Democratic choice?

[Yorick]

The smoking thread provoked an interesting question in my mind.

How would you accept a democracy that voted to become a dictatorship? What if the will of the people was to no longer enact the will of the people?

Only 50% of Americans vote. Voter turnout in voluntary voting nations is at an all time low worldwide. Disenchantment with the status quo is rising.

What would you do, if your nation voted to end democracy?

If you believe in democracy, wouldn't you have to accept the will of the people?

Or would you take the line of "the people don't know"?

How would you respond?

[Dreamer128]

*shrugs* didn't the same thing happen in Nazi Germany?

Ok.. so Hitler sabotaged the voting process a little bit....

[Stratos]

I voted on #5 as I didn´t know what to vote. And that requires some explanation:

I value some peronal freedom and my "loyalties" are more to the well-being of the population than to a specific political idea or a means to run a country. I believe in democracy because it mostly gives people some freedom and safety, but on the other hand I don´t think of dictatorship as something innately evil it´s just another way to run a nation even if it´s not, IMHO, as flexible as a democracy.

Since I come from a country that have a long tradition of democracy and we´re not in some kind of national crisis it´s a bit hard to imagine my people to vote for a dictatorship but I suppose I would have to accept the people´s idea even if I would monitor the new goverment closely if possible. Dictatorships is good for giving security to a nation´s people but if you already have that it´s not that appealing.

When it´s comes to voting my nation have the same problem and it´s a problem for demoracy in it self. The right to vote is your right to make your voice heard. If no one votes we already have a sort of a dictatorship already since someone is always in power anyway and no one raises their voice against him so he have some degree of freedom to do as he plesases.

I didn't like any of the answers..I may not have understood what you ment with them....so I picked I don't care.

I would also argue that in a true democracy the people could pick that and those who didn't like it would have to just accept it. fortunately there has never in the history of man been a nation that was run as a true democracy [img]smile.gif[/img]

Heres a brain buster for you..if it were a true democracy and they were to vote on wether to become a dictatorship....do they have the right to make that descision for all time to come? what about the democratic rights of those who will come after them?

[Timber Loftis]

Well, since there have been no democracies other than village government by referrendum in ages, I'd say democracy is non-existent rather than a "farse."

In the USA (and the UK, and most first-world places), we have a Representative Republic with three branches. This checks-and-balances approach was to avoid tyranny. However, over the course of the last 100 years the executive branch of our government has seen exponential growth in its power, making it a juggernaut capable of steering the whole of the country.

Even given this, in order to switch to a pure tyranny/despotism/whatever, we would still need to see the legislature disband itself and/or vote all of its lawmaking power over to the executive, and ALSO see the court abdicate its jurisdiction (maybe -- but maybe not entirely necessary). Could this happen?

Well, it depends. If Senator Palpatine-Bush called for a vote of no confidence in Chancellor Vallorum-Lewinsky, which was upheld, there would be a need for a new, stronger Chancellor. Palpatine-Bush is a good choice, and given the state of galactic emergency, he could likely get the Galactic Senate to abdicate some form of limited marshall law. If Palpatine-Bush then were able to free the Galactic Republic from the shackles of fear of some of its problems, notably terrorism brought on by the rebellion in several systems, which may only grow as a result of Palpatine-Bush's rise to power (He IS unpopular in other sectors, you know), then our citizens would have extreme faith in him. By then maybe he would be strong enough to disband the Galactic Senate. At which time, who knows what WoMDs he may release on the fringe systems, including those in the Outer Rim (such as Alderan, which has been rumored to have rebel ties). It is rumored his lackey Rumsfeld-Vader is already looking into possible targets for "extreme deterrence" with some new sort of MOAR (Mother of All Ray-guns) that is in the works. Though, news reports that the MOAR is actually being built IN SPACE itself, as it is much too large to fit on a planet. Rice-Dooku apparently has knowledge and plans for the device, but unlike Rumsfeld-Vader, she has been smart enough not to mention it.

Oh, well.

[ 05-14-2003, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Originally posted by Dreamer128: *shrugs* didn't the same thing happen in Nazi Germany? Ok.. so Hitler sabotaged the voting process a little bit....

Thats sort of like calling Hurrican Andrew a "bit of a blow". Understatement be thy name

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Well, it depends. If Senator Palpatine-Bush called for a vote of no confidence in Chancellor Vallorum-Lewinsky, which was upheld, there would be a need for a new, stronger Chancellor. Palpatine-Bush is a good choice, and given the state of galactic emergency, he could likely get the Galactic Senate to abdicate some form of limited marshall law. If Palpatine-Bush then were able to free the Galactic Republic from the shackles of fear of some of its problems, notably terrorism brought on by the rebellion in several systems, which may only grow as a result of Palpatine-Bush's rise to power (He IS unpopular in other sectors, you know), then our citizens would have extreme faith in him. By then maybe he would be strong enough to disband the Galactic Senate. At which time, who knows what WoMDs he may release on the fringe systems, including those in the Outer Rim (such as Alderan, which has been rumored to have rebel ties). Oh, well.

Boy and you said I had a golum-ish side.....

[Yorick]

Originally posted by MagiK: if it were a true democracy and they were to vote on wether to become a dictatorship....do they have the right to make that descision for all time to come? what about the democratic rights of those who will come after them?

I was thinking the same thing.

[Yorick]

MagiK.... didn't the founding fathers of America do the same thing though? Didn't they make decisions that have affected the generations after them? Like the gun issue. Enshrined in the constitution long after the circumstances have changed.

What if those that voted on a dictatorship (communist, fascist or otherwise) were viewed as the "founding fathers" are?

Or, why should we hold the opinions of dead men generations ago as more important and valuable than people aliv e today?

Isn't it all the same principle?

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Yorick: Or, why should we hold the opinions of dead men generations ago as more important and valuable than people aliv e today?

1. They were smart enough to try to keep government simple.
2. They were learned orators, philosophers, and businessmen who put lots of thought before their action. If you want us to once again undertake the federalist papers style of public review, maybe I'll consider giving modern folks the same credit.
3. PR, TV spots, insta-commentary by Geraldo Rivera, and 90% of newspapers nationwide being owned by 2 mass media companies were not there to corrupt the process.
4. They had the wherewithall to pick up their guns and knives and overthrow the government they didn't like. If you are willing to join me and other like-minded folks in doing that today, just maybe we'd be deserving of the same credit they got. But so long as our will to power is limited to 80wpm at the keyboard, we are mere armchair quarterbacks.
5-500. Give me some time. I'll think of them.