Is a constitution undemocratic? Is it needed to protect minority rights?
In England we don't have a written constitution, and parliament, elected by the people of our country, is supreme. In the USA there is a written constitution, that takes precedence over the laws that can be created by the people's representatives (unless it has huge support?).
Is this undemocratic? Can this be justified in that it protects people and actions that are unpopular?
Is this undemocratic? Can this be justified in that it protects people and actions that are unpopular?
Comments (62)
Democracy is government by the governed. There are lots of different ways this can be configured and still fall within the meaning of the word.
Quoting T Clark
Yes, I didn't mean completely undemocratic. Clearly the people's will is restricted by a constitution.
Quoting tim wood
I doesn't seem right to call it the people's will when the people can rarely control it.
Quoting tim wood
Direct democracy would be as pure as you could get, but failing this a parliament where your elected representatives can act on the people's behalf, without restriction.
Quoting tim wood
Interesting. So would people be expected to follow the law even if it violated constitutional rights? And would they be protected from being liable for damages as a result?
Direct democracy would be a disaster. In New England we have a tradition of Town Meetings, which act as the legislature for towns. They meet once or twice a year. It's a very clunky system, although it works ok on a small scale. Are you suggesting that people would vote on federal and state legislation from their homes? Or are you only talking about the presidential elections?
Good government requires quite a bit of friction to slow things down. In the US, that has gotten out of hand, but the principle is sound. The direct democracy option would just move the chaos that's found on the internet even deeper into our political system.
Quoting T Clark
I had directly voting for legislation in mind, but directly voting for our leaders/representatives would be less controversial. I understand the 2016 presidential election demonstrated how undemocratic the process can be. Didn't the loser have the most votes?
I don't know anything about election of lawmakers on the other side of the pond, but here in the UK we risk wasting our vote on our party of choice when our vote has much more power when made for the main parties, due to the First Past The Post system. Whereas in a Proportional Representation system all votes would have equal power.
The primary argument against direct democracy in the creation of law is that the law would be changing with the wind, and this would be unsustainable. I'm sure this could be fixed by, for example, limiting the amount of times a question is directly put to the electorate. Anyway, I'm not opposed to giving up some democracy in the interests of a system that works smoothly or protection for minorities.
Quoting tim wood
It was only the other day I heard about the Texas Heartbeat Act. Looks like legal challenges are pending, but apparently the Supreme Court is more pro-life following Trump becoming president.
Having things to be little harder to change than just getting a simply majority (50%) is a good thing. Having written constitutions are good, but then again if you have a solid institutions in your democracy, it isn't so crucial.
On the other hand, you can have the all the legal trappings of a democracy, a Constitution, elections and a legal system, but if they aren't upheld, nothing matters.
Take the example of Liberia. It declared it's independence in 1847 and had basically 1-to-1 the Constitution of the US. But in reality power was with the small minority of those who were descendants of those freed slaves. And the democracy in the country was questionable. Then just one day in 1980 seventeen non-commissioned officers lead by a sergeant major walked to the Presidential Residence and shot the President and took power. Then he later staged fraudulent elections and was for ten years a dictator, which afterward lead to one of the nastiest civil wars Africa has seen with things like cannibalism and roaming child soldiers and overall anarchy.
It is necessary, because as history has proven, it is entirely possible for majorities to democratically come to actions which are contrary to what we have come to see as unalienable human rights.
The minority must have some protection from "the tyranny of the majority", especially when that majority behaves in malevolent ways. Never forget that the national-socialist party in 1930's Germany was democratically elected.
It's kinda like firewalking. Minimize the duration of contact to a few brief seconds and you emerge safely on the other side (democracy) but stay in contact with the flames for more than that and you get 3rd degree burns (totalitarianism).
A written constitution vs an unwritten constitution. What's difference between a rule book that can be amended as when it's appropriate and no rule book at all. None!
I agree. The UK government's new police bill would make protest that causes "serious annoyance" illegal. I'm sure the US First Amendment wouldn't stand for that.
