In the overall, democracy is little more than the banality of ignorance under the thumb of the Law of Large Numbers.
Group think, hive mind, herd mentality; or more in the literati frame, Alexis de Tocqueville and the Tyranny of Majority.
At any point that any individual tacitly, or with directed intent, ascribes to themselves a group identity, group label, they have committed to subsuming their character, interests, needs in the declared or occult ideological platform and rhetoric of said group.
As it is highly likely that my perspective is not superior, especially to more learned minds, here I will digress and defer to their unfettered cognitive proficiency for my responses:
Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.
Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free than Christianity has made them good.
Democracy is only a dream: it should be put in the same category as Arcadia, Santa Claus, and Heaven.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.
--H. L. Mencken, from numerous works.
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
-- Sir Winston Churchill
On the matter of capital punishment, it is a glaring example of the illogic and inglorious attempts of the hominid brain to justify reproach of the natural order, reason and objectivity.
Neuroscience has proven, repeatedly, that taking any hominid brain, as it stands, atom for atom, and switching it into any other hominid -- the behavioral outcome is causally deterministic and the receiver would commit the same acts.
Either there is acceptance that the group is greater than the individual, or the individual is greater than the group. Capital punishment makes crystalline clear the illogic of group think. Half will unjustifiably provide reason why it is an "abomination to human rights and dignity" and half will unjustifiably provide reason why it is "morally upright".
It is neither; it is acceptance of reason, objectivity and fact over feeling. One must necessarily be superior; the group or the individual.
In the overall, democracy is little more than the banality of ignorance under the thumb of the Law of Large Numbers.
Thank you! Hugs and Kisses Andy!
(I´ll ignore the synonymous use of ethics and moral in your OP, don´t wanna nitpick again)
or if you prefer, that morality is defined in terms of the majority's opinions
I´d prefer that formulation! Very much over the other.
Now, I´ll lay out my thoughts to this, loosely circling around your question.
Please attack em!
Democracy can contribute to the ethical conduct of society, as it allows the society to constantly adjust its morals and by guaranteeing civil liberties it can ensure an open discussion between informed citizens.
This of course can only be assured via freedom infringing rules, by educating and informing your citizens continously and here we have already arrived at one dilemma of our liberal democracies:
To protect our civil liberties we need to regulate the execercise of these, but by regulating their excercise (and these clash constantly with each other, this cannot me prevented) we diminsih/infringe them.
I do not know of a better system which can produce on a higher ethical ground morals, but I have experienced in my lifetime, that the old argument for our capitalistic free societies (generation of wealth) is being challenged by the success of an authoritarian regime which has managed to rise huge numbers of people from bitter poorness into acceptable middleclass lifestyle (albeit at great natural costs, but that is a different cup of tea). I am thinking of China. China's success is the greates challenge to our way of government.
------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
Apart from that, the best form of government would be a µthoskratie. Never heard of it? Yeah, cause the media doesn´t... also they are fake... and conspiracy + chem trails.
That is a form of government where I (and later clones of mine) set the grand strategy and the most intelligent and educated humans and dolphins of their respective field have to find the right steps to chase my strategical goal.
If not I am allowed to rule, democracy is the best form of government I can think of.
Thomas from Aquin is dead wrong. Robbery needs malicious intent and I do not see this intent in the state, its acting personas and in the souvereign who empowers the state.
Democratic systems fail when you have 49-51% votes or even 48-52%. Nearly all legislation in a Democracy should be vast majority decisions such as 60% minimums. When individuals argue that those are impossible standards, I disagree entirely. The use of parliamentary systems or even mixed systems are effective at maintaining numerous parties (unlike the USA's unitary corporate party) which require coalitions of numerous parties to create majority support on any one law/policy. Thus compromise and debate are encouraged and ingrained within the legislative and executive processes. The European systems seem to grasp this concept far better than the degraded and broken U.S. system in which the separation of powers has become obsolete. Separating Head of Government, and Head of State roles between a legislature and an elected executive would be more effective at splintering powers away from such small groups.
