Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

To obtain a true democracy you must have educated citizens. Educated citizens are key because of their ability to solve problems, learn, and be open to new ideas. The democratic system should be set up like this: there are the citizens who elect senators. Then the people, at local community centers and town halls, shall come up with issues and ideas to improve the country or state. The citizens shall then send the ideas and issues to the senators at the capital. The senators shall then pick the most important issues and ideas and put them into place for them to take action. Thus the people choose what goes on in their nation. The tax placed on the people should be relatively high, to ensure enough money for the ideas and issues to get into action. In this state the people shall elect any government official to represent a certain section of the budget. For example the citizens of this ‘country A’ elect a Secretary of Defense for choosing what money, from the military budget, should be spent on; equipment, weapon production, etc. These government officials must be educated for this system to work, for the people would not want a Secretary of Defense spending all of the military money on food for the soldiers when there are no soldiers. This shows the importance of education in this kind of society. Going back to the senators, these men and women must be highly intelligent in the state of the country to know how they should spend the budget. In this kind of society, children in high-school should not be able to drop out, education is key to this country. In some cases poor families would not be able to afford special education, healthcare, college, etc. so a large section of the budget must be spent on plans for the poor and even the middle and high classes. In this nation if people cannot be healthy – or educated – the government will not work. This country now might be called a ‘socialist democracy’ because of its generally high tax rate and large umbrella welfare/health/education programs, but this government could not really take a turn into right-wing politics. The government needs to be taking care of everyone, meaning higher taxes, watching out for the poor, and a little bit of socialism. - THB


Automatically Appended Next Post:
whoops actually BTH

uh, wut?

I wrote this, you are supposed to read it.

It seems like this should be moved to Off-Topic if that is the case.

Ya I guess so.

seconded for a move. that said...

Hadarac wrote:To obtain a true democracy you must have educated citizens. Educated citizens are key because of their ability to solve problems, learn, and be open to new ideas.

define "education". is this through school, colege, life experience etc? "education" comes from a variety of sources. a potato farmer from idaho who can barely read and write might be as fully capable of solving some issues, and dealing with people on a better level than some egghead from a university. also, define how this education is taught. what defines its content, its focus? and to be fair, plenty highly educated scientists stake entire careers on a theory - they're going to be utterly against competing ideas, as much as any two religious zealots.

Hadarac wrote:The democratic system should be set up like this: there are the citizens who elect senators. Then the people, at local community centers and town halls, shall come up with issues and ideas to improve the country or state. The citizens shall then send the ideas and issues to the senators at the capital.

and possibly sending said ideas to places where people wont necessarily get it.

Hadarac wrote: The senators shall then pick the most important issues and ideas and put them into place for them to take action.

so a small number of people make policy? and who defines policy? special interests groups? lobbyists? MONEY? by definition, not democracy. this is a pleutocratic oligarchy - ironically, what most of us do actually call "democracy".

Hadarac wrote:Thus the people choose what goes on in their nation.

no, the people chose a bunch of folks to govern them. those folks then do what they want. you're ignoring a little thing called human nature. your ideas imply a collective.

Hadarac wrote:The tax placed on the people should be relatively high, to ensure enough money for the ideas and issues to get into action.

and those who create wealth will have no incentive to make more, when taxes are high. why should i try and make a million when the gocernment takes half? its nice nice, but capitalism is about the only way of pushing people in a vaguely productive direction. the trick is marrying capitalism to social justice.

Hadarac wrote:These government officials must be educated for this system to work, for the people would not want a Secretary of Defense spending all of the military money on food for the soldiers when there are no soldiers.

again, define education.

Hadarac wrote:This shows the importance of education in this kind of society. Going back to the senators, these men and women must be highly intelligent in the state of the country to know how they should spend the budget. In this kind of society, children in high-school should not be able to drop out, education is key to this country.

define education. just because you did great at school doesnt make you the right person to run a business or a country. plenty of those highly educated fools will be great on theory, and utterly lousy at practicality. as to not being able to drop out - not everyone is cut out for school. what about trades and apprenticeships? saying you must do great at school does nothing but create another strata of haves and have nots.