Again, that would be a disaster. How would laws be developed? Who would write them? Initiative petition or referendum? If it was run like Massachusetts, a petition by fewer than 3 million people would put a law on the ballot. What about all the daily, tedious, keep the machinery running laws? Who would deal with those? Bad, bad, bad idea.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
That doesn't make it undemocratic, no matter what the Democratic cry babies would have you believe. I'm a registered Democrat by the way. Democracy doesn't have to be perfect majority rules. The electoral college is a clunky piece of machinery. I'm on the fence whether it should be abandoned or not. One thing it would do, for better or worse, is force almost all campaigning into just a few states. I'm not sure if that would be a good thing or not.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Yes, it would be.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Again, a system that is not pure majority rule is not necessarily undemocratic. If you think majority rule will help protect minorities, you are way off. We could outlaw Islam with nothing to stop us. Did I mention it was a bad, bad, bad idea.
Exactly! Any country with a functioning political (procedural) democracy but without a corresponding functioning economic (substantive) democracy is not sufficiently democratic (i.e. controlled by the majority of stakeholders (citizens)). Whether or not a country has a "written constitution" isn't determinative either way (e.g. Russia has a "written constitution", Israel, like Britain, operates with an "unwritten constitution" – both claim to be democratic). Scandanavian / Nordic countries seem to come closest to substantive democracies, but maybe that's only the "grass is greener" effect. Neither the UK nor US, as we know, are substantively democratic.
When asked what kind of national government was created during the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin replied "A republic, if you can keep it." Consensus among legal historians and political scientists is that the USA is a constitutional republic and not a democracy.
It's not just the Bill of Rights that limits the power of the majority, but it's the entire structure of the document itself, particularly with the upper and lower houses, the division of votes by state and district, the executive powers and limitations, and the role of the courts. The document is designed to limit government power generally, which is why traditionalists typically argue ideologically in favor of limited government in all regard.
The US system does place ultimate authority in the voter, so that does make it democratic, but the control of the masses is fairly tight.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Quoting T Clark
The bills could still be drafted by professional politicians, and the questions then put to the electorate electronically. The same question is not to be put before the electorate again within x years unless the legislature votes that it should be, or in the alternative upon a supermajority of the electorate.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Quoting T Clark
Whether there is good reason to have the electoral college voting system is another question. It is clearly undemocratic to appoint a president when the majority voted for his opponent.
Quoting T Clark
It's a matter of degree of democracy. The more persons that have choice over their ruler, and the laws that govern them, the more democracy. However, I'm no cheerleader for democracy. I think it is detrimental to the rights of minorities, and the US constitution helps protect these minority rights from the mob.
Yes, another question, apart from the sustainability of direct democracy, is if the people would make better laws than those they elect. It may be that the people, voting anonymously and without accountability, would be more likely to make risky, dangerous and vicious decisions.
Quoting 180 Proof
If we forget about the fact that the monarch has to sign off for a bill to become a law (called Royal Assent) :grimace: the UK parliament is supreme. "Parliament is supreme" is a common phrase in legal books and judgements, and law passed in parliament takes precedence over judgments of the courts, and the wishes of the government.
Quoting 180 Proof
I've tried to stay away from US politics as I have enough trouble staying up to date on UK politics, but it's too interesting (and entertaining too). Maybe there is some "grass is greener" effect, but I do wish we had a US style constitution to protect our minorities.
-"Is this undemocratic? Can this be justified in that it protects people and actions that are unpopular? "
-No, if we mean the same thing with the word democracy.
A constitution is "a set of rules" that protect peoples rights. Democracy is essentially a right which is "protected" by the constitution....but ignored by the undemocratic political systems.
I say it would be a disaster. You disagree. Let's leave it at that.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
As I noted, that fact that a system is not strictly majority rule does not mean it is not democratic.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
I disagree.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
I am.
Senate in USA.
These bodies seem to be relics of the past. Back when democracy was born (508 BC, Cleisthenes) the population of Athens was small, plus only a certain section of the citizenry were enfranchised. In a sense every person had a say in government.
When democracy returned to the political scene - after our experiment with monarchy apparently failed - there were just too many people and to get every person involved in all decisions of a country was nigh impossible. Hence, parliaments and senates were created (representative/indirect democracy) to overcome that obstacle to rule by the people - a one time general election was affordable & doable but putting all national issues to vote by all the people, referendum-like, was not.