The Supreme Court is now a partisan branch. Thus the strongest branch of the U.S. government is now at the whim of which party's president nominated them. Rulings like corporate personhood, and money = speech helped drive American democracy off a cliff and into the arms of the wealthiest interests. Even with Supreme Court decisions, 6-3 votes should be required to make any final ruling, as to ensure that party lines are eliminated on the Court. Another alternative would be to enlarge the court and have 3 members appointed, 3 members elected, and 5 members representing the West Coast, the Mid-west, the deep south, the south east coastal states, and the north eastern states. The United States is far to large a country, with far too many cultural differences between regions, to have only 9 individuals determining nation wide constitutional issues. The nation has grown far too large for such a small yet omnipotent Federal government.
I would propose a multiparty system (at least 5 parties) which represent the entire political spectrum from Left-Right and Authoritarian-Libertarian combinations. Additionally, I feel the federal system needs to add another level which includes regions. 50 states, 10 regions (5 states each with similar interests, cultures, and political leanings), and 1 federal government with substantially less power. Those powers the federal government has would be drastically reduced and delegate those lost powers to the regions and states. Essentially limiting the federal government to be in charge of declaring war and maintaining a military and homeland defense force. All of this would have to be accomplished through a constitutional convention of the states.
Does democracy contribute or detract from the ethical conduct of society?
I feel that democracy contributes to ethical conduct only if the citizenry is well informed, highly educated, and active in local, state, and national government. Criticism and skepticism of government and power are key. Democracies fail when individuals no longer have interest in the political process, or are so indoctrinated by propaganda that they view the government almost as a religious entity. As stated by Christopher Hitchens "There is no need to muzzle sheep".
These are just my ideas and thoughts. Even with my thoughts, I encourage compromise and debate on altering the present system to be more representative of the regional differences and interests rather than those of financial institutions and Wall Street. Lastly, currency reform is essential. I feel that the money of the future will be in terrawatt, megawatt and kilowatt hours as well as cryptocurrency.
You are conflating at least three separate issues, and combine them to create conclusions. It is a bit confusing.
Nothing is conflated.
The brain decides, and informs the conscious as much as 10 seconds after the fact. Then the body is committed to some action.
This negates "free will", intentional agency, or making of choices as an independent conscious function. All 3 are descriptors of the exact same presumed function, call it what you choose.
Now move the brain to a different body, atom for atom. Even in a different body, that brain will make the exact same decisions.
That is the natural refuge of the right ie one is whining when they called out for what is a toxic slant on to caring for community and being mindful that laissez faire economics as self regulating is a myth. Rabid consumerism, and concentration on accumulation of wealth to the detriment of the good Samaritan principle and all that while hiding behind the flag and god is usually a ploy of the hypocritical and greedy. I believe Christ spoke to that in the sermon on the mount but alas, he was a rabid communist! And the idea of your hapless behind telling me to do something productive is a laugh. Maybe you need to take stock of your own circumstance before presumptively assuming the worse of others.
Let me reiterate there is no such thing as real democracy, Democracy is a methodology to conserve voice and exit strategy in an organized society. There are many possible frameworks for achieving a maximal representation of the ideal.
It is understood that when the individual does not directly represent himself before those who are the statuary authority, an increment of democratic deficit is said to occur. The minimum scale is then one to one representation. However, the vote for a representative move the distance from the center one pace back. In modern democracies, that is the distance from the voter and the centralized authority. The US is not so large that one cannot confront one's representative directly or where one can organize to remove them if dissatisfied.
I presume if the population grows to a few billion we may have trouble given the individual voice is lost in the crowd. Maybe we will develop some new way with technology facilitating the strategy to conserve our influence in the state. My point in saying all of this is that one cannot simply say that because the individual does not directly represent himself means democracy is to be determined dead and to be interred.
