The Fallacy of Democracy

[Satsukage]

Firstly, no one said that democracy is not a form of government; obviously democracy is capable of some level of competency, otherwise it would not exist (and would not be so passionately, albeit wrongly, defended by you all); what I said was that democracy was to accept mediocrity.

Once again, no government is perfect in any way or form, however some forms of government are better than others. A dictatorship would be mediocrity just as much as any government. If you put trust into one leader that is absolute, you risk the well being of your alliance upon one person's opinion. A democracy will incorporate most of the membership's opinion to make sure the leader does what the people want. Somebody also pointed out that you are able to change leaders in a democracy when you are unhappy with how his policies are run. with a dictatorship, you will need to go through hardship to overthrow the leader if he is not doing his job correctly. You cannot go around saying that a democracy is to accept mediocrity while your solution is in no way better than democracy in the form of mediocrity.

[Byron Orpheus]

Once again, no government is perfect in any way or form, however some forms of government are better than others. A dictatorship would be mediocrity just as much as any government. If you put trust into one leader that is absolute, you risk the well being of your alliance upon one person's opinion. A democracy will incorporate most of the membership's opinion to make sure the leader does what the people want. Somebody also pointed out that you are able to change leaders in a democracy when you are unhappy with how his policies are run. with a dictatorship, you will need to go through hardship to overthrow the leader if he is not doing his job correctly. You cannot go around saying that a democracy is to accept mediocrity while your solution is in no way better than democracy in the form of mediocrity.

Actually, it is quite better. As Bilrow himself pointed out, our nations are not usually forced into obedience, because as sovereign nations most alliances allow members to more or less freely come and go. Thus, the oppressed national leader is a product of his own willingness to be submissive, as opposed to the leader that submits to policies that her or she finds to be satisfactory. It is fallacious to assume that an alliance autocracy would be an oppressive dictatorship for that reason alone.

If your definition of "hardship" is changing alliance affiliation, then I am quite envious of your life.

[Lord Rune]

Again (and as usual) your logic fails, because you assume that the shortcomings of my own alliance imply that my logic is unsound; clearly government type alone does not make or break an alliance, and your repeated attempts to twist my words only serve to expose yourself as the silly has-been that you are; a shrieking, albeit ineffective, harpy of inanities that flies around shrilly and impotently, waiting only for someone with enough sympathy to put it down.

I listed off the GATO leaders because LordRune seemed deeply offended that I had not included a spreadsheet of democractic failings, and I felt it would be a pleasant consolation prize to provide him with examples with which he would be familiar, rather than spouting off a chain of names I could very well be making up.

I wasn't offended, have no concerns on that score.

You appeared reluctant to provide examples of how democracy is less desirable than authoritarianism. The examples you gave, I suggest, could have occurred in any kind of alliance. You haven't explained how they are limited purely to a democratic alliance. I don't see them as failings of a democracy, rather a failing of the individuals involved.

[Poobah]

It doesn't matter whether it is autocratic, democratic, anything, so long as you have an active and committed membership.

Edited November 21, 2009 by Poobah

[Eamon Valda]

The problem with this work is that it is a highly emotional appeal, lacking real argumentive substance, which proceeds to go on a rampage in rather intricate terms about the failure of democracy. Ignoring the actual style of the work (for, whilst it's good to be able to make antagonistic, angry-worded statements, they don't necessarily prove anything) I think it suffers from some usually maladies of democratic evaluation.

Firstly, this piece does not even answer the fundamental question of 'what is a democracy?' It is difficult to imagine how to criticise a certain system of politics if you don't even understand what that description encompasses. The truth is that democracy, at root, only meaning 'rule of the people', can be independent of many different economic or law regimes (OOC: i.e.) Communist states consider themselves 'true democracies'; some Asian states have democracy but not liberalism or Western rule of law). This point sounds unessential on the surface, but consider, then, the wide scope of alliances we bring into perspective -- alliances with vastly different ideological standpoints and operations (for example, this definition would include my alliance, Nordreich, and one like the Libertarian Socialist Federation - complete opposites). Moreover, the institutions an alliance uses and the functional requirements presented within itself will form a different type of democracy.

