A Failure of Democracy

[puto]

According to Plato's Republic, democracy is the, "Drunk" concept of freedom (Plato, 502d.) Socrates despised democracy as a, "Youth culture."

[phyllo]

Well, Gary calls it a "failure." But in a multi-party system, it has to be a feature, not a failure. In any multi-party democracy in which any of the parties get many votes at all, it's inevitable that the party with the most votes won't hold a majority overall. The other votes will be split between the second and third, or second, third and fourth, or whatever, depending on how many parties there are.

It is problem that can be solved by having ranked ballots or two stage elections with a run-off between the top two candidates if there is no majority winner in the first stage. It's already done in countries around the world.

So it's relatively easy to get a clear majority winner.

(Systems like the electoral college introduce a twist. )

[Alexis Jacobi]

There are usually rules for what counts as a good enough excuse to go to war, as well as what counts as civilised conduct of said war. no case has been presented at all for the former, which is highly unusual in any functioning democracy.

My honest view is that at the most basic level the establishment of the state of Israel and its successive militarization that is the root cause of many currents of problems, so it is hard for me to come up with “just war” arguments. Also, the political and economic landscape is ultra-complex and so many things are tied together in dependent relationships that sorting through them and settling things “justly” may be impossible.

My simplistic view (i.e. my simplified analysis) is that I hope that the bellicose, radical Shia-style militant governing power in Iran is replaced or destroyed. And I do imagine that a new governing regime cooperative with the ruling, determining powers would come on the scene and would be ‘better’. Simply because I detest radical Islam. Not because I am in favor of the Israeli nut-jobs (which correspond in certain senses with Islamic extremists). And I must say (it is a sort of base patriotism) that I hope “my side” wins.

My view (likely simplistic as I say) is that it will amount to something positive if the US — by hook or by crook as the saying goes — gains ground in terms of control of resources (if one accepts the analysis that this is really what this is about). What I see taking place are giant world-level political and economic struggles of consequence. I did not create it, and it goes on independently of my will, my desire, or my idealism.

However, I am not at all certain that things will turn out as is wished (by the planners). There is far too much division in the US now, therefore little likelihood that the generality will get behind the “war aims” which are neo-imperialist by definition. It is probable that the citizenry do not grasp the underlying economics of the present dire situation the US is in. So much previous mismanagement and now: the consequences of that.

Don’t look to me Noble Englishman! as a partner in your righteous garglings. Your own country likely requires from you a level of attention and activism you cannot even define.

In the end: we are in a time of war. It is said to be forth and fifth generation warfare so unlike what we are familiar with and can under. As ‘philosophically-inclined’ we can get more mileage by analysis that is less partisan and more ‘realistic’.

[phyllo]

Not because I am in favor of the Israeli nut-jobs (which correspond in certain senses with Islamic extremists).

Are not Israeli policies very similar to what you espouse for Europeans/Americans?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Are not Israeli policies very similar to what you espouse for Europeans/Americans?

What is it that I ‘espouse’ for Americans?

Curious usage:

es·pouse (ĭ-spouz′)
tr.v. es·poused, es·pous·ing, es·pous·es
1. To adhere to or advocate: espoused a contrarian viewpoint.
2.
a. To take in marriage; marry.
b. To give (a woman) in marriage.

All of you, to a man, confuse the presentation of viewpoints and the consideration of viewpoints, as activism. Your intellectual efforts are not researches, they are an activity of deciding what political activism you will get behind.

[phyllo]

Your "presentation of viewpoints and consideration of viewpoints" does not appear to be without bias or preference.

[FlashDangerpants]

There are usually rules for what counts as a good enough excuse to go to war, as well as what counts as civilised conduct of said war. no case has been presented at all for the former, which is highly unusual in any functioning democracy.

My honest view is that at the most basic level the establishment of the state of Israel and its successive militarization that is the root cause of many currents of problems, so it is hard for me to come up with “just war” arguments. Also, the political and economic landscape is ultra-complex and so many things are tied together in dependent relationships that sorting through them and settling things “justly” may be impossible.

I suggest you should read Hobsbawm's Long 19th Century series and then you will better understand why it is all actually the fault of the French, and why you are too.

My simplistic view (i.e. my simplified analysis) is that I hope that the bellicose, radical Shia-style militant governing power in Iran is replaced or destroyed. And I do imagine that a new governing regime cooperative with the ruling, determining powers would come on the scene and would be ‘better’. Simply because I detest radical Islam. Not because I am in favor of the Israeli nut-jobs (which correspond in certain senses with Islamic extremists). And I must say (it is a sort of base patriotism) that I hope “my side” wins.

