#Debate3

Hi all, here the next debate topic: Is democracy the final stage in the "evolution" of governments? In other words, will all the governments of the world eventually become democratic? Democratization has swept the world pretty greatly with many people demanding democracy and in some cases, the governments accept it. However, some nations are able to continue to hold authoritarian rule despite the pressure of democracy such as China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and many others. So, is democracy the last step in the evolution of governments? Or, do you believe there is another stage left for governments to become? Could there be a new government type that has yet to be drawn up?

As always, I'll try to keep my opinion to myself so don't be offended if I don't quote you back. I may ask questions to further the discussion and if I see that the discussion has died, I'll give it my stamp and prepare the next debate question.


Edit: I am pro democracy, but I don't want it to seem that I am trying to force that as the last stage for government so don't be offended if that's how it comes off with what I said at the top D: .

Actually if you read all those science fiction novels about utopias (human or alien), most of them don't have governments.
Or conversely in dystopias, as the population (and territory size) grows, democracy becomes plagued with problems of bureaucracy, corruption, and inefficiency (worse than it is now), and the civilization collapses into barbarity out of which an empire rises (Warhammer 40k), or simply transitions into an Empire (Star Wars )
While I may be quoting science fiction, (Beam me up Scotty!), Star Wars and Warhammer do accurately portray human behavior. Irrationality, ridiculous belief in a higher power (bleh!), prone to mass killings and genocide and war.
Now granted Warhammer takes that a bit too far, but that's what makes it hilarious

---

No. I don't think democracy is the last stage of governance. We either 'relapse' back to Imperialism (more and more likely what with all the Resource shortages coming up) or get rid of governments entirely — America might do this. Trump for Prez? Bleh. Hillary for Prez? Double bleh!
WHO NEEDS GOVERNMENTS? WE'RE THE FUCKING USA

Написао Darth., 23.04.2016 at 23:23

Actually if you read all those science fiction novels about utopias (human or alien), most of them don't have governments.
Or conversely in dystopias, as the population (and territory size) grows, democracy becomes plagued with problems of bureaucracy, corruption, and inefficiency (worse than it is now), and the civilization collapses into barbarity out of which an empire rises (Warhammer 40k), or simply transitions into an Empire (Star Wars )
While I may be quoting science fiction, (Beam me up Scotty!), Star Wars and Warhammer do accurately portray human behavior. Irrationality, ridiculous belief in a higher power (bleh!), prone to mass killings and genocide and war.
Now granted Warhammer takes that a bit too far, but that's what makes it hilarious

---

No. I don't think democracy is the last stage of governance. We either 'relapse' back to Imperialism (more and more likely what with all the Resource shortages coming up) or get rid of governments entirely — America might do this. Trump for Prez? Bleh. Hillary for Prez? Double bleh!
WHO NEEDS GOVERNMENTS? WE'RE THE FUCKING USA

The transfer from a republic to a dictatorship in Star Wars was produced absolutely perfectly and ended with my favorite line of all time:

The worst part for her was that she was an avid supporter of Palpatine at the start, when she thought he was a genuinely nice guy (xaxaxa ) and many of his laws wouldn't have gone through without her. I love the prequel series the most

The idea that the rest of the world will embrace western democratic principles and free market capitalism cause they are just so super sexy is a retarded myth propagated by leftist academics (see: Francis Fukuyama) and the neocons he inspired.

Democratic republics are certainly not the last stage in anything but they are probably the best form of government we've had in a while and will be able to have for a very long time. Just be glad you got to be alive before it all went to ruin.

Написао Darth., 23.04.2016 at 23:45

I love the prequel series the most

This is kinda shameful and you're gonna be better off not repeating it in public

Написао Acquiesce, 23.04.2016 at 23:50

Написао Darth., 23.04.2016 at 23:45

I love the prequel series the most

This is kinda shameful and you're gonna be better off not repeating it in public

I'm sorry but it's mostly because the animations are a lot better than the original. That, and because it was so cool to see the years before the Empire. Plus, Darth Vader while cool and mysterious in the 'awesome-music-starts-playing-whenever-he-steps-into-a-room' is hilarious as a shy and giggly Anakin Skywalker.

