The Right of Democracy

[CrossLOPER]

No. As Kush pointed out, the setup eats its own tail.

Yes. Democracy will overstay its welcome soon enough.

I wonder... if you become the target of that which you so crave, will you still support it?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I wonder... if you become the target of that which you so crave, will you still support it?

No, because then it is obviously not what you crave.

[Viking]

I voted

Yes - all undemocratic parties should be allowed in the name of democracy.

but my own opinion is that all undemocratic parties should be allowed in the name of freedom.

If these parties get elected and tries to abolish democracy, they should be denied doing so; based on the constitution or whatever, the reasoning is not so important.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

If these parties get elected and tries to abolish democracy, they should be denied doing so; based on the constitution or whatever, the reasoning is not so important.

What if the party gains a large enough majority or enough support to change the constitution? Is it then alright?

[Viking]

What if the party gains a large enough majority or enough support to change the constitution? Is it then alright?

It isn't alright, but there isn't necessarily much one could do.

But a new idea came to mind; perhaps democracy is not holy; as long as the state is weak it does perhaps not matter that much whether it is democratic or not. Being a politician could just be another job that requires a certain education, like any other jobs. Are judges elected by the people? No, yet they hold much power in one aspect.

So, ok, I might just have contradicted what I said earlier. What I fear is the state gaining more control over people, mainly that. Maybe I am an enemy of democracy myself.

So to conclude, I am against parties abolishing democracy, if the party(ies) intend to take the power itself/themselves. Parties that wish to do so should be stopped. Still I do not want to ban them from the elections.

[Hax]

A balance.

The people must be protected for their own good. For the Greater Good.

[PanzerJaeger]

I wonder... if you become the target of that which you so crave, will you still support it?

Politics is like any other human endeavor; a social progression. With the growing complexity of most issues, depending on the common people - who tend towards emotion instead of substance - to make informed decisions may begin to be seen as a liability. I foresee the voice of the people taking on an increasingly hands off role in society, taking a back seat to a professional political class. This can already been seen in most Western nations, with a large part of their politicians groomed from birth and coming from specialized institutions. As of now they are still beholden to the will of the people, but it doesn't take much for that line to be crossed. It has in the past and it will again.

[CountArach]

Banning parties is the first step down the road of Authoritarianism...

[Craterus]

Banning parties is the first step down the road of Authoritarianism...

Ah, 11 minutes too late...

[Rhyfelwyr]

Politics is like any other human endeavor; a social progression. With the growing complexity of most issues, depending on the common people - who tend towards emotion instead of substance - to make informed decisions may begin to be seen as a liability. I foresee the voice of the people taking on an increasingly hands off role in society, taking a back seat to a professional political class. This can already been seen in most Western nations, with a large part of their politicians groomed from birth and coming from specialized institutions. As of now they are still beholden to the will of the people, but it doesn't take much for that line to be crossed. It has in the past and it will again.

I agree with this completely. The political parties in the UK at least are filled with career politicians, more concerned with getting as many MP financial privileges as possible rather than any sort of ideology. Its the only reason I would even consider voting for the tartan-brigade SNP over New Labour.

I think that this will lead to a rise in radical parties if economic conditions continue to decline, and should these extreme left/right parties be banned or oppressed, then the people will realise that putting pieces of paper in a ballot box will not translate to representing themselves in parliament.

And then, well....

EDIT: And I second EMFM, why does opposing democracy make you a loonatic?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I'd have to say that this is one issue I can't quite make up my mind on. On one hand, I agree with what Panzer said - the majority of the populace is rarely well enough informed to make a proper decision. On the other hand, my government did that to me over the Lisbon Treaty, and I am quite angry at them.

[m52nickerson]

All should be allowed. If the majority of people support and them vote in a party that is undemocratic, then that is the will of the people. They have just used democracy to change the government they live under, for better or worse.

[Incongruous]

The ideal of Democracy, I do not think, ever took into account the possibility of tyranny via the ballot box. When Democracy is founded, it is usually due to popular support of it and righteous damantion of whatever preceeded it, usually a form of tyranny or monarchy, and no one thinks as they sign up for the virtues of Democracy, that one day its most important foundations may be its own demise. So perhaps the ability of such repugnent groups to take part in elections is not fundamental to the idal of Democracy, otherwise it would not be against Tyranny, which it is, and so would not be Democracy.

However, if Democracy is created properly, with a constitution that respects the humanity of all it's current and future citizens and their right to individual liberty and life that cannot be altered, no Tyranny may ever take place again. This of coarse shows the fallacy of Westminster Democracy or whatever it is they call themselves.

[KarlXII]

On one hand, I agree with what Panzer said - the majority of the populace is rarely well enough informed to make a proper decision.

So we should leave everything up to 1 person, 1 person who himself may not be well informed, tyrannical or even mad (see Hitler)?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Democracy is not simply rule by vote or rule by majority. Democracy is a package deal. It is inseperable from human rights, human dignity, individualism, equality and the rule of law. From these very concepts democracy sprung, democracy is unthinkable and meaningless without them. As I hold these to be inalieable rights, I must say no. Democracy can not vote itself out of existence no more than a person can sell himself into slavery. You can vote for whomever you want, but that liberty ends at stripping me of my rights as free and equal citizen. These rights can only be taken from my cold dead hands.

To be honest, it is utterly beyond me why anybody would want to relinquish his status as free citizen for that of subject of a queen, of a Kaiser with a pointy iron hat or of Bozo the Clown.

I do not recognise anybody above me, nor anybody below me. I have no patience for weaklings who dream of being ruled. If it is the existence as a slave you dream about, sell yourself into servitude in countries where that is legal.
And I have no tolerance for people who want to rule. If it is rule by force you dream about, don't be a weakling internet nerd. Live your dream. Join a street gang, or go to a zoo, and join in with the monkeys. In these environments the ape with the hardest fist rules over his lesser apes, if that's the sort of society that makes you happy.
Me, I am quite happy with the intricate interactions and infinite refinements of a society of free and equal persons. It makes me feel very human.

[Incongruous]

Democracy is not simply rule by vote or rule by majority. Democracy is a package deal. It is inseperable from human rights, human dignity, individualism, equality and the rule of law. From these very concepts democracy sprung, democracy is unthinkable and meaningless without them. As I hold these to be inalieable rights, I must say no. Democracy can not vote itself out of existence no more than a person can sell himself into slavery. You can vote for whomever you want, but that liberty ends at stripping me of my rights as free and equal citizen. These rights can only be taken from my cold dead hands.

To be honest, it is utterly beyond me why anybody would want to relinquish his status as free citizen for that of subject of a queen, of a Kaiser with a pointy iron hat or of Bozo the Clown.

I do not recognise anybody above me, nor anybody below me. I have no patience for weaklings who dream of being ruled. If it is the existence as a slave you dream about, sell yourself into servitude in countries where that is legal.
And I have no tolerance for people who want to rule. If it is rule by force you dream about, don't be a weakling internet nerd. Live your dream. Join a street gang, or go to a zoo, and join in with the monkeys. In these environments the ape with the hardest fist rules over his lesser apes, if that's the sort of society that makes you happy.
Me, I am quite happy with the intricate interactions and infinite refinements of a society of free and equal persons. It makes me feel very human.

Although rather abrasive and non-sporting (), this is a rather good summation of an all round good idea!