I don't suppose there's to be much discussion about alternative forms of democracy that could possibly exist, is there? For example, a system where the basis of lawmaking is the referendum, or where it is the courts that are elected and not the Party members, or where there are no parties? These systems must have been discussed at some point in time, and certainly on the internet.
There is a huge problem with this article which seems to boil down to a question of whether the history is seen as:
The type of problems this is causing are:
Obviously the subject is highly contentious, but that should not get in the way of historical fact (afterall you can't rewrite the fact that the communists thought their system was democratic!) I think it really needs the history to be split into two: "History: The concept of Democracy" (those systems that have been called democratic) to contrast with "History: the system of Democracy" (the system that Americans call democratic, although it was not called democracy at the time!) -- Mike 16:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The introduction is unbalanced. It focusses solely on liberal democracy and ignores contradictory views of democracy both the Greek idea of allotment (random selection is not an equal voice) and the marxist view that socialism is inherently democratic (again nothing to do with equal voice).
is a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization in which all the citizens have a voice in shaping policy
This clearly isn't an adequate all encompassing definition. My own personal view is that all forms of democracy are grouped by a belief in isonomia (equality of political rights), which covers greek, liberal and marxist views. I think we can safely say that Liberal democracy is the most common view, but it clearly is sharply at odds with the Marxist view and if I understand Wikipedia policy correctly the opening paragraph can't solely reflect one side of the debate!
So, I would like to change this sentence for one of the following:
is a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization based on an equality of political rights
is a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization based on an equality of political rights interpreted in a liberal democracy as an equal voice or vote in shaping policy although contradictory views exist.
is a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization. Liberal democracy is based on an eqaul voice or vote; however other views contradict the Liberal Democratic view of democracy notably the Marxist & Ancient Greek view of democracy
is a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization
I noticed someone simply removed someone else's contribution without putting comments on the talk page. To my mind that is simply rude, arrogant and undemocratic (based on liberal democratic interpretation, and I don't know anything about the marxists concept of rudeness?)!
Most liberal democracies are only considered as such because the citizens are allowed the token participatory act of voting, which has no effect in causing the system to reflect the will of the people.
I'm sticking the comments here so that it can be discussed. If there is no agreement how to make then introction cover all interpretations then my view is that Wikipedia policy would require us to simply allow the other side to state there view! (or is that not democracy?)-- Mike 10:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Before anyone makes any assumption about Greek democracy being "elected" and biases the whole article perhaps they should read the following:
“it is thought to be democratic for the offices to be assigned by lot, for them to be elected is oligarchic,” [Aristotle, Politics 4.1294b]
“Democracy is a form of government in which the offices are distributed by the people among themselves by lot;” [Aristotle, Rhetoric]
“In establishing all these offices, we must make the appointments partly by election and partly by lot, mingling democratic with non-democratic methods,” [Plato, Laws 6:759]
“And a democracy, I suppose, comes into being when the poor, winning the victory, put to death some of the other party, drive out others, and grant the rest of the citizens an equal share in both citizenship and offices--and for the most part these offices are assigned by lot.” [Plato, Republic 8.557
As written the introduction stated that democracy was an equal vote or voice and therefore implied that Greek democracy was undemocratic.
I didn't want to start with a "it could mean this or could mean that" paragraph in such a article, but neither could I accept that you can start an article on democracy that implies the Greeks were undemocratic! To keep the flow I've used the linking concept of "isonomia" (equality of political rights/law) which the Greeks used interchangeably with democratia. As written it only said "equal votes or equal voice". Allotment is not a system of "equal voice", since only those who are selected have a right to sit in government, so I had to add the comment on Greek democracy.
I've checked the OED and the term democracy both covers Greek democracy and modern democracy, so I think the article must either embrace both ancient and modern or alternatively there might be two 1. Greek democracy (selected by lot), 2. Modern democracy (elected)-- Mike 10:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
<snip> My comments re: "too much democracy=elections"> -- Mike 08:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
"Though there remains some philosophical debate as to the applicability and legitimacy of criteria in defining democracy what follows may be a minimum of requirements for a state to be considered democratic (note that for example anarchists may support a form of democracy but not a state):
"Even a dictatorship may be a democracy if the ruler is elected in fair and competitive elections. Some dictatorships claim to be democracies, but in reality hold "sham elections."
Not for example with sortition which was also used in Athens. No electins but leaders. The problem is that there have been many different systems claiming to be "democratic". For example, the Communist states claimed to be democratic according to " democratic centralism". It is not really for Wikipedia to decide which definiton the correct one, only to report the different views. Ultramarine 02:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Democracy is, literally, rule by the people (from the Greek demos, "people," and kratos, "rule"). The methods by which this form of government is exercised, and indeed the composition of "the people" differ for the various forms of democracy, but the general principle is that of majority rule. Useful contrasts can be made with oligarchies and autocracies, where political authority is highly concentrated and not subject to meaningful control by the people. While the term democracy is often used in the context of a political state, the principles are also applicable to other areas of governance.
The definition of democracy is made complex by the varied concepts used in different contexts and discussions. Political systems, or proposed political systems, claiming to be democratic have ranged from very broadly based institutions in which adult universal suffrage is used to elect representative, to very informal assemblies in which the people voice their opinions, and leader act upon those feelings, to elected representatives who have limited power under an unelected monarch, to systems randomly selecting leaders from the population, to systems seeking consensus, and even what is usually seen as de facto dictatorships which may claim to be democratic and hold sham elections to gain legitimacy (for example, the former German Democratic Republic). Ultramarine 02:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
You still don't understand what I said. It looks like you think I'm saying to present only one definition. That's not what I'm saying. Present one, two, or ten even. All I'm saying is that they can't be original research. They need to be sourced. Us arriving at a consensus on how to define define democracy is not good enough. Original research is still original research, even if we have a consensus. We need sources. BillyBoom 02:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no consensus so we should not claim to know one. This should be clearly stated. Ultramarine 02:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC) There may be a consensus. I don't know. I'm not prepared to make the claim that there is no consensus. By consensus I don't mean universal agreement, but the case where the bulk of definitions say pretty much the same thing. If there are alternate definitions they should be represented as well if there are sufficient number of sources that agree with it. BillyBoom 02:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
You're talking about the kinds of democracy? Those are not definitions of democracy, but of particular types of democracy. BillyBoom 03:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
In a democracy, the only power the people have is the power to vote for who is going rule them and the power to eventually vote in someone to replace them. Once elected, the person elected is the one that has the power which is much more powerful than the right to vote for a government official. The people do not rule in a democracy. The only have a choice over who is going to rule them. BillyBoom 03:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
To make law is to hold power, therefore if you make law you rule. The people are said to rule in a direct democracy because they make the law without constitutional restrictions on what laws can be passed. People do not have that power in the U.S. and neither do the elected officials. The U.S. is a constitutional republic, which John Adams defined as a "a government of laws, and not of men." Any statutes that are enacted cannot violate the Constitution. Anyway, we're getting away from the point. Any definitions we present need to be sourced. You said that "the people rule" is in common with all definitions and I gave you a definition where that is not the case. That definition simply has to do with elections. BillyBoom 04:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, this seems be your own personal defintion of "rule" and "democracy". There are many others. All forms of democracy have claimed that the people rule, or hold the ultimate power. Ultramarine 04:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
"Claiming" and actuality are two different things. "Rule by the people" is not a necessary condition of claiming to be a democracy. To be able to claim you are a democracy requires nothing more than the ability to state it. The leader can lie. BillyBoom 04:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
"Claiming" to be ruled by the people isn't the same thing as actually being ruled by the people. A claim can be true or it can be false. BillyBoom 05:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC) By the way, here is another definition that does not align with your "rule by the people": A system is "democratic to the extent that its most powerful collective decision-makers are selected through fait, honest, and periodic elections in which candidates freely compete for votes and in which virtually all the adult population is eligible to vote." -Sumuel Huntington BillyBoom 05:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, Wikpedia states all different views and does not declare one to be the winner. The advocates of different versions of democracy have claimed that their definition means that people have the ulitmate power. I think that this is the least common factor. If you disagree, fine. We will certainly not state that democracy means elections or someting like that, but then instead simply state that there are many different views, sometimes contradictory, of what democracy is. Ultramarine 05:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, Wikipedia does not declare one view to be correct. The other systems above have also stated that they are democratic. Read NPOV again, all views should be represented. Ultramarine 05:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I have given 3 different forms of democracy that do not use elections. I do not need to give one "true" definition. I will just note that there are many different views. Ultramarine 06:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
My latest proposal below. Ultramarine 06:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Democracy is a form of government. There are many different forms and the methods used to govern differ. While the term democracy is often used in the context of a political state, the principles are also applicable to other areas of governance.
The definition of democracy is made complex by the varied concepts used in different contexts and discussions. Democracy literally means rule by the people (from the Greek demos, "people," and kratos, "rule"). Aristotle contrasted democracy, majority rule, to that of oligarchy and autocracy, where political authority is highly concentrated. Political systems, or proposed political systems, claiming or claimed to be democratic have ranged very broadly. For example:
Main varieties include:
Direct democracy is a political system where the people vote on government decisions, such as questions of whether to approve or reject various laws. It is called direct because the power of making decisions is exercised by the people directly, without intermediaries or representatives. Historically, this form of government has been rare because of the difficulties of getting all the people of a certain territory in one place for the purpose of voting. All direct democracies to date have been relatively small communities; usually city-states. The most notable was the ancient Athenian democracy. Today, direct democracy is existing in countries such as Switzerland, where certain cantons practice it in its literal form, and in other countries, typically those where there is also referendum.
"Modern direct democracy... is characterised by three pillars; referendums... initiatives... and recall elections (on holders of public office)."
The last of the three is exactly NOT direct democracy. It is representative democracy. This should be obvious. - Pepper 150.203.227.130 10:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Representative democracy (or Polyarchy [3]) is so named because the people do not vote on most government decisions directly, but select representatives to a governing body or assembly. Representatives may be chosen by the electorate as a whole (as in many proportional systems) or represent a particular subset (usually a geographic district or constituency), with some systems using a combination of the two. Many representative democracies incorporate some elements of direct democracy, such as referenda.
Liberal democracy is a representative democracy which has free and fair elections, and also has rule of law, a separation of powers, and protection of liberties (thus the name liberal) of speech, assembly, religion, and property. [5] [6] Conversely, an illiberal democracy is one where the protections that form a liberal democracy are either nonexistant, or not enforced. The experience in some post-Soviet states drew attention to the phenomenon, although it is not of recent origin. Napoleon for example used plebiscites to ratify his decisions.
Democracy was clearly used in the East and in the 18/19th century with a very different meaning from that currently in vogue. How can an article on democracy fail to mention this different interpretation (political prejudice?) I suggest something like the following:- -- Mike 14:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The socialist view of democracy ( social democracy) was developed in the 18th and 19th century by writers such as Karl Marx. Socialists concentrated primarily on putting the working class in government and voting was at best only one of a number of means to achieving a democratic (i.e. socialist) society as demonstrated by the objects of the London Democratic society of 1839:
First:- the Objects of the Democratic Association are, to avail itself of every opportunity in the progress of society, for practically establishing the principles of Social, Political and Universal Equality.
Second:- To this end, they desire to unite the unrepresented of all classes into one bond of fraternity, for the attainment of Universal Suffrage: this Association being convinced that, until the proletarian classes are fully and faithfully represented, justice in legislation will never be rendered unto them. [4]
In Marxist view capitalist state cannot be democratic by its nature, representing dictatorship of bourgeoisie. In capitalist state all media and most political parties are controlled by capitalists. One should have much amount of financial resources or be supported by bourgeosie to win a elections. Even if a representative of people elected he has limited power as all the economic sphere controlled by private capital and functions of central government reduced to the minimum.
To suggest that Athenian democracy was only the assembly is about as "economical with the truth" as if modern democracy were talked about as only being a jury. The whole section on the original democracy needs editing to make it representative of what the actual system was rather than what someone appears to want it to be!
I suggest the following: <snip>
isonomia:A. equal distribution, equilibrium, balance, II. equality of political rights, Hdt.3.80, 142; (Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon)
“The rule of the people has the fairest name of all, equality, and does none of the things that a monarch does. The lot determines offices, power is held accountable, and deliberation is conducted in public.”
“Democracy is a form of government in which the offices are distributed by the people among themselves by lot;” [Aristotle, Rhetoric]
“by making the law-court, which was elected by lot, all-powerful … as the law-court grew strong, men courted favour with the people as with a tyrant, and so brought the constitution to the present democracy”[Aristotle, Politics 2.1274a, c350BC]
“he (Solon) does appear to have founded the democracy by constituting the jury-courts from all the citizens. … (making) the law-court, which was elected by lot, all-powerful.” [Aristotle, Politics 2.1274a, c350BC]
-- Mike 22:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
As written this section implies quite falsely that America was set up as a democracy. This is a lie and ought to be corrected post haste! None of the founding fathers were in favour of a democracy (based on Greece), America was set up as a republic (based on Rome). I don't know why there is this modern attempt to rewrite American history to imply it was set up as a democracy when the founding fathers were in fact universally hostile to the idea of democracy! -- Mike 15:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I suggest prefacing the paragraph
the United States can be seen as the first liberal democracy with relatively wide franchise.
with
Although not described as a Democracy by the founding fathers,
The first view is sourced, the distinction between republic and democracy for the founding fathers and today is discussed in later. Ultramarine 15:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Republic, Republicanism, and Republicanism in the United States give many different meanings to the terms, sometimes contradictory, for example excluding or including a monarch. The article already explains the historical difference between republic = constitutional representative democracy and democracy = direct demcoracy. The current text in the "Democracy and Republicanism" is very unclear regarding what meanings of republicanism and democracy are discussed and how they differ. It also gives undue weight to the United States for a general democracy article. The meaning of repulicanism is already well covered in the three articles mentioned. So I suggest changing the title to "Constitutional monarchs and upper chambers" and the text to
"Initially after the American and Frenc revolutions the question was open whether democracies, in order to restrain unchecked majority rule, should have an elitist upper chamber, the members perhaps appointed meritorious experts or having lifetime tenures, or should have a constitutional monarch with limited but real powers. Some countries (as Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Scandinavia and Japan) turned powerful monarchs into constitutional monarchs with limited or, often gradually, merely symbolic roles. Often the monarchy was abolished along with the aristocratic system (as in the U.S., France, China, Russia, Germany, Austia, Hungary, Italy, Greece and Egypt). In Australia, the monarchy is seen as hollow shell. However, there is no consensus on how to replace it. Most voters want a powerful president (as in the U.S., France, and Russia), while most politicians want to keep the parliamentary system and have only a weak president (as in Italy and Germany). Many nations had elite upper houses of legislatures which often had lifetime tenure, but eventually these senates lost power (as in Britain) or else became elective and remained powerful (as in the United States)." Ultramarine 09:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The article had a very garbled section on "Republic". I replaced it with the republicanism section that was blanked out some time ago, which explains the concept and discusses some of the relevant history. Rjensen 06:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine seems to think that republicanism is unimportant. The long bibliography shows that is entirely false. If he thinks the section can be improved he should try to improve it--blanking it is simply un-Wiki and akin to vandalism. Fact is many people get them mixed up --that's because of a convergence in actual practice in the 20th century. Historically democracy and republicanism were quite different. Ultramarine's argument that there is no "consensus" on republicanism is irrelevant and false. If he thinks there are alternative views he should include them. Along with citations please--he can start with the bibliography that I added to the article. Rjensen 08:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I suggest the following. Please state concrete objections:
In contemporary usage, the term "democracy" refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative. [9] The term " republic" has many different meanings but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a President, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a the head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected head of government such as a Prime Minister. [10]
In historical usages and especially when considering the works of the Founding Fathers of the United States, the word "democracy" refers solely to direct democracy, whilst a representative democracy where representatives of the people govern in accordance with laws and usually also a constitution is referred to as a republic. [11] [12] Using the term "democracy" to refer solely to direct democracy retains some popularity in United States conservative and libertarian circles. ( Republicanism can also refer to several other ideas: a virtue system, anti-monarchism, advocacy for rule of law, and especially in recent interpretations, advocacy for liberty. [13])
The original framers of the United States Constitution were notably cognizant of what they perceived as a danger of majority rule in oppressing freedom and liberty of the individual. For example, James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, advocates a constitutional republic over a democracy to protect the individual from the majority. [5] The framers carefully created the institutions within the Constitution and the United States Bill of Rights. They kept what they believed were the best elements of majority rule. But they were mitigated by a constitution with protections for individual liberty, a separation of powers, and a layered federal structure. Ultramarine 08:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
In contemporary usage, the term "democracy" refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative. [15] The term " republic" has many different meanings but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a President, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a the head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected head of government such as a Prime Minister. [16]
In historical usages and especially when considering the works of the Founding Fathers of the United States, the word "democracy" refers solely to direct democracy, whilst a representative democracy where representatives of the people govern in accordance with laws and usually also a constitution is referred to as a republic. [17] [18] Using the term "democracy" to refer solely to direct democracy retains some popularity in United States conservative and libertarian circles. ( Republicanism can also refer to several other ideas: a virtue system, anti-monarchism, advocacy for rule of law, and especially in recent interpretations, advocacy for liberty. [19])
The original framers of the United States Constitution were notably cognizant of what they perceived as a danger of majority rule in oppressing freedom and liberty of the individual. For example, James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, advocates a constitutional republic over a democracy to protect the individual from the majority. [6] The framers carefully created the institutions within the Constitution and the United States Bill of Rights. They kept what they believed were the best elements of majority rule. But they were mitigated by a constitution with protections for individual liberty, a separation of powers, and a layered federal structure.