EDIT: They need to remake both the series with modern animations. I'd tap that

Написао Acquiesce, 23.04.2016 at 23:48

Just be sad you got to be alive as it all begins to go to ruin, and not after

Fixed it for you
Global Warming + Resource and Water shortages + Overpopulation + Massive Pollution + Over-industrialization = FUCKED

Monarchs across the world didn't suddenly become en-lighted with the principles of democracy and in a sign of goodwill reformed the structure of power so it could benefit the plebs. What happened was that they either got butchered by entities from within (Like how the Romans had to overthrown their kings, the french guillotined their king & how the bolsheviks killed the Tsar) or they were forced to abdicate because they backed the wrong side, like austria-hungary in ww1 and like the monarchs that during ww2 sided with Hitler in his struggle to expand his reich into the stars. The few entities that abstained from democracy were eventually pressured by modern (((Globalism))) into becoming republics.

But here is the catch: unlike monarchs who collapse due to the use of force, a Republic has a tendency to collapse from within as the result of a Tyrant seizing power by using democratic methods. There is two types of tyrants: the strong tyrant who seizes power at once, and the soft tyrant who expands his own power just a little bit and leaves the foundation for the next tyrant in such a way that he (the next tyrant) doesn't have to seize all power at once as all of it was already delivered to him little by little by the former tyrants.

Написао Tundy, 23.04.2016 at 23:59

[...] and the soft tyrant who expands his own power just a little bit and leaves the foundation for the next tyrant in such a way that he (the next tyrant) doesn't have to seize all power at once as all of it was already delivered to him little by little by the former tyrants.

You have just described the Sith ideology from Star Wars, which proves my point above, that good science fiction is usually a good indicator of the possible future of governance.
Also, how dare you call the Sith soft?

---

As an aside, how many here know that motion activated sliding doors, and flip phones were inspired by Star Trek — the doors on the Enterprise, and the Federation communicators? People thought they were cool, so manufacturers jumped on the idea.

Democracy will only arrive to the countries with natural resources

In the diplomatic scene, democracy is a joke. It's a pretext used by the West to invade any weaker nation that possesses anything valuable to them, or fight a proxy war for the gain of the military-industrial complex(Unending wars like Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. Say what you will, but in reality there's a good chance these conflicts will last half a decade more).

In the domestic scene, democracy is just a gigantic circus. In fact I despise the whole system. It's impossible to elect one person to embody the whole people. Now that we have the internet and assorted communicative technologies I'd support a democracy based on individual issue voting, of course combined with federalism and de-centralization.

Democracy today de facto;(Adjusted to the Swedish system of parliamentary monarchy)

The broad mass, the electorate, adjusts their vote towards which party is most in line with their ideology.
- Creates problems with representation as, atleast here in Sweden but around most of the world as well, parties are very unfriendly to the idea of changing their stances and the only new parties to gain entry into Parliament are the anti-immigrant and almost the feminist ones.

The Parliament, elected by the electorate(people) then elects one individual from one of the parties to Prime Minister.
- Now we go from an electorate of 8 million to 300-400. This presents a major corruption problem, an unacceptable centralization of power in the hands of the few. In the case of Sweden, 349 Parliamental seats vs 9,858,794 inhabitants. This means that every Parliament member represents around 28,000 people. This wouldn't be a problem if every province had partial/well-developed home rule compared to the central government, like the way it is in the USA. But with a unitary system here in Sweden those 349 individuals, of whom one will be Prime Minister and make the vast majority of policy, rule every single detail of the 9.9 million inhabitants.

The Parliament now votes on most legal issues, representing the people.
- Therefore, in reality, the people only have actual political powers every 4 years as opposed to a system of direct democracy where it can ALWAYS be in the hands of the people.

