Content deleted Content added
m Replace magic links with templates per local RfC - BRFA |
|||
| (91 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{
All discussion up through December 2004 has been archived.
Line 97 ⟶ 98:
*i understand that many usa citizens cannot accept the above statement so go read some chomsky or political sciences thats why they exist to remind us of what a political system is or to clarify these situations.
so stick to wikipedian neutrality--[[User:212.70.194.21|212.70.194.21]] 14:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
::Your statements are very confusing to me. I'm not entirely sure I understand you correctly. What I can gather is
::# The term "democracy" does not apply to modern democracies.
::# The US democracy is not a democracy (Which follows logically from 1 since no contemporary democracy is a "real" democracy)
::# How is reading Chomsky specifically relevant to Americans? You just established that the only real democracy is the Greek version - if Chomsky supports this it would certainly be of interest to Europeans as well.
::You probably want to read up on politics in Europe. For example, the political system in France is very much different from the political system in Sweden - there are massive differences across the borders. Europe is not just one country - there are many different countries, cultures and political systems. I refer you to [[List of European countries]] for further reading.
::However, ideas and perceptions evolve - how we perceive "earth" has changed a great deal since 4000 BCE and you will notice that the article [[Earth]] contains the perceptions of today - not the perceptions of 4000 BCE with century and continent divided subpages. [[User:Gardar Rurak|Gardar Rurak]]
== Vote for What? ==
Line 143 ⟶ 153:
Most of us are outright repulsed by your version of "freedom", RJII. Also, I am curious, if democracy has nothing to do with freedom, then how come no dictatorship has ever obeyed a constitution or given individual rights to its citizens? -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] 05:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
:Democracy is a good thing as long as there are protections for individual rights --that is, if democracy is restricted to just voting for people. Pure democracy is the problem. Pure democracy has not protections for individual rights. For example, if the majority of people are heterosexual there would be a danger of the majority executing all homosexuals because they would be easily outvoted. By, the way dictators have indeed allowed individual rights. Go to Dubai --it's probably the most liberal country Arab country. Of course, we can't trust dictators to protect individual rights, so elections and a rights protecting constitution are preferable. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 05:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Pure democracy, like all forms of government, is a tool that can be good or bad depending on who is using it. Just because the majority ''could'' execute all homosexuals doesn't mean that they ''will'' - in fact, the majority of the people in Western countries are tolerant and non-violent, so any pure democracies established in the West would likewise be tolerant and non-violent. If you believe that any form of government - dictatorship included - can go against popular opinion for very long and survive, you are gravely mistaken. Suppose the majority of the people in the United States really hated the Constitution. How long do you believe the Constitution would last?
Do not delude yourself into thinking that the Constitution protects you from majority rule. The only reason the Constitution still exists is because the majority supports it. -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] 05:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
:The US Constitution obviously does not give complete protection from majorities, but it has does some protective effect. The Constitution itself was made very difficult to change -a simple majority vote won't do it. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 05:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
:Note that you said: "Pure democracy, like all forms of government, is a tool that can be good or bad depending on who is using it." Ok, so you understand now that it's a real and useful concept since you're using it yourself. So, don't delete it from the article, ok? [[User:RJII|RJII]] 05:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
::No, I was just ''assuming'' that "pure democracy" existed as the concept you describe; I was building an argument on your premises, but that doesn't mean I accept those premises. Perhaps it would have been better for me to say "Pure democracy, if it existed..." -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] 06:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
==Undue weight==
In its current form, the section "reactions to democracy" makes a passing reference to the tremendous acceptance and advocacy of democracy in the modern world, after which it proceeds to describe in great detail a number of fringe groups that oppose democracy. '''This is utterly undue weight.''' If the views of those groups belong in this article at all, they belong in a section on criticisms of democracy. -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] 04:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
:I agree; it was an effort to make a working header for pre-existing paragraphs. It could have been ''Opponents'', but the first paragraph seems to fit the prose flow where it is. If you have a better idea, go for it. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 05:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