As for liberalism, that is a different issue entirely. If an editor thinks article is deficient in liberalism please add information. Please do not make the article deficient in republicanism in order to "equalize" mediocrity. Rjensen 21:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Why are you violating NPOV by again insisting that there is only one definition on Republicanism and that it should be mentioned in the article? Why did you delete the sourced statement that democracy today usually is assued to be liberal democracy? Ultramarine 08:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
User comment: notice that someone has changed this article by excluding the original Greek words of the term 'democracy' written in greek alphabet. Let the one who made the original article bring it back.
(PURELY THEORETICAL) Notice these facts:
1. Democracy - people (culturological domains) rule themselves the way they see fit.
2. Hegemony - some organisation superimposes and rules over multiple culturological domains.
3. Democracy is an anthonym of hegemony (the sole purpose of existance of that term).
Paradox: according to above written facts, how can for example United States of America, or European Union, or indeed a whole Latin writting (Roman-catholic) domain be democracy? (one organisation superimposes rule over multitude of nations, which by definition implies hegemony, which by logic excludes democracy; further more they are all saying that membership in their hegemony is a matter of free choice, yet, if you pay attention to details you will notice that in some cases they indeed perfidiously force other culturological domains into submission)
(Just commenting on what are facts regardless of mine or anybody else's oppinion.)
Sections that do not have solid reliable sources will be deleted--a democracy after all, has to follow the rules.
As requested in the priority one to do list since May 14th 2006 for this article I have taken action to implement on September 29th 2006. Please read, discuss, and keep as the consensus of the group here sees fit. I plan to immediately begin work on the next to do list at priority one. Absolutely no worries at all. Neutralaccounting 03:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC) (re-edited to match generic respose template)
Hi, just dropping in and I thought I would mention that the constitutional monarchy section seems to concentrate quite a lot on australia and on hardly anything else. Zoanthrope 18:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
What is the problem with that proud US history??
I'm just having a blast reading about Socrates, Plato and Aristotle and I clicked the democracy link from the Socrates article... low and behold some troglodyte has edited a few words in the article and put in profane names for body parts. I couldn't just leave them, but not knowing how to "rollback" I just looked at the original text before the vandalism and put the correct words back. Keep up the good work Wikiens - I visit at least once a day, usually more often, to learn something new!
I noticed some problems with the article I'd like to try to correct at some point. First off, the word democracy might be Greek, but surely the idea has a longer history and can be found in primative tribal government and so forth. The article should start off by discussing what democracy is an isn't according to Aristotle and the various other thinkers on this subject. Second, Rome was not a representative democracy. The Senate was made up of former elected officials who held office for life. In contrast, Athens had a representative legislature called the Council of Five Hundred (chosen by lottery). Finally, there is a gap between the Middle Ages and the 18th century when some rather important developments were taking place. (BTW, 1688 is not the Middle Ages). Where is the Reformation, the Dutch Republic or Calvin in Geneva?
I don't know why there isn't a map showing all the states in the world that 'claim to be democratic'. This is an article on democracy, not a liberal democracy. So why is the only map in the article that horrid Freedom House map showing "partly free" and "free" states. Freedom House's articles on the rights of people in different countries is good, but this article deals with democracy not freedom. Furthermore I'm of the opinion that having this as the only map and so early in the article is just adding an unnecessary POV. People see this map and notice that Russia is "not free", so they might think it's a dictatorship, but it actually *is* a democracy (though perhaps a very corrupt one). So here's what I think;
Both maps would just give more information to the reader. Kyle sb 15:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
hello tesa
hi i am a 7th grader doing a project on democracy!
I disagree with democracy solely because it could in many respects be characterized as a popularity contest marked by inefficiency, illogical or destructive decision making, and incompetence. Is there any sort of group or word that embodies or agrees with that viewpoint? Robinson0120 10:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
That certainly was a long reply. Let me take a few minutes (seemed to turn into hours) to respond to what you said.
First I'll discuss Noam Chomsky's statements. I have heard that he is a left-wing lunatic from a few sources and a brilliant activist from others. I personally think his comments are eloquent and thought provoking, but are also opinionated. Take, for example, this quotation:
"At this stage of history, either one of two things is possible: either the general population will take control of its own destiny and will concern itself with community interests, guided by values of solidarity, and sympathy and concern for others; or alternatively, there will be no destiny for anyone to control."
That's an incredibly strong statement. Only one of two outcomes are possible concerning today's modern events? Why should it be necessary that the "general population" concern itself with its community, especially since Chomsky later refers to the community as being the "global community" probably due to the process of globalization? Do starving children in Africa belong to this "general population?" What about developing countries that are trying to gain a foothold in trade and business? It's very noble to speak of environmental protection, moral duties concerning life and liberty, and other such concepts, but one also has to consider differences. Industrialized nations can say that we need to stop polluting the environment, ensure freedoms, and protect our rights; but what can developing countries say? Do they have the choice to turn to alternative energy? Do they have the resources? Do they have stable governments that allow freedoms? If not, how will they form these governments? Through revolutions? If so, will they be peaceful or violent? Policies and neglect in African states are prime examples of so called human rights abuse. Furthermore, how exactly is one to go about concerning itself with community interests? America donates momentous sums to African states, yet that money never seems to end up in the hands of the people, instead landing in the hands of what some would call tyrannical dictators. One cannot ignore differences and circumstances when making such a bold assertion, that only one path or another can be followed. It seems by these statements that I'm only addressing that first statement, though, (in a tangential manner) so I'll move on to my other comments.
"The question, in brief, is whether democracy and freedom are values to be preserved or threats to be avoided."
This statement is particularly troublesome. It asserts, whether intentionally or not, that democracy and freedom are linked. Even under the most tyrannical of dictators there are always civil freedoms. For example, under Stalin (who many consider as such), the rights of women improved. One could argue that democracy is the only system under which a great majority of rights can be guaranteed or even possible, given that Europe, Japan, and America, regions where freedoms are arguably most bountiful, are democratic nations. This, however, is an error in logic, because specific types of government such as meritocracy, so called enlightened despotism, and even anarchism have never truly seen the light of day, especially not in the twenty-first century. My biology teacher opens up the mind of our class to a number of interesting concepts, one of them being the fact that you cannot judge the veracity and success of a system merely by its outcome. I am quite certain that a specific term of logic refers to this concept, but I do not know of its exact title. In any event, my point is that tying democracy and freedom together, following with a suggestion that elite capitalist thought is against freedom itself is an error in logic and fact.
That's all I'm going to say for Chomsky's arguments (Which took me more time than I'd originally planned to spend...). Now on to your main argument.
"It is important to understand that the negative properties you bring up here are inherent to the psychopathic monsters who kill the life in the interests of dominating bourgeois, as explained in The Corporation. In fact, these are capitalists, our ruling class, who produces and controls the irrational consumers, which must make uninformed (controlled) choices, including marketed candidates."
Calling the ruling class psychopathic seems a little extreme, but I'm not worried about that. My main concern is the statement "which produces and controls the irrational consumers, which must make uninformed (controlled) choices, including marketed candidates." The plain fact that both of us are discussing this topic disputes that because we are making our own choices and statements which are, quite frankly, far different than the choices of any ruling class I've ever seen. Furthermore, we are, at least moderately, informed about some aspects of the topic and its ramifications. I see plenty of human sheep, if you'll excuse the insult, in my daily life (which consists mainly of home and school, but is something of an indicator), and even some of those individuals have some thought of their own which conflicts with that of the ruling class (that is to say, some ideas which are perceived to be "moral" [Like abstinence and certain laws], which one could probably attribute to elite thought, although there are quite a few morals that are basically fundamental to human civilization). To insinuate that any organization could control individuals on such a wide and massive scale to such a degree cannot be right, because there will always be at the least a minority that does not follow convention- which is, once again, why we are discussing this subject. I have one question with the statement "marketed candidates;" are you referring to political candidates? If so, I will have to disagree with that as well, because you are always eligible to vote for a non-partisan candidate- in fact, you can always vote for yourself. "The capitalists are effectively killing our green planet and people for profit. There is no crime they would not commit to maximize profits."
I always thought are planet was more of a blue shade when seen from space. Anyways, to say that capitalists are killing the planet is somewhat erroneous. That same biology teacher I referred to brought up another point concerning the environment that made me think: that any effects of humanity on the planet are quite natural because we are organisms. In other words, our adaptations (namely our intelligence and its products) are natural creations born of our mind and effort. Therefore, one could also argue that whatever murder we commit is a natural consequence. Furthermore, is it really possible for us to "kill" our planet? The dinosaurs and other prehistoric life were wiped out by a number of simultaneous events, yet we stand (or sit) here today, essentially new kids on the metaphorical "block" of life. The best we could do to kill would involve the use of nuclear bombs and biochemical agents, and how much greater are those tools than meteors, floods, or storms? Life would remain, and would repopulate the Earth. In time, the effects of radiation would disappear and the world would simply begin anew. This is, of course, all conjecture, but it is quite theoretically possible (according to my limited understanding; I'm only 15, anyways, so take it with a grain of salt). Also, there must be some crimes that capitalists would not commit; for example, genocide of the human race- then they wouldn't exist anymore. It is also shaky to speak of "crimes-" in America, it would be a human rights violation to mutilate a woman's genitals, whereas in parts of Africa and the Middle East it is an accepted practice. It is somewhat interestingly not a crime to remove the foreskin from a male baby, however, which some consider mutilation. One should consider what actually constitutes a "crime-" I believe crimes, and morals, while we're at it, are mostly a product of society and probably elite thought, which personally seems to reduce the credence that either have.
I'll skip ahead to this statement: Democracy is a serious work indeed, it is not voting for the fascist marketed candidates and exulting: "Hey, we are democracy, lets liberate Iraq, Iran and Venezuela by dropping more bombs and white phosphorus on these barbarians!!!"
I agree; Democracy is a serious work. For a moment, let us assume that true democracy were instituted during the early 1900's in the United States of America, and somebody posed the question of whether or not to lynch a black man who reportedly raped a white woman, with only the testimony of the white woman and black man to decide. What would happen to him? I suppose the answer should be fairly obvious, but it may depend on the location. He might have lived in one of the Northern states, but his chances would be slim (most likely zero) in a Southern one. Furthermore, what would happen if everyone in the entire country voted on the issue? Would they have the time? Could they meet the costs? I believe that democracy at a local level is probably an excellent idea, but a state level is a different story. Furthermore, your statement implies that all of those who vote for the "fascist marketed candidates" agree with the following statement, which I am inclined to doubt. After all, not everybody that votes could feel so strongly about remaining in and fighting in Iraq, since so many Americans are currently disgusted with that precise subject and want American troops to leave Iraq as soon as possible.
Incidentally, the advertisement's purpose is killing your competitor by propaganda agencies rather by making better things, and therefore, should be banned as any tool of deception. Look at science and engineering -- where people creatively explore and construct things they feel they need.
Isn't "banned" a strong word? Don't the people that make those advertisements, regardless of their intent, have a constitutional right (in the United States of America) to freedom of speech, provided that they aren't explicitly interfering with another's rights? Besides that point, science and engineering have not only resulted in constructive creations, but in weapons of death and destruction, in nuclear weapons, gunpowder, swords, poisons, with the list stretching on and on. One could probably say that technology began with weapons, since some of the first human tools must have been used to hunt. Using science for peaceful technology other than architecture is a more modern concept than its use in weaponry. And what if one were to feel that they needed to create artificial life? Would there be ethical concerns governing such creations? Would said creations have rights? Once again, it is one thing to speak of goodness and morality, but quite another to actually consider long term ramifications and possible outcomes.
I'll add to one last comment: The validity of your viewpoint is dependent on the point it is viewed from -- the consciousness (interests and intelligence) of the individual who you oppose to the group.
Since I actually can't make heads or tails of this, I ask that you clarify exactly what you meant if you ever again reply. From what I can gather, you are saying that the validity of my viewpoint depends on the individual asked. If that is so, I guess I'll have to agree- validity in the mind of the individual must certainly be dictated by that individual's thoughts and beliefs.
I'm going to go ahead and wind up this entry now; it's probably important to say that I wasn't trying to attack with my arguments, although I did try to add my characteristic sarcasm to them. Sorry if I offended you with any statements, and I hope to see a reply or another entry, if anyone feels like doing so.
Side Note: I noticed that the title was changed to Collective vs. Master. I'm changing it back to A Question Concerning Democracy because this was the original intention of my statement- Collective vs. Master sounds like a David and Goliath kind of title to me. Robinson0120 00:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that sure is a lot once again. I'll be a little more brief this time with my reply. First off, listening to Parenti was a blast. I've only listened to about 1/6 of it, but I'm getting the general idea, from what I can tell. Capitalism is a scourge upon the Earth. (I haven't heard of what he advocates humanity use instead) There's a glaring problem with that statement; it's taking into account only a single ideology, a single concept. When you're studying something as massive as inequality among humans and revenue gain you're studying a system. Systems are, by definition, creations of synergy and depend a wide and varied number of variables. One can't just say, "Capitalism is the problem." What about climate, natural resources, probability, and a host of other variables? I have to say that I definitely have less respect for Parenti than I do Chomsky at the moment, but that's another story. Your first statement:
So stop looking at when developing countries will reduce their consumption before reducing your appetites.
You misunderstood my above comment. Like I said, I was going into tangential ramblings for some of it (although it was slightly coherent, in my defense...); when I referenced Africa's tough (or not so tough) decisions, I was referring to the fact that they were disadvantaged and still had to deal with pollution laws. That's something that America was able to get ahead on; child labor and excessive pollution (the same goes for the United Kingdom). It's another thing you have to consider when you're talking about whether or not capitalism is a problem; Is it just the fault of capitalism or a number of other variables working in tandem with that process?
Second:
You want to democratize Cuba, Russia, Iran, and Venezuela, granting billions of $$ on this, but in fact you want their resources (their capital) and cheap labour. That is the essence of capitalistic expansion --imperialism.
First off, I could care less about democracy and "bringing democracy" to any state. I disagree with government policy probably slightly less than you do, although my grievances are with other issues. When you consider that we lend money as a pretext and in reality want only labor, you are partially right and partially wrong (I believe). We do want to build the country up in a particular manner (check out the maquiladoras in Mexico); however, we want to exploit them while doing it. I will agree that current thought doesn't allow for ideal conditions for these workers, but because they are so far into it now, they can basically either continue what they're doing or revolt. Revolution seems to be out of style (and nearing impossibility, perhaps), so they're going to have to depend on their own merits. If they can't find a way out of it, they're probably sunk. Just to set the record straight, I don't agree with those tactics, either; I believe in equal opportunity, not the way it's normally used; I mean equal opportunity, no affirmative action or other garbage tied in. Casualties like that may be a consequence of capitalism, and they may also be a consequence of previous political systems (I'm sure you have an idea of what the Iberians did to South America and the populations therein); you can't merely blame one system for something of that magnitude.
