Talk:Democracy/Archive 8

message: I have just added an NPOV flag to this article, because of this language right in the introduction:
 Democracies may be "liberal," where fundamental rights <BR> of individuals in the minority are protected by law, or they<BR> may be "illiberal" where they are not.
This is not, as far as I am aware, the standard primary taxonomy for democracies.  It is presumably the pet theory of some particular school or other.
Furthermore, the article fails to deal with the key problem surrounding any article on Democracy, which is that while most people agree that it's a good thing, nearly everyone has their own pet definition.  This article would be much improved by stopping the war over defining it and recognising the differences explicitly.
if i'm not mistaken, the concept of illiberal democracy is from Fareed Zakaria. Thes entinel 02:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bizarre taxonomy

message: I've added a section summarizing some of the skeptical criticisms that are mounted against the idea of democracy. For a well-rounded article, I think this is a necessity. There are plenty of people who do not believe that democracy actually works in practice the way it is supposed to in theory; i.e., there is skepticism that the majority really holds most of the power. Even pro-democracy people admit that in many cases, it really does exist in name only (think the "Democratic" Republic of North Korea). There definitely should be a place in the article for the view that democracy in general is simply window-dressing for what really amounts to rule by the few. If anyone has a problem with this addition, please discuss here rather than just deleting it in a knee-jerk fashion. Meskhenet 14:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General skepticism of democracy

message: Let it be known that though Americans reap the benefits of a form of democracy, they are as uncomfortable as anyone in the world about change, either for improved democracy or for any other revisions of the current US government.
I am an American and proud of the power and freedom brought to the country and to the free world by democracy, but I also recognize American bias and American entanglement in foreign affairs.  The fact is that all men are biased to their own ways of life and that all men will use their power to their own advantage when given the choice.  The use of force violates the principles of equality and freedom embodied in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution of the USA, except when used in defense of the principles of equality and freedom.
So Americans are active on Wikipedia, it's true, and this is good to see for all nationalities.  But Americans are only united in their love for freedom and equality.  One may legitimately stereotype some views, but in general this practice is usually wrong and bad.  Please refrain from anti-American rhetoric; it's not productive or welcome here.  Try to understand and work with the unique and valuable contributions, unless those contributions digress or harm valuable work.
I believe that the silent majority is less politically active because it doesn't like to shout above the partison politically active.  If politics rested on the full majority, only the important things would be done in the most popular way.  The faction and the mob would have no place in politics and vote brokering and special interest would become history.  Please support the introduction of the concept of the real majority into this democracy article as a fundamental, core principle of democracy.  Fight those who would delete it.
I love America, but even here the real majority does not rule.  Democracy in the world is, thus far practiced, only a weak imitation, and many biased people would have us all remain in ignorance about that.  Let your countries reap the benefits of True Democracy.  Enjoy.--Landen99 15:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you're not the only one. in fact, the U.S. Bill of Rights was put in place partially to insure that those in the majority could not destroy those in the minority. Civil rights are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution because the majority cannot be trusted to protect the minority. Kingturtle 17:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  American bias for democracy 

message: ::I'm not really familiar with Rome, but I've never heard of the Republic being put on a level with Athenian democracy. At any rate, a democracy is indeed a 'rule by the people'. What can be argued is the extent to which people actually rule in modern elective 'democracies' Druworos 01:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be remembered that like 1% of the people would vote if there was a vote every day on today's new law (if voting on each and every one of the policies proposed). Now would that be democracy?--HJV 01:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote for What? 