::On a somewhat related note, the one-paragraph intro we have left now seems a bit short... are you sure you want to split off the "kinds of democracy" section from the intro? And the paragraph about the widespread support for democracy in the contemporary world? -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] 06:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
:::That's an idea; let me try something. If you don;t like it, change it. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 21:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
==Nikodemos deleting paragraph about Pure Democracy==
Line 160 ⟶ 180:
::Let me draw a comparison: Suppose I wanted to explain to you why eating kittens is wrong. In doing so, I might create an imaginary enemy who believs that eating kittens is right, in order to demonstrate how and why he is wrong. -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] 05:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
:::That's ridiculous. The point is that classical liberals want protection FROM democracy. They don't want to be caught in the minority and tyrannized by the majority. Pure democracy has no protections for individual rights. Constitutional republicanism does. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 05:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
::::The point is that "pure democracy" is an imaginary enemy, not a real one. It has no supporters. Therefore, it exists only in the imagination of its enemies. -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] 05:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::No, it existed in Athens. That was the first pure democracy. It didn't work out to well, did it? Even if you were correct that the system only exist in the imagination, it's still a system. What political or economic system exists in its ideal sense? None. Systems are ideals --abstracts. Then, after they're conceived they are put into an approximated form in the real world. Whatever. "Pure democracy" is a real concept that has been discussed for hundreds of years so you need to stop deleting it from the article. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 05:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC) Make that thousands of years. Plato argued against it. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 05:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::What didn't work so well? Athenian democracy? Are you mad? Athens defeated the [[Persian empire]], became [[hegemon]] of Greece, and achieved an unheard-of standard of culture that formed the foundations of the Western world! Besides, I already pointed out that "pure democracy" did not, in fact, exist in Athens. And Plato, for your information, argued against ''all'' kinds of democracy (I do not believe he ever used the phrase "pure democracy").
::::::Systems are ideal abstracts, true, but usually ''in the minds of their proponents''. If a system has no supporters, it's just a punching bag, a [[straw man]]. You shall not push your straw men on this article. -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] 05:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I don't call a system of slavery the height of "culture." Plato described Athenian democracy as a system where "the wolves voted on what to have for dinner." [[User:RJII|RJII]] 05:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::::You think a system that accepts slavery is inherently immoral and evil? -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] 06:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::It's certainly a system I wouldn't want to be a part of. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 06:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::So what do you think about people who support such a system? -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] 06:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::I notice you did not answer. Probably because your beloved framers of the US Constitution were among the supporters of slavery, and because the system they set up was one that accepted slavery for nearly the entire first century of its existence. In fact, American slaves were generally treated worse than most ancient Athenian slaves. -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] 06:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::Perhaps he did not answer because your question was ambiguous. The word "support" as in the above question is present tense, and unaccompanied by further explanation ("... or who have ever supported") this question wouldn't necessarily be taken by a speaker of vernacular English to refer to persons long dead. More generally, if "support" is taken to mean "or who ever had supported" it is tone deaf to historical context, and to ask how one thinks about anyone in the whole history of the human species who has ever "supported" any form of slavery is to ask a meaningless question. Just a thought. --[[User:Christofurio|Christofurio]] 19:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::"A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." -[[James Madison]] Now, that you've had a free crash course in classical liberalism, stop deleting "pure democracy" from the article, ok? [[User:RJII|RJII]] 06:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::You have still provided no evidence that anyone ever supported "pure democracy". No support = no notability. -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] 06:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::Nonsense. That's not the criteria of notability. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 06:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::Yes it is. Political ideas are notable in proportion to how many supporters they have. If an idea has few supporters, it is fringe. If it has no supporters at all, it's entirely non-notable. -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] 06:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Not true at all. That's not the criteria of notability. You want to erase a concept from the mind of man by eliminating it from the encyclopedia, don't you? That's reprehensible. (See [[Nineteen Eighty-Four|1984]]). [[User:RJII|RJII]] 06:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Curses and drat! You have discovered my master plan! Yes, wikipedia has the power to erase concepts from the mind of man, and I am part of a great conspiracy headed by [[Big Brother (1984)|Big Brother]] and [[Xenu]] to achieve world domination through pure democracy. And I would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for you meddling kids and your dog! -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] 07:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Seriously, you know it's a real concept discussed by many for who knows how many hundreds or thousands of years, and you know that Wikipedia is supposed to make all such knowledge available, but you want to delete description of the concept from the encyclopedia. What gives? [[User:RJII|RJII]] 07:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Oh, you're resorting to [[ad hominem]]s now? The fact is that the concept of "pure democracy" is a non-notable [[straw man]] used occasionally and inconsistently by a number of people to denote some vague notion of "too much democracy" which they oppose. Does that need to be mentioned in the first section of this article? No, we already cover the issue quite extensively in other sections. Does it need its own article? No, because (a) it doesn't have supporters, and (b) different opponents mean different things by "pure democracy". In many ways, it's a concept on the same level of ambiguity as "beautiful picture". Do we need a [[beautiful picture]] article? The phrase certainly '''is''' used a lot. That doesn't make it encyclopedic. -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] 07:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::We'll see about that. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 07:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::Regardless, you can see right there that Madison acknowledges that pure democracies have existed. Obviously someone must have supported them for them to exist. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 06:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::I agree with Nikodemos. The concept is a non-notable [[straw man]].[[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] 10:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::Or rather, no evidence has been shown that concept exists. The reference given does not a describe a system, "pure" is only an qualifier. Today the expression would be "pure direct democracy".[[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] 11:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::::You question whether the concept exists? LOL. How could you question that a concept exists unless the concept exists for you to question its existence? [[User:RJII|RJII]] 21:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that the two of you are having fun; but can it be illegal in a "pure democracy" to propose certain laws? At Athens it was a [[graphe paranomon|capital crime]]. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 06:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it's turning out that "pure democracy" is just another name for "direct democracy." I wasn't up to date on the newer terminology. Correct me if I'm wrong. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 05:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
:I think you are still over-reading Madison. The eighteenth century generally used ''democracy'' to mean "direct democracy", as Aristotle had. So when Madison writes ''pure democracy'', what he means is "direct democracy, unmixed with anything else" (like a Constitution, or a Senate). He's not defining a separate term. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 15:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
::"Pure democracy" is a real term. It's a synonym for direct democracy. See sources below. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 18:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
"Pure democracy" isn't a scholarly term. Please keep it out. — [[User:Stevietheman|<span style="color:green">'''Stevie is the man!'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Stevietheman|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Stevietheman|Work]]</sup> 07:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
:::Yes it is a scholarly term. Merriam-Webster defines "pure democracy" as "democracy in which the power is exercised directly by the people rather than through representatives" [http://m-w.com/dictionary/pure%20democracy] American Heritage also defines "pure democracy" as "A democracy in which the power to govern lies directly in the hands of the people rather than being exercised through their representatives." [http://www.bartleby.com/61/73/P0667300.html] And, there is entry for "direct democracy" in those dictionaries. And, this source here says they're the same thing [http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:8nXcCPMWf3cJ:www.uapress.arizona.edu/samples/mccund-ch4.pdf+%22direct+democracy%22+%2B%22pure+democracy%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=14] This source uses the terms interchangeably: [http://www.bloomsburymagazine.com/ARC/detail.asp?entryid=103234&bid=2], as do many others. And, "The citizens of a democracy take part in government either directly or indirectly. In a ''direct democracy'', also called a ''pure democracy'', the people meet in one place to make the laws for their community. Such democracy was practiced in the ancient Greek city-state of Athens and exists today in the New England town meeting" [http://www.aolsvc.worldbook.aol.com/wb/Article?id=ar153840 World Book Encyclopedia] [[User:RJII|RJII]] 09:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