Much has changed since then. This is the electronic age, everyone has a cellphone these days. We need to return to the original, direct democracy. It's feasible now - I've seen people vote for their favorite American Idol using nothing but their cellphone's messaging app. Indirect/representative democracy's days are over, it was simply an interim measure that had to be adopted because of practical limitations (no easy way all the people could vote on issues back before we had cellphones).
Who does a constitution serve? The people - protects their freedom and enables their pursuit of happiness. Once direct democracy is reestablished. the constitution becomes more of burden - extra time & energy will be needed for the steps a country has to make/take in order for their votes to do what they're supposed to do viz. steer the nation towards the achievement of wholesome goals.
Sure. Laws are "rules" designed to inform people of "unaccepted" behavior and communicate the implications for those who "decide" to ignore them.
So in every aspect of our lives we have rules that we need to follow (either in the form of laws, policies or directions).
Now if we look how private sectors work we see that companies "force" specific rules and limit the fluctuations in human behavior by technology.
i.e. In Airline industry we have been reducing the rules people need to "obey" by removing the "freedom" to cut corners or make an honest mistake. We do that by installing
In Northern Europe's countries our "technologies" in social organization have been reducing unwanted behavior (steeling, scamming etc) for years!
Our "rules" ask people to be polite enough to follow them. Those in distress or speculators or powerful enough will always ignore in the absence of a technological "guard".
-"The bills could still be drafted by professional politicians, and the questions then put to the electorate electronically."
-Politics is a 2300 years old philosophical solution that we insist on using to address advanced problems of modern societies. Its like having dentists still using chisels and hammers...
Social organization of populations and their economies are Technical problems and they need technical solutions...not "philosophical".
In order to design those technical solutions we first need to understand the real problems set clear goals , record and manage our resources and more crucially understanding human behavior and psychology.
The execution of this task is NOT a Philosophical affair but a Scientific one!
ITs sad to see people unable to grasp this dissonance in our modern societies.
We use science to solve every single problem...but for a weird reason....philosophy is the tool for organizing complex organisms in an fluctuating open economical system (our environment)????
Einstein said something on stupidity and repeatability....
-"When democracy returned to the political scene - after our experiment with monarchy apparently failed - there were just too many people and to get every person involved in all decisions of a country was nigh impossible. "
-You are partly right. First of all democracy never returned after the fall of Athens city state. Electing representatives is not what democracy was or what it represents. Secondly monarchy came before democracy and BOTH FAILED.
But you are right we are to many people(and ignorant) for a democratic system to be applied and to function.
My objection is why are we so in to democracy when our most successful tool to solve problems (science) is far from a democratic process! We don't allow people without objective evidence to have a "word" in our epistemology.
So we don't really need democracy or any other political(or economical system) to solve the problems in organizing functioning societies!
We only need Philosophy (Ethics) to define the goals a human society should serve (constitution) and scientific type of methodologies to design our solutions!
A scientific "dictatorship" should be all we need AS LONG as our "constitution" is based on moral foundations serving current and future human populations!
That is not difficult...I think the American constitution is almost there!
With a scientific "dictatorship" we will remove fallible,corruptible and biased humans from decision making positions and we will leave the data (like in science) to point to the best available solution based on our current facts and strive systematically and objectively towards those goals.
Again I find it silly to see people trapped in a "philosophical box" of politics and economics and not figuring out why those "tools" don't work. Those are 2000 years old tools designed on Philosophical ideologies...not Solutions designed on true knowledge and they are not applied in their full potential due to personal interests(politics).
Humanity's problems are Technical....not philosophical.
We know what we have to provide to a population in order to affect their behavior for the better and what do for not destroying the ecosystem and depleting our resources.
Human behavior is affected by its environment. Change the environment and you change behavior. Change the environment in a way that promotes positive behavior and you don't need "philosophical" excuses on why capitalism or communism or socialism or democracy are "good for us" while some people are victims of the systems and other more lucky become victims of the former's revengeful behavior.
-"These bodies seem to be relics of the past. Back when democracy was born (508 BC, Cleisthenes) the population of Athens was small, plus only a certain section of the citizenry were enfranchised. In a sense every person had a say in government."