message: :Indeed, Aristotle clearly distinguishes between election and allotment. He claims that in ellections, only the powerful and/or well-connected stand a chance of getting elected. Thus, elections essentially serve to elect an oligarchy. Therefore, he classifies elective forms of government with oligarchies (such forms of government did indeed exist in Ancient Greece). As claimed by the anonymous above, it is absolutelly true that an ancient Greek person of reasonable education would view what we today term as democracy as oligarchy, while possibly recognising certain democratic elements in certain types of government (e.g. Switzerland). An article on democracy should indeed make mention of such facts, even if it is about modern Democracy, which is really not at all self-evident in this article. Druworos 00:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: One instance where democracy has failed can be said in two words and a letter. George W. Bush. :) --HJV 01:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cons of democracy 

message: Although the article mentions to some degree the republicanism and democracy, more needs to be said about it. True democracy refered to the majority rule of the Athen system. A lot of people at the time were against it and has been charged with titles such as "Mob Rule". So in that case there are no democracies today. Most of the world is a republic. Republicanism is a lot different from democracy. Zachorious 03:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have created an article to differniate the classical republics from democracy; it should prove helpful in your discussions.  Wikinfo:Classical republics and democracy contrasted.  I hope you enjoy it; and I would appreciate any feedback you may have.  Thanks.  I have also posted this at the top of the page. WHEELER 18:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Democracy vs Republic

message: I am surprised when glancing I don't find a mention of Ting Germanic-Scandinavian assemblies, and politics of Iceland.
There is also no mention of the direct democracy in some Swiss cantons.
:You may find what you're looking for in the History of democracy and Direct democracy articles. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 06:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing points 

message: I added a Redirect5 hatnote to the top of this article. I'm kind of new here, so I just wanted to make sure I did it right. BjornTheGreat 19:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect disambig 

message: It would help if we knew who Ultramarine was thinking of; the anarchist condition is rarely viewed or described as democracy, but I'm sure there are exceptions. Septentrionalis 20:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ultramarine's latest edit  appears to forget which article this is. We are not restricted to "liberal democracy". Septentrionalis 00:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a problem with a few of editors of this article. They're wrongly equating democracy with freedom. If you're not in the majority, good luck holding on to your freedom. There is a bit of freedom in some democracies because it's not true democracy but more like an illusion of democracy, because people get to vote for politicians so it makes the people feel like they're governing when they're actually not. They're not actually governing because a constitution has been constructed in such a way as to protect individuals FROM democracy. RJII 04:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Democracy is a good thing as long as there are protections for individual rights --that is, if democracy is restricted to just voting for people. Pure democracy is the problem. Pure democracy has not protections for individual rights. For example, if the majority of people are heterosexual there would be a danger of the majority executing all homosexuals because they would be easily outvoted. By, the way dictators have indeed allowed individual rights. Go to Dubai --it's probably the most liberal country Arab country. Of course, we can't trust dictators to protect individual rights, so elections and a rights protecting constitution are preferable. RJII 05:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The US Constitution obviously does not give complete protection from majorities, but it has does some protective effect. The Constitution itself was made very difficult to change -a simple majority vote won't do it. RJII 05:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Note that you said: "Pure democracy, like all forms of government, is a tool that can be good or bad depending on who is using it." Ok, so you understand now that it's a real and useful concept since you're using it yourself. So, don't delete it from the article, ok? RJII 05:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I was just assuming that "pure democracy" existed as the concept you describe; I was building an argument on your premises, but that doesn't mean I accept those premises. Perhaps it would have been better for me to say "Pure democracy, if it existed..." -- Nikodemos 06:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anarchists

message: In its current form, the section "reactions to democracy" makes a passing reference to the tremendous acceptance and advocacy of democracy in the modern world, after which it proceeds to describe in great detail a number of fringe groups that oppose democracy. This is utterly undue weight. If the views of those groups belong in this article at all, they belong in a section on criticisms of democracy. -- Nikodemos 04:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; it was an effort to make a working header for pre-existing paragraphs. It could have been Opponents, but the first paragraph seems to fit the prose flow where it is. If you have a better idea, go for it. Septentrionalis 05:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On a somewhat related note, the one-paragraph intro we have left now seems a bit short... are you sure you want to split off the "kinds of democracy" section from the intro? And the paragraph about the widespread support for democracy in the contemporary world? -- Nikodemos 06:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an idea; let me try something. If you don;t like it, change it. Septentrionalis 21:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue weight

