Democracy - a good system?

yes dictatorship would only work with some checks and balances but i would still be better than the democracy in the US

 

A carefully worked constitutional dictatorship may indeed be workable, you would have to have some very rigourous checks and balances in place, but even then a steady slide to one end or other of the spectrum would be inevitable (Either the dicatator assuming more and more titles and roles (Much as Hitler did), or parliament gradually eroding more and more of the dicatator's power).

I personally would not like to live in the nation that tried this experiment though.

For what it's worth I'll just say that I think genuine democracy is taken for granted among the populations of those nations that possess it, however I do believe that genuine democracy is an illusion in many cases. Taking my own country, Britain, as an example we should have complete freedom to choose our own government however I believe that in reality this does not happen since over at least the last 25 years the population's choice of government has absolutely matched the whims of the tabloid papers.

How much of this is the papers dictating the mood of the population and how much is the papers reflecting the mood of the population depends largely on how cynical you are I guess but for me I think the former.

 

I would not want a dictator. Look at the countries with dictators and how they turn out nowadays. Whether it be Gaddafi (sp?), Kim (north korea), saddam, castro, or anyone else.

 

A dictatorship within a Republic has existed before, it is nothing new. Rome had dictators that were appointed.

The problem is that dictators usually want to take on even more power. Such was the case with Julius Caesar and he was cast down.

To further complicate the issue, Rome had allowed individual citizens to create and fund armies for protection of the State. Once this happens, the soldiers loyaly is to his leader, his paycheck if you will, and no longer to the State.

Once Augustus Caesar took power, the Republic was dead.

:smok:

 

yea but these men started in a goverment that does not contain the rigoruos checks and balances that do exist in other countries.

i am not saying i would want to live in a full dictatorship but i do think that to many democracies is that the house or parliment and that the figure heads idea are lost among the conflicting ideas of the house

 

There is an old, and very true, saying: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Any dictator who wants total power badly enough can, and will, find ways around any checks and balances put up to limit their power. History has proven this time and again.

 

The only way to steadily have a dictator but actually have one would be anarchy. Every few years, the dictator would make a power grab, and a group would have to take him out and get a new leader. Nothing would ever get done.

 

Democracy works

Democracy works (mostly) because it limits the account of damage any one person can inflict.

 

ru saying that people like bush, nixon, and truman cuased little problems for thje american people

 

Never heard Truman being lumped with Nixon (or Bush) before!
I think what is being said is that the U.S. system limits how much damage any one president can do, no matter how bad he is.

 

Yep, I agree. That is a good explanation for why democracy works. But the impeachment process to stop the president from doing too much wrong moves too slowly. It takes weeks of deliberation.

And Truman with Nixon and Bush?! Please explain, 101.

 

Yes, after all Truman positively gutted the most powerful military on the face of the earth, so that 4 1/2 years later it had to pull tanks down from statue stands and send them to Korea without machine guns to fight a B grade army. Even Clinton didn't go that far.

 

i didn't mean to put truman in there sorry i just had the name in mind while i was typing

 

After heavy casualties in WWII, and 4 1/2 years of (relative) peace, how many people really wanted Truman to maintain a massive army? People thought that peace would reign for years, and at this time Communism was not the hated thing it would become.

 

i know what is being said and i disagree i think that the president can cause a lot of problems without the consent i mean as long as he dosn't declare war he can move troops for ninety days wherever he please and that can cause a great amount of damage damage

yes they do have a lot of checks and balances to governer over the president but not enough to where the house has more power as a democracy should be set up

 

Why should the House (or the Senate, for that matter) have more power than the President? The Federal government was set up so that all three branches had the same amount of power, thus preventing any one branch from gaining too much power. Leaving it like that is the best thing to do.

 

It also limits the amount of good any one person can achieve!

Long-term good, anyway.

But, as dear old Winston said:
"Democracy is the worst form of Government, apart from all the rest."

 

there are a lot more people in the house and they get the peoples thaughts across much better. if the president is elected by a small majority then the views of the president would only be welcomed by the people that electes him and not eveyone does not agree

 

Well, 101, not to put too fine a point on it, even if the President is elected by a landslide, there are going to be quite a few people who don't agree with him. Unanimity in any government or society is impossible.

 

its seems to me that you are misreading the comment

i see his point as bieng that becuase the president does not win by a landslide there is no reason that he should have so much power the the peoples house should have more power