I'd like to deal with a few big questions here. Namely, is what America doing really democracy? Can it be successful? If so, does it need to change? Could there be another form of government that would be better for the USA? I won't be able to treat these questions even close to satisfactorily so I hope you will be willing to discuss them with me.

To even start answering these questions I think we must also ask what the state's purpose is, or why we should support or create one in the first place. In my opinion, a state is most purely considered "the lowest level of organization needed for humans to live well." The state exists to improve its citizens, possibly by educating, protecting, and so on. And let's remember that states of democracy, at least for ancient Greek philosophers like Aristotle, anyway, originally meant a pollus (city) composed of citizens [select male land owners who often had slaves back then] that were all involved in a kind of self-rule in which responsibilities rotated.

So the first problem I find with the USA's version of democracy is that it is too goddamned big. We do not self-rule in the sense that the ancients may have liked because we are organized into states with millions of people. Maybe this consequence is unavoidable nowadays, especially when we consider the overwhelming influence that apathy can take. But in electing an extremely select group of representatives, aren't we actually putting "the power of the people" in their hands? Is it even possible for these representatives to properly serve the populaces they're meant to? Seems to me that representatives have very little idea what the people want or need and, further, that politicians in America in general are motivated more by the idea of personal gain than serving the people.

Another possibility could be that the populace may be corrupt either independently of or (as was hinted last paragraph) in addition to the elected officials. For my part, I think it is obvious from American popular culture that the populace is FUBAR. For specific examples, turn on the TV, go to the mall, or take a while to think about how people in America typically spend their time and why. And observe how your fellow countrymen treat each other. Is it possible for a corrupt populace to elect officials well? Recent history screams protest.

There may have once been a time for capitalism, and maybe globalization seems to require it now, but I find very little to no intrinsic value in it. Money is only good insofar as it is spent well and it seems dangerous because evil can be produced when it is spent poorly. It is not clear to me that it is necessary to structure society for the purpose of making money because I think that happiness does not require much money; we've only habituated ourselves to thinking it does. We may think we need a lot of money to police everyone else, to protect ourselves, but I think that this is like mowing weeds when teaching compassion would be more like yanking them by the root.

And finally, forgive me for not wanting to write much more about this last topic, I think the two-party system has created what could only be called a false dichotomy. This seems to stifle the crucial aspects of democracy that our founding fathers seemed to recognize: freethinking (a kind of openness to suggestion in the name of What's Best) and a willingness for subversion.

cliff's notes version: I can't help but think that the current politicians are not true philosophers or politicians but mere sophists, contemptible orators.

democracy has always dwindled into totalitarianism throughout history. so yes, what america is doing is democracy.

Does anyone actually believe the opposite? George Bush a philosopher? Why do you think people pay attention to him? Do you think people would give him any kind of attention if he would be a tire salesman and at the family barbeque he would say the same things he is saying now?

Are you talking about trade and the free market or about state capitalism i.e. mercantallism/corporatism/fascism?


Huh? Money is a tool used for trading. It's actually a commodity. Today, it's been entirely monopolized, corrupted and destroyed, but the problem is not with the concept of money itself.

If you are fundamentally against money then you are fundamentally against trade, freedom of exchange and property rights.

Well put. With all the misinformation out there, it's easy to forget that money is merely a store of value, representing an exchange of goods and services.

I never understand when people talk about "money" like it is some sort of elusive concept only of concern to the most greedy among us, when really it represents something (trade) that your day-to-day life probably depends on.

Nielsio, you've added no meaningful content to this thread. I still would like your contribution, but keep in mind that the topic is democracy in America, not "lets try to nitpick particular sentences."

The first thing you said readdressed the issue from the original post of whether or not what most people think is good is the same as what is demonstrably good, and obviously its not. If you disagree there and think it relates back to politics, I'm all ears.

And in the second post, you showed that you didn't read my post carefully enough as you seem to think you're disagreeing with something I wrote when nothing you've quoted conflicts with your commentary. Also, you did not address money's effect on democracy in America. If you could prove that money is a bigger factor in the good life than what I've said (not that necessary), enough to allow the other downfalls (negative influence on pop culture, disparity of wealth, etc.), then you might have an argument.