Worse conservative would say go for their guns if we are ever likely on the path of the Scandinavian nations ( no matter they are the most happy and most satisfied with government). That would be advocating communism under the banner of progressive advocacy. I do think America has done well for herself.
What is wrong with you? DO you think phrasing things like that makes you sound smart or something? Essentially anything that follows "It is understood that..." is always complete BS. Do you come post silly things that you think make you sound smart?
Real democracy works fine on a small scale, when no more than a few dozen people are involved.
First of all I am a Classical Liberal and no friend of the so-called "right" (neo-CONservative warfare welfare state) or the so-called "left" (cultural Marxist / socialist welfare warfare state). I'm not whining at all and I am a firm believer in PRIVATE charity (the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing). Christ most certainly was not a communist. He advised the rich man to give it all away and follow him, but never said the state should put a gun to the rich man's head and steal his property. But up to this point I never brought Christianity into this, that was you. You have some kind of morbid fixation with it. My contentions are purely secular and based on Natural law, so the joke's on you. I have a very "Jeffersonian" outlook on things. You apparently have a very Leninist / Stalinist / Maoist outlook. How do you feel about private firearms ownership?
[whether equalized life outcomes is justice or "fair." Indeed, by your
definition of "fair," Hussein Bolt must be hobbled in a road race
because he will almost always win, and him always winning is not "fair" to those who lose.]
It isn't about applying hindrances (hobbles) to perceived winners, the hindrances are to everyone for a purpose (funding the government). It is more like we hand out weights to carry, and the stronger ones can carry a bit more but are still outrunning those with smaller lighter weights. The race still gets won by Bolt, by the same margin, but the entire race just lasts a bit longer. Bolt still lives the comfortable overly frivolous life as the top 1% of wealth as every other person lives at their same class level. It is a burden on the entirety of the system not a particular individual or entity.
To be fair, that was at a time where Britain was half a years distance by boat and the taxes did not get reinvested into the colonies. The colonies did not benefit at ALL from the taxation. They couldn't even levy a force for it's defense with the split political ideologies and loyalties of the colonies at the time.
Also, please, I'm very interested where you got someone (or some nonliving entity) with a direct taxation of 91%.
Sorry, much of what you said in the latter part of your post was incoherent drivel. We do live in a democracy so I get equal right to argue my views in the public square. I am convinced I have a more palatable argument, ie we are obliged to be our brothers keeper, especially if after years of service he or she has been met by misfortune of some sort. I also feel a special need to look to those of our young who through no fault of their own find themselves in unfortunate circumstances of want. I will argue that if as an individual I can see merit in addressing these needs I should advocate for them as policy.
I write as I see fit and I believe there is a special mellifluous cadence to it so the reader finds it easy to abstract the information they convey. Indeed I ignore some of your views as they remind me of the effusions of the conservative talk show ethos. I don't care for them so I do not engage them as I am convinced you need an audience of the gullible to gain resonance. I am not that.
I do not know I miss the slight of hand casino reality of derivatives and the pursuit of the quants for the seminal Alpha code. Algorithm driven markets are here to stay and the so called beta class of traders are old shoes. These hedge fund mavens never lose and they will steal us blind if the market is not regulated. But, you folks want free market and anything goes I see you cussing the feds but what you want is what Bernaanke advocated in the early part of the last decade. He believed market volatility was a thing of the past as the mathematics wizards had tamed the unruly beast and we were in a new dawn of financial stability. So much for unfettered market forces.
Anyways, I chose not to entertain you and your ideas of a new gold standard etc. I am not interested.
dude, the communist tax is the appropriation of all factors of production inclusive of labor and pretend that is the the path to utopian bliss. And if the vanguard party said it is so then it is so. This crapola that a social conscience to government is communism is inherently false.
The Scandinavians are the happiest people on the planet and they do not mind paying 51 percent tax. It is a just a way of looking at the world. You can be greedy and self centered and hyper individualistic but community suffers. The idea is always a golden mean, a healthy balance of free markets and regulations, of taxes and social programs etc.