Why Democracy Is Wrong

[midcan5]

This is an example that usually brings a lot of debate, hopefully it makes some think. Is the author correct given his argument?

"In a large ocean there are two neighbouring islands: faultless democracies with full civil and political rights. One island is extremely rich and prosperous, and has 10 million inhabitants. The other is extremely poor: it has 100 million inhabitants, who live by subsistence farming. After a bad harvest last year, there are no food stocks, and now the harvest has failed again: 90 million people are facing death by starvation. The democratically elected government of the poor island asks for help, and the democratically elected government of the rich island organises a referendum on the issue. There are three options: Option A is a sharp increase in taxes, to pay for large-scale permanent structural transfers to the poor island. Option B is some increase in taxes, to pay for immediate and sufficient humanitarian aid, so that famine will be averted. Option C is no extra taxes and no aid. When the votes are counted, 100% of the voters have chosen Option C. After all, who wants to pay more taxes?

So 90 million people starve. Yet all electoral procedures on both islands are free and fair, the media are free, political campaigning is free, there is no political repression of any kind. According to democratic theory, any outcome of this democratic process must be respected. Two perfect democracies have functioned perfectly: if you believe the supporters of democracy, that is morally admirable. But it clearly is not: there is something fundamentally wrong with democracy, if it allows this outcome."

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.T...democracy.html

[MtnBiker]

The 100 million would have invaded the 10 million.

[Yurt]

thank goodness i live in a republic

[MtnBiker]

thank goodness i live in a republic

there are plenty to have yet to grasp that reality

[Noir]

This is an example that usually brings a lot of debate, hopefully it makes some think. Is the author correct given his argument?

"In a large ocean there are two neighbouring islands: faultless democracies with full civil and political rights. One island is extremely rich and prosperous, and has 10 million inhabitants. The other is extremely poor: it has 100 million inhabitants, who live by subsistence farming. After a bad harvest last year, there are no food stocks, and now the harvest has failed again: 90 million people are facing death by starvation. The democratically elected government of the poor island asks for help, and the democratically elected government of the rich island organises a referendum on the issue. There are three options: Option A is a sharp increase in taxes, to pay for large-scale permanent structural transfers to the poor island. Option B is some increase in taxes, to pay for immediate and sufficient humanitarian aid, so that famine will be averted. Option C is no extra taxes and no aid. When the votes are counted, 100% of the voters have chosen Option C. After all, who wants to pay more taxes?

So 90 million people starve. Yet all electoral procedures on both islands are free and fair, the media are free, political campaigning is free, there is no political repression of any kind. According to democratic theory, any outcome of this democratic process must be respected. Two perfect democracies have functioned perfectly: if you believe the supporters of democracy, that is morally admirable. But it clearly is not: there is something fundamentally wrong with democracy, if it allows this outcome."

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.T...democracy.html

But this just isn't right, otherwise there would be no socialist parties in the world, the torries in the UK always have tax cuts at the helm of there general election campaigns, while labour normally have tax rises, and they've won the last 3 elections, to assume that people make their minds up based purely on taxes is wrong.

Also in this story look for the alternatives, for example a dictatorship, they would of increased the taxes to ensure that the government didn't starve.

[midcan5]

thank goodness i live in a republic

Then imagine your representatives voting the same way. Example still holds. Based of course on your democratic input.

[Yurt]

Then imagine your representatives voting the same way. Example still holds. Based of course on your democratic input.

what is the point of this thread? we don't live in a democracy, nor do i think pure democracies are a good idea, you will have mob rule. we could wax poetic all day about "maybes" and "what ifs"....

[diuretic]

The outcome in the example is morally wrong but the democratic process is neutral in terms of morality. So, there's nothing "wrong" with the democratic process as a process. After all, the US, a democracy, decided in a democratic fashion, to invade Iraq. That bad decision doesn't make the democratic process in the US bad.

[DragonStryk72]

The problem is that the scenario couldn't happen. Crap, you can't get 5 people to agree 100% on pizza toppings. Why is it always the hypothetical "there's no way this could ever possibly occur" questions that people deem as fit test of democracy?

I invent option, where in I begin a food drive with he help of others, as well as simply asking for donations, as opposed to the tax. I, along with as many of the friends that I can manage to beg or brow beat into helping, and as many others as possible, and go to the other country to help out personally.

[PostmodernProphet]

But it clearly is not: there is something fundamentally wrong with democracy, if it allows this outcome."

the error in your logic is the conclusion that it is somehow the fault of the system that they voted not to help.....if 100% of the voters did not want to help it wouldn't matter if they were a democracy or a commune, they wouldn't be helping.....

the fault is in the citizen, not the form of government.....

[theHawk]

This is an example that usually brings a lot of debate, hopefully it makes some think. Is the author correct given his argument?

"In a large ocean there are two neighbouring islands: faultless democracies with full civil and political rights. One island is extremely rich and prosperous, and has 10 million inhabitants. The other is extremely poor: it has 100 million inhabitants, who live by subsistence farming. After a bad harvest last year, there are no food stocks, and now the harvest has failed again: 90 million people are facing death by starvation. The democratically elected government of the poor island asks for help, and the democratically elected government of the rich island organises a referendum on the issue. There are three options: Option A is a sharp increase in taxes, to pay for large-scale permanent structural transfers to the poor island. Option B is some increase in taxes, to pay for immediate and sufficient humanitarian aid, so that famine will be averted. Option C is no extra taxes and no aid. When the votes are counted, 100% of the voters have chosen Option C. After all, who wants to pay more taxes?

So 90 million people starve. Yet all electoral procedures on both islands are free and fair, the media are free, political campaigning is free, there is no political repression of any kind. According to democratic theory, any outcome of this democratic process must be respected. Two perfect democracies have functioned perfectly: if you believe the supporters of democracy, that is morally admirable. But it clearly is not: there is something fundamentally wrong with democracy, if it allows this outcome."

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.T...democracy.html

How about option D) Donate to a charity organization that will help the people in need with much more effiency than the government.

[avatar4321]

You've based your hypothetical on false assumptions. Namely that the only way to help the poor is through government taxation and programs. In fact, this is by far the least effective methods.

More effective methods:

Capitalism
Churches
Charities
Conservatives.

[diuretic]

I'm starting to think that this is a little experiment in drawing out ideology from posters.

[midcan5]

I'm starting to think that this is a little experiment in drawing out ideology from posters.

Yes, but also a test of thinking about how complicated things become if our focus is too narrow. Diuretic, it's a secret so don't tell anyone, but I'm trying to make them all liberals. LOL

[midcan5]

The outcome in the example is morally wrong but the democratic process is neutral in terms of morality. So, there's nothing "wrong" with the democratic process as a process. After all, the US, a democracy, decided in a democratic fashion, to invade Iraq. That bad decision doesn't make the democratic process in the US bad.

I wonder if Iraq had been voted on would we have invaded a sovereign nation? I would hope enough people would have voted no, but you raise an interesting point. I wonder how the spin would have spun given a vote? 911 made people blind to reason.