Democracy is just a countermeasure towards the wave of upheaval in the 1840's and 1920's. It fools the citizens into thinking they have any actual power while in fact they are ignored and trampled by the government.
I'd support an enlightened dictatorship any day over democracy.
- Enlightened dictatorship meaning;
A dictatorship where political powers of the people are stripped but civil rights and liberties remain. If the economy is good and they are free in their actions citizens don't NEED the right to vote. Political rights is a spawn of people simply not having enough other things to do in life.

Написао clovis1122, 24.04.2016 at 06:50

Democracy will only arrive to the countries with natural resources

And not just any democracy...

Metallic and Acqui make a decent post, and their voice gets lost among a wave of memes posted by idiots trying to have some fun. That is democracy for you.

Написао Tundy, 24.04.2016 at 10:57

Metallic and Acqui make a decent post, and their voice gets lost among a wave of memes posted by idiots trying to have some fun. That is democracy for you.

The people keep electing morons

Написао Dereny, 23.04.2016 at 23:16

Hi all, here the next debate topic: Is democracy the final stage in the "evolution" of governments?

It should be.

Написао Dereny, 23.04.2016 at 23:16

In other words, will all the governments of the world eventually become democratic? Democratization has swept the world pretty greatly with many people demanding democracy and in some cases, the governments accept it.

That is mostly due to America and their large economy, attracting people around the world. When Cold War ended, eastern europe and others switched to western democracy thinking they can become wealthy and developed like America. They didn't realize democracy is only political freedom, not economic wealth.

Beside, American warfare helped alot with spreading western democracy as in the Cold War they promoted their style of government to oppose the Soviet one.

Написао Dereny, 23.04.2016 at 23:16

However, some nations are able to continue to hold authoritarian rule despite the pressure of democracy such as China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and many others.

Iran is quite democratic, they killed monarchy and deposed the monarch (dictator) and created democracy in Iranian Revolution of 1979.

In Saudi Arabia it is all different story, as party politics enable weak or poor (greedy, weak and poor in the economy, failures) people to unite and fight the regime. Those greedy want power and wealth monopolized by House of Saudi. They don't really want freedom for people, women rights and democracy.

Написао Dereny, 23.04.2016 at 23:16

So, is democracy the last step in the evolution of governments? Or, do you believe there is another stage left for governments to become? Could there be a new government type that has yet to be drawn up?

Some would argue technocracy over democracy. As of today, we have knowledge about everything, so if we know what need to be done, how to solve problems, create opportunity, why debate about it in democracy? Just do it.

We know when and where to produce grain, we know why and when to produce tanks, we know how to heal people with medicine. So why debate about it in campaigns, elections or parliament? That is unecessary, it just have to be done and we don't need elected politicians for that. Technocrats (expert administrators, like biologists, scientists, chemists, mathematicians, physicians) will do it.

Написао Dereny, 23.04.2016 at 23:16

Edit: I am pro democracy, but I don't want it to seem that I am trying to force that as the last stage for government so don't be offended if that's how it comes off with what I said at the top D: .

I am pro representative democracy for my country (Russia) in this current era. Reason: if one party (composed of greedy people who failed in economy to make profit so now they want to steal money from budget (taxes)) is seen doing crime and leading badly, we can depose them in next elections and elect new party to rule another 6 years. If they are good and we see their policies are logical and normal, we will vote for them for 6 years again.

That should end in about 40 years in my opinion, and then direct democracy should be established. That way all citizens can participate in making laws and policies and have their voice heard. With internet and modern communication that will be alot easier. And after 50 years, technocracy should be created, giving positions to scientists and experts in their fields to lead the country, state and population, as they will do only things that are logical and mathematically correct. Irrational and illogical will be discarded.

Написао Skanderbeg, 24.04.2016 at 12:04

Iran is quite democratic, they killed monarchy and deposed the monarch (dictator) and created democracy in Iranian Revolution of 1979.

