Is democracy a mistake in some countries?

[Envy]

And how much do you actually know about an ordinary person's life in Elizabethan England?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Life-Tudor-England-Pitkin-Guides/dp/1841650889

 

[das_nut]

I dunno about literacy rates in historic democracy-minded societies. The world is different today, regardless of what backwards country you live in. As an informed citizen you need to know about the state of affairs on a global scale.

If that's the requirements for democracy, we're screwed.

 

[rainforests1]

Ah, I didn't realize that time travel was part of the equation.

Just as a matter of curiosity, other than Elizabeth I, are there any others among the many relatively well known historic kings, empererors, and other royals with absolute powers under whose rule you would have preferred to live than living in a democracy? What do you think yor odds would have been to get a good* monarch? (*However you are defining "good.")

And how much do you actually know about an ordinary person's life in Elizabethan England?

One example would be Louis IX the Saint. The better question would be which Kings and Queens would not be preferrable. Human rights, animal rights, and the environment are three of the issues I'm considering when I prefer a leader. Apparently you're putting human rights first but there are many issues I consider important. You can't say exactly what life was like during past time periods, but with many monarchs there isn't too much negativity known about them. There's a lot of negativity I know about Democratic leaders, so I think I'd prefer the kings and queens.

There are many problems the world is facing. Which of these have Democracies tried to address that has made life better compared to previous leaders?
Human health-no.
Income equality-some Democracies have done a good job.
Climate change-nope.
Overpopulation(which will cause a crisis)-no.
Women's rights, minority rights-yes.
The environment-LOL
Animal rights-LOLLLLL
War-no.
Crime-no.

It's estimated that there are more than 120 Democracies, far more than at any time in history. The world is better off in some ways, worse off in some ways, and little to no change in other ways. You've had good leaders like George Washington, but you've also had Franklin Roosevelt, George W. Bush, Winston Churchill, and many other terrible leaders. It's the character of the leader rather than the form of government that matters to me.

 

[Envy]

One example would be Louis IX the Saint.

 

[yakherder]

One example would be Louis IX the Saint. The better question would be which Kings and Queens would not be preferrable. Human rights, animal rights, and the environment are three of the issues I'm considering when I prefer a leader. Apparently you're putting human rights first but there are many issues I consider important. You can't say exactly what life was like during past time periods, but with many monarchs there isn't too much negativity known about them. There's a lot of negativity I know about Democratic leaders, so I think I'd prefer the kings and queens.

There are many problems the world is facing. Which of these have Democracies tried to address that has made life better compared to previous leaders?
Human health-no.
Income equality-some Democracies have done a good job.
Climate change-nope.
Overpopulation(which will cause a crisis)-no.
Women's rights, minority rights-yes.
The environment-LOL
Animal rights-LOLLLLL
War-no.
Crime-no.

It's estimated that there are more than 120 Democracies, far more than at any time in history. The world is better off in some ways, worse off in some ways, and little to no change in other ways. You've had good leaders like George Washington, but you've also had Franklin Roosevelt, George W. Bush, Winston Churchill, and many other terrible leaders. It's the character of the leader rather than the form of government that matters to me.

Overpopulation and climate change have more to do with industrialization than the nature of the government. There are still plenty of non-Democratic countries in the early stages of industrialization. Pay them a visit and see what you think about both their air quality and the way they manage their exploding populations. If you're impressed, by all means feel free to move there. They'll welcome you with open arms, especially if you're willing to work for nothing.

Human health - How do you say no? Sure, there are problems. Most of them are the fault of the people who seem to think it's the government's job to solve the problems they create for themselves. The leading causes of death in most countries are things that are preventable without ever even getting the health care system involved. Heart disease, lung cancer, automobile accidents, etc. Yet if the government tries to impose rules on how we eat and whether or not we can smoke, we throw a fit. And when was the last time you saw someone thank a police officer for giving them a speeding ticket? Anyone who wants to see who is at fault for most of their health problems needs only to look in a mirror. Leave the government out of it.