Assuming your criticism is mounted against democratic alliances using large-scale elections, it seems that your damning criticism stems from the elimination of powers from the state apparatus to the people on an alliance. This is an age-old question of who is fit to lead a political system, and I don't care to bring this debate any here since there is no immediately clear answer. Even if we assume the state is the optimal leader with efficient operation, how can we assume the ones who operate it are also the optimal for its use or if this system, too, cannot be improved? Measuring the difference between a large democracy and a purely (arguably) bureaucratical alliance would not only be difficult, due to so many extenuating circumstances, but not useful for drawing objective conclusions.

Finally, the reasons you cite for the inefficiencies of democracy not only failed to be back up by statistical evidence, but may not necessarily be inefficient. Even if we assume that a democracy has innate delays due to the high number of veto points available to the people, perhaps such oversight, given a well-educated public, could be beneficial because it allows clear-headed decisions; decisions which represent the will of the alliance members and not singular agendas. Arguably, this is more a philosophical debate and not one of political ability. Still, it is useful to realise that the number of checks and power-sharing in a democracy (or, in this type of democracy) reduces corruption and increases accountability. Withotu these things, alliances may go unchecked and be ruthlessly lead (some great historical examples: Prodigal Chieftan, NoWedge). Again, this is just to outline the opposite possibility to your statements.

These arguments in no way represent all the possibilities for faults within your work, but I think it's important you start by reevaluating what you have said, removing the hated-charged language, and attempt a reasonable analysis using evidence and logic or else you prove nothing but to support those whom you seem to hold much hate to.

[Byron Orpheus]

The problem with this work is that it is a highly emotional appeal, lacking real argumentive substance, which proceeds to go on a rampage in rather intricate terms about the failure of democracy. Ignoring the actual style of the work (for, whilst it's good to be able to make antagonistic, angry-worded statements, they don't necessarily prove anything) I think it suffers from some usually maladies of democratic evaluation.

Firstly, this piece does not even answer the fundamental question of 'what is a democracy?' It is difficult to imagine how to criticise a certain system of politics if you don't even understand what that description encompasses. The truth is that democracy, at root, only meaning 'rule of the people', can be independent of many different economic or law regimes (OOC: i.e.) Communist states consider themselves 'true democracies'; some Asian states have democracy but not liberalism or Western rule of law). This point sounds unessential on the surface, but consider, then, the wide scope of alliances we bring into perspective -- alliances with vastly different ideological standpoints and operations (for example, this definition would include my alliance, Nordreich, and one like the Libertarian Socialist Federation - complete opposites). Moreover, the institutions an alliance uses and the functional requirements presented within itself will form a different type of democracy.

Assuming your criticism is mounted against democratic alliances using large-scale elections, it seems that your damning criticism stems from the elimination of powers from the state apparatus to the people on an alliance. This is an age-old question of who is fit to lead a political system, and I don't care to bring this debate any here since there is no immediately clear answer. Even if we assume the state is the optimal leader with efficient operation, how can we assume the ones who operate it are also the optimal for its use or if this system, too, cannot be improved? Measuring the difference between a large democracy and a purely (arguably) bureaucratical alliance would not only be difficult, due to so many extenuating circumstances, but not useful for drawing objective conclusions.

Finally, the reasons you cite for the inefficiencies of democracy not only failed to be back up by statistical evidence, but may not necessarily be inefficient. Even if we assume that a democracy has innate delays due to the high number of veto points available to the people, perhaps such oversight, given a well-educated public, could be beneficial because it allows clear-headed decisions; decisions which represent the will of the alliance members and not singular agendas. Arguably, this is more a philosophical debate and not one of political ability. Still, it is useful to realise that the number of checks and power-sharing in a democracy (or, in this type of democracy) reduces corruption and increases accountability. Withotu these things, alliances may go unchecked and be ruthlessly lead (some great historical examples: Prodigal Chieftan, NoWedge). Again, this is just to outline the opposite possibility to your statements.

These arguments in no way represent all the possibilities for faults within your work, but I think it's important you start by reevaluating what you have said, removing the hated-charged language, and attempt a reasonable analysis using evidence and logic or else you prove nothing but to support those whom you seem to hold much hate to.