-Correct, the Athenian democracy had the purest in relation to the section of the population that had the right to participate!
Our modern democracies may allow a bigger part of the population to "participate"....but they never really do since we have the oxymoron "technicality" to use "representatives"!
Representatives of a different class will never represent your class or its interests....and the struggle within all societies was always among classes and keeping in check the competition within the upper class.
-"As I noted, that fact that a system is not strictly majority rule does not mean it is not democratic."
-Well by definition ?????=demo=commune & ??????=cracy=ruling means that the members of a community rule(take decisions). So the majority should rule in a democratic system and voting should always take place at taking decisions...not electing representatives.
Later....those in charge, changed the meaning of the term to :"everybody has the right to be heard"(how nice of them!).
So from Democracy we ended up with something like Righttospeak(acy) ....then to Iwillspeakforyou(acy)...which really means I will speak for my class's interests and my sponsors...and you can blame yourself for the 4 following years for your choice.
-"Jurgen Habermas views constitutions as transformational documents aimed at addressing and redressing the most significant defects and deficiencies in the society that frames it."
-Great point. Human needs to understand that our knowledge and wisdom evolves along with new facts that changes create.(larger societies, evolution of morality, modern problems from older "solutions").
So any document that attempts to address basic rules has to be in connection with an update picture of our social issues and technical problems.
-"The US system does place ultimate authority in the voter, so that does make it democratic, but the control of the masses is fairly tight."
-Your statement is in direct conflict with what Democracy really means. The system SHOULD place ultimate authority to the public(voter) and access to the center of decision making.
I am not saying that system is wise or ideal or good...I am just pointing what Democracy means and how a system should look like if it is labeled "democratic"!
Words have common usages and if the system they "describe" doesn't agree with the accepted meaning then we should either change the system( if we want it) or the label.
Have you heard of the futurist Jacque Fresco? He believed technology would make laws redundant.
-" The more persons that have choice over their ruler, and the laws that govern them, the more democracy. — Down The Rabbit Hole
I disagree.
I'm no cheerleader for democracy. — Down The Rabbit Hole
I am. "
This is an interesting conversation! You declare yourself a "cheerleader for democracy" but you reject the main premise of the system?
I would be interested to hear your definition of democracy!
Here are a some definitions of "democracy" from the web:
It doesn't matter what the original meaning of the word was or how the Athenian system worked. Back then, only male citizens could vote. Generally that meant men who owned property. Are you suggesting we go back to that? It also says nothing about majority ruling.
Simple majority rule is not "the main premise of the system."
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Notice - it doesn't say anything about majority rule or disallowing representative democracy.
As I noted before, your usage of the word "democracy" is not consistent with its currently accepted meaning or its meaning when the Constitution was written.
Quoting TheMadFool
Yes, that makes perfect sense.
I'm guessing the change will be gradual - it may take a few generations for people to give up the old ways.
Quoting TheMadFool
I don't think a document that protects minority rights is a bad thing. Have you seen what these people are voting for?
In the UK people have voted for a 165% increase in homelessness (this figure is pre-pandemic), around 30,000 deaths per year due to NHS cuts according to The Royal Society of Medicine (again, pre pandemic), and case examples of people literally starving to death after having their state benefits terminated (around 70% of these decisions get overturned on appeal to a judge). A more obvious example is Nazi Germany.
[i]-"Here are a some definitions of "democracy" from the web:
A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
Democracy (Greek: ??????????, d?mokrati?, from d?mos 'people' and kratos 'rule'[1]) is a form of government in which the people have the authority to deliberate and decide legislation ("direct democracy"), or to choose governing officials to do so ("representative democracy").
A form of government in which people choose leaders by voting."[/i]
-I happen to be a Greek citizen and I am aware of the etymology of the word and the original system it described.
The following systems that those definitions describes drifted from the meaning and etymology of the word. They are NO longer described by this label.
"representative democracy" is an oxymoron...its like saying virgin prostitute (forgive my example).
So we need a word that describes the qualities and characteristics of every new system...or else we are dealing with a marketing label.
-"It doesn't matter what the original meaning of the word was or how the Athenian system worked."