Animal rights - The fact that we even have the luxury of worrying about animal rights is something unique to modern day life. I'm guessing you've probably never paid a visit to a 3rd world meat market, but to say that animal rights are not a huge consideration is an understatement. If you think the way slaughterhouses kill animals is inhumane, you'd cringe if you saw the way an old lady making $50 per month does it. People have this crazy instinct to want to survive, and the less guaranteed their source of food is the less concerned they are about where it came from and whether or not anything suffered as a result. Even the vegetarian Buddhist monks of the past were not vegetarian because they believed it was compassionate, they were vegetarian because meat was considered a luxury and they were expected to live meagerly as a show of piety. I've visited some of the temples in various countries, and was only mildly surprised to see that many of them had engravings detailing the proper methods for sacrificing livestock, an act which even those vegetarian monks would take part in.

War - A constant since the implementation of agriculture. Again, it would be difficult to rationalize blaming that on Democracy. Humans, within the context of modern life, are to blame for that as well. It's difficult to see the bigger picture from behind the walls of a society where most of your survival needs are met, but the war for resources rages constantly. It would take a disaster of catastrophic proportions to set humanity back to the point where the ability to wage war for resources is no longer a survival necessity, so don't expect to see war going away anytime soon regardless of what type of government we have.

Crime - Crime has been decreasing dramatically in recent years. In any case, crime is also not unique to modern times. It wasn't until recently that leaving the safety provided of your own village and the people you know and trust was to take your life in your hands. This is one of the major reasons that people submitted to the will of tyrannical kings and emperors. As crappy as life was under them, it beat being on your own outside the safety net of civilization.

I'm not gonna say Democracy is perfect, but like I've mentioned before, most of it's weaknesses stem from human weaknesses that will always undermine a system no matter how well intentioned it might be. Perhaps the greatest benefit of Democracy is the psychological benefits it offers through the perception of control (whether legitimate or merely an illusion). Many studies have shown that people or animals that feel in control live longer, healthier, more stress free lives even if that feeling is only in their imagination. In that regards, I suppose Democracy can indeed benefit even those who don't necessarily understand the system and the full effects of the decisions they make. I was reviewing this discussion in my head as I watched news of the constitution referendum vote in Egypt.

 

[rainforests1]

Overpopulation and climate change have more to do with industrialization than the nature of the government. There are still plenty of non-Democratic countries in the early stages of industrialization. Pay them a visit and see what you think about both their air quality and the way they manage their exploding populations. If you're impressed, by all means feel free to move there. They'll welcome you with open arms, especially if you're willing to work for nothing.

Human health - How do you say no? Sure, there are problems. Most of them are the fault of the people who seem to think it's the government's job to solve the problems they create for themselves. The leading causes of death in most countries are things that are preventable without ever even getting the health care system involved. Heart disease, lung cancer, automobile accidents, etc. Yet if the government tries to impose rules on how we eat and whether or not we can smoke, we throw a fit. And when was the last time you saw someone thank a police officer for giving them a speeding ticket? Anyone who wants to see who is at fault for most of their health problems needs only to look in a mirror. Leave the government out of it.

Animal rights - The fact that we even have the luxury of worrying about animal rights is something unique to modern day life. I'm guessing you've probably never paid a visit to a 3rd world meat market, but to say that animal rights are not a huge consideration is an understatement. If you think the way slaughterhouses kill animals is inhumane, you'd cringe if you saw the way an old lady making $50 per month does it. People have this crazy instinct to want to survive, and the less guaranteed their source of food is the less concerned they are about where it came from and whether or not anything suffered as a result. Even the vegetarian Buddhist monks of the past were not vegetarian because they believed it was compassionate, they were vegetarian because meat was considered a luxury and they were expected to live meagerly as a show of piety. I've visited some of the temples in various countries, and was only mildly surprised to see that many of them had engravings detailing the proper methods for sacrificing livestock, an act which even those vegetarian monks would take part in.

War - A constant since the implementation of agriculture. Again, it would be difficult to rationalize blaming that on Democracy. Humans, within the context of modern life, are to blame for that as well. It's difficult to see the bigger picture from behind the walls of a society where most of your survival needs are met, but the war for resources rages constantly. It would take a disaster of catastrophic proportions to set humanity back to the point where the ability to wage war for resources is no longer a survival necessity, so don't expect to see war going away anytime soon regardless of what type of government we have.