Hadarac wrote:In some cases poor families would not be able to afford special education, healthcare, college, etc. so a large section of the budget must be spent on plans for the poor and even the middle and high classes. In this nation if people cannot be healthy – or educated – the government will not work. This country now might be called a ‘socialist democracy’ because of its generally high tax rate and large umbrella welfare/health/education programs, but this government could not really take a turn into right-wing politics. The government needs to be taking care of everyone, meaning higher taxes, watching out for the poor, and a little bit of socialism. - THB

to an extent, but i, and many others have issues with the welfare state idea. I have no problem with working hard, or paying taxes, but i am more concerned about my tax sterlings being put to good use. throwing a large segment of money at a large, and a (being s cynical devils advocate) potentially unproductive sector of society does what, exactly?Why the special treatment? if i work hard through school, work hard at my job for a measly wage (since all my money is going to the nanny state) why do they get all the benefits of my labour? I feel that people should be encouraged to go out there, get a job, earn an honest living rather than living on handouts from a nanny state (that said, i do believe in social security, and social justice - people need to be looked after, to an extent as well) . and again, education is not necessarily the key. every year, there is the never ending debates as to whether schools are teaching kids the right things, as there is an argument that rote learning simply does not prepare people for the practicalities of day to day life. personally, i put more faith in "hands on" experience than school.

Wall of text. Find the enter key, then I'll try reading it.

Did anyone find a point hidden in that wall of text.

If it was there, I missed it.

40k isn't about democracy and fluffy kittens.
It's not about a "long time ago, far far away" place where the bureaucracy gets bogged down in committee discussions so often they only get a chance for wars every 10,000 or so years (The events in ep IV-VI are a mopping up operation AFTER the war).

In the 41st Millennium, there is only war.
NOT:
In the 41st millennium, there are only endless political round-table discussions, focus groups, committees and senatorial inquiries.

Hadarac wrote:In some cases poor families would not be able to afford special education, healthcare, college, etc. so a large section of the budget must be spent on plans for the poor and even the middle and high classes. In this nation if people cannot be healthy – or educated – the government will not work. This country now might be called a ‘socialist democracy’ because of its generally high tax rate and large umbrella welfare/health/education programs, but this government could not really take a turn into right-wing politics. The government needs to be taking care of everyone, meaning higher taxes, watching out for the poor, and a little bit of socialism. - THB

deadnight wrote:to an extent, but i, and many others have issues with the welfare state idea. I have no problem with working hard, or paying taxes, but i am more concerned about my tax sterlings being put to good use. throwing a large segment of money at a large, and a (being s cynical devils advocate) potentially unproductive sector of society does what, exactly?Why the special treatment? if i work hard through school, work hard at my job for a measly wage (since all my money is going to the nanny state) why do they get all the benefits of my labour? I feel that people should be encouraged to go out there, get a job, earn an honest living rather than living on handouts from a nanny state (that said, i do believe in social security, and social justice - people need to be looked after, to an extent as well) . and again, education is not necessarily the key. every year, there is the never ending debates as to whether schools are teaching kids the right things, as there is an argument that rote learning simply does not prepare people for the practicalities of day to day life. personally, i put more faith in "hands on" experience than school.

Well, what is wont to happen in capitalist societies without strong welfare is that the people who work the hardest are exploited and given low wages by the people with the guile and low morals to rise through society while doing little work themselves at all. This is inevitably going to happen (except in a hardcore communist state, and even then it is still possible), so welfare-free capitalist states are inevitably going to turn into, to quote the immortal words of TBBT's* Amy Farrah-Fowler, "a society of gangs of tattooed motorcycle riders fighting to the death over the last few cans of tuna fish." Okay, slight exaggeration, but you get the point. Also, as a final note, while your point about other people benefiting from your labors is valid, you are also probably benefiting somewhat from other people's. Therefore, there is little reason to fear the welfare system.

*I am aware that a number of people on the Interwebs- Including a number of dakkanaughts- loathe that show, but I'd like to request we not go off on a tangent about how bad or good it is.

You may want to put some sort of introduction on what you are presenting. As its stands it is just a wall of text on political philosophy with no explantation of your point. Were you wearing a monocle and twirling your moustache when you wrote this?