Here's the argument I used, retyped for ease of viewing premises/conclusion:
1. Money is good when it is used well (P)
2. Money is bad when it is used badly (P)
3. Money is not always good (follows from 1, 2)
4. The only thing that should always be sought is that which is always good (P)
5. Money should not always be sought (conclusion following 3, 4)

The purpose of the argument is just to show that America values money more than it should, that the state is producing bad in its people instead of good, which is the opposite of its purpose. But it says nothing about being "fundamentally against money" because premise 1 states money is sometimes good, and the faults you bring up with money could simply be used as examples for premise 2, which states that money is sometimes bad. Finally, "the problem is not with the concept of money itself" is a non sequitor, as the argument reveals nothing that isn't obvious about "the concept of money."

You did say something about trade, freedom of exchange, and property rights, but how is this all linked back to capitalism, democracy, etc?

I apologize if I sound harsh in this post but its only because I want focused replies that a) demonstrate careful reading and b) address the topic.

This statement right here sort of screams for clarification, but more than that, for rigorous support. I'm not even sure that the idea of "demonstrably good" is sensical, but I'm fairly confident that *I* am not capable of conceptualizing it. You can?

I thought this was thread was going to be about Alexis de Tocqueville's classic treatise and am now rather let down.

That's a strange way of responding to my questions of clarification. Maybe you didn't understand them or the words I was using but you can just ask. Saying "you added no content" when you don't understand things is, I don't know.. insulting? self-defeating? plain weird?

I think you just don't understand what money actually is, which is why I introduced the concept and it's purpose. You say something like 'valueing' money. Money is a tool that people use to trade for things they value.

In this post you show again just why clarification of your thought-process is so important. You write 'America values money'. I already talked about money a little bit, but what about 'America'? Are you talking about the country? The citizens? The government? Later you say 'against its purpose'. Now you've stated that the purpose of 'America' is 'producing good in its people', so I guess you're talking about the government. But who says that's an agreed upon goal of the organization? And what does 'good' even mean? (as vhawk points out).

I could continue but given that I really don't know where you're going I'm going to wait for answers to my questions (esp the one about capitalism).

Yeah, that was a good read. "This whole America thing is kind of a joke, its basically like Hammer pants, I wouldnt worry about it, should last about a York minute."

I guess I'd just say Premise 4 is trivial because nothing is "always good." And also that capitalism is not about "always seeking money."

JaBlue,

"I think the two-party system has created what could only be called a false dichotomy."

What do you mean by that exactly?

At the highest levels of government, big picture-wise the spectrum of differences between the two parties are really very, very narrow.

Fear of violence and greed are the primary basic human traits that led to the creation of this democracy. They serve to sustain it today. Obviously our democracy is flawed, our society is flawed, and we are flawed. We are only human, and as humans we are often nasty to each other. Further, the average human is un-intelligent and righteously ignorant. It has nothing to do with money really, cultures with no money are also far from utopias. Of course there are other factors which complicate things, but I contend without money and capitalism society would still be messed up.
This country affords us a high standard of living and a LOT of freedom relative to most people currently and in history. It might get better, it might get worse, but I feel pretty lucky to be alive here right now.

There are a few confused statements in your rant, but I don't want to waste time going through them only to be accused of adding nothing and being called a nit-picker.

Of course, so what? The vast majority of the people they represent and pander to are also dimwits. What do you suggest we do about it? Personally, my plan is to make some money doing something interesting, have fun with it and my friends, then die.

First, Nielsio specifically:

This post is about what would be best, namely, whether or not democracy can still be good for America. Having a corrupt populace that elects a president because he is a sophist rather than a philosopher is bull****. I'm not asking why GWB got elected, I'm asking whether or not its right for him to have been.

Good question, I don't have a good reason for skipping it over originally. What I meant was more along the lines of the attitude that capitalism has come to engender, the American dream being confined almost entirely to devoting oneself to working and making and spending money, the idea that happiness requires having lots and lots of money. Using capitalism was a poor choice of words, its not necessarily capitalism that's bad, its the people's attitude that has come from it.

It should be pretty clear from my posts that I understand what money is: something used to get things which may or may not actually be good. Do you really believe that Americans don't "value" money? You think the American government doesn't either? If this were true, how would anyone make decisions whether or not to buy anything? Besides, do you really think that every American person has the same concept as you, and realizes that money is only an extrinsic good? I can think of more than a few that know they want to get rich but don't really know why.

Further, if you have a problem with what I think a state's purpose is, you should address that in the first place. You think the state has some other purpose than "the betterment of its people?" Why else should a state exist? This is what I want to talk about.