You are right that I should have been more specific in my definition, but I am quite pleased by the definition you provided; that is, a government that is primarily run by an electorate (whether that is the highly inefficient "communist" method of running an alliance or the more efficient representative rule) rather than through the actions of a few or one leader. Autocracy, too, can be a system of government that includes checks and balances; an alliance charter, for instance, with unamendable powers given to the autocrat can serve as a way of preventing the development of an oppressive dictatorship. Insofar as a leader such as Prodigal Chieftan is concerned, I will once again offer that, when an alliance is subject to the whims of a less-than-desirable leader, it is the duty of the members to act accordingly and make adjustments (the coup of PC and the subsequent implementation of a triumvirate comes to mind); the purpose of my post was not to suggest that autocracy is without problems, but rather that these problems can be fairly easily and swiftly addressed if there are sufficient grievances to warrant action, whereas an elected government's flaws can be much more readily buried than those of a non-elected government, simply because there will always be elements of a democracy working to undermine the overall success of the alliance that are not quite extreme enough to bring themselves to the attention of the people at large. Furthermore, the idea that democracies can benefit from the combined input of the members operates under the assumption that the common membership has a firm grasp of what is best for the alliance, rather than what is popular amongst the membership or what appeals to them through the rhetoric of the elected officials. While it is true that elections allow for a certain amount of accountability for the elected to their populace, in the end the elected official's number one priority is to remain in office, which ends up being a self-serving role rather than a role that (I agree, at least in theory) obstensibly is to serve the public.

My "antagonistic" comments, then, are not so much concerned with the theory of democracy (which I believe I have established as basically losing any of the reasons for its existence when applied to Planet Bob), but rather its implementation.

[kpcurley]

To the OP: Next time, write a statement of true rhetorical prose. I found my self losing interest fast because of the wordy sentences that seemed to lack a cohesive pull towards the thesis.

In other words. tl;dr

[DerPrinz]

Orpheus, in almost every post you make on this thread attacks the quality of leadership in either system, when talking about autocracies, you assume that the leader is infallible and perfect, whereas you assume democratic leaders are manipulative and power hungry. I thought this was an examination of the SYSTEM, not the quality of who leads it.

[Lord Rune]

whereas an elected government's flaws can be much more readily buried than those of a non-elected government, simply because there will always be elements of a democracy working to undermine the overall success of the alliance

I'd have thought that the flaws of an unelected government can be more easily hidden, because their members are accountable only to themselves.

Despite your examples, none of which came from alliances other than mine own, I do not understand why you assume that members of a democracy are out to sabotage the well being of their alliance, whereas the members of an authoritarian alliance are working for its betterment.

As you only provided examples from GATO, does that mean you cannot find examples from other democracies? If you cited GATO so as to provide me with "a pleasant consolation prize", you must other examples in mind.

[ModusOperandi]

Time to put money where your mouth is.

Orpheus, let's look at the history of longevity for every alliance who has ever claimed sanction; my gut tells me that democratic alliances have predominated while authoritarian ones like you have proposed have not.

What does that tell you?

Out of the tens of thousands of nations that have inhabited Bob, you believe that you alone have the recipe for success?

Tens of thousands.

---------------------

One individual.

I'll place my bet on the collective experience of tens of thousands.

I've seen your idea implemented many times before and it almost always ends the same way; a coup, disbandment or stagnant.

[Doitzel]

clearly government type alone does not make or break an alliance

Clearly, as that beacon of failed democracy on brown is doing better than your terminally-autocratic government. I'm glad you realise that the success (perceived or otherwise) of an alliance has very little to do with what type of government it has and that prettymuch everything you've said is horsecrap.

[Kzoppistan]

Orpheus I think you need to look at Eamon Valda's post again. He brought up a number of points that, regardless of the differences our respective opinions, would help you state your case more persuasively. In your reply to his post you tried to argue your case again without even addressing the overall content of what he was saying.

First:

1. Go easier on the emotionally laden language. Even an amateur of analytical thought or debate can detect the intention to sway the reader by invoking colorful language and will easily disregard it in favor of looking at the logic put forth. As much as I love the intricacies of the English language, and all the ways it flows from the tongue, being too wordy turns people off. Also, though you haven't done this too much, I'll add it here, over-intellectualizing your speech does not impress. In fact, even as a lover of language, some of the truest things I have ever read have been written rather simply.

2. You need more facts. Being truly persuasive is a combination of rhetoric, which you have a good start with, and assembling compelling data, of which you have provided little to none. You've made some generalizations but that is about it.

3. You ability to debate is limited. Admittedly you were rather swamped by others with a different opinion, but you should provide more structure to your rebuttals and address each point. Cherry picking only the points you can refute actually undermines your argument.

In short, you need to approach the issue not only as an orator, but as a debater and scientist.