The next thing you wrote about was law enforcement and control. I'll answer it with this: Establish private enforcement contractors that have nothing to do with the government, or have them work with the government! Simple concept, but it's never seen the light of day, so I can't speak of its validity. Given the success of other industries in the world, however, I'd say such a system has a pretty good chance of success. Again, in defense of capitalism, such incidents that you label are sparse, and occur with good reason; people in America today fear Islam, and some believe that Muslims are terrorists. When you have the managerial class thinking this way too, you have a problem. That is not, however, the fault of capitalism.
Next up, genocide. While I doubt that those figures are accurate, I don't particularly know any better, but remember this; Vietnam was about North vs. South (From what I understand, Communism vs. Capitalism again, thus a proxy war in essence); Vietnamese people may have died in hundreds of thousands, but they were also killing each other and NATO (mostly American) soldiers. They weren't innocent. I know nothing of Angola, but I do know about Uganda, Darfur, and Rwanda, and if those countries are any indication of what happened in Angola (which, since those events are strikingly connected, is a strong possibility), the Angolans weren't innocent either, and were probably fighting beforehand. I have to disagree with the "lunatic-Kurd" statement; it may not be in the media, but people know all about the plight of the Kurds. Once again, this is not a fault of capitalism but of Arabs (Possibly Shi'ite in particular?) vs. Kurds. Yugoslavia's a wonderful example of where the West did nothing. Once again, what caused the trouble? Religion and language. You see, when you look a little closely at conflicts of the past and present, the reasons begin to make sense, and there isn't any big conspiracy or unfathomable evil necessary to explain it- just human differences, greed, and natural reactions. Lastly, I'll add something about Israel. Since it was one of the first things besides Iraq/Afghanistan I was watching on TV it had an impact. For the entire time to me, it seemed like it was just another story and a normal occurrence. (My brother and mother disagree with me on this, but I still feel this way; not quite sure why.) I have no good reason for you why the Israelis went so ballistic over two soldiers. To tell you the truth, I believe they were looking for a good reason to go after their enemies, plain and simple. There was quite a bit of devastation in Lebanon, and then it all just disappeared. THAT I will openly admit I do not understand, unless, as some would suggest, it's the fault of the "Evil Pig Zionist Regime...!" XD
This coming point was my favorite one: The planet problem. The first thing you did was advocate Sagan's viewpoint. (Just a note; I know they may be learned scholars, but remember to take quotes and opinions, even if they are from doctors, with a grain of salt sometimes. Just because one person says it, even if he's respected, doesn't make it right. Look at how many people supported the Bush administration for a cause that was basically faulty, and for a better example, check out Hitler.) Anyways, Sagan is, as I said, one person. Concerning global warming, I think it's garbage. To me, the overwhelming majority of life's equations and patterns are either logarithmic or sinusoidal (I particularly favor sinusoidal ones). I believe that climate change is a cycle; that's probably why we had an Ice Age, a supposed Holocene, a "Little Ice Age," and are now going into a temporary warming. Sure, carbon emissions probably has something to do with it, and then again, probably not. We simply don't have enough proof. Of course, it's still a good idea to cut down on carbon emissions, but which Americans want to do that? Hybrid cars/environmentally safe ones will only arise if oil prices shoot through the roof. If the market forces the people to change they will change, plain and simple. The next argument concerning intelligent life was great. First off, to set the record straight, I do NOT believe in intelligent design. I'm no creationist; I'm a scientific thinker (or try to be). I don't believe that any sort of God created us for any purpose; reality tends to be far less grandiose and more moderate than that. Secondly, we may or may not kill ourselves with weapons, but we damn well won't die because of carbon in the atmosphere or rising temperatures; it won't even be radiation. If we go, we're going to go because some fools (or geniuses, take your pick) decided to create a virus strain capable of easily wiping out humanity. That's the only plausible reason I can really think of, considering how local nuclear weapons and ballistics really are in the grand scheme of things.
That's basically it, except for your last argument. Think about what would happen if democracy were really to disappear and power were to be put in the hands of a few individuals (an oligarchy). Would humanity be destroyed within short order? Probably not. Consider what a few terrorists can do today. If a malignant government or some grand problem got in the way, who would really support them? Would the military? Would the "masses" really want to doom themselves by destroying the "opposition" if they were themselves oppressed? Doubtful, to an incredible degree. Our world's going to keep going, even if destruction becomes easier and easier to pull off. (I of course can't back that up, since I don't have a crystal ball... but, as said in a laughable comedy, signs point to yes.) Robinson0120 22:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The criticism tells that some groups are opposed to democracy. But the democracy shuold serve people and nature, I suppose, and the pro-people groups are the left ones. The left is opposed by the profit right, not only the far-right (the fascism). So why it is not allowd to tell that capitalism defeats democracy? When political parties are financed by the commertial ones, when capital interfere between candidates and the people effectively decoupling the demos from the political process, the capital overtakes the real state power. The wealthy minority takes control over the general majority in quite natural way in self-developing process: the business elected itself into power gains more state subsidies and accumulates more resourses allowing to buy more state power on the next election. After several iterations, the big business is indistinguishible from government -- the influence of the pro-people left is completely eliminated. It is also natural that the corporate government sets up the policy to protect the prosperity of the minority from the majority and serve its profit interests, which is acieved by enslaving the society to transfer the public property and wealth produced by people into private capital of dominating elite through big business subsidies and such affairs. The business also increases profits by abridging social programs (cuting wages, public education, heath care, social and environment protection) and investing into anti-social businesses (like military complex, tobaco, ..., marketing and overconsumption), effectively degrading society and nature. That is, profits of few are made by parasitizing on the society, destroying it Welfare for the Wealthy. For these antisocial reasons, the dominating minority interests are directly opposed to general public, which are the culture and nature, I suppose. The bourgeois dictatorship (corporatism, imperialism, fascism, polyarcy -- call it as you like) preveils the modern world. The current system is a polyarchy, at best Chomsky - America is not a Democracy. They use democracy as a veil and excuse to overthow "not democratic" governments all over the world to capture the global weath. The 'democracy' in its current form is a greatest threat to the life existance on the Earth. The bourgeois use propaganda, which pervades their mass communication, to decieve, indoctrinate and manipulate the stupid majority. If the wikipedia is really a free encyclopedia, it must address this most widespread and monstrous lie in the world. -- Javalenok 21:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned the only valid form of government is democracy but that doesn't mean that it isn't flawed. One of the things that often bothers me is how qualified or unqualified the people are who are voting. The election campaigns are often executed based on the most primitive issues and often have little realistic political content. This sort of behaviour is encouraged by the fact that many people are not terribly interested and are happy reading newspapers, which live by printing equally primitive headlines. Obviously a selected group of voters is invalid and that would no longer count as a democracy anyway, however there are perhaps ways to encourage a more constructive use of the right to vote. Voting is a privilege and I believe it is perhaps one that we have to earn in part, otherwise the privilege is used carelessly, e.g. "my family has always voted XYZ and that's not going to change now!". Perhaps each voter must fill out a multiple choice test* of say 30 questions that needs to be completed along with the vote. The test would evaluate how qualified the voter is and would be used for weighting his/her vote. This should have the affect that the voter is motivated to know more about what he/she is actually voting for. Since the public would then be more focused on politics, this should carry on to the parties to base their election campaign on politics rather than meaningless personal issues. Furthermore this would force the media to raise their standards and be more constructive otherwise they'd go out of business due to lack of public interest. *Obviously the test needs to be put together by an independent group and must contain questions that were kept secret until the vote.
A further issue I have with democracy is the problem that the party in power is forced to make decisions for short term projects. Anything long term that produces cost in the short term and provides benefits only in the long term is often an unpopular decision. As a result responsible long term projects are often under financed or not approved at all. Instead the governing parties often aim for projects that return suboptimal results in the short term. However perhaps this problem exists primarily due to how fickle and unsure the general public can be, and this is perhaps helped by encouraging people to know more about what their government is trying to do (e.g. with the above idea). 212.48.126.140 13:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Good points, 212.48.126.140. That multiple choice questionnaire would probably be a good idea, but you also have to take into account how long that would take. Even if they did make one, there's also no guarantee that it wouldn't be flimsy in design or that the individuals taking the test wouldn't just mark a few answers so they could vote. Nice point about the political issues, too. The way I see it, if we wanted to optimize democracy we would do away with parties, because they cause a great deal more problems than they solve and because they are used for little more than classification. "He's just a Republican," or "That's because he's a liberal" floats around WAY too often. There should also be some definite guidelines to actually become a candidate, for example, certain training and score qualifications, comprehensive understanding of history, politics, and other subjects like sociology (which I highly doubt most of our presidents, if any, really have/have had). If you're going to be leading a country, you should be able to analyze the mistakes and success of previous leaders and tailor your plans accordingly. Democratic systems also seem to have poor bureaucracies. Note that we all seem to be discussing American (or possibly European) democracy as well, and are not even factoring in other states that actually use it. Add in the fact that there are is a huge stretch of other topics and factors we haven't even discussed and you wind up with quite a problem. I'm fairly certain that the political institutions we've installed thus far haven't even come close to upper level efficiency, but addressing and fixing the actual problems that afflict such systems is a difficult task indeed. (Was I ranting again?) Robinson0120 22:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
At first, the mass communication is owned by ruling class, so analyzing it you'll conclude that more profit for burgeous, further cutting of social programms, advancing globalization (= thirdworldization) are needed. Secondly, the right answers are those which support the rightwingers, the burgeous, the ruling dictatorship! I suppose that this quest for taking the control away from the de-educated labour is their job.-- Javalenok 08:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
If the people wish to make a decision you find bad, it is also what those people wished, and therefore not a bad decision to them, but what they wanted, and will probably turn out good for them, as they wanted it. As for the people who didn't want that to happen, majority rules. Tough luck. Move if you so wish.
Ultramarine continuously removes the section which was added by consensus and has been edited by many different contributors. He also removes a paragraph about Soviet republic (as a form of government). Your comments.-- Nixer 23:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Is it a Wikipedia policy that original research should be removed on spot? Where is it? Taxico 04:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The only good information in the section seems to consist of a Marxist criticism of liberal democracy. Perhaps that should be added to the criticisms section in summarized form. Otherwise, I see little reason to keep the Marxist section. Socialists who support democracy generally have in mind something close to liberal democracy but with a different economic system. -- Nikodemos 21:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, keep the Marxist section, but remove references to other left-leaning parties. For instance, it comes close to calling the U.S. Democratic Party Marxist! WBHoenig 02:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
In many Greek city states, for example Sparta.
Index of Democracy
The Economist has in a study examined the state of democracy in 167 countries and rated the nations with a Economist Intelligence Unit Index of Democracy which focused on five general categories; free and fair election process, civil liberties, functioning of government, political participation and political culture. Sweden scored a total of 9,88 on the scale of ten which was the highest result, North Korea scored the lowest with 1.03. [7] [8]
Full democracies: 1. Sweden, 2. Iceland, 3. Netherlands, 4. Norway, 5. Denmark, 6. Finland, 7. Luxembourg, 8. Australia, 9. Canada, 10. Switzerland, 11. Ireland & New Zealand, 13. Germany, 14. Austria, 15. Malta, 16. Spain, 17. US, 18. Czech Republic, 19. Portugal, 20. Belgium & Japan, 22. Greece 23. UK, 24. France, 25. Mauritius & Costa Rica, 27. Slovenia & Uruguay. Flawed democracies: 29. South Africa, 30. Chile, 31. South Korea, 32. Taiwan, 33. Estonia, 34. Italy, 35. India, 36. Botswana & Cyprus, 38. Hungary, 39. Cape Verde & Lithuania, 41. Slovakia, 42. Brazil, 43. Latvia, 44. Panama, 45. Jamaica, 46. Poland, 47. Israel, 48. Trinidad and Tobago, 49. Bulgaria, 50. Romania, 51. Croatia, 52. Ukraine, 53. Mexico, 54. Argentina, 55. Serbia, 56. Mongolia, 57. Sri Lanka, 58. Montenegro, 59. Namibia & Papua New Guinea, 61. Suriname, 62. Moldova, 63. Lesotho & Philippines, 65. Indonesia & Timor Leste, 67. Colombia, 68. Macedonia, 69. Honduras, 70. El Salvador, 71. Paraguay & Benin, 73. Guyana, 74. Dom Rep, 75. Bangladesh & Peru, 77. Guatemala, 78. Hong Kong, 79. Palestine, 80. Mali, 81. Malaysia & Bolivia 81. Hybrid regimes: 83. Albania, 84. Singapore, 85. Madagascar & Lebanon, 87. Bosnia and Herzegovina, 88. Turkey, 89. Nicaragua, 90. Thailand, 91. Fiji, 92. Ecuador, 93. Venezuela, 94. Senegal, 95. Ghana, 96. Mozambique, 97. Zambia, 98. Liberia, 99. Tanzania, 100. Uganda, 101. Kenya, 102. Russia, 103. Malawi, 104. Georgia, 105. Cambodia, 106. Ethiopia, 107. Burundi, 108. Gambia, 109. Haiti, 110. Armenia, 111. Kyrgyzstan, 112. Iraq. Authoritarian regimes: 113. Pakistan & Jordan, 115. Comoros & Morocco & Egypt, 118. Rwanda, 119. Burkina Faso, 120. Kazakhstan, 121. Sierra Leone, 122. Niger, 123. Bahrain, 124. Cuba & Nigeria, 126. Nepal, 127. Côte d’Ivoire, 128. Belarus, 129. Azerbaijan, 130. Cameroon, 131. Congo Brazzaville, 132. Algeria, 133. Mauritania, 134. Kuwait, 135. Afghanistan & Tunisia, 137. Yemen, 138. People's Republic of China, 139. Swaziland & Iran, 141. Sudan, 142. Qatar, 143. Oman, 144. Democratic Republic of Congo, 145. Vietnam, 146. Gabon, 147. Bhutan & Zimbabwe, 149. Tajikistan, 150. UAE, 151. Angola, 152. Djibouti, 153. Syria, 154. Eritrea, 155. Laos, 156. Equatorial Guinea, 157. Guinea, 158. Guinea-Bissau, 159. Saudi Arabia, 160. Uzbekistan, 161. Libya, 162. Turkmenistan, 163. Myanmar, 164. Togo, 165. Chad, 166. Central Africa, 167. North Korea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BishheartElsie ( talk • contribs) 08:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC).
Refs: http://www.economist.com/theworldin/international/displayStory.cfm?story_id=8166790&d=2007 and www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf.
Jim Douglas, can lists of countries really be copyrighted in any way? -- BishheartElsie 09:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
See this: [25]. Several problems: First, deletions of sourced statements and sources. Two, the text contradicts itself. Direct democracy does sometimes include representatives. Third, "The critics of non-direct democracy argue that democracy is more than merely a procedural issue, where merely voting and the presence of representatives fulfills the definition of democracy." This an incorrect description of the view of the critics which criticze the lack of emphasis on things like civil rights. Fourth, criticisms and advantages of specific forms democracy are better left to the subarticles. Otherwise this overview article will get too long. I can add pages of of criticims and advantages otherwise of all the forms of democracy mentioned here. Ultramarine 09:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Specifically referencing the two party system (USA) and the multi-party system (the rest of the world, in general). It seems Democracy should cover the nature of the US form of democracy in executing elections where only one primary run-off discourages the existence of a third party, as opposed to allowing those who vote for third parties which are eliminated to choose among the more popular parties, until all have been given the chance to choose among the two strongest contenders. The modern mechanism is for each voter to guess which parties will be the top two contenders (Rep vs Dem in the USA), and then to vote for the "lesser of two evils," lest they risk "throwing away" their vote for an unviable candidate/party.
The multi-party parliamentary system of coalition building should also be discussed in the light of its application to and advancement of the will of the people, i.e. Democracy.-- Landen99 22:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
My apologies, Ultramarine. At first, I thought that I accidentally started my section in the middle of some other section, thus separating your comments from its original context. After it kept re-appearing, it appeared to me like your fast response and correction was some kind of automated system gliche in the saving process. My apologies for the confusion concerning your comments, but they just don't seem to fit in my section or relate to my discussion.
