Is Direct Democracy the Solution to Capitalism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter datatec
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the idea of replacing democracy with a governance system led by individuals with higher IQs or education, suggesting this could create a more efficient alternative to capitalism. Critics argue that intelligence alone does not guarantee effective leadership, emphasizing the importance of expertise and experience in decision-making. Concerns about potential authoritarianism and the inherent flaws of democracy, such as populism and special interest influence, are also raised. Some participants advocate for a voting examination to ensure informed participation in elections, while others highlight the need for a well-educated populace to improve democratic processes. Ultimately, the conversation reflects a deep skepticism of current democratic systems and explores alternative governance models.
  • #51
Why not, that's not advertising anything except my desire for a more pleasant world.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Wasn't Hitler expressing his desire for a more pleasant world?
 
  • #53
Funny.

I don't think we're going to agree on this one any time soon.
 
  • #54
I don’t said anything about if on should allow “advertising violents”. In the process of a takeover of power it wouldn’t made much difference if a new Hitler would do this ore not. After violence of this kind is established you can’t stop it with any law, because you won't find someone to execute it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #55
Selbstüberschätzug said:
Hitler cams to power not because of democracy but because of rests of Dictatorship (Dekret) in the “ Weimarer Republik”. But actually he was dependent on the rifles of his followers. Like every dictator in history.
I did not say Hitler. I said Nazi Party. The members of the Nazi Party in the parliament were all elected by the people. They eventually got the majority of the seats. Once again elected by the people. Hitler got into power because he was appointed as the Chancellor. And then when the President died, he had full power.
 
  • #56
Smurf said:
If a party is in control of your country and says that anyone can express themselves anyway they want and then a few rich guys get together and obtain totaly media monopoly and suddenly the only ideas being advertised are their own, is that fair?
Monopoly laws and freedom of speech are not even remotely close.
 
  • #57
Smurf said:
but I am not promoting hate at all. I'm just saying the KKK is (extremely) misguided.
Misguided yes. But they're still entitled to freedom of speech. Violence, etc are a different matter.
 
  • #58
Smurf said:
Everyone should be prohibited from advertising racism.
Do you recall the song "Don't Want No Short Short Man" I would say that puts a negative stereotype toward short men. Do you believe that should be restricted as well?

It's not good when the government starts dictating what is good speech and what is not. When someone says something extremely ridiculous, it should be quite easy to point it out anyways with the freedom of speech everyone else has as well.
 
  • #59
In China you'd better not be openly critical about politics: that might land you in trouble. Talking about racism should not be prohibited, actually acting out of racism should be.
 
  • #60
Did you know that the "Nazi paty" dependent on Hitler just from the beginning? The hole propaganda, the hole powertake was not imageable without this man. The Nazi-movement organised and controlled by him, who was alone just from the start.
 
  • #61
Sounds like you place Hitler in the same category as Jesus Christ. It is probably safe to say that many movements are dependent on a charismatic leader, because that is what humans respond to. It means little who you follow in the end, you are still following. Few have the ability to lead.
 
  • #62
No. Hitler was evil and hadn’t much ability (he was intelligent and charismatic but not to much) and had power. Jesus Christ was god and handed power. The power don’t correlate automatically with ability’s ore moral.
 
  • #63
I never believe of a one system fits all thing. It all depends on the context, the era, the culture in which democracy is in. I never expect any political system to last for a long time anyway. Direct democracy may work for Switzerland now, but maybe in the distant future, things change, and maybe feudalism suits them better.
 
  • #64
Perhaps you mean "American democracy is corrupted". Not to mention Canadian.

A healthy democracy is the most capable politic system. A corrupted democracy is just as dangerous as a dictatorship.

I hope there will be a Politics section in the philosophy forum some time soon. :S
 
  • #65
I just came back with my timemachine. Their was a election about to destroy the rights of the swiss people in the jahr 2050, after a world wide thermonuclear war. The result was they have rejectet it by 98 to 2 %.

Perhaps direct democraty isn't as stabile as a Nucler winter. But is the only hope we have.
Halve things like the american halve democrathy are very labile (physical law). And is already more feudalism then democraty.
 
Back
Top