Deadnight wrote:education is not necessarily the key. every year, there is the never ending debates as to whether schools are teaching kids the right things, as there is an argument that rote learning simply does not prepare people for the practicalities of day to day life. personally, i put more faith in "hands on" experience than school.

Education is absolutely the key. Educated people are not satisfied with a welfare existance, and people who live in these entrenched cultures of welfare dependance are almost universally uneducated.

I will say this.

If the imperium was a democracy and elected its officials


It would be a nightmare of ungodly proportions to do the voting system.....

Indeed. It is impossable to have a democracy at that scale.

Heck, I'd call a planet sized democracy to be nigh-on impossable.

Grey Templar wrote:Indeed. It is impossable to have a democracy at that scale.
Heck, I'd call a planet sized democracy to be nigh-on impossable.

I dunno. I found the idea of the Asari Republics in ME pretty convincing. The key was the use of technology to allow widespread citizen discussions and voting, as well as everything being organized in semi-independent city-states cooperating with each other on largely voluntary basis, excepting matters of defence (all local forces can be called upon by a unified High Command) and similar emergencies (like disaster aid) or outside representation (the Asari Councillor acting on majority votes).
I could totally see an entire planet being ruled this way. Or a galactic empire. There's no upper limit to how many city-states you could have, simply because everything is so highly decentralised.

This model of governance has fallen out of favour on Earth, but the Asari Republics were obviously inspired by the Greek city-states: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greece#Politics_and_society

Also, e-democracy is already a technological possibility. I just have a feeling that the various governments of the nations of this Earth aren't very keen on letting their citizens vote on even more stuff than they already do.
Sadly, in many cases that might actually be for the better (lack of proper education, again). And for the various influential lobbies, it might actually cheaper to manipulate public perception by clever media campaigns rather than having to buy/bribe/blackmail a number of politicians.
Maybe in another couple decades, huh?

Democracy works if the participants don't botch the system.

The issues with voter fraud will always be a major problem. Its easier to track fraud if it leaves a paper trail, but electronic stuff is easy to erase if you know how. And if you know how to rig the electronic voting, you will know how to cover your tracks.

Not to mention that time can be an issue.


Greek Style democracy is impossable on a scale larger then a single city. Everyone needing to vote on everything is impractical, I don't care how much technology you have. Not to mention all the quibbling and debating that would be needed.

The only reason it probably worked for the Greeks is because Citizenship was so restricted(land owning men pretty much) and it was on a relativly small scale(one city is all there was)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

Can you break it up into paragraphs. It is a tad annoying trying to read a huge block of text.

Hadarac wrote:HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

What?

Are you suggesting the imperium isn't a democracy? Because you'd be right


Von Chogg

Hadarac wrote:HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

Read up China. Works for them, similarly the Imperium as well.

Grey Templar wrote:Everyone needing to vote on everything is impractical, I don't care how much technology you have. Not to mention all the quibbling and debating that would be needed.

Not "needing" - just be allowed to. People who do not vote are simply assumed to have a neutral stance to the issue.

The system would require citizens to be somewhat politically engaged and spend some time informing themselves, but I do not think this is impossible, it'd just require a different, more conscious society than most nations currently have. People would then be granted a weekly option to vote on, say, two issues concerning their city and one issue concerning the nation as a whole, unless a crisis needs more attention than usual. Said issues can be suggested to and then brought forward by elected representatives of the various apartment blocks making up the larger city-state. Said representatives do not have any special legislative powers themselves but exist solely to gather feedback from and pass on information to their local community.

I know, I know, utopia.

The problem with democracy as opposed to an autocracy or an oligarchy, is that democracy wastes too much time to get anything done. In ten years, an autocracy or an oligarchy would do more than a democracy, who spends those ten years talking about it, not to mention changing leaders would mean a change in policy or something along those lines.

Kaldor wrote:

Deadnight wrote:education is not necessarily the key. every year, there is the never ending debates as to whether schools are teaching kids the right things, as there is an argument that rote learning simply does not prepare people for the practicalities of day to day life. personally, i put more faith in "hands on" experience than school.

Education is absolutely the key. Educated people are not satisfied with a welfare existance, and people who live in these entrenched cultures of welfare dependance are almost universally uneducated.