What is a reference without connections to specific examples, like the USA? Okay, so we don't hold an "extensive discussion about the US," but that was never an issue. The main pillar of Democracy being the Elections, where the people vote on their representatives and on (at least) some of their laws, is the main issue of which I speak. The mechanism of the Election being critical to the definition and character of the Democracy, such a discussion cannot avoid the mechanisms of the USA elections, or the parliamentary elections, as they are the two most prevalent and distinctly different examples of modern democracy. I'm interested in finding consensus on the discussion of Modern Elections, being the main pillar of Democracy, with emphasis on the mechanisms of the two party system and the parliamentary coalition; as these are the two topics of high interest to most individuals with whom I speak on the subject of Democracy. -- Landen99 22:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
How else is the will of the people decided in modern democracies except by elections? BTW, elections include more than the selection of representatives, but also include voting on other issues; the world elect, means to endorse or to decide (check any dictionary for your citation of this definition). Also, how may any form of government pretend to rule by the will of the people without first seeking their will through elections? Without establishing the will of the people, there is no "people rule" (demo-cracy). Thus democracy must rest on elections (as a pillar) lest it lack the will of the people upon which its very name derives its meaning.
BTW, I think that we should look at the disconnect between the liberal democracy section on the Democracy page and the Liberal Democracy page for a more fluid and consistent feel to the Wiki project. Also, if material seems better in a different section, then let us try to focus more on moving good material to the right places (with respectful and public disclosure of those actions), instead of deleting (vandalizing) the article. -- Landen99 23:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
After a lengthy consideration, I can honestly say that I have no idea what Ultramarine is talking about. What is he calling personal opinion? How does he envision any system of government based upon the will of the people (i.e. Democracy) without their ability to express that will (i.e. vote in an election)? Even with "sortition" those selected by casting lots are considered to represent the will of the people, but may only do so by the expression of their opinion in government by voting. Not all voting is conducted under the name of an election, but terminology aside, people must vote. Now, does the will of a random sampling represent the will of the people? Perhaps with a large enough sampling and the assurance that the selection method is completely random, but I see no difference between the two in that case, except for shear volume of popular involvement. And as we all know, "Power corrupts," so the random sampling can be assumed to quickly lose their ability to represent the people. I think that you should think a little harder about what you, Ultramarine, are deleting before you get off on your "deleting power high," because I doubt that there exists a single reputable source who would challenge the statement that "to be represented, a person's voice must be heard" and "to allow popular political sovereignty, their will must be represented in government." We can cite such common sense, but then again, anyone who doesn't like such facts being put to light will be just as quick to question the acceptibility of the sources cited. I am sick of these "citing" Nazi's advancing their biased agendas without regard for the work of the Wiki-community, and I'd really like to call attention to Ultramarine's abuses regarding my edits on the Revision as of 23:50, 13 December 2006 (edit) from Wiki editors and the Wiki community. Better to leave common sense alone and request citations for specific parts in the discussion page than to just delete people's work, as the only people to continue contributing after such abuses are the extremists who are always ever so eager to force their opinions and agendas and worldviews on everyone else.-- Landen99 19:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
In the recent edit, " 22:06, 13 December 2006 Ultramarine (Talk | contribs) (unsourced, also the place the discuss specific criticisms and advangtaes of specific forms of democracy are on their articlesy, otherwise this article will become to long)"
Ultramarine (user) has vandalized the Democracy page under the guise of requiring "citations" by removing short, concise, obvious, and much needed clarifications/definitions of key principles of democracy. There is a place for citations (by commonly accepted experts) with statements which are not generally accepted without them, but this line has been clearly crossed today. Statements of the Obvious need no citations, else it is impossible to admit such facts as "the sky is blue," because eventually every citation must point to the observation of "the obvious," without any further citation. Does there exist a cited authority on sky color who is beyond the requirement to cite the work of another authority? And if not, then there exists no end of citations, and no evaluation of the legitimacy of a citation may end, until all of their citations have been investigated; how many other people see the obsurdity that this demand for citations has been taken. For eventually, someone must observe the obvious in such a way that all concur with the observations without requiring that person to cite another's observations and work.
I propose that the deletions of Ultramarine on 13 December at 22:06 be reversed, and that if these kinds of vandalisms continue, his editing privileges be either limited or removed. -- Landen99 23:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not add unsourced personal opinions. I cite the works of others as appropriate, and make logical additions and gammar corrections in order to make the article read and be understood more clearly and easily. All additions are common sense, but I have no aversion to linking specific facts with the wikipedia articles or quotes from which each can be derived.
But if you, Ultramarine (naming a specific Wiki-member so that the community does not confuse my allegations as blanket accusations against either themselves or others) disrespect the work of other members by deleting them because of your issues with their citations and you do it repeatedly to a large number of members for a very long time, then you should expect to be called onto the carpet for it. Does anyone have a better method for addressing issues of chronic vandalism under the false premise of Wikipedia rules, especifically overutilizing the citation argument? But these attacks on our work are personal attacks themselves, because they are dressed with Wikipedia rules used in ways that they weren't intended, but have the stench of personal bias and closed-minded vandalism. Deleting things without sources or ideas with which you agree is not adding to the Wiki project at all, but hurts it when you pretend to be exercising the authority of her rules. If abuses on this article are not to be discussed here, then where? If anonymity is to be maintained, then 1) Why sign our comments? and 2) How do members deal with abusers?-- Landen99 20:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The goal is not to attack the person, but to put an end to the abuse of that person. The person may feel attacked by disapproval of such abuse, but the argument does not rest on character degredation. In fact, reports of specific abuses are usually "the arguments of those with" very specific "factual arguments." Sometimes anything which indicates abuse by a specific user is deemed as a personal attack, in that one's name is used in connection with a factual allegation, specifically that member's contributions are being deleted under the premise of personal opinion and lack of citation (despite the fact that they have been in fact cited). Are not those allegations personal attacks by that definition, also? And if so, who cares, because the argument does not hinge upon it anyway, and the purpose is not to defame any member, but instead to improve Wikipedia.
I don't care who vandalizes, the argument against such behavior has nothing to do with the person, except in identifying the source of the abuse. I admit that I have been impressed with Ultramarine's intelligence and hard work, but that in no way diminishes the value and intelligence of the contributions of other authors, including myself; it in no way empowers him to tread on our work on the premises of "citations" and "personal attack." The "lack of sources" is hardly the end of any rational argument, as Aristotle (and most other sources) needed none. The argument is whether the material exists within the realm of human knowledge. From what I have seen these days, what doesn't. I haven't heard many ideas which have yet to be added to the store of human knowledge (including and especially patent ideas). It is virtually impossible to come up with new knowledge as virtually all ideas have already been considered countless times, and new knowledge is exclusively reserved for publishing and/or production for profit.
Democracy fails when individuals consider themselves better than the others, and equality is undermined by tyranny under the authority of various justifications and merits. Call that a personal opinion, but I dare you to find a source which allows tyranny in a democracy; for no government can be both rule of the people and rule of the minority faction (the smallest being the individual). Yet this self-evident truth has been declared by thousands upon thousands of respectable men, and a citation of it seems unnecessary and even cumbersome.-- Landen99 21:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Please stop removing the sections that you do not like [29]-- Nixer 17:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I still argue that these criticisms and advantages of liberal democracy should be in the liberal democracy article. No other form of democracy, like direct democracy or sorition, is discussed in this way in this overview article. Any objections? Please also explain why you deleted all other forms of socialist democracy and replaced them with the Soviet democracy section. Ultramarine 08:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to avoid degenerating into accusations of false logic. Though, please be aware that accusing me of using false logic avoids the question at hand which is: whether there is a place in the Democracy article for inclusions of the Marxist view of democracy, or not. Your extreme proposal about "should we copy the very long..." is, of course, a False dilemma logical fallacy. BruceHallman 16:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Nixer, Ultramarine agreed: "I think your your argument for having the discussion regarding liberal democracy in a separate article is very good." Do you? If so, then you can start a new article, with a {{further| link here.
Ultramarine's character?
In my little experience, and if I can be so bold to say so, Ultramarine appears to be a very intellegent person, who is very good at reseaching, who is a tedious editor with a strong POV, who will go to any length to make sure that his version of the article remains. Like most tedious editors with a strong POV (like myself) I think this is both good and bad.
When Ultramarine is attempting to add content, like in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possible wars between liberal democracies 2 this is good.
But when Ultramarine is attempting to delete content, this is bad.
Unlike my fellow POV wikieditors, I think deleting content you disagree with is against wikipolicy and I have no respect for this and little patience for it. I have seen so many really good POV editors that I respect highly, delete large sections of referenced material they disagree with. They lose a lot of my respect when they do this.
Ultramarine, why not start that new article yourself, instead of deleting the content repeatedly? That way you have more time to spend injecting your POV in wikipedia. Peity edit wars take away time that you could be contributing your POV to wikipedia. (I am not being facious, I have a very strong POV too, and I have learned that most edit wars can be avoided, allowing me to dedicate more time to writing my POV into wikipedia).
WP:NPA violation
Nixer, stop calling Ultramarine a vandal, this is a WP:NPA violation.
Comprimise
So once again Nixer: would you like your contributions in another new article? Maybe ultramarine can be kind/diplomatic enough (and crafty/sly enough) to create this new article now.
Later
As per my pet template I made: User:Travb/N
...I would be a hypocrite if I keep asking everyone else to make a new article on this talk page, so I went ahead and made this new article myself: Democracy in Marxist theory Nice job Nixer, very well researched article (albiet I have to admit) I didn't read a word of it--I only saw the 12 references...
Please see Talk:Democracy in Marxist theory the article as it exists Democracy in Marxist theory is an older version, [32] the one that Nixer justifiably complained about in the ANI that Ultramarine was deleting.
Ultramarine, I will say this before it happens, because in my experience this is what happens with political POV wikiusers:
I will WP:AGF and cross my fingers that you won't do this to the new article. I think this is a good comprimise for everyone, which you agreed too Ultramarine.
Travb ( talk) 15:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Differing semantics I guess, I view the text which you delete as being a Marxist view of democracy. BruceHallman 17:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I favor a compromise, with fewer words pro and con. I started to attempt to do this edit, but cannot find the con argument rebutting the main pro point which is: "The Marxist view ... that the capitalist state cannot be democratic by its nature, as it represents the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. ". Is this central Marxist point rebutted anywhere? BruceHallman 18:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Fine then, but to argue that inclusion of a few paragraphs of the Marxist belief about democracy is not already sufficiently balanced by the preexisting copious reliance in the article on anti-Marxist sources like Freedom House, The Economist, the CIA, etc.. suggests that your idea of 'balance' is abnormally skewed. I repeat my earlier concerns that this article suffers from systemic bias. The point of view of billions of people presently in the World coming from a Marxist historical perspective deserves strong coverage too. BruceHallman 19:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Rather, I was questioning the balance of belief, which you claimed to be imbalanced. I see that the charts and graphs, and Index of Democracy all come from groups with anti-Marxist belief. Surely, there is already enough to provide sufficient neutrality balance, to counter a small amount of Marxist content? And, do you support the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias here in the Democracy article? BruceHallman 19:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
And the lists? They put the liberal democracies at the top and the illiberal at the bottom. How is that "No other part..." The heavy reliance on Freedom House as a source, how is that "...no opposing views". BruceHallman 20:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I see that the Democracy article suffers from a systemic bias, defining democracy from the point of view of liberal democracy. BruceHallman 20:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
This map [34] from the article is representative of an undue bias from the perspective of liberal democracy. BruceHallman 21:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Quoting from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias article, I see that the following has happened with the Democracy article:
Trying to be constructive, I ask: can we try to improve the Democracy article by countering this form of systemic bias? BruceHallman 18:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
You evaded my question about countering systemic bias. Asking again:
Quoting from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias article, I see that the following has happened with the Democracy article:
Trying to be constructive, I ask: can we try to improve the Democracy article by countering this form of systemic bias? BruceHallman 18:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
1) If Freedom House, the CIA, etc. create or influence the research used by 'academia', is that research and that 'academia' free from systemic bias? No, likely not.
2) "Wikipedians also tend to self-select more heavily among strong adherents or opponents of political ideologies...", how shall we counter this problem?
The map doesn't say parties, it says opposition groups. That seems subjective, and unless there is a neutral method for determining the illegality of a group, I don't see how this is relevant to a democracy article. BruceHallman 21:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the problem of systemic bias in this article: I see that an overwhelming number of the references come from people or institutions based in countries at the 'full democracy' end of the list[Democracy#Index_of_Democracy]. The fact is, this article is based on research from only the democratic elite, the top 10%, failing to include proportional representation from the other 90%. This certainly calls into question the bias of this article. BruceHallman 16:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, you present a false dilemma. The editors of Wikipedia are obligated to attempt to counter systemic bias. Based on those guidelines, in this case, I suggest: 1) That we consciously focus on the neglected perspectives regarding democracy. 2) That we become more conscious of the bias that results when editors with strong opinions who tend to edit more and more vigorously than those with no obvious agenda. BruceHallman 18:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I am calling attention to obvious systemic bias in the article, and asking for help to counter the systemic bias. I see specific problems: 1) We have neglected the perspective of the majority of the world by self selecting only research from the democratic elite. 2) The editors of this article tend to edit based on strong opinions, tending to be more vigorous than those with no obvious agenda. What can we do to counter these two forms of bias? BruceHallman 18:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, those three policies do not counter systemic bias, especially the two types I have identified. BruceHallman 18:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Aimed at, certainly, that is the goal. But effectively, WP:NPOV has not succeeded here. The article presently does not use references from countries other than the democratic elite. And, the article has been predominately edited by editors with strong opinions as versus editors with no obvious agenda. How shall we counter this systemic bias? BruceHallman 18:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Quoting from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias article, I see that the following has happened with the Democracy article:
This phenomena controls the determination and evaluation and opinions as to 'reliable source' resulting in systemic bias. What shall we do to counter this form of systemic bias in the article? BruceHallman 18:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Those three policies have failed de facto. The systemic bias am questioning is plainly obvious today in the article. 1) The article relies only upon research of the democratic elite. 2) The editors of the article are self-selected, being 'strong adherents or opponents of political ideologies'. This systemic bias is real, and I ask again what shall we do to counter this problem of bias? The policies you suggest have failed us so far. BruceHallman 19:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The 'concrete problem' is that the article does not reflect the perspective of the non democratic elite. This problem stems from the cognitive bias of self selected editors. Further, the editing of the article has been skewed by the disproportional participation of editors with strong political ideologies. BruceHallman 22:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
That the article suffers from systemic bias is not ad hominem. Objective proof, for instance, can be seen in that all the cited references come from from democratic elite sources. Also, I see disproportionate 'pro' phrasing versus 'con' phrasing, which I believe results from systemic bias induced by the political ideology of the editors. BruceHallman 20:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't 'Marxist criticism of Democratic capitalism' better describe that new section (versus Marxist criticism of Liberal Democracy)? Considering that Democratic capitalism is the predominate form in use today, a short section including criticism seems appropriate to give some balance to the article. BruceHallman 21:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
It appears to me that the above controversy originates from the fact that the section under dispute is a section dealing with Marxist criticisms of liberal democracy. Notice my emphasis on criticisms and liberal democracy. Because the section is critical rather than descriptive, it invites counter-argument. Because the section deals with liberal democracy, it is better suited to the liberal democracy article rather than this one.
A possible solution would be to write a purely descriptive section about the positive Marxist views on democracy (that is, the Marxist views on the kind of democracy that should exist, rather than the kind that shouldn't). This section would have to feature a prominent link to dictatorship of the proletariat and soviet democracy, where the issue is discussed more in-depth. -- Nikodemos 23:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
"Democracy as it now exists" is the subject of the article liberal democracy. -- 69.6.101.82 06:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
A few minutes ago I was tempted to move the entire advantages and disadvantages section back to liberal democracy, but then I gave it some more thought. Surely there are some arguments for and against democracy in general - not just liberal democracy in particular. Those arguments should remain in this article (by the way, the Marxist one is not among them). I propose the following rule:
Those arguments that refer to democratic government in principle (such as the "tyranny of the majority") belong in this article. Those arguments that refer specifically to real instances of democracy in the past 200 years (such as statistics on the performance of democracies in various fields) belong in liberal democracy. -- Nikodemos 10:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Marxism is a major political theory and its views should not be avoided. First, we of course shell include Marxist criticism of liberal democracy along with criticism from other positions. We do not need criticism of criticism here though. We should also include the Marxist view on democracy how it should be (which is impossible without including Marxist criticism of liberal democracy). We should include liberal criticism of Marxist proposals.-- Nixer 22:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't suppose there's to be much discussion about alternative forms of democracy that could possibly exist, is there? For example, a system where the basis of lawmaking is the referendum, or where it is the courts that are elected and not the Party members, or where there are no parties? These systems must have been discussed at some point in time, and certainly on the internet.
