UESP Forums

I had to do this for an essay. Now that I am done with it, I a wondernig which one everyone would pick to better protect natural rights (Life, Liberty, and Property) if you had to choose from these two.
A full out democracy (No group of leaders, just constant voting)
A full out absolutism ( No say from the people, just one person or small group)

Obviously a Democracy. But we really don't need another political debate right now...

Democracy. Now if only we could get light speed communication between peoples brains....

Dance Commander Kerr wrote:Democracy. Now if only we could get light speed communication between peoples brains....

^^
This.

Neither is perfect, but Absolutism is far more risky.

Is it really better? letting pepole pick?

I mean if was ONLY up to the pepole and the majority then look at how many BAD things would of kept happening, slavrey, women rights would not exist.
etc

Not to mettion how quickly humans changed their minds, it only takes a day or so beofre bsomeone says "I did not want that" when before hand they did.

Mars wrote:Neither is perfect, but Absolutism is far more risky.

What would you choose?

I'll let you work that out.

Wolfie wrote:Is it really better? letting pepole pick?

I mean if was ONLY up to the pepole and the majority then look at how many BAD things would of kept happening, slavrey, women rights would not exist.
etc

Not to mettion how quickly humans changed their minds, it only takes a day or so beofre bsomeone says "I did not want that" when before hand they did.

Yes, but

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

And giving pepole the choice to vote for EVREYTHING is Absolute power to the pepole, and just crupting the pepole.

Not really. The people have the power to vote, nothing else. They choose in whom they put their trust and they can bring him down again.

And that is the power, if they choice what happens they have the power.
also he is talking of pure Democaracy with no leaders


A full out democracy (No group of leaders, just constant voting)

Oh right, I overlooked that. Still, better for the power to rest with everyone than with a single mind. As I said, neither is perfect, but Absolutism is considerably more risky. For every just leader there will be 5 corrupt ones.

I'd agree that Absolutism requires only one person to be bad, but pure Democracy to me at least is just as a bad idea, becuse it gose by the majority, and all you need is pepole seeing if they work together they can have ultmate power, and then its worse becuse you cant kill a leader to stop the reign

That has got to be one of the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard Wolfie, the majority of people are hard working folks looking to better their lives and the lives of their families. You can't get that many people to work together for ultimate power, and this is simply because everyone has different views on laws. Majority voting is probably the best thing ever to enter politics, because it works on the scale of what the most people want.

Anyone who thinks absolutism is better can go and die.

(Controversial!)

Dean wrote:That has got to be one of the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard Wolfie, the majority of people are hard working folks looking to better their lives and the lives of their families. You can't get that many people to work together for ultimate power, and this is simply because everyone has different views on laws. Majority voting is probably the best thing ever to enter politics, because it works on the scale of what the most people want.

But we do not have what he is asking, he is asking we vote on EVREYTHING, no leaders to say "you get to vote on this"

anythi8ng, and yes pepole want to make it better for their familys, look at lsavrey, it better their family, look at women rights. history is full of the majority doing wrong.
PLUS, if God forbid, a group like republics or demcraots ever got together and work together, then would anyone else ever get a chance? no

(not saying those groups are bad just that if a group that worked like that got together, then most pepole would not get a cahnce as there is almost no other group.)

Well you would still have people controlling the laws, such as the time they where voted on, when they finished... just because it's a full on democracy it doesn't mean you wouldn't have some kind of order in place.

Democracy, unless it is a "Simon Bolivar" in charge.

Dean wrote:Well you would still have people controlling the laws, such as the time they where voted on, when they finished... just because it's a full on democracy it doesn't mean you wouldn't have some kind of order in place.

Pure Democracy is when evrey one who wants to vote has voted.
no one sets times, no one picks.
becuse if you do that its no logner the pepole picking and its one person or pepole.

Is this a joke?

Give me liberty or give me death!

Neither. A full on democracy with a population our size would be hugely impractical. Absolutism also provides too much freedom to a single individual, allowing him to impose his own will on the people.

The best bet is a middle path politically. We should have just enough freedom that we can live happily but we should have just enough imposed authority that our freedoms do not get in the way of others freedoms.

my stacne for those unclear about it, I think pure both is a bad idea, having leaders who are can be acounted for is better as

A. these leaders should know what they are doping (how many pepole would demand no taxes just cause they dont like paying and have no clue what it takes to run something like this?
B.a leader who dose what ever he wants cant be acounted for.

Dark Lord Cam wrote:Neither. A full on democracy with a population our size would be hugely impractical.

So scale down the country. The more decisions that are made at a community level, the easier it is to make them. There is no way to do things without reprensatives, but a small government at small level, feeding into a bigger one, feeding into a bigger one... I mean, that's how it's supposed to work. Currently, it works more top down than bottom up, but there you go.

Sloady wrote:

Dark Lord Cam wrote:Neither. A full on democracy with a population our size would be hugely impractical.

So scale down the country. The more decisions that are made at a community level, the easier it is to make them. There is no way to do things without reprensatives, but a small government at small level, feeding into a bigger one, feeding into a bigger one... I mean, that's how it's supposed to work. Currently, it works more top down than bottom up, but there you go.

Going from the bottom up also causes some problems. If the central authority is too weak or too bureaucratic, then nothing gets done. If it is too powerful,things gets done, but the interests of the people are ignored.

The middle way is the best way.