Iran is one of the more democratic countries in the middle east, but it has quite a few democratic deficits. First, people can elect members of the Majles and the president which is democratic. Where that falls short though is because the Guardian Council gets to decide who can and cannot run for those positions so if they do not like someone for being to western for example, that person gets taken off the running list. The chief judge is picked by the Supreme Leader, and the Supreme Leader has all the military power, and much more, and a lot of influence, but he is not elected by the public. He also gets to pick half the people who make up the guardian council. The remaining half are picked by the Majles from a list drawn up by the Supreme Judicial Council who again are selected by the Supreme Leader. The guardian council is also able to block legislation from the Majles so when you examine the government of Iran, you see the people's voice gets filtered out pretty quickly.

Написао clovis1122, 24.04.2016 at 06:50

Democracy will only arrive to the countries with natural resources

agree.

Написао TheRiddler, 24.04.2016 at 08:47

Because we like it hard!

Написао 5th SS Wiking, 24.04.2016 at 07:48

snippy snip snip

I understand your point on direct democracies vs. indirect democracies (#Republics). Here's a question for you though. In a direct democracy, people would have to vote extremely often. Now given that most of these people have jobs, they would not be able to educate themselves on the stances as thoroughly as people who are elected to represent individuals (Senators, representatives, etc.) Now which is better, uninformed or misinformed people of the masses voting on legislation, or a smaller group of people who spend their time understanding the stances as part of their job and voting according to most of the beliefs of people?

Написао Dereny, 24.04.2016 at 19:29

I understand your point on direct democracies vs. indirect democracies (#Republics). Here's a question for you though. In a direct democracy, people would have to vote extremely often. Now given that most of these people have jobs, they would not be able to educate themselves on the stances as thoroughly as people who are elected to represent individuals (Senators, representatives, etc.) Now which is better, uninformed or misinformed people of the masses voting on legislation, or a smaller group of people who spend their time understanding the stances as part of their job and voting according to most of the beliefs of people?

You seem to forget that in very many nations, at the very least here in Europe where the cancer of democracy(political parties) is so well developed most people don't know what they're voting on anyway.
Besides, if we're going for qualification to rule a dictatorship is always the way to go.

Написао 5th SS Wiking, 25.04.2016 at 07:26

You seem to forget that in very many nations, at the very least here in Europe where the cancer of democracy(political parties) is so well developed most people don't know what they're voting on anyway.

I agree most people don't know what they're voting for. I know in the US, politicians used to be afraid of the uniformed voter and now that is starting to change to being afraid of the misinformed voter. I wonder which one is worse for politicians.

Написао Dereny, 25.04.2016 at 09:13

I agree most people don't know what they're voting for. I know in the US, politicians used to be afraid of the uniformed voter and now that is starting to change to being afraid of the misinformed voter. I wonder which one is worse for politicians.

Misinformed voters are good for politicians because it allows them to push their agendas irregarding actual circumstances, while the uninformed voter will vote arbitrarily meaning nobody can really guarantee their victory. On the contrary, informed voters is the enemy of all political parties and most head of state(AKA president) candidates.

Jesus shall rule over all the Earth in the end! Heil dictatorship

Написао 5th SS Wiking, 25.04.2016 at 09:23

Написао Dereny, 25.04.2016 at 09:13

I agree most people don't know what they're voting for. I know in the US, politicians used to be afraid of the uniformed voter and now that is starting to change to being afraid of the misinformed voter. I wonder which one is worse for politicians.

Misinformed voters are good for politicians because it allows them to push their agendas irregarding actual circumstances, while the uninformed voter will vote arbitrarily meaning nobody can really guarantee their victory. On the contrary, informed voters is the enemy of all political parties and most head of state(AKA president) candidates.

Misinformed voters can go either way depending on if you're the politician spreading the incorrect information or if you're the politician who is being lied about. AT least with an uninformed voter you have a shot at being voted on.