There is a huge problem with this article which seems to boil down to a question of whether the history is seen as:
The type of problems this is causing are:
Obviously the subject is highly contentious, but that should not get in the way of historical fact (afterall you can't rewrite the fact that the communists thought their system was democratic!) I think it really needs the history to be split into two: "History: The concept of Democracy" (those systems that have been called democratic) to contrast with "History: the system of Democracy" (the system that Americans call democratic, although it was not called democracy at the time!) -- Mike 16:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The introduction is unbalanced. It focusses solely on liberal democracy and ignores contradictory views of democracy both the Greek idea of allotment (random selection is not an equal voice) and the marxist view that socialism is inherently democratic (again nothing to do with equal voice).
is a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization in which all the citizens have a voice in shaping policy
This clearly isn't an adequate all encompassing definition. My own personal view is that all forms of democracy are grouped by a belief in isonomia (equality of political rights), which covers greek, liberal and marxist views. I think we can safely say that Liberal democracy is the most common view, but it clearly is sharply at odds with the Marxist view and if I understand Wikipedia policy correctly the opening paragraph can't solely reflect one side of the debate!
So, I would like to change this sentence for one of the following:
is a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization based on an equality of political rights
is a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization based on an equality of political rights interpreted in a liberal democracy as an equal voice or vote in shaping policy although contradictory views exist.
is a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization. Liberal democracy is based on an eqaul voice or vote; however other views contradict the Liberal Democratic view of democracy notably the Marxist & Ancient Greek view of democracy
is a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization
I noticed someone simply removed someone else's contribution without putting comments on the talk page. To my mind that is simply rude, arrogant and undemocratic (based on liberal democratic interpretation, and I don't know anything about the marxists concept of rudeness?)!
Most liberal democracies are only considered as such because the citizens are allowed the token participatory act of voting, which has no effect in causing the system to reflect the will of the people.
I'm sticking the comments here so that it can be discussed. If there is no agreement how to make then introction cover all interpretations then my view is that Wikipedia policy would require us to simply allow the other side to state there view! (or is that not democracy?)-- Mike 10:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Before anyone makes any assumption about Greek democracy being "elected" and biases the whole article perhaps they should read the following:
“it is thought to be democratic for the offices to be assigned by lot, for them to be elected is oligarchic,” [Aristotle, Politics 4.1294b]
“Democracy is a form of government in which the offices are distributed by the people among themselves by lot;” [Aristotle, Rhetoric]
“In establishing all these offices, we must make the appointments partly by election and partly by lot, mingling democratic with non-democratic methods,” [Plato, Laws 6:759]
“And a democracy, I suppose, comes into being when the poor, winning the victory, put to death some of the other party, drive out others, and grant the rest of the citizens an equal share in both citizenship and offices--and for the most part these offices are assigned by lot.” [Plato, Republic 8.557
As written the introduction stated that democracy was an equal vote or voice and therefore implied that Greek democracy was undemocratic.
I didn't want to start with a "it could mean this or could mean that" paragraph in such a article, but neither could I accept that you can start an article on democracy that implies the Greeks were undemocratic! To keep the flow I've used the linking concept of "isonomia" (equality of political rights/law) which the Greeks used interchangeably with democratia. As written it only said "equal votes or equal voice". Allotment is not a system of "equal voice", since only those who are selected have a right to sit in government, so I had to add the comment on Greek democracy.
I've checked the OED and the term democracy both covers Greek democracy and modern democracy, so I think the article must either embrace both ancient and modern or alternatively there might be two 1. Greek democracy (selected by lot), 2. Modern democracy (elected)-- Mike 10:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
<snip> My comments re: "too much democracy=elections"> -- Mike 08:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
"Though there remains some philosophical debate as to the applicability and legitimacy of criteria in defining democracy what follows may be a minimum of requirements for a state to be considered democratic (note that for example anarchists may support a form of democracy but not a state):
"Even a dictatorship may be a democracy if the ruler is elected in fair and competitive elections. Some dictatorships claim to be democracies, but in reality hold "sham elections."
Not for example with sortition which was also used in Athens. No electins but leaders. The problem is that there have been many different systems claiming to be "democratic". For example, the Communist states claimed to be democratic according to " democratic centralism". It is not really for Wikipedia to decide which definiton the correct one, only to report the different views. Ultramarine 02:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Democracy is, literally, rule by the people (from the Greek demos, "people," and kratos, "rule"). The methods by which this form of government is exercised, and indeed the composition of "the people" differ for the various forms of democracy, but the general principle is that of majority rule. Useful contrasts can be made with oligarchies and autocracies, where political authority is highly concentrated and not subject to meaningful control by the people. While the term democracy is often used in the context of a political state, the principles are also applicable to other areas of governance.
The definition of democracy is made complex by the varied concepts used in different contexts and discussions. Political systems, or proposed political systems, claiming to be democratic have ranged from very broadly based institutions in which adult universal suffrage is used to elect representative, to very informal assemblies in which the people voice their opinions, and leader act upon those feelings, to elected representatives who have limited power under an unelected monarch, to systems randomly selecting leaders from the population, to systems seeking consensus, and even what is usually seen as de facto dictatorships which may claim to be democratic and hold sham elections to gain legitimacy (for example, the former German Democratic Republic). Ultramarine 02:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
You still don't understand what I said. It looks like you think I'm saying to present only one definition. That's not what I'm saying. Present one, two, or ten even. All I'm saying is that they can't be original research. They need to be sourced. Us arriving at a consensus on how to define define democracy is not good enough. Original research is still original research, even if we have a consensus. We need sources. BillyBoom 02:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no consensus so we should not claim to know one. This should be clearly stated. Ultramarine 02:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC) There may be a consensus. I don't know. I'm not prepared to make the claim that there is no consensus. By consensus I don't mean universal agreement, but the case where the bulk of definitions say pretty much the same thing. If there are alternate definitions they should be represented as well if there are sufficient number of sources that agree with it. BillyBoom 02:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
You're talking about the kinds of democracy? Those are not definitions of democracy, but of particular types of democracy. BillyBoom 03:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
In a democracy, the only power the people have is the power to vote for who is going rule them and the power to eventually vote in someone to replace them. Once elected, the person elected is the one that has the power which is much more powerful than the right to vote for a government official. The people do not rule in a democracy. The only have a choice over who is going to rule them. BillyBoom 03:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
To make law is to hold power, therefore if you make law you rule. The people are said to rule in a direct democracy because they make the law without constitutional restrictions on what laws can be passed. People do not have that power in the U.S. and neither do the elected officials. The U.S. is a constitutional republic, which John Adams defined as a "a government of laws, and not of men." Any statutes that are enacted cannot violate the Constitution. Anyway, we're getting away from the point. Any definitions we present need to be sourced. You said that "the people rule" is in common with all definitions and I gave you a definition where that is not the case. That definition simply has to do with elections. BillyBoom 04:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, this seems be your own personal defintion of "rule" and "democracy". There are many others. All forms of democracy have claimed that the people rule, or hold the ultimate power. Ultramarine 04:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
"Claiming" and actuality are two different things. "Rule by the people" is not a necessary condition of claiming to be a democracy. To be able to claim you are a democracy requires nothing more than the ability to state it. The leader can lie. BillyBoom 04:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
"Claiming" to be ruled by the people isn't the same thing as actually being ruled by the people. A claim can be true or it can be false. BillyBoom 05:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC) By the way, here is another definition that does not align with your "rule by the people": A system is "democratic to the extent that its most powerful collective decision-makers are selected through fait, honest, and periodic elections in which candidates freely compete for votes and in which virtually all the adult population is eligible to vote." -Sumuel Huntington BillyBoom 05:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, Wikpedia states all different views and does not declare one to be the winner. The advocates of different versions of democracy have claimed that their definition means that people have the ulitmate power. I think that this is the least common factor. If you disagree, fine. We will certainly not state that democracy means elections or someting like that, but then instead simply state that there are many different views, sometimes contradictory, of what democracy is. Ultramarine 05:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, Wikipedia does not declare one view to be correct. The other systems above have also stated that they are democratic. Read NPOV again, all views should be represented. Ultramarine 05:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I have given 3 different forms of democracy that do not use elections. I do not need to give one "true" definition. I will just note that there are many different views. Ultramarine 06:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
My latest proposal below. Ultramarine 06:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Democracy is a form of government. There are many different forms and the methods used to govern differ. While the term democracy is often used in the context of a political state, the principles are also applicable to other areas of governance.
The definition of democracy is made complex by the varied concepts used in different contexts and discussions. Democracy literally means rule by the people (from the Greek demos, "people," and kratos, "rule"). Aristotle contrasted democracy, majority rule, to that of oligarchy and autocracy, where political authority is highly concentrated. Political systems, or proposed political systems, claiming or claimed to be democratic have ranged very broadly. For example:
Main varieties include:
Direct democracy is a political system where the people vote on government decisions, such as questions of whether to approve or reject various laws. It is called direct because the power of making decisions is exercised by the people directly, without intermediaries or representatives. Historically, this form of government has been rare because of the difficulties of getting all the people of a certain territory in one place for the purpose of voting. All direct democracies to date have been relatively small communities; usually city-states. The most notable was the ancient Athenian democracy. Today, direct democracy is existing in countries such as Switzerland, where certain cantons practice it in its literal form, and in other countries, typically those where there is also referendum.
"Modern direct democracy... is characterised by three pillars; referendums... initiatives... and recall elections (on holders of public office)."
The last of the three is exactly NOT direct democracy. It is representative democracy. This should be obvious. - Pepper 150.203.227.130 10:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Representative democracy (or Polyarchy [3]) is so named because the people do not vote on most government decisions directly, but select representatives to a governing body or assembly. Representatives may be chosen by the electorate as a whole (as in many proportional systems) or represent a particular subset (usually a geographic district or constituency), with some systems using a combination of the two. Many representative democracies incorporate some elements of direct democracy, such as referenda.
Liberal democracy is a representative democracy which has free and fair elections, and also has rule of law, a separation of powers, and protection of liberties (thus the name liberal) of speech, assembly, religion, and property. [5] [6] Conversely, an illiberal democracy is one where the protections that form a liberal democracy are either nonexistant, or not enforced. The experience in some post-Soviet states drew attention to the phenomenon, although it is not of recent origin. Napoleon for example used plebiscites to ratify his decisions.
Democracy was clearly used in the East and in the 18/19th century with a very different meaning from that currently in vogue. How can an article on democracy fail to mention this different interpretation (political prejudice?) I suggest something like the following:- -- Mike 14:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The socialist view of democracy ( social democracy) was developed in the 18th and 19th century by writers such as Karl Marx. Socialists concentrated primarily on putting the working class in government and voting was at best only one of a number of means to achieving a democratic (i.e. socialist) society as demonstrated by the objects of the London Democratic society of 1839:
First:- the Objects of the Democratic Association are, to avail itself of every opportunity in the progress of society, for practically establishing the principles of Social, Political and Universal Equality.
Second:- To this end, they desire to unite the unrepresented of all classes into one bond of fraternity, for the attainment of Universal Suffrage: this Association being convinced that, until the proletarian classes are fully and faithfully represented, justice in legislation will never be rendered unto them. [4]
In Marxist view capitalist state cannot be democratic by its nature, representing dictatorship of bourgeoisie. In capitalist state all media and most political parties are controlled by capitalists. One should have much amount of financial resources or be supported by bourgeosie to win a elections. Even if a representative of people elected he has limited power as all the economic sphere controlled by private capital and functions of central government reduced to the minimum.
To suggest that Athenian democracy was only the assembly is about as "economical with the truth" as if modern democracy were talked about as only being a jury. The whole section on the original democracy needs editing to make it representative of what the actual system was rather than what someone appears to want it to be!
I suggest the following: <snip>
isonomia:A. equal distribution, equilibrium, balance, II. equality of political rights, Hdt.3.80, 142; (Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon)
“The rule of the people has the fairest name of all, equality, and does none of the things that a monarch does. The lot determines offices, power is held accountable, and deliberation is conducted in public.”
“Democracy is a form of government in which the offices are distributed by the people among themselves by lot;” [Aristotle, Rhetoric]
“by making the law-court, which was elected by lot, all-powerful … as the law-court grew strong, men courted favour with the people as with a tyrant, and so brought the constitution to the present democracy”[Aristotle, Politics 2.1274a, c350BC]
“he (Solon) does appear to have founded the democracy by constituting the jury-courts from all the citizens. … (making) the law-court, which was elected by lot, all-powerful.” [Aristotle, Politics 2.1274a, c350BC]
-- Mike 22:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
As written this section implies quite falsely that America was set up as a democracy. This is a lie and ought to be corrected post haste! None of the founding fathers were in favour of a democracy (based on Greece), America was set up as a republic (based on Rome). I don't know why there is this modern attempt to rewrite American history to imply it was set up as a democracy when the founding fathers were in fact universally hostile to the idea of democracy! -- Mike 15:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I suggest prefacing the paragraph
the United States can be seen as the first liberal democracy with relatively wide franchise.
with
Although not described as a Democracy by the founding fathers,
The first view is sourced, the distinction between republic and democracy for the founding fathers and today is discussed in later. Ultramarine 15:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Republic, Republicanism, and Republicanism in the United States give many different meanings to the terms, sometimes contradictory, for example excluding or including a monarch. The article already explains the historical difference between republic = constitutional representative democracy and democracy = direct demcoracy. The current text in the "Democracy and Republicanism" is very unclear regarding what meanings of republicanism and democracy are discussed and how they differ. It also gives undue weight to the United States for a general democracy article. The meaning of repulicanism is already well covered in the three articles mentioned. So I suggest changing the title to "Constitutional monarchs and upper chambers" and the text to
"Initially after the American and Frenc revolutions the question was open whether democracies, in order to restrain unchecked majority rule, should have an elitist upper chamber, the members perhaps appointed meritorious experts or having lifetime tenures, or should have a constitutional monarch with limited but real powers. Some countries (as Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Scandinavia and Japan) turned powerful monarchs into constitutional monarchs with limited or, often gradually, merely symbolic roles. Often the monarchy was abolished along with the aristocratic system (as in the U.S., France, China, Russia, Germany, Austia, Hungary, Italy, Greece and Egypt). In Australia, the monarchy is seen as hollow shell. However, there is no consensus on how to replace it. Most voters want a powerful president (as in the U.S., France, and Russia), while most politicians want to keep the parliamentary system and have only a weak president (as in Italy and Germany). Many nations had elite upper houses of legislatures which often had lifetime tenure, but eventually these senates lost power (as in Britain) or else became elective and remained powerful (as in the United States)." Ultramarine 09:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The article had a very garbled section on "Republic". I replaced it with the republicanism section that was blanked out some time ago, which explains the concept and discusses some of the relevant history. Rjensen 06:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine seems to think that republicanism is unimportant. The long bibliography shows that is entirely false. If he thinks the section can be improved he should try to improve it--blanking it is simply un-Wiki and akin to vandalism. Fact is many people get them mixed up --that's because of a convergence in actual practice in the 20th century. Historically democracy and republicanism were quite different. Ultramarine's argument that there is no "consensus" on republicanism is irrelevant and false. If he thinks there are alternative views he should include them. Along with citations please--he can start with the bibliography that I added to the article. Rjensen 08:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I suggest the following. Please state concrete objections:
In contemporary usage, the term "democracy" refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative. [9] The term " republic" has many different meanings but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a President, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a the head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected head of government such as a Prime Minister. [10]
In historical usages and especially when considering the works of the Founding Fathers of the United States, the word "democracy" refers solely to direct democracy, whilst a representative democracy where representatives of the people govern in accordance with laws and usually also a constitution is referred to as a republic. [11] [12] Using the term "democracy" to refer solely to direct democracy retains some popularity in United States conservative and libertarian circles. ( Republicanism can also refer to several other ideas: a virtue system, anti-monarchism, advocacy for rule of law, and especially in recent interpretations, advocacy for liberty. [13])
The original framers of the United States Constitution were notably cognizant of what they perceived as a danger of majority rule in oppressing freedom and liberty of the individual. For example, James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, advocates a constitutional republic over a democracy to protect the individual from the majority. [5] The framers carefully created the institutions within the Constitution and the United States Bill of Rights. They kept what they believed were the best elements of majority rule. But they were mitigated by a constitution with protections for individual liberty, a separation of powers, and a layered federal structure. Ultramarine 08:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
In contemporary usage, the term "democracy" refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative. [15] The term " republic" has many different meanings but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a President, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a the head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected head of government such as a Prime Minister. [16]
In historical usages and especially when considering the works of the Founding Fathers of the United States, the word "democracy" refers solely to direct democracy, whilst a representative democracy where representatives of the people govern in accordance with laws and usually also a constitution is referred to as a republic. [17] [18] Using the term "democracy" to refer solely to direct democracy retains some popularity in United States conservative and libertarian circles. ( Republicanism can also refer to several other ideas: a virtue system, anti-monarchism, advocacy for rule of law, and especially in recent interpretations, advocacy for liberty. [19])
The original framers of the United States Constitution were notably cognizant of what they perceived as a danger of majority rule in oppressing freedom and liberty of the individual. For example, James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, advocates a constitutional republic over a democracy to protect the individual from the majority. [6] The framers carefully created the institutions within the Constitution and the United States Bill of Rights. They kept what they believed were the best elements of majority rule. But they were mitigated by a constitution with protections for individual liberty, a separation of powers, and a layered federal structure.