My view (likely simplistic as I say) is that it will amount to something positive if the US — by hook or by crook as the saying goes — gains ground in terms of control of resources (if one accepts the analysis that this is really what this is about). What I see taking place are giant world-level political and economic struggles of consequence. I did not create it, and it goes on independently of my will, my desire, or my idealism.

For all that pseudery you perform, you are really quite a basic bitch at heart aren't you? Resource nationalism, and international conquest for the sale of plundering territory are really quite silly ideas in the modern era.

You not only didn't learn from the long 19th century (the era spanning the French Revolution to WW1 during which modern themes of nationalism modernity progress capitalism and so on took shape, culminating in the tragedy that made so many of the new ideas begin to look outdated already) - but you also failed to learn from the 20th Century, in which the cost of maintaining an empire in order to acquire raw materials and captive markets rabidly became unsustainable and all the empires fell.

However, I am not at all certain that things will turn out as is wished (by the planners). There is far too much division in the US now, therefore little likelihood that the generality will get behind the “war aims” which are neo-imperialist by definition. It is probable that the citizenry do not grasp the underlying economics of the present dire situation the US is in. So much previous mismanagement and now: the consequences of that.

The US wasn't in a dire economic situation when Trump returned to office. He has I suppose rapidly created one, so kudos for that I guess.

Don’t look to me Noble Englishman! as a partner in your righteous garglings. Your own country likely requires from you a level of attention and activism you cannot even define.

In the end: we are in a time of war. It is said to be forth and fifth generation warfare so unlike what we are familiar with and can under. As ‘philosophically-inclined’ we can get more mileage by analysis that is less partisan and more ‘realistic’.

Silly conspiracy theories. We could easily have been in a time of relative peace right now if GW Bush and DJ Trump had lost their respective first elections.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I suggest you should read Hobsbawm's Long 19th Century series and then you will better understand why it is all actually the fault of the French, and why you are too.

I do not read Gay literature, Flash, and you know how I feel about the whole issue! Now dammit man, keep your kink in your own corner! Show some respect! You go in through the back door, I enter through the front. Accept it!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Resource nationalism, and international conquest for the sale of plundering territory are really quite silly ideas in the modern era.

I cannot say I do not have a dog in the race (speaking economically) and it may well be that things don’t turn out well.

but you also failed to learn from the 20th Century, in which the cost of maintaining an empire in order to acquire raw materials and captive markets rabidly became unsustainable and all the empires fell.

Oh, I think there are more factors at play now than you don’t take into consideration. But certainly the point you make is important to consider. I hope it turns out as ‘betterment’ but … it might not.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Silly conspiracy theories. We could easily have been in a time of relative peace right now if GW Bush and DJ Trump had lost their respective first elections.

Does that Divergent Universe exist, do you think? The one that split off when Hilary won? Reminds me of the first scene of Slacker.

[phyllo]

One cannot know what is on the path not taken

[Alexis Jacobi]

One cannot know what is on the path not taken

That may be true for you but — and in keeping with the theme of superstitions — I am a Seventh Son and have unusual talents, to say the least.

[phyllo]

You and IC.

And maybe a couple of other special people on this site.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, Gary calls it a "failure." But in a multi-party system, it has to be a feature, not a failure. In any multi-party democracy in which any of the parties get many votes at all, it's inevitable that the party with the most votes won't hold a majority overall. The other votes will be split between the second and third, or second, third and fourth, or whatever, depending on how many parties there are.

It is problem that can be solved by having ranked ballots or two stage elections with a run-off between the top two candidates if there is no majority winner in the first stage. It's already done in countries around the world.

That doesn't really solve the majority problem. It just means that more people are deprived of their REAL choice, and forced to choose between two people or parties they DIDN'T really want in the first place...hardly a solution.

[MikeNovack]

That doesn't really solve the majority problem. It just means that more people are deprived of their REAL choice, and forced to choose between two people or parties they DIDN'T really want in the first place...hardly a solution.

THAT problem is not solvable. There is little reason ton to suppose there would be majority support for anybody or anything IN ISOLATION.

Look, I consider democracy (when it is working) to be a form of social negotiation between interests, groups of people who want this or want that. With regard to what other such groupings want they may be opposed OR they may be indifferent. So if a group can find another group where they are mutually not opposed to what each group wants, they are in a position to mutually support each other. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours, kind of fundamental for us primates. When enough groups can come together on this basis, they can form a coalition able to get a majority behind what they each want. When this is not true, democracy tends to deadlock.

Democracy is not about us being able to get our real choice but our being ale to get the best compromise possible.