Democracy

Rebuttal #1 "Democracy has it's flaws, But so does every other system. " This is tautological. If by stating that each system of government is flawed you're describing a natural imperfection, Then this does not in any way advance your point. "Democracies have a flaw in that we run the risk of being driven by the majority. " We don't "run the risk"; democracy necessitates the drive of a majority. "But what's the alternative? A monarchy? No, Giving our power to one person is flawed. Maybe a dictatorship? No, Giving our power to one regime is flawed. Maybe Anarchy? Nope! Now we have a flawed power vacuum that could be filled by any government? Maybe a Tribunal? Well wouldn't that just be a group of people with our power instead of just one? Still seems flawed. " The subject of this debate isn't whether or not other systems are flawed. The subject of this debate is Democracy. If you're attempting to argue that Democracy is "not as flawed" as other systems; therefore it's sound, Then said argument would be operating on fallacious logic, Which is the fallacy of relative privation, An argument that dismisses its own invalidity by making comparisons to worse. "So what's the bottom line here? It seems like no matter what system we assume, We're still just handing our power over to someone. " This is not true, And you've yet to substantiate this assertion. Please do so. Rebuttal #2 " Oh wait, Except in democracy, We're not. We're all voting! Tell me this I have a country with 100 units of power and I give all the power to the dictator? What's the power per holder. 100! What if I give it to a tribunal of 10 people? That's 10 power per holder. What if I give it to 1 million people? That's 0. 0001. Seems to me that democracy even holds up in math as well. The biggest take away from this is that for all it's flaws, It's the most fair system. You can't fight math. " Fighting your math isn't necessary. Debunking it will suffice. Let' say that we grant each individual in the United States, For example, Is granted "one unit" of power. That's 327. 16 million units of power with the capacity to be exercised. About 300 million of them are adults who have the capacity to vote. These votes serve to delegate proxies to represent these units of power. There are currently 559 members of government who exercise this power--(535 congress, 15 in the Executive office, And 9 in the Judicial Office. ) So let's divide 327. 16 million by 559, And we get 585, 259 units of power per individual. In systems where government itself is absent, Let's try the math: 327. 16 million divided by 327. 16 million. That's one unit of power per individual. Each individual started with one unit and ended up with one unit of power. Second, You haven't explained why dividing power matters? "Democracy does not address the issue of morality at all. Democracy is only really designed for the electoral end of a system. The moral implications of what happens afterwards are entirely on the shoulders of the representatives or the people that vote for anything. I'm not sure I can say much more on that point. " If so, Then why is dividing power of any significance? If democracy in fact serves no moral economy, Then why are Dictatorships, Anarchies, And/or Tribunals flawed? Rebuttal #3 "Since democracy is simplistic in nature, There is a lot of room for practical additions. We can mix democracy with other political systems that denote what happens after the voting process. . We can form constitutions to support them on. We can make restrictive rules to stop itself from being voted out of itself. " As the citation of Murray Rothbard's essay pointed out, If you subvert "the will of the people" by ratifying a constitution or imposing "restrictive rules", Then it is no longer a democracy; it's no longer "majority rule. " Thus my point is informed: Democracy is illogical. Rejoinders next.