---

You have chosen to interpret my statements in fragments without paying attention to context and have misunderstood almost everything I've said in so doing. Granted, capitalism was a misleading choice of words, and I am sorry for speaking loosely, but you are continually steering the topic away from whether or not democracy is good for America and not addressing it. I don't want to waste my time discussing something with you when you haven't addressed how its related to the topic, democracy in America. This is what I mean when I say that you've added no meaningful content, which I still believe.

---

And vhawk:
Being demonstrably good is certainly sensible. Maybe you're thinking of The Good when I'm actually talking about the-good-for but I don't think I implied that I was talking about The Good in that sense. If nothing can be shown to be good-for, what is it that you base your decisions on? Just whim? I have a hard time believing that. In my view, what is truly the-good-for demands consistent teleological explanation and something is demonstrably better insofar as it is more consistent than the alternative with proper teleology, or goals that are also explained in relation to the-good-for. Sure, you'll have to draw the line somewhere and just call something good-for to start, but I see no problem with that so long as contradictions don't arise. If you really want to have this conversation we can talk about it over PM or in a new thread or something, but I want to focus this thread on DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA.

Well first you should know that I think something being good is mostly a privation of it being bad. The only thing that is always good is happiness, and this simply means something like "choosing good actions." Choosing good actions is always good because, well, its never bad.

Again, sorry about using the word capitalism in the very first post but imo it should be clear from my use that I am not talking about the textbook definition. And in the argument I gave, I did not reference capitalism, merely the common American attitude to seek money far more than one properly should, which I called "America values money more than it should." Do you really think this is debatable? You think that shows like MTV Cribs don't prove this? I think shows like MTV Cribs come about because a lot of Americans mistakenly believe that money is an intrinsic good and are habituating themselves to act as if it is.

Well I mean that "Democrat or Republican" is a false choice, that these two options cannot possibly exhaustively represent the spectrum of ideology, the decision-making process before action. To even have this kind of system where a politician must belong to one party of two in order to have a real chance at being elected seems laughable. Don't you hear people talk about how important it is for the democrats/republicans to win the majority in the branches of government all the time?

----

Oh, OK. Its all good because we are humans and we're not perfect by nature, so we should not worry about improving ourselves? My post is just about finding the best option for us humans, not simply accepting the status quo because its convenient. I'm not content to treat events like the Holocaust by just shrugging it off and saying, "eh, we're human, we suck, its OK." I think humans have a lot more potential than that and, quite frankly, need to realize some of this potential to ward off extinction as a species. Seems to me that humans have the ability to habituate themselves to act properly, and not be ruled by these survival instincts you're talking about. I see no reason that all humans shouldn't have the potential to be well-educated (whatever that means) and act
harmoniously, with each other's good in mind. Even if this is eventually done in an imperfect way, all I'm saying is that things could be a whole lot better than they are now.

I think you treat the situation this way out of laziness/apathy. I see no reason to accept a situation that isn't as good as it could be. Maybe its pleasurable to do so for you but if the most important thing is really pleasure, it seems to me that it could be a lot more pleasurable to live in a better world.

Is my scorn really that scary?

I suggest that we reform the dimwits in order to make a better world by having a form of state that actually improves the people. Why you feel that humans are not worth the effort for improvement I do not understand.

I took a class entitled exactly as this thread. Maybe I should participate in discussion. Prof Mohammad-Zadeh would be so proud.

I only read the OP.

Firstly, the ancient philosophers feared Democracy, for the reasons stated in your fourth paragraph. It's what Madison feared, it's why we have a representative democracy.

Secondly, defining democracy in a practical sense is really, really hard and tons of ink has been spilt in this quest.

Lastly, I, for one, am of the opinion that as long as our politicians are directly accountable to the citizenry, then our goverment is functioning as democratically as is practical. Given that a large sect of political scientists believe that members of congress act only as seekers of reelection, American government is functioning democratically.

Democracy cynicism is sort of a natural progression that most people go through. I think its because early in life, democracy is romanticised and we are taught a certain hero worship about those who are in power. We see our parents as loyal foot soldiers in the system, so we see it as providing stability in our lives.

Then we hit 17, start reading 1984, and start to get skeptical. News articles about abuses and loopholes being exploded seem to come daily. Different inequities in the system are revealed. Suddenly, we feel powerless in a system that is controlled by people who show parallels to the 'evil' spectrum, ie your dictatorships. We start to see our opinion disregarded, leaving us to feel betrayed. Democracy was supposed to ensure fairness, how can such a system show huge degrees of unfairness? Then, eventually, we accept the system, exploit it to pro-create in peace and stability, and stop giving a **** about the outside system.