Agreed, Kaldor. If education isn't proving to be the key, then it means the government isn't spending enough money on it.

Tadashi wrote:The problem with democracy as opposed to an autocracy or an oligarchy, is that democracy wastes too much time to get anything done. In ten years, an autocracy or an oligarchy would do more than a democracy, who spends those ten years talking about it, not to mention changing leaders would mean a change in policy or something along those lines.

Oh, absolutely. No argument there. Just that with this form of government, there's also the vague possibility that the wrong guy/s is/are at the helm. You know what they say - power corrupts.
Increased efficiency is pretty much a given, though. Unless whoever sits on the throne really doesn't care. But even then there'd probably be ministers who would be granted the necessary authority.

Actually, an interesting idea comes from the Star Wars Prequels ... there's a planet which basically democratically elects a dictator who has absolute power, until their term is up. I wonder if that would work in real life (obviously with some sort of safeguard that'd prevent the dictator from simply holding on to power, so basically a "constitutional electorate monarchy" or something).

Methinks someone found a political gobbledeygook generator and is trolling.

Lynata wrote:

Tadashi wrote:The problem with democracy as opposed to an autocracy or an oligarchy, is that democracy wastes too much time to get anything done. In ten years, an autocracy or an oligarchy would do more than a democracy, who spends those ten years talking about it, not to mention changing leaders would mean a change in policy or something along those lines.

Oh, absolutely. No argument there. Just that with this form of government, there's also the vague possibility that the wrong guy/s is/are at the helm. You know what they say - power corrupts.
Increased efficiency is pretty much a given, though. Unless whoever sits on the throne really doesn't care. But even then there'd probably be ministers who would be granted the necessary authority.

For all its faults, the best government is a meritocratic bureaucracy and an absolute monarchy. Since the former pretty much is self-perpetuating and actually does most of the work, even an incompetent on the throne shouldn't be too bad.

Lynata wrote:

Tadashi wrote:The problem with democracy as opposed to an autocracy or an oligarchy, is that democracy wastes too much time to get anything done. In ten years, an autocracy or an oligarchy would do more than a democracy, who spends those ten years talking about it, not to mention changing leaders would mean a change in policy or something along those lines.

Oh, absolutely. No argument there. Just that with this form of government, there's also the vague possibility that the wrong guy/s is/are at the helm. You know what they say - power corrupts.
Increased efficiency is pretty much a given, though. Unless whoever sits on the throne really doesn't care. But even then there'd probably be ministers who would be granted the necessary authority.

Actually, an interesting idea comes from the Star Wars Prequels ... there's a planet which basically democratically elects a dictator who has absolute power, until their term is up. I wonder if that would work in real life (obviously with some sort of safeguard that'd prevent the dictator from simply holding on to power, so basically a "constitutional electorate monarchy" or something).

I don't think that the system used by Naboo (the planet you're referring to) would work very well, as any dictator- democratically elected or not- will probably end up abusing their power. Also, if they have control of the military, they basically can do anything they want, as, while Starship Troopers was a terrible movie, they got one thing right: violence is the ultimate authority from which all others are derived.

DOOMBREAD wrote:violence is the ultimate authority from which all others are derived.

In other words, no matter what high-sounding ideals we spout, in the end, might is right.

Tadashi wrote:

DOOMBREAD wrote:violence is the ultimate authority from which all others are derived.

In other words, no matter what high-sounding ideals we spout, in the end, might is right.

Not exactly.

Might is reality, but that doesn't always make it right per se.

Kaldor wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

DOOMBREAD wrote:violence is the ultimate authority from which all others are derived.

In other words, no matter what high-sounding ideals we spout, in the end, might is right.

Not exactly.

Might is reality, but that doesn't always make it right per se.

On the contrary, the victors are just, regardless of any war crimes they committed.

Tadashi wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

DOOMBREAD wrote:violence is the ultimate authority from which all others are derived.

In other words, no matter what high-sounding ideals we spout, in the end, might is right.

Not exactly.

Might is reality, but that doesn't always make it right per se.

On the contrary, the victors are just, regardless of any war crimes they committed.

You're being deliberately obtuse.

The ability to do a thing does not make it the right thing. If I rape a woman, have I done the right thing, just because I was able to?