I love political discussions but after 6 pages of this, I am incredibly bored.

The tone that you've taken, that somehow you have more knowledge of how alliances work (without any actual scientifically styled investigation reports on how you came into possession of this knowledge) comes across as arrogant when paired with your desire to "enlighten" the "masses". The only thing I've come away with after all your blah blah, is that you are an elitist with a highly idealized form of how an alliance should work.

In some ways, we are similar. My personal belief is that if everyone just did what I told them to, the world would be much better off. (In fact, I was going to suggest that since you seem to enjoy such a high degree of centralized command and investment of authority into a head figure, you should submit your nation to me. It will be in good hands.)

I certainly agree that if more people could place the state (group, alliance, whatever) as their primary concern, that it would make a powerful machine, indeed.

However, life is not quite that simple, people have autonomy and a lot aspire to be more than just cogs. They also want a voice and the power to have that voice heard. Some of the most powerful and skilled people have that same desire, so if you want to utilize the talents of the best, you have to design a system that takes that into account.

Edited November 22, 2009 by Kzoppistan

[Byron Orpheus]

Time to put money where your mouth is.

Orpheus, let's look at the history of longevity for every alliance who has ever claimed sanction; my gut tells me that democratic alliances have predominated while authoritarian ones like you have proposed have not.

What does that tell you?

Out of the tens of thousands of nations that have inhabited Bob, you believe that you alone have the recipe for success?

Tens of thousands.

---------------------

One individual.

I'll place my bet on the collective experience of tens of thousands.

I've seen your idea implemented many times before and it almost always ends the same way; a coup, disbandment or stagnant.

Yes, because clearly I invented autocracy, so it is just the idea that I am asserting over the will of the "tens of thousands". I also hate to tell you this, MO, but as it turns out "coup, disbandment, or stagna[tion]" are the possible fates for any alliance; in other words, all alliances end in such a way.

Clearly, as that beacon of failed democracy on brown is doing better than your terminally-autocratic government. I'm glad you realise that the success (perceived or otherwise) of an alliance has very little to do with what type of government it has and that prettymuch everything you've said is horsecrap.

You are still here? It is remarkable how much I must reiterate that I do not care what you say about my alliance; my alliance neither validates nor invalidates any of my beliefs, nor am I so emotionally connected to it that you can hurt me with the same tired old GGA barbs that you must have only recently discovered (or at least it would appear so, given your need to toss them around as if they were brand new). I felt that some progress had been made, since you finally gave up on representing yourself as a modern-day Oscar Wilde (at least realizing that you have neither the wit nor the fame to have anyone seriously give your words any attention, much less find them to be inspired), but it seems that you are unfortunately still under the impression that you are Admin's gift to Bob. Ultimately, I believe, it is my failure; my failure as your educator, trying so hard to teach you how utterly insignificant and tedious you truly are, to convince you of the truth. I apologize and promise to redouble my efforts, in the hopes that there is a way to save you from the mindless abyss of your own ego. First lesson: there is nothing you can do to me; you cannot taunt me enough to make me go away, you cannot pick apart my posts with aged insults and "witty" banter until I disappear; I do not care about infrastructure, economy, or anything numerical insofar as my own nation is concerned, so you'll have little luck driving me away through violence; you are, unfortunately enough for you, going to have accept the fact that I find you in no way, shape, or form intimidating, and that any time I address you it is more for my own personal amusement, the sort of amusement one gets from breaking old bottles, than to respond to any of your anorexic arguments.

@Kzoppistant: It seems that you, like many of the others, are operating under the assumption that autocracy is synonymous with voiceless oppression; in addition, it is difficult for my government to be highly idealized, considering that I never laid out any plan for a government structure. My argument was and is that autocracy is more efficient than democracy, not that it is perfect or without problems. Insofar as my argument is concerned, as you said I have been somewhat overwhelmed by unfavorable response, and it would take much too much time to address everyone's points (though I have tried when possible); I will admit that I have been lacking in concrete data, mostly because I was focusing on the ideas themselves, and pointing out that the reasons democracy (or republics, for the nit-pickers) are utilized are irrelevant here on Planet Bob.

[Vilien]

Verbal diarrhea

I liked the part where you told Doitzel that he was the one making meaningless posts that no one pays attention to.

[Iosif]

I find it funny how people rallying against the decandence and cancer that is democracy always think they themselves belong to the clique of intelligentsija who should run the crap.