As for liberalism, that is a different issue entirely. If an editor thinks article is deficient in liberalism please add information. Please do not make the article deficient in republicanism in order to "equalize" mediocrity. Rjensen 21:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Why are you violating NPOV by again insisting that there is only one definition on Republicanism and that it should be mentioned in the article? Why did you delete the sourced statement that democracy today usually is assued to be liberal democracy? Ultramarine 08:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
User comment: notice that someone has changed this article by excluding the original Greek words of the term 'democracy' written in greek alphabet. Let the one who made the original article bring it back.
(PURELY THEORETICAL) Notice these facts:
1. Democracy - people (culturological domains) rule themselves the way they see fit.
2. Hegemony - some organisation superimposes and rules over multiple culturological domains.
3. Democracy is an anthonym of hegemony (the sole purpose of existance of that term).
Paradox: according to above written facts, how can for example United States of America, or European Union, or indeed a whole Latin writting (Roman-catholic) domain be democracy? (one organisation superimposes rule over multitude of nations, which by definition implies hegemony, which by logic excludes democracy; further more they are all saying that membership in their hegemony is a matter of free choice, yet, if you pay attention to details you will notice that in some cases they indeed perfidiously force other culturological domains into submission)
(Just commenting on what are facts regardless of mine or anybody else's oppinion.)
Sections that do not have solid reliable sources will be deleted--a democracy after all, has to follow the rules.
As requested in the priority one to do list since May 14th 2006 for this article I have taken action to implement on September 29th 2006. Please read, discuss, and keep as the consensus of the group here sees fit. I plan to immediately begin work on the next to do list at priority one. Absolutely no worries at all. Neutralaccounting 03:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC) (re-edited to match generic respose template)
Hi, just dropping in and I thought I would mention that the constitutional monarchy section seems to concentrate quite a lot on australia and on hardly anything else. Zoanthrope 18:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
What is the problem with that proud US history??
I'm just having a blast reading about Socrates, Plato and Aristotle and I clicked the democracy link from the Socrates article... low and behold some troglodyte has edited a few words in the article and put in profane names for body parts. I couldn't just leave them, but not knowing how to "rollback" I just looked at the original text before the vandalism and put the correct words back. Keep up the good work Wikiens - I visit at least once a day, usually more often, to learn something new!
I noticed some problems with the article I'd like to try to correct at some point. First off, the word democracy might be Greek, but surely the idea has a longer history and can be found in primative tribal government and so forth. The article should start off by discussing what democracy is an isn't according to Aristotle and the various other thinkers on this subject. Second, Rome was not a representative democracy. The Senate was made up of former elected officials who held office for life. In contrast, Athens had a representative legislature called the Council of Five Hundred (chosen by lottery). Finally, there is a gap between the Middle Ages and the 18th century when some rather important developments were taking place. (BTW, 1688 is not the Middle Ages). Where is the Reformation, the Dutch Republic or Calvin in Geneva?
I don't know why there isn't a map showing all the states in the world that 'claim to be democratic'. This is an article on democracy, not a liberal democracy. So why is the only map in the article that horrid Freedom House map showing "partly free" and "free" states. Freedom House's articles on the rights of people in different countries is good, but this article deals with democracy not freedom. Furthermore I'm of the opinion that having this as the only map and so early in the article is just adding an unnecessary POV. People see this map and notice that Russia is "not free", so they might think it's a dictatorship, but it actually *is* a democracy (though perhaps a very corrupt one). So here's what I think;
Both maps would just give more information to the reader. Kyle sb 15:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
hello tesa
hi i am a 7th grader doing a project on democracy!
I disagree with democracy solely because it could in many respects be characterized as a popularity contest marked by inefficiency, illogical or destructive decision making, and incompetence. Is there any sort of group or word that embodies or agrees with that viewpoint? Robinson0120 10:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
That certainly was a long reply. Let me take a few minutes (seemed to turn into hours) to respond to what you said.
First I'll discuss Noam Chomsky's statements. I have heard that he is a left-wing lunatic from a few sources and a brilliant activist from others. I personally think his comments are eloquent and thought provoking, but are also opinionated. Take, for example, this quotation:
"At this stage of history, either one of two things is possible: either the general population will take control of its own destiny and will concern itself with community interests, guided by values of solidarity, and sympathy and concern for others; or alternatively, there will be no destiny for anyone to control."
That's an incredibly strong statement. Only one of two outcomes are possible concerning today's modern events? Why should it be necessary that the "general population" concern itself with its community, especially since Chomsky later refers to the community as being the "global community" probably due to the process of globalization? Do starving children in Africa belong to this "general population?" What about developing countries that are trying to gain a foothold in trade and business? It's very noble to speak of environmental protection, moral duties concerning life and liberty, and other such concepts, but one also has to consider differences. Industrialized nations can say that we need to stop polluting the environment, ensure freedoms, and protect our rights; but what can developing countries say? Do they have the choice to turn to alternative energy? Do they have the resources? Do they have stable governments that allow freedoms? If not, how will they form these governments? Through revolutions? If so, will they be peaceful or violent? Policies and neglect in African states are prime examples of so called human rights abuse. Furthermore, how exactly is one to go about concerning itself with community interests? America donates momentous sums to African states, yet that money never seems to end up in the hands of the people, instead landing in the hands of what some would call tyrannical dictators. One cannot ignore differences and circumstances when making such a bold assertion, that only one path or another can be followed. It seems by these statements that I'm only addressing that first statement, though, (in a tangential manner) so I'll move on to my other comments.
"The question, in brief, is whether democracy and freedom are values to be preserved or threats to be avoided."
This statement is particularly troublesome. It asserts, whether intentionally or not, that democracy and freedom are linked. Even under the most tyrannical of dictators there are always civil freedoms. For example, under Stalin (who many consider as such), the rights of women improved. One could argue that democracy is the only system under which a great majority of rights can be guaranteed or even possible, given that Europe, Japan, and America, regions where freedoms are arguably most bountiful, are democratic nations. This, however, is an error in logic, because specific types of government such as meritocracy, so called enlightened despotism, and even anarchism have never truly seen the light of day, especially not in the twenty-first century. My biology teacher opens up the mind of our class to a number of interesting concepts, one of them being the fact that you cannot judge the veracity and success of a system merely by its outcome. I am quite certain that a specific term of logic refers to this concept, but I do not know of its exact title. In any event, my point is that tying democracy and freedom together, following with a suggestion that elite capitalist thought is against freedom itself is an error in logic and fact.
That's all I'm going to say for Chomsky's arguments (Which took me more time than I'd originally planned to spend...). Now on to your main argument.
"It is important to understand that the negative properties you bring up here are inherent to the psychopathic monsters who kill the life in the interests of dominating bourgeois, as explained in The Corporation. In fact, these are capitalists, our ruling class, who produces and controls the irrational consumers, which must make uninformed (controlled) choices, including marketed candidates."
Calling the ruling class psychopathic seems a little extreme, but I'm not worried about that. My main concern is the statement "which produces and controls the irrational consumers, which must make uninformed (controlled) choices, including marketed candidates." The plain fact that both of us are discussing this topic disputes that because we are making our own choices and statements which are, quite frankly, far different than the choices of any ruling class I've ever seen. Furthermore, we are, at least moderately, informed about some aspects of the topic and its ramifications. I see plenty of human sheep, if you'll excuse the insult, in my daily life (which consists mainly of home and school, but is something of an indicator), and even some of those individuals have some thought of their own which conflicts with that of the ruling class (that is to say, some ideas which are perceived to be "moral" [Like abstinence and certain laws], which one could probably attribute to elite thought, although there are quite a few morals that are basically fundamental to human civilization). To insinuate that any organization could control individuals on such a wide and massive scale to such a degree cannot be right, because there will always be at the least a minority that does not follow convention- which is, once again, why we are discussing this subject. I have one question with the statement "marketed candidates;" are you referring to political candidates? If so, I will have to disagree with that as well, because you are always eligible to vote for a non-partisan candidate- in fact, you can always vote for yourself. "The capitalists are effectively killing our green planet and people for profit. There is no crime they would not commit to maximize profits."
I always thought are planet was more of a blue shade when seen from space. Anyways, to say that capitalists are killing the planet is somewhat erroneous. That same biology teacher I referred to brought up another point concerning the environment that made me think: that any effects of humanity on the planet are quite natural because we are organisms. In other words, our adaptations (namely our intelligence and its products) are natural creations born of our mind and effort. Therefore, one could also argue that whatever murder we commit is a natural consequence. Furthermore, is it really possible for us to "kill" our planet? The dinosaurs and other prehistoric life were wiped out by a number of simultaneous events, yet we stand (or sit) here today, essentially new kids on the metaphorical "block" of life. The best we could do to kill would involve the use of nuclear bombs and biochemical agents, and how much greater are those tools than meteors, floods, or storms? Life would remain, and would repopulate the Earth. In time, the effects of radiation would disappear and the world would simply begin anew. This is, of course, all conjecture, but it is quite theoretically possible (according to my limited understanding; I'm only 15, anyways, so take it with a grain of salt). Also, there must be some crimes that capitalists would not commit; for example, genocide of the human race- then they wouldn't exist anymore. It is also shaky to speak of "crimes-" in America, it would be a human rights violation to mutilate a woman's genitals, whereas in parts of Africa and the Middle East it is an accepted practice. It is somewhat interestingly not a crime to remove the foreskin from a male baby, however, which some consider mutilation. One should consider what actually constitutes a "crime-" I believe crimes, and morals, while we're at it, are mostly a product of society and probably elite thought, which personally seems to reduce the credence that either have.
I'll skip ahead to this statement: Democracy is a serious work indeed, it is not voting for the fascist marketed candidates and exulting: "Hey, we are democracy, lets liberate Iraq, Iran and Venezuela by dropping more bombs and white phosphorus on these barbarians!!!"
I agree; Democracy is a serious work. For a moment, let us assume that true democracy were instituted during the early 1900's in the United States of America, and somebody posed the question of whether or not to lynch a black man who reportedly raped a white woman, with only the testimony of the white woman and black man to decide. What would happen to him? I suppose the answer should be fairly obvious, but it may depend on the location. He might have lived in one of the Northern states, but his chances would be slim (most likely zero) in a Southern one. Furthermore, what would happen if everyone in the entire country voted on the issue? Would they have the time? Could they meet the costs? I believe that democracy at a local level is probably an excellent idea, but a state level is a different story. Furthermore, your statement implies that all of those who vote for the "fascist marketed candidates" agree with the following statement, which I am inclined to doubt. After all, not everybody that votes could feel so strongly about remaining in and fighting in Iraq, since so many Americans are currently disgusted with that precise subject and want American troops to leave Iraq as soon as possible.
Incidentally, the advertisement's purpose is killing your competitor by propaganda agencies rather by making better things, and therefore, should be banned as any tool of deception. Look at science and engineering -- where people creatively explore and construct things they feel they need.
Isn't "banned" a strong word? Don't the people that make those advertisements, regardless of their intent, have a constitutional right (in the United States of America) to freedom of speech, provided that they aren't explicitly interfering with another's rights? Besides that point, science and engineering have not only resulted in constructive creations, but in weapons of death and destruction, in nuclear weapons, gunpowder, swords, poisons, with the list stretching on and on. One could probably say that technology began with weapons, since some of the first human tools must have been used to hunt. Using science for peaceful technology other than architecture is a more modern concept than its use in weaponry. And what if one were to feel that they needed to create artificial life? Would there be ethical concerns governing such creations? Would said creations have rights? Once again, it is one thing to speak of goodness and morality, but quite another to actually consider long term ramifications and possible outcomes.
I'll add to one last comment: The validity of your viewpoint is dependent on the point it is viewed from -- the consciousness (interests and intelligence) of the individual who you oppose to the group.
Since I actually can't make heads or tails of this, I ask that you clarify exactly what you meant if you ever again reply. From what I can gather, you are saying that the validity of my viewpoint depends on the individual asked. If that is so, I guess I'll have to agree- validity in the mind of the individual must certainly be dictated by that individual's thoughts and beliefs.
I'm going to go ahead and wind up this entry now; it's probably important to say that I wasn't trying to attack with my arguments, although I did try to add my characteristic sarcasm to them. Sorry if I offended you with any statements, and I hope to see a reply or another entry, if anyone feels like doing so.
Side Note: I noticed that the title was changed to Collective vs. Master. I'm changing it back to A Question Concerning Democracy because this was the original intention of my statement- Collective vs. Master sounds like a David and Goliath kind of title to me. Robinson0120 00:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that sure is a lot once again. I'll be a little more brief this time with my reply. First off, listening to Parenti was a blast. I've only listened to about 1/6 of it, but I'm getting the general idea, from what I can tell. Capitalism is a scourge upon the Earth. (I haven't heard of what he advocates humanity use instead) There's a glaring problem with that statement; it's taking into account only a single ideology, a single concept. When you're studying something as massive as inequality among humans and revenue gain you're studying a system. Systems are, by definition, creations of synergy and depend a wide and varied number of variables. One can't just say, "Capitalism is the problem." What about climate, natural resources, probability, and a host of other variables? I have to say that I definitely have less respect for Parenti than I do Chomsky at the moment, but that's another story. Your first statement:
So stop looking at when developing countries will reduce their consumption before reducing your appetites.
You misunderstood my above comment. Like I said, I was going into tangential ramblings for some of it (although it was slightly coherent, in my defense...); when I referenced Africa's tough (or not so tough) decisions, I was referring to the fact that they were disadvantaged and still had to deal with pollution laws. That's something that America was able to get ahead on; child labor and excessive pollution (the same goes for the United Kingdom). It's another thing you have to consider when you're talking about whether or not capitalism is a problem; Is it just the fault of capitalism or a number of other variables working in tandem with that process?
Second:
You want to democratize Cuba, Russia, Iran, and Venezuela, granting billions of $$ on this, but in fact you want their resources (their capital) and cheap labour. That is the essence of capitalistic expansion --imperialism.
First off, I could care less about democracy and "bringing democracy" to any state. I disagree with government policy probably slightly less than you do, although my grievances are with other issues. When you consider that we lend money as a pretext and in reality want only labor, you are partially right and partially wrong (I believe). We do want to build the country up in a particular manner (check out the maquiladoras in Mexico); however, we want to exploit them while doing it. I will agree that current thought doesn't allow for ideal conditions for these workers, but because they are so far into it now, they can basically either continue what they're doing or revolt. Revolution seems to be out of style (and nearing impossibility, perhaps), so they're going to have to depend on their own merits. If they can't find a way out of it, they're probably sunk. Just to set the record straight, I don't agree with those tactics, either; I believe in equal opportunity, not the way it's normally used; I mean equal opportunity, no affirmative action or other garbage tied in. Casualties like that may be a consequence of capitalism, and they may also be a consequence of previous political systems (I'm sure you have an idea of what the Iberians did to South America and the populations therein); you can't merely blame one system for something of that magnitude.