message: I removed these two points from the section on necessary attributes of democracy:
----
:* there is constrained freedom to further the public good. Stated in negative terms, limits, sometimes vigorous ones, are essential to ensure that acts that infringe upon others freedom, such as murder and theft, do not occur. This may be thought of as negative liberty. Stated in positive terms, infinite freedom is of the essence to explore within, but not exceed, the boundaries defined by the edge of chaos, such as populist revolutions which identify, advocate for, and create consensus around new forms of government that can achieve both the social justice envisioned by Karl Marx and the economic prosperity envisioned by Adam Smith, but without fascism, anomie, or violence. This is thought of as positive liberty. Kim J. Vicente, (1999). Cognitive Work Analysis : Toward Safe, Productive, and Healthy Computer-Based Work. . 
:* the demos has a long-term unity and continuity, from one decision-making round to the next, without secession of the minority.
----
Toward the first point: "there is constrained freedom to further the public good" is an odd phrase and I'm not sure what it means. The rest is not much clearer.
Toward the second: it's not at all clear why that is necessary for democracy. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 04:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed from article 

message: Stevietheman is deleting the fact that "pure democracy" is a synonym for "direct democracy." There is no shortage of sources that indicate that this is the case. Merriam-Webster defines "pure democracy" as "democracy in which the power is exercised directly by the people rather than through representatives"  American Heritage also defines "pure democracy" as "A democracy in which the power to govern lies directly in the hands of the people rather than being exercised through their representatives."  And, there is entry for "direct democracy" in those dictionaries. And, this source here says they're the same thing  This source uses the terms interchangeably: , as do many others. And, "The citizens of a democracy take part in government either directly or indirectly. In a direct democracy, also called a pure democracy, the people meet in one place to make the laws for their community. Such democracy was practiced in the ancient Greek city-state of Athens and exists today in the New England town meeting" World Book Encyclopedia RJII 20:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a contributor to the Wikipedia, I have the same right as you to challenge content.  I contend that direct democracy and pure democracy are not synonyms.  Your evidence is unconvincing.  Just because material is sourced doesn't make it correct. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 20:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think that, then you don't know the Wikipedia sourcing policy. By Wikipedia standards, if information is sourced then it is correct. I've given you 4 sources above. One of them explicitly says that direct democracy is also called democracy. Stop deleting this sourced fact. RJII 20:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will delete what I believe to be opinion-pushing, and that is what you're doing.  "Pure democracy" is a phraseology used to denigrate direct democracy, and further, they're not synonyms.  Direct democracy as it has been implemented historically is not "pure" by any stretch of the imagination. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 20:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Pure democracy" is not used to denigrate democracy. It's used to denigrate pure democracy, but just because you can't criticise something without naming what you are criticizing. Typically, those who oppose pure democracy are supportive of democracy. They support liberal democracy (in the form of a constitutional republic) instead that has constitutional protections for individual liberty that the popular vote can't overrule. They are concerned that the majority will violate the individual liberty of the minority --such as a if most people are of one religion and then force their oppressive rules on the minority. They would rather that the popular vote be used merely for electing representatives who then can only make rules if they accord with constitutional protections for individual liberty. I'm not "opinion pushing." I'm noting what is factual. I've provided sources. The term is a synonym for direct democracy. You have no justification to delete the information. RJII 22:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: stevietheman deleting sourced content

message: This article says that Brunei's GDP is higher than that of India. How? Brunei's GDP is $6,842 million and India's GDP is $3.678 trillion. All Indians are not prosperous because there are too many people in India. How can a small oil rich country be compared to a huge overpopulated nation? Besides Indian economy in the 21st Century is one of the most powerful economies in the world. Standard of living in India is relatively low because of overpopulation and overpopulation is not related to democracy. I do not think that any economic/political expert would compare India and Brunei.--DIGIwarez 16:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brunei and India