Crime - Crime has been decreasing dramatically in recent years. In any case, crime is also not unique to modern times. It wasn't until recently that leaving the safety provided of your own village and the people you know and trust was to take your life in your hands. This is one of the major reasons that people submitted to the will of tyrannical kings and emperors. As crappy as life was under them, it beat being on your own outside the safety net of civilization.

I'm not gonna say Democracy is perfect, but like I've mentioned before, most of it's weaknesses stem from human weaknesses that will always undermine a system no matter how well intentioned it might be. Perhaps the greatest benefit of Democracy is the psychological benefits it offers through the perception of control (whether legitimate or merely an illusion). Many studies have shown that people or animals that feel in control live longer, healthier, more stress free lives even if that feeling is only in their imagination. In that regards, I suppose Democracy can indeed benefit even those who don't necessarily understand the system and the full effects of the decisions they make. I was reviewing this discussion in my head as I watched news of the constitution referendum vote in Egypt.

The Green Revolution has played a role in creating the overpopulation problem, and this was supported by the West. There are things governments can do to try to keep their population down, and Democratic governments don't want to do it.
Climate change-I've read of nothing Democratic governments have done to help with this problem.
Human health-What have Democratic governments tried to do regarding this problem? If you can tell me something I'd love to hear about it.
Animal rights-animals are worse off today than at any time in history. Enough said.
War-The two worst wars in human history happened and Democratic governments get a lot of responsibility for both of them. War will continue as long as humans live on the planet but the question here is how Democratic governments have made things better. They haven't.
Crime-What have Democratic governments done to ensure lower crime that non-Democratic governments didn't do? I can't think of anything.

 

[mlp]

View attachment 1296

I don't know - I guess if someone thinks that crusades, pogroms against Jews, expansion of the French Inquisition, etc., are good things, he might well think that Louis IX was just a great guy all around.

 

[rainforests1]

I don't know - I guess if someone thinks that crusades, pogroms against Jews, expansion of the French Inquisition, etc., are good things, he might well think that Louis IX was just a great guy all around.

I read good things about him on a site and he was given Saint status. He may be a bad example, but I haven't done too much research on this before posting. Ancient Egypt had a lot of leaders. Were they bad? Was Cleopatra a bad leader? Early American Presidents had slavery and later ones have had constant wars. I can't see how anyone who promotes Democracy can complain about other leaders.

 

[Second Summer]

I think an assessment of the greatness of a leader from the past must take into account the historical context. They often can't easily be compared to the situation today.

 

[yakherder]

I read good things about him on a site and he was given Saint status. He may be a bad example, but I haven't done too much research on this before posting. Ancient Egypt had a lot of leaders. Were they bad? Was Cleopatra a bad leader? Early American Presidents had slavery and later ones have had constant wars. I can't see how anyone who promotes Democracy can complain about other leaders.

I don't complain about other leaders, nor do I complain about Democracy. Slavery and war has been a constant since the day we figured out that we could plant a seed and eat the result, and thus had something worth owning and fighting over. The farther along we get, the more resources we learn to utilize and therefore have even more to fight about. If you're waiting for an end to violence and greed before being impressed by a particular form of government or whatever individual claims to be its leader, then you might as well abandon hope. Those things are traits of humans in general, not the governments through which our societies are organized. The best we can do is to mitigate the effects that those things have on us to some extent, and in that respect we've done pretty good. The vast majority of the people in Democratic countries have never experienced armed conflict themselves, and most people in Democratic countries can go to the grocery store and more or less assume that they probably won't be kidnapped, raped, tortured, sold as slaves themselves, and/or murdered on their way home. Sorry for being pessimistic, but that's a step up from the history I'm familiar with. Like I've said before, pick a country, any country, and I'll give you a history dominated by violence starting with the day they became "civilized," regardless of what government or leader they had.

 

[Pickle Juice]

I didn't get the impression that we should assume illiterate always equals stupid and literate always equals smart. Plenty of intelligent people may be illiterate, depending on what is considered important in the culture they are born in, and plenty of literate people may of below average intelligence.

However, to be literate does require a basic bare minimum of intellectual capability that may be absent in a significant portion of the human population on the whole. In which case democracy isn't the only thing impossible for such people.

Which was the question I believe. Not that it isn't desirable, but that for some people, simply impossible.