The Democracy Fetish

[Legal Rose]

Ben: If we're talking about this just in general terms about whether or not democracy really is the best form of government, I mean for the purposes of the original question, then...

I've been thinking more and more that all different forms of government have some glaring flaws and in the end are really just based on luck. Like with monarchies, you could get a good king or a bad king. With democracies, you could get elected officials that accurately represent the people's will or you could have the voters be misinformed and misled into voting for elected officials that work against their own interests. I mean, I'm no anarchist or libertarian or anything, I completely think government has a place. But it just increasingly seems to me that in the end, no matter what form of government you have, the overall quality of your government almost ends up coming down to pure chance.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

Legal I would have to disagree that governments are a matter of luck. While in monarchies it may be more so the case in a democracy or a republic that "luck" can be eliminated or at the least minimized. For in a republic the government is run by multiple people who can be voted into and out of office by those that elect them to rule. Because of this multiplicty of power ind decision making having a single bad legislator is minimized by having more good legislators. However, having a single bad monarch royally (pun is TOTALLY intended) screws with the country.

 

[Legal Rose]

B.S.A.: Well, that's an argument. As a counterpoint I might say that in governments like you described also have to deal with issues like deadlock, and again citizens may be misled and misinformed or they may just not vote at all, etc etc. But whatever, I don't feel very strongly about this issue, it's just a thought that's been popping up to me more and more recently.


To get back to the original purpose of the thread - maybe I'm naive, but I don't think most people would be overtly offended by the story. In fact, it almost sounds like you could morph it into a satire or metaphor or something: you could make it about a some travelers who come across a group of people working together to run their society responsibly. The travelers mock them for it, and finally convince the inhabitants that they should be ruled by someone 'superior' to the average citizens. And then naturally the new leader becomes tyrannical and the people are much worse off then they were before. Somehow that story seems to carry a lot of different messages - not just about government, but also about people telling others how to live their lives, and about power corrupting, and yada yada. If I read a story like that I wouldn't instantly take it to be a slam against democracy.