



He doesn't realize that what we have today is the result of political pandering on the part of career politicians who will do anything to remain connected to the political trough. He thinks just because you draw breath you should automatically given the power of the vote. Here in the US we have reached a tipping point where people who contribute nothing or next to nothing have realized that they can vote themselves more than their fair share of the pie. The election disaster that saw voting along racial lines in 2008 and 2012 was a direct result of voting rights/privileges gone horribly wrong. Unfortunately it is too late to be put right as it was originally intended.