What is your ideal democracy?

[Index]

Lemme see if I grok this...do you mean that the government that governs best, governs least?

Not quite. Political anarchy means there is no governing body. There is no government that controls the actions of countries, and so in a global/international sense, we have anarchy. The actions of governements are dependent on their relationships with other governments of course, but there are no rules or (enforcable) international laws to determine what is right or wrong in a strict sense (as opposed to the relations between a government and it's people). Whilst international law exists, it is very difficult to enforce because of the concept of state sovereignty, among other things, which means that no state should be able to interfere in another state's business. Unfortunately this also is unenforceable, the most recent example being in the invasion of Iraq.

 

[Shooter452]

Not quite. Political anarchy means there is no governing body. There is no government that controls the actions of countries, and so in a global/international sense, we have anarchy. The actions of governements are dependent on their relationships with other governments of course, but there are no rules or (enforcable) international laws to determine what is right or wrong in a strict sense (as opposed to the relations between a government and it's people). Whilst international law exists, it is very difficult to enforce because of the concept of state sovereignty, among other things, which means that no state should be able to interfere in another state's business. Unfortunately this also is unenforceable, the most recent example being in the invasion of Iraq.

*dryly* I know what the word means, index.

My question was more about what you meant in your prior statement. I am still not certain, but at least now I know you are being a literalist.

 

[smoke]

I don't think there is such a thing as an ideal democracy.
Looking at your options individually:
The United States of America as it is now.
not being from the unites atates i think it would be unitelligent of me to comment on their democracy as all my perceptions are from the media, which is far from a realistic outlook on anything.
My nation's exemplification of democracy. (Not the United States of America.)
All decisions are made by the governmant, so this is not a democracy. We just choose an idiot to dictate. and we have a monarchy that is basically no more than a novelty for tourists.
Direct democracy- The majority is always right.
this raises the question, what if the majority is wrong? for example; the majority may decide that corporal punishment is 'right'. this would lead inevitably to innocent deaths and also many guilty people not being punished appropiately. and it would lead to other problems...'which criminals deserve to die?'. also there are a lot of stupid people in any country, so if the majority are made up of idiots...well, the outcome would be predictable.
Direct democracy, but with certain rights immune to majority vote.
this raises the question 'what rights are immune to majority vote?'. the right to a fair trial? the right to live? the right to die? and this could go on forever.
Representative democray- Vote for someone to make decisions on your behalf.
i don't like anyone making decisions on my behalf...not serious decisions anyway, but that is our current democracy.
A mix of the above.
What's ideal about democracy? (Other)
i believe within any democracy there will always be people who disagree to that democracy...a rebellion if you will. so there is no possible way to keep everyone happy. that is why democracy will never completely succeed.

my thoughts anyway!

 

[Mycernius]

A proper democracy would be anarchy. In a proper democracy evrybdy must have their say. Nothing would be done because evryone would be listening and debating whether their point of view is valid. Even the founders of demcracy didn't have proper demcracy. In Athens all democratic discissions where made by rich men, women didn't have the right to vote. They wouldn't even recognise a modern democracy as their type of democracy. In fact in ancient Greece the city state that had any type of womens rights was Sparta, and that was a military based society.

 

[Index]

Sorry shooter, didn't mean to be a boor. What I meant was that despite the discussions on democracy, what it is and what it should be, if one was cynical one could suggest that since our governments function in an anarchy, then by extrapolation we also live in an anarchy. It follows then that debate about democracy is just an intellectual luxury but has no significance.

Of course it's too simplistic to look at things this way (or is it?), but I wanted to suggest that it puts a different slant on the issue when you do.

 

[LeBrok]

Hi Kasia, it was a form of democracy (and the only one in Europe at that time, I guess) limited to noble class of 10% of population.
Poland as independent country didn't exist at that time, the country was called Rzeczpospolita, Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania, also included Ukraine, Belorussia and Prussia. By it's multi cultural nature it was the most tolerant country in Europe. Many nations and many religions, a million or two Jews lived there too, even small population of Tatars, plus minorities of Germans, Russians and many others.
It's true that Poland was the dominant member of the union, with capitol in Warszawa (Varshava) and Polish as lingua franca. That's why many call Rzeczpospolita, Poland, but it was not. Also I wish history teachers in Poland were less chauvinistic these days.

Regards
Pawel

 

[Carlitos]

There is no real democracy in the world, only the day we die we can be free.