-Agreed common usages of words DO matter. This is how we convey accurate meaning!
Demo and cracy refer to specific qualities and standards that aren't met by the following regimes.
-"Back then, only male citizens could vote.Generally that meant men who owned property."
-Correct! Similarly today we exclude individuals under a specific age, people with felony convictions, foreigners even if they are living in a country for decades,Non-citizens, including permanent legal residents,Some people who are mentally incapacitated.
So we have improved our ethics and we include women and in some countries foreigners in what we define as "Demos".
But you need to understand that the percentage of the participants back then was smaller but 100% of those PARTICIPATED in the procedure of decision making.
Now the percentage of participants has increased....but how many participate DIRECTLY in any decision?
[Are you suggesting we go back to that?
-Seriously...are the extremes the only choice here? lol Are we...five year olds or its just our arguments!
It also says nothing about majority ruling.
Of course it does....those who were consider part of "Demos" all voted for their preferred solution.
The solution of choice was that of the majority of votes.
Independent of what Democracy should really look like, its a obsolete political solution that is inapplicable and easily manipulated.
Its like trying to sail through the Atlantic with Iron age marine technology.
-"As I noted before, your usage of the word "democracy" is not consistent with its currently accepted meaning or its meaning when the Constitution was written. "
-Yes you did note that, but the meaning of those currently accepted definitions is in direct conflict with the etymology and the label of what that etymology described.
So its exactly like i.e. having a word like "morning shift Job"...and use it to describe a night UNPAID shift.
Here is a more closer example.
The term used to describe Sparta's political system was Oligarch(with two kings a senate and 5 curators)! The surprising fact is that Sparta's system is far closer to our modern systems than the Athenian democracy, something that many modern leaders admitted (Hitler, Jefferson).
So we need to be very careful with Political "Marketing".
-"Simple majority rule is not "the main premise of the system."
-Correct. The current political systems that are "self-declared" as Democratic piss on the main premise set by the etymology of the word!
-"I would be interested to hear your definition of democracy!"
_ I am sure I have provided the definition of that system already!Its the political system that allows any member of the "Demos" to participate directly and influence public decisions.
-"Government of the people, by the people, and for the people."
-Those are empty words without any ties to real life events, a euphemism and a marketing scam.
Goverment of a specific class of people, voted by people who have interests, ignoring most people's interests.
-"Notice - it doesn't say anything about majority rule or disallowing representative democracy."
-Yes...after all "representative democracy" is an ectroma on its own. IF people accept it as a meaningful linguistic morphoma, they got what they deserve!
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
That's not the way language works. Words "drift from the meaning and etymology of the word" all the time. You may not like it, but "democracy" means something different now and it meant something different when the US Constitution was written. If you won't accept the standard meaning of the word and the meaning we are applying in this discussion, there's not much we can talk about.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
You are the one who is refusing to participate in this discussion under the standard meanings of the words we have been using.
If you're going to change the rules, I don't want to play.
As a Greek speaking citizen, those words have a specific agreed meaning and the Political system they describe specific premises and characteristics. When you use them to describe something that has nothing to do with the meaning of those words that is frustrating and confusing.
I am not denying that the meaning has drifted and now also describes current oligarchic regimes. I am only pointing out that people make evaluations based on the "ad" not the experience they have "using the product".
Authority figures are telling to Americans that they are free and the greatest nation in the world, but they don't present them marks that are crucial for this evaluation and most importantly they don't compare them to other countries.
A study in Namibia showed that our language shapes our experiences....and this is what the political establishment is achieving by calling our oligarchical regimes democratic.
enjoy the video on the study.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgxyfqHRPoE
I'm not arguing against your position. As I've said, you are trying to participate in a different discussion than I am. For me, this is not the place to have the discussion you want to have.
-"That's not the way language works. Words "drift from the meaning and etymology of the word" all the time. You may not like it, but "democracy" means something different now and it meant something different when the US Constitution was written. If you won't accept the standard meaning of the word and the meaning we are applying in this discussion, there's not much we can talk about."
-I never said how language works or how it should work.
I am only pointing out that the original system described by that word was in agreement with the meanings of both synthetics.