The next thing you wrote about was law enforcement and control. I'll answer it with this: Establish private enforcement contractors that have nothing to do with the government, or have them work with the government! Simple concept, but it's never seen the light of day, so I can't speak of its validity. Given the success of other industries in the world, however, I'd say such a system has a pretty good chance of success. Again, in defense of capitalism, such incidents that you label are sparse, and occur with good reason; people in America today fear Islam, and some believe that Muslims are terrorists. When you have the managerial class thinking this way too, you have a problem. That is not, however, the fault of capitalism.
Next up, genocide. While I doubt that those figures are accurate, I don't particularly know any better, but remember this; Vietnam was about North vs. South (From what I understand, Communism vs. Capitalism again, thus a proxy war in essence); Vietnamese people may have died in hundreds of thousands, but they were also killing each other and NATO (mostly American) soldiers. They weren't innocent. I know nothing of Angola, but I do know about Uganda, Darfur, and Rwanda, and if those countries are any indication of what happened in Angola (which, since those events are strikingly connected, is a strong possibility), the Angolans weren't innocent either, and were probably fighting beforehand. I have to disagree with the "lunatic-Kurd" statement; it may not be in the media, but people know all about the plight of the Kurds. Once again, this is not a fault of capitalism but of Arabs (Possibly Shi'ite in particular?) vs. Kurds. Yugoslavia's a wonderful example of where the West did nothing. Once again, what caused the trouble? Religion and language. You see, when you look a little closely at conflicts of the past and present, the reasons begin to make sense, and there isn't any big conspiracy or unfathomable evil necessary to explain it- just human differences, greed, and natural reactions. Lastly, I'll add something about Israel. Since it was one of the first things besides Iraq/Afghanistan I was watching on TV it had an impact. For the entire time to me, it seemed like it was just another story and a normal occurrence. (My brother and mother disagree with me on this, but I still feel this way; not quite sure why.) I have no good reason for you why the Israelis went so ballistic over two soldiers. To tell you the truth, I believe they were looking for a good reason to go after their enemies, plain and simple. There was quite a bit of devastation in Lebanon, and then it all just disappeared. THAT I will openly admit I do not understand, unless, as some would suggest, it's the fault of the "Evil Pig Zionist Regime...!" XD
This coming point was my favorite one: The planet problem. The first thing you did was advocate Sagan's viewpoint. (Just a note; I know they may be learned scholars, but remember to take quotes and opinions, even if they are from doctors, with a grain of salt sometimes. Just because one person says it, even if he's respected, doesn't make it right. Look at how many people supported the Bush administration for a cause that was basically faulty, and for a better example, check out Hitler.) Anyways, Sagan is, as I said, one person. Concerning global warming, I think it's garbage. To me, the overwhelming majority of life's equations and patterns are either logarithmic or sinusoidal (I particularly favor sinusoidal ones). I believe that climate change is a cycle; that's probably why we had an Ice Age, a supposed Holocene, a "Little Ice Age," and are now going into a temporary warming. Sure, carbon emissions probably has something to do with it, and then again, probably not. We simply don't have enough proof. Of course, it's still a good idea to cut down on carbon emissions, but which Americans want to do that? Hybrid cars/environmentally safe ones will only arise if oil prices shoot through the roof. If the market forces the people to change they will change, plain and simple. The next argument concerning intelligent life was great. First off, to set the record straight, I do NOT believe in intelligent design. I'm no creationist; I'm a scientific thinker (or try to be). I don't believe that any sort of God created us for any purpose; reality tends to be far less grandiose and more moderate than that. Secondly, we may or may not kill ourselves with weapons, but we damn well won't die because of carbon in the atmosphere or rising temperatures; it won't even be radiation. If we go, we're going to go because some fools (or geniuses, take your pick) decided to create a virus strain capable of easily wiping out humanity. That's the only plausible reason I can really think of, considering how local nuclear weapons and ballistics really are in the grand scheme of things.
That's basically it, except for your last argument. Think about what would happen if democracy were really to disappear and power were to be put in the hands of a few individuals (an oligarchy). Would humanity be destroyed within short order? Probably not. Consider what a few terrorists can do today. If a malignant government or some grand problem got in the way, who would really support them? Would the military? Would the "masses" really want to doom themselves by destroying the "opposition" if they were themselves oppressed? Doubtful, to an incredible degree. Our world's going to keep going, even if destruction becomes easier and easier to pull off. (I of course can't back that up, since I don't have a crystal ball... but, as said in a laughable comedy, signs point to yes.) Robinson0120 22:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The criticism tells that some groups are opposed to democracy. But the democracy shuold serve people and nature, I suppose, and the pro-people groups are the left ones. The left is opposed by the profit right, not only the far-right (the fascism). So why it is not allowd to tell that capitalism defeats democracy? When political parties are financed by the commertial ones, when capital interfere between candidates and the people effectively decoupling the demos from the political process, the capital overtakes the real state power. The wealthy minority takes control over the general majority in quite natural way in self-developing process: the business elected itself into power gains more state subsidies and accumulates more resourses allowing to buy more state power on the next election. After several iterations, the big business is indistinguishible from government -- the influence of the pro-people left is completely eliminated. It is also natural that the corporate government sets up the policy to protect the prosperity of the minority from the majority and serve its profit interests, which is acieved by enslaving the society to transfer the public property and wealth produced by people into private capital of dominating elite through big business subsidies and such affairs. The business also increases profits by abridging social programs (cuting wages, public education, heath care, social and environment protection) and investing into anti-social businesses (like military complex, tobaco, ..., marketing and overconsumption), effectively degrading society and nature. That is, profits of few are made by parasitizing on the society, destroying it Welfare for the Wealthy. For these antisocial reasons, the dominating minority interests are directly opposed to general public, which are the culture and nature, I suppose. The bourgeois dictatorship (corporatism, imperialism, fascism, polyarcy -- call it as you like) preveils the modern world. The current system is a polyarchy, at best Chomsky - America is not a Democracy. They use democracy as a veil and excuse to overthow "not democratic" governments all over the world to capture the global weath. The 'democracy' in its current form is a greatest threat to the life existance on the Earth. The bourgeois use propaganda, which pervades their mass communication, to decieve, indoctrinate and manipulate the stupid majority. If the wikipedia is really a free encyclopedia, it must address this most widespread and monstrous lie in the world. -- Javalenok 21:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned the only valid form of government is democracy but that doesn't mean that it isn't flawed. One of the things that often bothers me is how qualified or unqualified the people are who are voting. The election campaigns are often executed based on the most primitive issues and often have little realistic political content. This sort of behaviour is encouraged by the fact that many people are not terribly interested and are happy reading newspapers, which live by printing equally primitive headlines. Obviously a selected group of voters is invalid and that would no longer count as a democracy anyway, however there are perhaps ways to encourage a more constructive use of the right to vote. Voting is a privilege and I believe it is perhaps one that we have to earn in part, otherwise the privilege is used carelessly, e.g. "my family has always voted XYZ and that's not going to change now!". Perhaps each voter must fill out a multiple choice test* of say 30 questions that needs to be completed along with the vote. The test would evaluate how qualified the voter is and would be used for weighting his/her vote. This should have the affect that the voter is motivated to know more about what he/she is actually voting for. Since the public would then be more focused on politics, this should carry on to the parties to base their election campaign on politics rather than meaningless personal issues. Furthermore this would force the media to raise their standards and be more constructive otherwise they'd go out of business due to lack of public interest. *Obviously the test needs to be put together by an independent group and must contain questions that were kept secret until the vote.
A further issue I have with democracy is the problem that the party in power is forced to make decisions for short term projects. Anything long term that produces cost in the short term and provides benefits only in the long term is often an unpopular decision. As a result responsible long term projects are often under financed or not approved at all. Instead the governing parties often aim for projects that return suboptimal results in the short term. However perhaps this problem exists primarily due to how fickle and unsure the general public can be, and this is perhaps helped by encouraging people to know more about what their government is trying to do (e.g. with the above idea). 212.48.126.140 13:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Good points, 212.48.126.140. That multiple choice questionnaire would probably be a good idea, but you also have to take into account how long that would take. Even if they did make one, there's also no guarantee that it wouldn't be flimsy in design or that the individuals taking the test wouldn't just mark a few answers so they could vote. Nice point about the political issues, too. The way I see it, if we wanted to optimize democracy we would do away with parties, because they cause a great deal more problems than they solve and because they are used for little more than classification. "He's just a Republican," or "That's because he's a liberal" floats around WAY too often. There should also be some definite guidelines to actually become a candidate, for example, certain training and score qualifications, comprehensive understanding of history, politics, and other subjects like sociology (which I highly doubt most of our presidents, if any, really have/have had). If you're going to be leading a country, you should be able to analyze the mistakes and success of previous leaders and tailor your plans accordingly. Democratic systems also seem to have poor bureaucracies. Note that we all seem to be discussing American (or possibly European) democracy as well, and are not even factoring in other states that actually use it. Add in the fact that there are is a huge stretch of other topics and factors we haven't even discussed and you wind up with quite a problem. I'm fairly certain that the political institutions we've installed thus far haven't even come close to upper level efficiency, but addressing and fixing the actual problems that afflict such systems is a difficult task indeed. (Was I ranting again?) Robinson0120 22:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
At first, the mass communication is owned by ruling class, so analyzing it you'll conclude that more profit for burgeous, further cutting of social programms, advancing globalization (= thirdworldization) are needed. Secondly, the right answers are those which support the rightwingers, the burgeous, the ruling dictatorship! I suppose that this quest for taking the control away from the de-educated labour is their job.-- Javalenok 08:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
If the people wish to make a decision you find bad, it is also what those people wished, and therefore not a bad decision to them, but what they wanted, and will probably turn out good for them, as they wanted it. As for the people who didn't want that to happen, majority rules. Tough luck. Move if you so wish.
Ultramarine continuously removes the section which was added by consensus and has been edited by many different contributors. He also removes a paragraph about Soviet republic (as a form of government). Your comments.-- Nixer 23:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Is it a Wikipedia policy that original research should be removed on spot? Where is it? Taxico 04:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The only good information in the section seems to consist of a Marxist criticism of liberal democracy. Perhaps that should be added to the criticisms section in summarized form. Otherwise, I see little reason to keep the Marxist section. Socialists who support democracy generally have in mind something close to liberal democracy but with a different economic system. -- Nikodemos 21:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, keep the Marxist section, but remove references to other left-leaning parties. For instance, it comes close to calling the U.S. Democratic Party Marxist! WBHoenig 02:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
In many Greek city states, for example Sparta.
Index of Democracy
The Economist has in a study examined the state of democracy in 167 countries and rated the nations with a Economist Intelligence Unit Index of Democracy which focused on five general categories; free and fair election process, civil liberties, functioning of government, political participation and political culture. Sweden scored a total of 9,88 on the scale of ten which was the highest result, North Korea scored the lowest with 1.03. [7] [8]
Full democracies: 1. Sweden, 2. Iceland, 3. Netherlands, 4. Norway, 5. Denmark, 6. Finland, 7. Luxembourg, 8. Australia, 9. Canada, 10. Switzerland, 11. Ireland & New Zealand, 13. Germany, 14. Austria, 15. Malta, 16. Spain, 17. US, 18. Czech Republic, 19. Portugal, 20. Belgium & Japan, 22. Greece 23. UK, 24. France, 25. Mauritius & Costa Rica, 27. Slovenia & Uruguay. Flawed democracies: 29. South Africa, 30. Chile, 31. South Korea, 32. Taiwan, 33. Estonia, 34. Italy, 35. India, 36. Botswana & Cyprus, 38. Hungary, 39. Cape Verde & Lithuania, 41. Slovakia, 42. Brazil, 43. Latvia, 44. Panama, 45. Jamaica, 46. Poland, 47. Israel, 48. Trinidad and Tobago, 49. Bulgaria, 50. Romania, 51. Croatia, 52. Ukraine, 53. Mexico, 54. Argentina, 55. Serbia, 56. Mongolia, 57. Sri Lanka, 58. Montenegro, 59. Namibia & Papua New Guinea, 61. Suriname, 62. Moldova, 63. Lesotho & Philippines, 65. Indonesia & Timor Leste, 67. Colombia, 68. Macedonia, 69. Honduras, 70. El Salvador, 71. Paraguay & Benin, 73. Guyana, 74. Dom Rep, 75. Bangladesh & Peru, 77. Guatemala, 78. Hong Kong, 79. Palestine, 80. Mali, 81. Malaysia & Bolivia 81. Hybrid regimes: 83. Albania, 84. Singapore, 85. Madagascar & Lebanon, 87. Bosnia and Herzegovina, 88. Turkey, 89. Nicaragua, 90. Thailand, 91. Fiji, 92. Ecuador, 93. Venezuela, 94. Senegal, 95. Ghana, 96. Mozambique, 97. Zambia, 98. Liberia, 99. Tanzania, 100. Uganda, 101. Kenya, 102. Russia, 103. Malawi, 104. Georgia, 105. Cambodia, 106. Ethiopia, 107. Burundi, 108. Gambia, 109. Haiti, 110. Armenia, 111. Kyrgyzstan, 112. Iraq. Authoritarian regimes: 113. Pakistan & Jordan, 115. Comoros & Morocco & Egypt, 118. Rwanda, 119. Burkina Faso, 120. Kazakhstan, 121. Sierra Leone, 122. Niger, 123. Bahrain, 124. Cuba & Nigeria, 126. Nepal, 127. Côte d’Ivoire, 128. Belarus, 129. Azerbaijan, 130. Cameroon, 131. Congo Brazzaville, 132. Algeria, 133. Mauritania, 134. Kuwait, 135. Afghanistan & Tunisia, 137. Yemen, 138. People's Republic of China, 139. Swaziland & Iran, 141. Sudan, 142. Qatar, 143. Oman, 144. Democratic Republic of Congo, 145. Vietnam, 146. Gabon, 147. Bhutan & Zimbabwe, 149. Tajikistan, 150. UAE, 151. Angola, 152. Djibouti, 153. Syria, 154. Eritrea, 155. Laos, 156. Equatorial Guinea, 157. Guinea, 158. Guinea-Bissau, 159. Saudi Arabia, 160. Uzbekistan, 161. Libya, 162. Turkmenistan, 163. Myanmar, 164. Togo, 165. Chad, 166. Central Africa, 167. North Korea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BishheartElsie ( talk • contribs) 08:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC).
Refs: http://www.economist.com/theworldin/international/displayStory.cfm?story_id=8166790&d=2007 and www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf.
Jim Douglas, can lists of countries really be copyrighted in any way? -- BishheartElsie 09:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
See this: [25]. Several problems: First, deletions of sourced statements and sources. Two, the text contradicts itself. Direct democracy does sometimes include representatives. Third, "The critics of non-direct democracy argue that democracy is more than merely a procedural issue, where merely voting and the presence of representatives fulfills the definition of democracy." This an incorrect description of the view of the critics which criticze the lack of emphasis on things like civil rights. Fourth, criticisms and advantages of specific forms democracy are better left to the subarticles. Otherwise this overview article will get too long. I can add pages of of criticims and advantages otherwise of all the forms of democracy mentioned here. Ultramarine 09:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Specifically referencing the two party system (USA) and the multi-party system (the rest of the world, in general). It seems Democracy should cover the nature of the US form of democracy in executing elections where only one primary run-off discourages the existence of a third party, as opposed to allowing those who vote for third parties which are eliminated to choose among the more popular parties, until all have been given the chance to choose among the two strongest contenders. The modern mechanism is for each voter to guess which parties will be the top two contenders (Rep vs Dem in the USA), and then to vote for the "lesser of two evils," lest they risk "throwing away" their vote for an unviable candidate/party.
The multi-party parliamentary system of coalition building should also be discussed in the light of its application to and advancement of the will of the people, i.e. Democracy.-- Landen99 22:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
My apologies, Ultramarine. At first, I thought that I accidentally started my section in the middle of some other section, thus separating your comments from its original context. After it kept re-appearing, it appeared to me like your fast response and correction was some kind of automated system gliche in the saving process. My apologies for the confusion concerning your comments, but they just don't seem to fit in my section or relate to my discussion.