All of this is a classical emotional response that totally misses the point. Democracy is just a way of overcoming the problems behind group behavior and power. It has pros and cons like everything else. Its difficult to deny how free elections have added to the worlds prosperity.

I believe there was a quote before that said Fasicsm is capitalism in decay. These big corporations are getting to big for the public's good imo.

Corporations != free market capitalism. In fact, basically the exact opposite, corporations cannot exist without the government.

Anacardo,

You wrote:
But why don't you discuss this topic with us? Isn't this somewhere near your specialty and interest? Sorry for letting you down, but you must understand that I know very little about this topic and would greatly appreciate any insight you have to offer.
----

lippy,
First of all, thank you for your input. I do have some questions, though, and would appreciate more detailed responses.

Can you say more about this?

I'm not really interested in defining democracy per se, just determining whether or not our system can rightly be called one (since we use so many resources in the effort to "spread democracy") and whether features of our government exclude it from being an effective "democracy." Or of course if something else might be better than what we have now, we only need to talk about democracy to compare it to the new system.

You really think our politicians are directly accountable? If this were true, both Clinton and Bush should have been impeached and tried, one for perjury and one for initiating a war unilaterally.

Can you explain what you [they, the political scientists?] mean here? To me, this sounds like a terrible democracy. In a real democracy it seems to me that politicians - those who rule because they care about the people's welfare - would not seek reelection first, but the good of the people first. That is, they would think long and hard about whether or not they are the most fit to rule the people, and my experience tells me that this is not a big part of most politicians' thought processes.

Further, I find it hard to believe that a politician who is willing to deceive (that is, not be completely open at the very least) the people in order to get elected could be a good leader. This would indicate to me that if this needed to be done, the populace would probably be too corrupt to elect officials much less corrupt than them in the first place. If they're being deceived, how can they possibly choose well? Sounds like a high stakes guessing game to me.


----
Arturius,

You wrote:

But this doesn't sound like a "natural progression," it just sounds like what you may have gone through. I haven't seen any mention in this thread of being 17, reading 1984, dictatorships in general for that matter, or, really, much of anything you're talking about. Further, I see very few indications of "classical emotional response." It seems to me that people are actually trying to argue their points, at least a little bit.

Who is this "we?" Looks like only you and Bork, so far, and given that he hasn't responded to me yet, I still think that this position boils down to an extremely lame kind of laziness that, when examined, doesn't make all that much sense.

Seriously, man, did you even read the thread before posting? Responses like yours really do not belong in a thread like this in EDF. You have not addressed anything that anyone else has said OR the major questions I put forth in the beginning. If you want to talk about your experience reading 1984 and the disillusionment it created for you, and perhaps say that that's what's gone on for a lot of other people, great, go get a blog. But if you want to post in this thread, please do us the favor of at least responding to something somebody else has mentioned. This is supposed to be a discussion; I only started it with a rant because I felt I had to to get the ball rolling on this important issue.

====

vhawk,

you said:

Can you say something about what effect corporations have had historically, whether they should exist by the government, whether they are an important part of capitalism, etc? You seem to keep wanting to separate the specific word capitalism and its seeming historical effects, but why? What is it that you like about capitalism? Why are these good? Is it possible to have them without the negatives? Please stop limiting yourself to such short replies- you are not being a good friend to us in withholding so much information.

===

So far I have to say I'm extremely disappointed in this discussion. I think this topic is important. Why don't you guys take more time to seriously address it instead of banging out some quick, superficial responses? Isn't this what EDF is supposed to be about?

ps the last is a rhetorical question meant for your consideration, I do not want that idea to derail the hopefully-impending discussion.

Gah, I wish I had time for threads like these, but I have to work and make money.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I thought that, but wasn't going to post it. Until I realized that it may fit in with the thread, in that I think this may be the biggest problem with democracy in America.

Because of money no one has time to think about politics, and it is this perception of politicians (through the sound-bite media) that leads to them being effectivly useless, just cogs in the larger machine of corporate dominance and money concentration.

Maybe that's exactly what they want, and 'democracy' is doing an excellent job at that. It all depends on who you think it's for.

The State as an Organization.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8FJ5SMQv58

Oh dear!