The current systems are in direct conflict with the meanings of the synthetic words that have not changed.
Its not about what I like or don't like. Its about the moral foundations of a systems and how true it is to its modern empty deepities! i.e Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
a Government of a specific class, voted by people who are brain washed and turned in to fans by big dollar campaigns, experiencing political decisions that ignore their interests.
Its about a system capitalizing euphemisms and blurring definitions and using them as punchlines.
Now lets agree with you and say the word democracy describes accurately our modern oligarchies.
So lets assume that a new system arises where the citizens elect a representative. His/her job is to represent them and their decisions. So he/she never proposes his opinion, but he is forced to present the most popular opinion of a referendum hold by his voters.
How are you going to call this system. Representative democracy?
Can you understand that words, beyond the fact that their meaning changes they also NEED TO REMAIN PRACTICAL and ABLE to distinguish closely related concepts????
The establishment we are in has forced his characteristics under a definition of a glorified system of the past. What happens when that glorified system reemerges?
-"I'm not arguing against your position. As I've said, you are trying to participate in a different discussion than I am. For me, this is not the place to have the discussion you want to have. "
-I can not really argue against that. The only point I can see to be related to my point is your answer to Down The Rabbit Hole's statement
-" I'm no cheerleader for democracy. "
you:"I am. "
I only pointed out that you are a supporter of a system with oligarchic qualities that is labeled "Democracy". Its qualities are oligarchic because as the etymology of the word states "?????? ??????/????????" - only few govern.
That is true for all western regimes. Most voters elect an individual of an other class because they agree on a vague position of the political spectrum.(left right, conservative , democratic ....fluff ).
No one really participates and affects any of the decisions made by "elected" members of a different class.
-"You are the one who is refusing to participate in this discussion under the standard meanings of the words we have been using.
If you're going to change the rules, I don't want to play. "
-I am pointing out that your the label of the system or the punch line you presented (government of the people....etc) may have a fresh definition but that definition and the system's real life characteristics , match the characteristics and outcomes of an other system (oligarchy)!
The only difference is that in oligarchy, people with economical power become part of the ruling class without the need to influence voters... while in our modern current democracies people with economical power who can fund their election campaign influence voters.
This is why Socrates stressed the issue of economical power and election campaigns and why the most popular participants should all be put in the lottery so any differences in influence could be leveled.
There are many things wrong with American government, whatever you call it. I won't argue with that. When I say I am a supporter of democracy, I mean as it is now constituted in the US and in many western countries, imperfect as it is. I don't know what more I can say.
To the extent that I'm aware democracy didn't fail. Monarchy failed because of inherent flaws in such a mode of governance (tryanny-prone). Democracy, on the other hand, has no innate flaws that could cause its own downfall.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
I guess you're offering us a variation of Socrates' idea of philosopher kings. There are risks in such a political system, no? How can we be certain that a scientific dictatorship won't devolve into just dictatorship with all the abuses of power that come with it?
That's too bad. I guess the poor, the sick, the minorities in modern democracies are what the slaves, women, children were in Athenian democracy. Sidelined, brushed aside.
-It depends from the standards we use to define failure and success. MY standards are always high and I consider failure when a system doesn't meet its goals set by its Theory.
i.e. we never had a political system where all the people decided for themselves and their community and I can not see how this can be done within our large and diverse modern societies.
So to start this conversation, we don't really have a real world democracy in principle like we never had any real world application of any political or economical system. We have oligarchic hybrids that pose as democracies.
-"Democracy, on the other hand, has no innate flaws that could cause its own downfall."
-The only flaw of democracy that it is inapplicable. As a philosophical ideology it ignores basic scientific knowledge...that is, all social species tend to organize their members under hierarchies and individuals have a tendency to accumulate privileged. If we add the fact that psychopaths are driven to position with power....Democracy is theoretically impossible.
Our history verifies that conclusion.
-"I guess you're offering us a variation of Socrates' idea of philosopher kings. There are risks in such a political system, no? How can we be certain that a scientific dictatorship won't devolve into just dictatorship with all the abuses of power that come with it? "
-Nice to hear that you are familiar of that concept. But no because I acknowledge the same risk you are seeing in such a system.