[Kzoppistan]

@Kzoppistant: It seems that you, like many of the others, are operating under the assumption that autocracy is synonymous with voiceless oppression;

Yes, it may seem that way, but with only a few posts, a stance can be easily misunderstood. Like others, and yourself, have said there are many variations of command structure. I believe that an autocratic one does not necessarily mean it is oppressive. I'm sure many people are happy submitting to the plans put in place by a autocratic government. Even a democracy can be oppressive in the case of 'tyranny of the majority.'

I will clarify my stance: You said an autocratic government is better, and I disagree, instead I think that there is no structure that is in the long view of things better than another and that is a matter of preference in regards to the level of input a member wishes to have in the direction of the alliance. Personally, I feel that the success of an alliance actually has little to do with what kind of government is in place but rather how well that government is run.

My argument was and is that autocracy is more efficient than democracy, not that it is perfect or without problems.

Efficient in what way? If you mean the speed at which a decision can be made, you may be correct depending on who is making the decision, but speed does not necessarily equal efficiency.

Efficient could also mean that the plans decided on are fully embraced and backed by the people, thus creating a stronger will to organize and implement them, more so than the amount of time it took to get to the end of the decision making process.

Also, is efficiency the holy grail of attributes? Or is it group cohesion? Even if the most skilled autocratic government can make decisions efficiently, if the membership count is low because people won't join or stay, preferring to have their voices count, then the alliance's power is greatly diminished. Even an autocratic government must satisfy, to some degree, the wants of the membership or it won't stay cohesive for long.

To insist that one type of structure is the best due to one attribute, in this case efficiency, ignores the wide variety of alliances that been around for a long time, some of which are not very efficient but never the less are powerful and enduring.

In conclusion, I'll say that I advocate some degree of democratic principles because that is what I personally enjoy and would like others to have that experience too. I like that in Zenith my opinion is guaranteed by right of vote to have at least as equal weight as the other members. Since my experience in Zenith has been particularly enjoyable, I attribute that in part to the right to help pilot the direction of the alliance that is assured to me by the charter.

Edited November 22, 2009 by Kzoppistan

[Satsukage]

Actually, it is quite better. As Bilrow himself pointed out, our nations are not usually forced into obedience, because as sovereign nations most alliances allow members to more or less freely come and go. Thus, the oppressed national leader is a product of his own willingness to be submissive, as opposed to the leader that submits to policies that her or she finds to be satisfactory. It is fallacious to assume that an alliance autocracy would be an oppressive dictatorship for that reason alone.

If your definition of "hardship" is changing alliance affiliation, then I am quite envious of your life.

If you have been in an alliance for quite some time and have been working in the government as well, I don't think you'd want to simply bail out. I would instead work to get the problems fixed rather than run away from your duties, and that does include the membership, not only the government, but that is besides the point.

As Bilrow himself pointed out, our nations are not usually forced into obedience, because as sovereign nations most alliances allow members to more or less freely come and go

That is an evasion to the point trying to be made. What you said there doesn't make a dictatorship any better than a democracy. Any government would allow members to leave freely. We are talking about policy making and how leaders' decisions affect an alliance, not how an alliance let's members leave freely. Would you like to try again in disproving my point?

[ModusOperandi]

Yes, because clearly I invented autocracy, so it is just the idea that I am asserting over the will of the "tens of thousands". I also hate to tell you this, MO, but as it turns out "coup, disbandment, or stagna[tion]" are the possible fates for any alliance; in other words, all alliances end in such a way.

What has that to do with anything I said? Who blamed you for inventing autocracy?

The state needs a healthy balance of both.

The challenge stands.

I will personally accept those findings as the conclusion of this debate, even if they end up being in your favor.

Thank you for caring more about my spelling than myself.

[Byron Orpheus]

Thank you for caring more about my spelling than myself.

I was not correcting your spelling, I was adding brackets to show how I changed your original quote to make it grammatically correct in the context in which I was using it. No offense was intended.

[ModusOperandi]

I was not correcting your spelling, I was adding brackets to show how I changed your original quote to make it grammatically correct in the context in which I was using it. No offense was intended.

lol, okay; no worries, just a misunderstanding on my part

[Ar Pharazon]

TC, I'm not going to pretend that I've read your post other than a few choice sentences and words, but if you're a Classical Liberal of the Von Mises breed, I can defiantly sympathize with your sentiment.