Democracy: The God That Failed

A Defense of Round 2:Definition of Democracy: Pro asserts that my definition of democracy is invalid because it assumes people will "actually" control the government. This is a cynical contention. A democracy is a government where the citizenry control the acts of governance. If a democratic system does not allow the citizenry to control the system, it is undemocratic. It either does this directly (ie. initiatives and voting) or indirectly (through representatives). A monarch can be indirectly influenced by his subjects, but this is not structurally inherent in the system, whereas elections or votes are structurally inherent in democracy. This debate is overwhelmingly structural, so to argue whether or not citizens "actually" control the government is not relevant here. Criteria: Pro asserts that monarchy protects political freedom better than democracy, but he failed to show this. A monarch can suspend free speech, slaughter dissidents, or exile political enemies... and it is, as an autocratic ruler, his right to do so. On Pro's assertion that "enhancing the material well being of each individual is the goal of every society" is not provable. Socialist states redistribute the wealth of the wealthy to the poorer, which enhances most individual's wealth, but not those who are wealthy. So not every society holds that goal. Subjects and Citizens: The Constitution has an amending process which allows through democratic means, to alter any part of the document according to the citizenry's desire. This is markedly different than a monarchy where the citizens are not allowed to make laws. Democracies also have initiate processes, which allows popular sovereignty, and thus more political freedom than a monarchy. All of the examples Pro cited, like income tax or habeas corpus, can be changed through lawmaking.Democracy is More Just: Pro asserts that "a bad monarch is likely to be overthrown and replaced" but this is not true. He cites the French Revolution as example, but I would contend that the French, Bolshevik, or English Revolutions are exceptions to the general rule that bad monarchs tend to keep power. There have been more incompetent kings in history than revolutions. This is an important point: Pro states that "Election in a democracy is based on demagoguery and making promises to the mob to satisfy their whims, not on actual ability. The leaders in a democracy will always be the most corrupt charlatans in society[16]." I completely agree. If a citizenry is tricked by petty rhetoric and promises, then they deserve bad leadership. That's my point. A democracy doesn't neccesarily produce better leadership, but if a society is virtuous and educated they will more likely elect better representation. If a society is greedy and stupid, they will get what they deserve: a charlatan. And Hitler wasn't elected democratically. He lost several presidential elections to Hindenburg, finally convinced Hindenburg to appoint him chancellor to calm rioting Nazi supporters, burnt down the Reichsteg, issued martial law, and became a undemocratic absolute dictator (ie. monarch). War: Pro attributes peace between democracies to "economic ties and nuclear weapons" and then states "military spending has increased 2-4 times under democracy". I don't see why facts are absolute but mine are historical causes. Maybe military spending has increased because nuclear weapons are expensive! Not because of democracy. Weapons technology has advanced and grown more expensive, and independently, there are more democracies in the modern era than pre-modern. So your argument defeats itself. Public Sphere: I agree with pro that democracies often censor information and utilize propaganda. Often however, these actions are illegal- thus violations of democratically made law. So I cannot defend undemocratic practices in a democracy. On the whole, however, democracies tend to respect the public sphere, as it is essential to the public debate over elections or policy. Voting Guide: Conduct: ProI agree that I was unnecessarily rude at times and I concede this point to Pro. I have a lot of respect for Pro and his extensive debates on this site, and I apologize. Pro and I have different aims on this site I believe. He is a more technical debater and I am more rhetorically minded. When I referred to his "social degeneracy" argument as stupid and baseless, I was being honest because comparing abortion over the centuries and attributing it to a political structure is a stupid and baseless way to argue one's point. Spelling and Grammar: Tie Arguments: ConI dropped Pro's C5 due to time and character limitations. I believe my argument were better than Pro's. I am willing to concede that Pro had better conduct and better sources because I am confident that I argued my case well. Pro thinks he argued better and I think I did, but ultimately it is your job, dear reader, to decided which arguments appealed to you more. One point I will make though regards pro's assertion that "The stated purpose of the debate was to defend a thesis that was not my own using arguments that are not my own, so this approach should basically be expected". For one, he never stated that the thesis wasn't his own. Nowhere in the opening round, check. I would not have accepted this debate if I knew it was me arguing against Dr. Hoppe's work. And if Pro's arguments were more cogent, it's because they were not his own. I accepted this debate, and argued it honestly trying to rely on my own intellect and not extensive sources to win. I think original thought and creativity must be taken into account when the audience casts their votes. I hope this debate is not reflective of the direction this site is heading in. Pro's argument was essentially a high school book report- and I don't mean that as an insult, I mean that honestly. I hope self-reliance is considered in voting, as well as the arguments themselves.Sources: Pro I don't care much for sources unless they are definitional or citing a statistical study or something. When Pro says "Con tries to cherry pick a small number of bad “monarchs” (including the democratically elected Hitler) but I can cite bad presidents all day just as easily [18]" and just links to wikipedia's list of the US presidents, I guess I don't see the point... But of course pro wins sources... his whole argument was a source.