What is a reference without connections to specific examples, like the USA? Okay, so we don't hold an "extensive discussion about the US," but that was never an issue. The main pillar of Democracy being the Elections, where the people vote on their representatives and on (at least) some of their laws, is the main issue of which I speak. The mechanism of the Election being critical to the definition and character of the Democracy, such a discussion cannot avoid the mechanisms of the USA elections, or the parliamentary elections, as they are the two most prevalent and distinctly different examples of modern democracy. I'm interested in finding consensus on the discussion of Modern Elections, being the main pillar of Democracy, with emphasis on the mechanisms of the two party system and the parliamentary coalition; as these are the two topics of high interest to most individuals with whom I speak on the subject of Democracy. -- Landen99 22:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
How else is the will of the people decided in modern democracies except by elections? BTW, elections include more than the selection of representatives, but also include voting on other issues; the world elect, means to endorse or to decide (check any dictionary for your citation of this definition). Also, how may any form of government pretend to rule by the will of the people without first seeking their will through elections? Without establishing the will of the people, there is no "people rule" (demo-cracy). Thus democracy must rest on elections (as a pillar) lest it lack the will of the people upon which its very name derives its meaning.
BTW, I think that we should look at the disconnect between the liberal democracy section on the Democracy page and the Liberal Democracy page for a more fluid and consistent feel to the Wiki project. Also, if material seems better in a different section, then let us try to focus more on moving good material to the right places (with respectful and public disclosure of those actions), instead of deleting (vandalizing) the article. -- Landen99 23:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
After a lengthy consideration, I can honestly say that I have no idea what Ultramarine is talking about. What is he calling personal opinion? How does he envision any system of government based upon the will of the people (i.e. Democracy) without their ability to express that will (i.e. vote in an election)? Even with "sortition" those selected by casting lots are considered to represent the will of the people, but may only do so by the expression of their opinion in government by voting. Not all voting is conducted under the name of an election, but terminology aside, people must vote. Now, does the will of a random sampling represent the will of the people? Perhaps with a large enough sampling and the assurance that the selection method is completely random, but I see no difference between the two in that case, except for shear volume of popular involvement. And as we all know, "Power corrupts," so the random sampling can be assumed to quickly lose their ability to represent the people. I think that you should think a little harder about what you, Ultramarine, are deleting before you get off on your "deleting power high," because I doubt that there exists a single reputable source who would challenge the statement that "to be represented, a person's voice must be heard" and "to allow popular political sovereignty, their will must be represented in government." We can cite such common sense, but then again, anyone who doesn't like such facts being put to light will be just as quick to question the acceptibility of the sources cited. I am sick of these "citing" Nazi's advancing their biased agendas without regard for the work of the Wiki-community, and I'd really like to call attention to Ultramarine's abuses regarding my edits on the Revision as of 23:50, 13 December 2006 (edit) from Wiki editors and the Wiki community. Better to leave common sense alone and request citations for specific parts in the discussion page than to just delete people's work, as the only people to continue contributing after such abuses are the extremists who are always ever so eager to force their opinions and agendas and worldviews on everyone else.-- Landen99 19:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
In the recent edit, " 22:06, 13 December 2006 Ultramarine (Talk | contribs) (unsourced, also the place the discuss specific criticisms and advangtaes of specific forms of democracy are on their articlesy, otherwise this article will become to long)"
Ultramarine (user) has vandalized the Democracy page under the guise of requiring "citations" by removing short, concise, obvious, and much needed clarifications/definitions of key principles of democracy. There is a place for citations (by commonly accepted experts) with statements which are not generally accepted without them, but this line has been clearly crossed today. Statements of the Obvious need no citations, else it is impossible to admit such facts as "the sky is blue," because eventually every citation must point to the observation of "the obvious," without any further citation. Does there exist a cited authority on sky color who is beyond the requirement to cite the work of another authority? And if not, then there exists no end of citations, and no evaluation of the legitimacy of a citation may end, until all of their citations have been investigated; how many other people see the obsurdity that this demand for citations has been taken. For eventually, someone must observe the obvious in such a way that all concur with the observations without requiring that person to cite another's observations and work.
I propose that the deletions of Ultramarine on 13 December at 22:06 be reversed, and that if these kinds of vandalisms continue, his editing privileges be either limited or removed. -- Landen99 23:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not add unsourced personal opinions. I cite the works of others as appropriate, and make logical additions and gammar corrections in order to make the article read and be understood more clearly and easily. All additions are common sense, but I have no aversion to linking specific facts with the wikipedia articles or quotes from which each can be derived.
But if you, Ultramarine (naming a specific Wiki-member so that the community does not confuse my allegations as blanket accusations against either themselves or others) disrespect the work of other members by deleting them because of your issues with their citations and you do it repeatedly to a large number of members for a very long time, then you should expect to be called onto the carpet for it. Does anyone have a better method for addressing issues of chronic vandalism under the false premise of Wikipedia rules, especifically overutilizing the citation argument? But these attacks on our work are personal attacks themselves, because they are dressed with Wikipedia rules used in ways that they weren't intended, but have the stench of personal bias and closed-minded vandalism. Deleting things without sources or ideas with which you agree is not adding to the Wiki project at all, but hurts it when you pretend to be exercising the authority of her rules. If abuses on this article are not to be discussed here, then where? If anonymity is to be maintained, then 1) Why sign our comments? and 2) How do members deal with abusers?-- Landen99 20:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The goal is not to attack the person, but to put an end to the abuse of that person. The person may feel attacked by disapproval of such abuse, but the argument does not rest on character degredation. In fact, reports of specific abuses are usually "the arguments of those with" very specific "factual arguments." Sometimes anything which indicates abuse by a specific user is deemed as a personal attack, in that one's name is used in connection with a factual allegation, specifically that member's contributions are being deleted under the premise of personal opinion and lack of citation (despite the fact that they have been in fact cited). Are not those allegations personal attacks by that definition, also? And if so, who cares, because the argument does not hinge upon it anyway, and the purpose is not to defame any member, but instead to improve Wikipedia.
I don't care who vandalizes, the argument against such behavior has nothing to do with the person, except in identifying the source of the abuse. I admit that I have been impressed with Ultramarine's intelligence and hard work, but that in no way diminishes the value and intelligence of the contributions of other authors, including myself; it in no way empowers him to tread on our work on the premises of "citations" and "personal attack." The "lack of sources" is hardly the end of any rational argument, as Aristotle (and most other sources) needed none. The argument is whether the material exists within the realm of human knowledge. From what I have seen these days, what doesn't. I haven't heard many ideas which have yet to be added to the store of human knowledge (including and especially patent ideas). It is virtually impossible to come up with new knowledge as virtually all ideas have already been considered countless times, and new knowledge is exclusively reserved for publishing and/or production for profit.
Democracy fails when individuals consider themselves better than the others, and equality is undermined by tyranny under the authority of various justifications and merits. Call that a personal opinion, but I dare you to find a source which allows tyranny in a democracy; for no government can be both rule of the people and rule of the minority faction (the smallest being the individual). Yet this self-evident truth has been declared by thousands upon thousands of respectable men, and a citation of it seems unnecessary and even cumbersome.-- Landen99 21:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Please stop removing the sections that you do not like [29]-- Nixer 17:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I still argue that these criticisms and advantages of liberal democracy should be in the liberal democracy article. No other form of democracy, like direct democracy or sorition, is discussed in this way in this overview article. Any objections? Please also explain why you deleted all other forms of socialist democracy and replaced them with the Soviet democracy section. Ultramarine 08:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to avoid degenerating into accusations of false logic. Though, please be aware that accusing me of using false logic avoids the question at hand which is: whether there is a place in the Democracy article for inclusions of the Marxist view of democracy, or not. Your extreme proposal about "should we copy the very long..." is, of course, a False dilemma logical fallacy. BruceHallman 16:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Nixer, Ultramarine agreed: "I think your your argument for having the discussion regarding liberal democracy in a separate article is very good." Do you? If so, then you can start a new article, with a {{further| link here.
Ultramarine's character?
In my little experience, and if I can be so bold to say so, Ultramarine appears to be a very intellegent person, who is very good at reseaching, who is a tedious editor with a strong POV, who will go to any length to make sure that his version of the article remains. Like most tedious editors with a strong POV (like myself) I think this is both good and bad.
When Ultramarine is attempting to add content, like in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possible wars between liberal democracies 2 this is good.
But when Ultramarine is attempting to delete content, this is bad.
Unlike my fellow POV wikieditors, I think deleting content you disagree with is against wikipolicy and I have no respect for this and little patience for it. I have seen so many really good POV editors that I respect highly, delete large sections of referenced material they disagree with. They lose a lot of my respect when they do this.
Ultramarine, why not start that new article yourself, instead of deleting the content repeatedly? That way you have more time to spend injecting your POV in wikipedia. Peity edit wars take away time that you could be contributing your POV to wikipedia. (I am not being facious, I have a very strong POV too, and I have learned that most edit wars can be avoided, allowing me to dedicate more time to writing my POV into wikipedia).
WP:NPA violation
Nixer, stop calling Ultramarine a vandal, this is a WP:NPA violation.
Comprimise
So once again Nixer: would you like your contributions in another new article? Maybe ultramarine can be kind/diplomatic enough (and crafty/sly enough) to create this new article now.
Later
As per my pet template I made: User:Travb/N
...I would be a hypocrite if I keep asking everyone else to make a new article on this talk page, so I went ahead and made this new article myself: Democracy in Marxist theory Nice job Nixer, very well researched article (albiet I have to admit) I didn't read a word of it--I only saw the 12 references...
Please see Talk:Democracy in Marxist theory the article as it exists Democracy in Marxist theory is an older version, [32] the one that Nixer justifiably complained about in the ANI that Ultramarine was deleting.
Ultramarine, I will say this before it happens, because in my experience this is what happens with political POV wikiusers:
I will WP:AGF and cross my fingers that you won't do this to the new article. I think this is a good comprimise for everyone, which you agreed too Ultramarine.
Travb ( talk) 15:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Differing semantics I guess, I view the text which you delete as being a Marxist view of democracy. BruceHallman 17:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I favor a compromise, with fewer words pro and con. I started to attempt to do this edit, but cannot find the con argument rebutting the main pro point which is: "The Marxist view ... that the capitalist state cannot be democratic by its nature, as it represents the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. ". Is this central Marxist point rebutted anywhere? BruceHallman 18:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Fine then, but to argue that inclusion of a few paragraphs of the Marxist belief about democracy is not already sufficiently balanced by the preexisting copious reliance in the article on anti-Marxist sources like Freedom House, The Economist, the CIA, etc.. suggests that your idea of 'balance' is abnormally skewed. I repeat my earlier concerns that this article suffers from systemic bias. The point of view of billions of people presently in the World coming from a Marxist historical perspective deserves strong coverage too. BruceHallman 19:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Rather, I was questioning the balance of belief, which you claimed to be imbalanced. I see that the charts and graphs, and Index of Democracy all come from groups with anti-Marxist belief. Surely, there is already enough to provide sufficient neutrality balance, to counter a small amount of Marxist content? And, do you support the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias here in the Democracy article? BruceHallman 19:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
And the lists? They put the liberal democracies at the top and the illiberal at the bottom. How is that "No other part..." The heavy reliance on Freedom House as a source, how is that "...no opposing views". BruceHallman 20:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I see that the Democracy article suffers from a systemic bias, defining democracy from the point of view of liberal democracy. BruceHallman 20:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
This map [34] from the article is representative of an undue bias from the perspective of liberal democracy. BruceHallman 21:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Quoting from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias article, I see that the following has happened with the Democracy article:
Trying to be constructive, I ask: can we try to improve the Democracy article by countering this form of systemic bias? BruceHallman 18:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
You evaded my question about countering systemic bias. Asking again:
Quoting from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias article, I see that the following has happened with the Democracy article:
Trying to be constructive, I ask: can we try to improve the Democracy article by countering this form of systemic bias? BruceHallman 18:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
1) If Freedom House, the CIA, etc. create or influence the research used by 'academia', is that research and that 'academia' free from systemic bias? No, likely not.
2) "Wikipedians also tend to self-select more heavily among strong adherents or opponents of political ideologies...", how shall we counter this problem?
The map doesn't say parties, it says opposition groups. That seems subjective, and unless there is a neutral method for determining the illegality of a group, I don't see how this is relevant to a democracy article. BruceHallman 21:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the problem of systemic bias in this article: I see that an overwhelming number of the references come from people or institutions based in countries at the 'full democracy' end of the list[Democracy#Index_of_Democracy]. The fact is, this article is based on research from only the democratic elite, the top 10%, failing to include proportional representation from the other 90%. This certainly calls into question the bias of this article. BruceHallman 16:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, you present a false dilemma. The editors of Wikipedia are obligated to attempt to counter systemic bias. Based on those guidelines, in this case, I suggest: 1) That we consciously focus on the neglected perspectives regarding democracy. 2) That we become more conscious of the bias that results when editors with strong opinions who tend to edit more and more vigorously than those with no obvious agenda. BruceHallman 18:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I am calling attention to obvious systemic bias in the article, and asking for help to counter the systemic bias. I see specific problems: 1) We have neglected the perspective of the majority of the world by self selecting only research from the democratic elite. 2) The editors of this article tend to edit based on strong opinions, tending to be more vigorous than those with no obvious agenda. What can we do to counter these two forms of bias? BruceHallman 18:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, those three policies do not counter systemic bias, especially the two types I have identified. BruceHallman 18:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Aimed at, certainly, that is the goal. But effectively, WP:NPOV has not succeeded here. The article presently does not use references from countries other than the democratic elite. And, the article has been predominately edited by editors with strong opinions as versus editors with no obvious agenda. How shall we counter this systemic bias? BruceHallman 18:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Quoting from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias article, I see that the following has happened with the Democracy article:
This phenomena controls the determination and evaluation and opinions as to 'reliable source' resulting in systemic bias. What shall we do to counter this form of systemic bias in the article? BruceHallman 18:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Those three policies have failed de facto. The systemic bias am questioning is plainly obvious today in the article. 1) The article relies only upon research of the democratic elite. 2) The editors of the article are self-selected, being 'strong adherents or opponents of political ideologies'. This systemic bias is real, and I ask again what shall we do to counter this problem of bias? The policies you suggest have failed us so far. BruceHallman 19:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The 'concrete problem' is that the article does not reflect the perspective of the non democratic elite. This problem stems from the cognitive bias of self selected editors. Further, the editing of the article has been skewed by the disproportional participation of editors with strong political ideologies. BruceHallman 22:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
That the article suffers from systemic bias is not ad hominem. Objective proof, for instance, can be seen in that all the cited references come from from democratic elite sources. Also, I see disproportionate 'pro' phrasing versus 'con' phrasing, which I believe results from systemic bias induced by the political ideology of the editors. BruceHallman 20:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't 'Marxist criticism of Democratic capitalism' better describe that new section (versus Marxist criticism of Liberal Democracy)? Considering that Democratic capitalism is the predominate form in use today, a short section including criticism seems appropriate to give some balance to the article. BruceHallman 21:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
It appears to me that the above controversy originates from the fact that the section under dispute is a section dealing with Marxist criticisms of liberal democracy. Notice my emphasis on criticisms and liberal democracy. Because the section is critical rather than descriptive, it invites counter-argument. Because the section deals with liberal democracy, it is better suited to the liberal democracy article rather than this one.
A possible solution would be to write a purely descriptive section about the positive Marxist views on democracy (that is, the Marxist views on the kind of democracy that should exist, rather than the kind that shouldn't). This section would have to feature a prominent link to dictatorship of the proletariat and soviet democracy, where the issue is discussed more in-depth. -- Nikodemos 23:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
"Democracy as it now exists" is the subject of the article liberal democracy. -- 69.6.101.82 06:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
A few minutes ago I was tempted to move the entire advantages and disadvantages section back to liberal democracy, but then I gave it some more thought. Surely there are some arguments for and against democracy in general - not just liberal democracy in particular. Those arguments should remain in this article (by the way, the Marxist one is not among them). I propose the following rule:
Those arguments that refer to democratic government in principle (such as the "tyranny of the majority") belong in this article. Those arguments that refer specifically to real instances of democracy in the past 200 years (such as statistics on the performance of democracies in various fields) belong in liberal democracy. -- Nikodemos 10:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Marxism is a major political theory and its views should not be avoided. First, we of course shell include Marxist criticism of liberal democracy along with criticism from other positions. We do not need criticism of criticism here though. We should also include the Marxist view on democracy how it should be (which is impossible without including Marxist criticism of liberal democracy). We should include liberal criticism of Marxist proposals.-- Nixer 22:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)