: Any lynch mob is an example of pure democracy. The lynchers always outnumber the lynchees underneath that particular tree. It's not bashing a straw man to make the point that such a situation shouldn't be an ideal. It's establishing an extreme by which to employ a perfectly valid sort of argument known as [[reductio ad impossibile]] (often confused with [[reductio ad absurdum]], which is actually somewat different.) If we agree that the lynch mob 'democracy' is a bad thing, then we can appropriate ask advocates of various systems where their proposals differ in a principled way from that bad thing. --[[User:Christofurio|Christofurio]] 22:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
::Right on. It's amazing that this that has to be spelled out to people. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 04:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
:::"Pure democracy" is a phraseology, not a scholarly term. — [[User:Stevietheman|<span style="color:green">'''Stevie is the man!'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Stevietheman|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Stevietheman|Work]]</sup> 20:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
== removed from article ==
I removed these two points from the section on necessary attributes of democracy:
----
:* there is constrained freedom to further the public good. Stated in negative terms, limits, sometimes vigorous ones, are essential to ensure that acts that infringe upon others freedom, such as [[murder]] and [[theft]], do not occur. This may be thought of as [[negative liberty]]. Stated in positive terms, infinite freedom is of the essence to explore within, but not exceed, the boundaries defined by the edge of chaos, such as populist revolutions which identify, advocate for, and create consensus around new forms of government that can achieve both the social justice envisioned by Karl Marx and the economic prosperity envisioned by Adam Smith, but without [[fascism]], [[anomie]], or [[violence]]. This is thought of as [[positive liberty]]. <ref>Kim J. Vicente, (1999). ''Cognitive Work Analysis : Toward Safe, Productive, and Healthy Computer-Based Work''. {{ISBN|0805823972}}.</ref>
:* the demos has a long-term ''unity'' and continuity, from one decision-making round to the next, without [[secession]] of the minority.
----
Toward the first point: "there is constrained freedom to further the public good" is an odd phrase and I'm not sure what it means. The rest is not much clearer.
Toward the second: it's not at all clear why that is necessary for democracy. - [[User:Nat Krause|Nat Krause]]<sup>([[User talk:Nat Krause|Talk!]])</sup> 04:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
==stevietheman deleting sourced content==
Stevietheman is deleting the fact that "pure democracy" is a synonym for "direct democracy." There is no shortage of sources that indicate that this is the case. Merriam-Webster defines "pure democracy" as "democracy in which the power is exercised directly by the people rather than through representatives" [http://m-w.com/dictionary/pure%20democracy] American Heritage also defines "pure democracy" as "A democracy in which the power to govern lies directly in the hands of the people rather than being exercised through their representatives." [http://www.bartleby.com/61/73/P0667300.html] And, there is entry for "direct democracy" in those dictionaries. And, this source here says they're the same thing [http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:8nXcCPMWf3cJ:www.uapress.arizona.edu/samples/mccund-ch4.pdf+%22direct+democracy%22+%2B%22pure+democracy%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=14] This source uses the terms interchangeably: [http://www.bloomsburymagazine.com/ARC/detail.asp?entryid=103234&bid=2], as do many others. And, "The citizens of a democracy take part in government either directly or indirectly. In a ''direct democracy'', also called a ''pure democracy'', the people meet in one place to make the laws for their community. Such democracy was practiced in the ancient Greek city-state of Athens and exists today in the New England town meeting" [http://www.aolsvc.worldbook.aol.com/wb/Article?id=ar153840 World Book Encyclopedia] [[User:RJII|RJII]] 20:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Moreover, he claimed in his edit-summary that a POV was being pushed. What POV is being pushed by noting this terminology? [[User:RJII|RJII]] 20:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
:As a contributor to the Wikipedia, I have the same right as you to challenge content. I contend that direct democracy and pure democracy are not synonyms. Your evidence is unconvincing. Just because material is sourced doesn't make it correct. — [[User:Stevietheman|<span style="color:green">'''Stevie is the man!'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Stevietheman|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Stevietheman|Work]]</sup> 20:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
::If you think that, then you don't know the Wikipedia sourcing policy. By Wikipedia standards, if information is sourced then it is correct. I've given you 4 sources above. One of them explicitly says that direct democracy is also called democracy. Stop deleting this sourced fact. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 20:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
:::I will delete what I believe to be opinion-pushing, and that is what you're doing. "Pure democracy" is a phraseology used to denigrate direct democracy, and further, they're not synonyms. Direct democracy as it has been implemented historically is not "pure" by any stretch of the imagination. — [[User:Stevietheman|<span style="color:green">'''Stevie is the man!'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Stevietheman|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Stevietheman|Work]]</sup> 20:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
::::"Pure democracy" is not used to denigrate democracy. It's used to denigrate ''pure democracy'', but just because you can't criticise something without naming what you are criticizing. Typically, those who oppose pure democracy are supportive of democracy. They support ''liberal democracy'' (in the form of a ''constitutional republic'') instead that has constitutional protections for individual liberty that the popular vote can't overrule. They are concerned that the majority will violate the individual liberty of the minority --such as a if most people are of one religion and then force their oppressive rules on the minority. They would rather that the popular vote be used merely for electing representatives who then can only make rules if they accord with constitutional protections for individual liberty. I'm not "opinion pushing." I'm noting what is factual. I've provided sources. The term is a synonym for direct democracy. You have no justification to delete the information. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 22:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
== Definition of democracy ==
I'm unclear about what definition this article is using for the word "democracy". It begins by saying, "Democracy ... is a form of government where the population of a society controls the government." I don't think that really applies to a country in the world today. Therefore, there are no "20th century waves of democracy", etc. - [[User:Nat Krause|Nat Krause]]<sup>([[User talk:Nat Krause|Talk!]])</sup> 01:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
:Most people agree that Western states are democratic. Why are you changing democracy to "representative government"? [[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] 18:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
::"Most people" is not a citation, nor is it terribly relevant to NPOV. However, I'm sure that most people agree that Western states are representative governments. Why not be clearer? - [[User:Nat Krause|Nat Krause]]<sup>([[User talk:Nat Krause|Talk!]])</sup> 20:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Nor do you have a citation. Most governments certainly state in their constitution that they are democracies. [[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] 20:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
::::It's true that neither of us has a citation. However, this is a nonproductive sort of argument, because it implies that the section in question should just be removed. And the fact that a government describes itself as democratic is, in practice, almost totally irrelevant to the question of whether it actually is. Repressive states are famous for calling themselves "democratic this-and-that" or "People's Free such-and-thus". - [[User:Nat Krause|Nat Krause]]<sup>([[User talk:Nat Krause|Talk!]])</sup> 20:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::See [[Freedom House]] for classifications of states regarding democracy. [[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] 20:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
::::::Freedom House is also not so authoritative of a source that it's statements can be taken as facts rather than as the opinions of Freedom House.
::::::The basic problem with this article is that it begins with a definition that makes "democracy" sound laudatory or, at least, unnecessarily broad. Then, we start discussing political changes involving a fairly specific form of government, calling it "democracy", creating the implication that they are the same thing. That's a POV. We should be much clearer about what we're talking about. - [[User:Nat Krause|Nat Krause]]<sup>([[User talk:Nat Krause|Talk!]])</sup> 20:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Freedom House produces a well-respected, verifiable data set on democracy used in much research. It it not original research and can thus be used in Wikipedia.Regarding the definition in the introduction, it simply reflects the etymology and similar statements can be found in every dictionary. [[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] 20:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
== Brunei and India ==
This article says that Brunei's GDP is higher than that of India. How? Brunei's GDP is $6,842 million and India's GDP is $3.678 trillion. All Indians are not prosperous because there are too many people in India. How can a small oil rich country be compared to a huge overpopulated nation? Besides Indian economy in the 21st Century is one of the most powerful economies in the world. Standard of living in India is relatively low because of overpopulation and overpopulation is not related to democracy. I do not think that any economic/political expert would compare India and Brunei.--[[User:DIGIwarez|DIGIwarez]] 16:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
== Proportional Vs Majoritarian ==
The justification for the change to this section which was a day later reverted as "questionable" is as follows:
*The first and last paragraph have retained their meanings but gained clarity.
*The middle section was too vague to justify keeping (I shouldn't have added it in the first place, it was ideologically based)
*I don't claim to have any rights or ownership of this proportional section, but I started it, have followed it closely, and do not make changes lightly.
I stand by the change and have made it a second time. I won't make it a third, but those are the reasons it should be there.
*Update: One Part of middle section was important for clarification. Have added back in with minor grammatical improvements.
| |||