Korean Job Discussion Forums

[SirFink]

Three of the wisest men in history -- Socrates, Plato and Aristotle -- absolutely abhored democracy. That's gotta tell you something.

[vertical loser]

[jajdude]

^

That thought has occurred to me many times over many years. There is a common arrogance that likes to point out how many people are dumb. Many years ago someone grinfully pointed out that "the masses are asses." I think it was the first time I had heard the expression, but I have heard it in different words countless time since then. I did immediately reply to the guy, "But everyone thinks that." So how can everyone think that the majority of (other) people are dumb?

Then again, it isn't normal, I suppose, to label yourself as dumb. Anyone who does may suffer low self-esteem, or be aware of his own shortcomings, or perhaps wise enough to realize he really isn't all that bright and not feel any less worthwhile. It's all somewhat interesting to me, that so many people can believe that so many people are dumb. And perhaps it is true, when you see what madness goes on in the world. Yet most people I have met and known well enough, seem intelligent enough. Hmmm... not sure what to think.

[Khenan]

One of my many visions for a politically perfect state involves requiring people to keep themselves informed about current events in order to be allowed a vote. The majority of people don't worry to much about keeping themselves informed, but then again, most of them don't bother voting, either. The problem is that every so often, a bunch of them drag themselves off of the couch and down to the voting booth.

You should have to attend classes and be able to pass a moderate written exam before you are allowed to vote. It's really not all that much to ask.

[blurgalurgalurga]

[Czarjorge]

I think it's simply a matter of scale.

Democracy works in small groups. The larger the scale you attempt to apply the principles of democracy, the greater the problems.

The problems we're facing now directly relate to this. I think the solution is embracing that problem. I would like the see the US government inverted to a degree. Municipalities should have control over things like drugs, smoking, alcohol regulation. I would even go so far as to suggest that beyond some fundamental rights and laws, local governments should be allowed to govern as independently as possible. Sort of a republican model, but with city-states instead of states. The states would only regulate things that couldn't be regulated on the local level. The federal government in the same way.

I would be perfectly happy living in a beauracratically autocratic state if in my own town or city, in my daily life, I had the freedom to do whatever I wanted short of violence. This would allow the management of the country not by elected officials of varying skill and intelligence but by true professionals and experts in there given fields. How much better would our energy infrastructure be if experts managed all aspects instead of meeting the often ridiculous restraints imposed by elected officials. The same goes for trade and a host of other issues that should be dealt with on the macro scale.

I know some people rail against the idea of a technocracy, but increased freedoms are almost always good, and it could work.

[IncognitoHFX]

[blurgalurgalurga]

How shall we choose the universally decided upon criterium for voters' rights?
The problem with that is that in many places a majority might dictate that religious belief is one of the prerequisites. Another region might choose that a lack of religious fervor is neccesary to earn the right to vote. Another place might ban gays from voting, while their neighboring regions might ban all who have not done military service, gone to college, or passed an IQ test.

[IncognitoHFX]

[blurgalurgalurga]

Ah, but what kind of chocolate muffin?

[shapeshifter]

[Grab the Chickens Levi]

Democracy gives the average human a better lot in life than any of the alternatives.

That makes it woth it for me.

[lastat06513]

In the words of the great philosopher Aristotle: Democracies eventually turn into tyrannies or become ruled by a certain oligarchy who feel its their altruistic right to rule over the masses.
We saw that when Bush corrupted the vote by having his brother rig the election results in Florida so he could win the Presidential elections in 2000 and timed the release of a tape by Osama Bin Laden a day before the '04 election.
Democracies start off utilitarian in nature as to allow more freedom of movement and speech. But as they 'mature', many of them become political machines where money becomes the motivating factor.
The justice system within such democracies become two-tiered: One type of justice for those that 'have and another type of justice that 'have not'.....
Most people see a side effect of 'localized democracy' everyday in Korea:
~ The beef protests
~ The ability of 'netizens' to slander people without fear of retribution.
~ The ability for the system to provide for its citizens while marginalizing those who aren't.....
~ Banks picking and choosing who they want as their foreign clients while it is considered discriminatory to do so against Koreans...............

The list goes on.........

[Czarjorge]

Another solution to the problem could be adopting a system of mandatory public service in order to earn the right to vote.

Serve for three years, become a citizen, have the right to vote. (Or some variation therein.) The risk being rights are only extended to 'citizens,' similar to republican Rome.

A way around the strict definition of eligible voter would be to extend the areas in which service is considered completed. Yes, the military is obvious, but what about being a teacher, doctor, dentist, etc. in areas that are in need of such services. Social work may not be as dangerous as the military, but I can vouch that it's a wildly stressful job. And so on.

You could also allow potential immigrants the same option. Earn your citizenship instead of just learn your citizenship.