I am talking about removing any human"king" from the system and substituting them with a Process....as we have done with Science.
Scientist's do not decide what is the correct theory or the most suitable and efficient solution...its the process with its Standards of evaluation that provides those decisions.
I think the only way democracy is a failure is if you redefine "failure" as success. Nevertheless, I do concede that it's the least worst option we have.
Nice! I didn't think of that. We would then need some kind of method à la the scientific method. Any ideas?
-I still do not find an argument. And I call you out on usage. You go from laws to "rules", then from "rules" to rules.
-OUr laws are official rules of an establishment. The label "law" only informs us about the enforcer of the rule and the consequences for disobey them.
-''And "designed to inform" and "communicate." And "implications" for those who "decide" to "ignore" them. Why the waffle language? Is there substance here you're either afraid of or feel you do not know well enough to speak simply and plainly about? Do you think it's all a feel-good board game the creators of which are trying to sell?
-Why do you have an issue with words that describe facts. If you go to court for a violation the court will tell you that you are OBLIGATED to be INFORMED of your STATE's laws. So the laws are designed to communicate what your state expects from you. They can only enforce it by the threat of "violence"(take part of your wealth or your freedom).
"Rules designed to inform people"?
-Yes they are...they inform people of what behavior is unacceptable in their societies. Have you ever talked to an accountant or layer etc....Why do you think they go to college? lol
-"You have not read much law, have you."
-that sounds like a self critique ......
-"Nor is the informing or communication central."
-lol "central" why do you feel the need to use this qualifier...does your objection fall apart? Nobody talked on which characteristic of our rules are central of not. I am pointing out the general role of making up rules and publishing them.
In the US at least, and likely the world around, there is no need of communication of law for it to have effect. , is not exculpatory.
-So you are making my point now..... States publish their rules in order for their citizens to have no excuses. So by reading those publications you are informed of what you are ought not to do...or else.
The second part of your reply I couldn't understand because of a syntax problem. I infer that where you're from, there's a cooperative aspect to social life: one is expected to do some things and not do others, yes? And that controlled in part by technologies in use that simply prevent the possibility of civil malfeasance. And I read that as your living in very polite society, one in which the iron fist can be wrapped in layers of velvet.
-Sorry but you don't understand the role of a society and why humans prefer it than remaining at the mercy of nature. SUre from what I see, the American society is a hybrid where uncertainty and risk are part of it....those exact elements human societies were designed to remove from people's lives.
I think we are done here....right.
If we have to debate the reason why authorities publish their rules and Ignorance of the law is not an excuse...lol there is no reason to keep this up.
take care.
-"I think the only way democracy is a failure is if you redefine "failure" as success."
-No, success should always be evaluated by the goals we set. The Democratic "goals" are far from being achieved.
-"Nevertheless, I do concede that it's the least worst option we have."
-I can agree with that statement. Currently is the least worst system but historically we have applications that were far better(Athenian democracy).
-"Nice! I didn't think of that. We would then need some kind of method à la the scientific method. Any ideas? "
-Sure a set of empirical methodologies(scientific process) that designs solutions based on goals set by a "constitution".The acknowledgment of the failure to meet any goal as data that can be used to inform our next improved solution.
This implies the removal of all our philosophical ideologies and practical applications (economical and political) and the introduction of a bill of commitments that will serve the well being of humans of current and future generations(this imply the consideration of the ecological impact of our solutions).
-"There are many things wrong with American government, whatever you call it. I won't argue with that. When I say I am a supporter of democracy, I mean as it is now constituted in the US and in many western countries, imperfect as it is. I don't know what more I can say. "
-I get what you are saying and I am only pointing out that what is constituted in the western world has identical characteristics with the properties of any oligarchic system with some superficial differences in how those who have the actual power get in to office.
Our current democratic systems take advantage of our psychology, our drives and urges. They enforce the illusion of choice, our need to belong to a group as an active member by just being fans.
This is what the sport industry and nation states have being doing for ages.
-"There is a difference between "publish" and "communicate." You play language games and I'm not interested. "
-lol ok....... at your part of the world....publishing stuff is not an act of communication. Nice to know.:up: