Are conspiracy theories destroying democracy?

[Svartalf]

they aren't?

[Nevets]

I know what i am saying is sounding daft.

But in actual fact, in a true democracy

Not anything so dramatic. This is just the sight of somebody making love to the sentences he types. Would any demoncracy let one guy with a keyboard and a library narcissistically define for it what a true democracy is?

On the other hand would a tru democracy allow one guy with a keyboard define what true democracy isn't? No, but every individual expression would become one little part of forming a whole.

[Hermit]

But in actual fact, in a true democracy, it should be the people that are running the country, and by the fact we view our "leaders" as being "authority figures" means democracy is already not truelly in place, as those representatives, should really only be passing bills voted on by the people, with their own opinions being irrelevant.

You're confusing direct democracy with representative democracy. The former might work on a small scale; on a village level, or within a small tribe, that kind of thing. Even "true democracy", as Cito di Pense has mentioned, can be ruinous.

In societies comprising millions of people and spanning huge areas of land direct democracy is not a viable form of government. This is why subsections within those societies choose individuals to represent their wishes in councils, congresses, parliaments and suchlike institutions. Yes, those elected individuals are authorised to do so, but being elected by a majority of voters within each local area, their authority is limited to making decisions broadly in accordance with the wishes of their respective electorates. If those representatives fail to to perform as expected, they'll very likely be out on their ear next time a scheduled election takes place.

This is of course a grossly simplified description of large scale, representative democracy, but not a bad one in principle despite the myriad of ways it can go awry. Attempts at direct democracies do not have a good record. In Switzerland, for instance, where a huge amount of decisions are made by referendums, the last canton to allow women to vote decided on that matter around 1972. And look at the fucking mess the US is in despite the fact that much of its governance takes place on state level and a huge amount of its officials, such as county sheriffs, state judges et cetera are elected to their positions by popular vote.

[Nevets]

In societies comprising millions of people and spanning huge areas of land direct democracy is not a viable form of government.

In actual fact, this might be a fallacy.

Some of the greatest and most brilliant empires of our time began with a direct democracy, including the Roman Empire, and the Hellenstic empire

I will give some examples.

the Roman Republic, traditionally beginning around 509 BC.[11] Rome displayed many aspects of democracy, both direct and indirect, from the era of Roman monarchy all the way to the collapse of the Roman Empire. Indeed, the Senate, formed in the first days of the city, lasted through the Kingdom, Republic, and Empire, and even continued after the decline of Western Rome; and its structure and regulations continue to influence legislative bodies worldwide. As to direct democracy, the ancient Roman Republic had a system of citizen lawmaking, or citizen formulation and passage of law, and a citizen veto of legislature-made law. Many historians mark the end of the Republic with the passage of a law named the Lex Titia, 27 November 43 BC".https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

Now i know some people put the collapse of the Roman empire down to greed, and dodgy policy making.
Was the end of "direct democracy", and the beginning of a more "self interested" policy, the beginning of the end for Romes democratic system, that was once the envy of the world?

Also the Roman system of direct democracy, was built on the previous incarnation of direct democracy, which was Athenian democracy.

Athenian democracy developed in the Greek city-state of Athens, comprising the city of Athens and the surrounding territory of Attica, around 600 BC. Athens was one of the very first known democracies. Other Greek cities set up democracies, and even though most followed an Athenian model, none were as powerful, stable, or well-documented as that of Athens. In the direct democracy of Athens, the citizens did not nominate representatives to vote on legislation and executive bills on their behalf (as in the United States) but instead voted as individuals. The public opinion of voters was influenced by the political satire of the comic poets in the theatres. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

Now Athenian Democracy was not in the least bit unsuccessful, and it only came to an end when Greece became conquered by Macedonia, and the Macedonians suppressed it. Though the Greeks did restore direct democracy, later, but to the extent it was restored as a real direct democracy, is debatable

The greatest and longest-lasting democratic leader was Pericles; after his death, Athenian democracy was twice briefly interrupted by oligarchic revolution towards the end of the Peloponnesian War. It was modified somewhat after it was restored under Eucleides; the most detailed accounts are of this 4th-century modification rather than of the Periclean system. It was suppressed by the Macedonians in 322 BC. The Athenian institutions were later revived, but the extent to which they were a real democracy is debatable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_de ... rly_Athens

So i would actually argue, that "Direct democracy", is historically proven to be the more reliable and successful type of democracy, and it only meets its demise when the democracy becomes led by a small number of individuals that begin to use the system for their own self interests, and want to assume themselves leaders, rather than good citizens.

[felltoearth]

Anyone who would out forward direct democracy as being viable has no idea how governance works.

[Nevets]

Anyone who would out forward direct democracy as being viable has no idea how governance works.

I agree. It is unlikely to work, as no-one knows how to successfully install it.
How is the website going to be designed to make sure the voices of 70million people are being fairly promoted and not being supressed?
And creating this updated system would likely also require a "leader" that somehow has the know how to make this work.
It might also require a war, as the current leaders may be unwilling to accept this updated system.

So no, it is purely hypothetical, and there are more reasons it would not work, than would work.

But the reasons it would not work is due to humans not knowing how to cohesively make it work, rather than the system being a bad one, which it isn't.

The only way it could possibly work is if it started off in one small area, such as say The Orkneys, Isle of Whyte, Isle of Mann, and slowly and carefully assumed a wider area, learning and improving the system as they go. Could not work any other way.

On the otherhand, the person that creates this website, would likely become the richest man in the world.

[Cito di Pense]

Anyone who would out forward direct democracy as being viable has no idea how governance works.

I agree. It is unlikely to work, as no-one knows how to successfully install it.
How is the website going to be designed to make sure the voices of 70million people are being fairly promoted and not being supressed?
And creating this updated system would likely also require a "leader" that somehow has the know how to make this work.
It might also require a war, as the current leaders may be unwilling to accept this updated system.

So no, it is purely hypothetical, and there are more reasons it would not work, than would work.

But the reasons it would not work is due to humans not knowing how to cohesively make it work, rather than the system being a bad one, which it isn't.

The only way it could possibly work is if it started off in one small area, such as say The Orkneys, Isle of Whyte, Isle of Mann, and slowly and carefully assumed a wider area, learning and improving the system as they go. Could not work any other way.

On the otherhand, the person that creates this website, would likely become the richest man in the world.

The Isle Of Whyte?
The Isle Of Mann?

Where are these places? Can you post a link to a map, such as on Wikipedia, or something?

slowly and carefully assumed a wider area, learning and improving the system as they go.

Are those places (assuming you can locate them on a map) already outside the jurisdiction of representative democracy? If so, they already have direct democracy. No need to implement it. If not, they might have to declare their independence from the sovereign nation that governs these territories.

Or is it just that you think you might have had some kind of an idea, about something you call 'direct democracy', because you read about it in Wikipedia?

It might also require a war, as the current leaders may be unwilling to accept this updated system.

I can see it now. The Army of the Republic of Whyte-Mann.

somehow has the know how to make this work

Yes, let's leave the methodology unspecified, beyond "going to war". Are you by any chance a product of the same education system that produced Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson? I ask only because, well... never mind.

[Nevets]

The Isle Of Whyte?
The Isle Of Mann

Apologies, when i was younger all references used to point to Mann, but nowadays it is Man, which i cannot get my head around... As for the Isle of Wight, i could not be located any farther away, though i know it is just across from Portsmouth and it's capital is Ryde. Or, Rhyde. Or something similar.

The Isle of Man also known as Mann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Man

Yes, let's leave the methodology unspecified beyond "going to war

Going to war would be amongst the list of arguments against installing Direct democracy, or installing anything.

[felltoearth]

It’s not the procedure of voting that’s the issue. It’s the amount of information required to vote on any piece of legislation. I try to keep up with just municipal politics here. Budget committee meetings are streamed on Youtube and I likely missed half of them and then of the ones I saw I probably missed 1/3 to 1/2 of that, because well a job and life. That’s just one singular aspect of one level of government.

We vote for people to be our proxy in government largely because of the time involved in understanding the minutiae of issues takes more time than most people have. I could fix my own furnace if need be. I think my family would freeze waiting for me to do however.

[Spearthrower]

Some of the greatest and most brilliant empires of our time began with a direct democracy, including the Roman Empire, and the Hellenstic empire

Just so long as you weren't a slave, a serf, a woman, disabled, or ethnically foreign... they were halcyon days for democracy.

[Hermit]

In societies comprising millions of people and spanning huge areas of land direct democracy is not a viable form of government.

In actual fact, this might be a fallacy.

Some of the greatest and most brilliant empires of our time began with a direct democracy, including the Roman Empire, and the Hellenstic empire

I will give some examples.

the Roman Republic, traditionally beginning around 509 BC.[11] Rome displayed many aspects of democracy, both direct and indirect, from the era of Roman monarchy all the way to the collapse of the Roman Empire. Indeed, the Senate...

Indeed, the Senate? Nevets, really. Tsk tsk. Roman senators were not even an example of representative democracy. They were not elected by anybody at any time of Rome's history. Initially they were appointed by the consuls, and later by the censors. Had you studied Roman history at all you would have realised that ancient Rome was never a democracy at all. Even during the period when it was called a republic between 509 and 27 BC it was an oligarchy, ruled by a small number of gentes.

[Spearthrower]

How is the website going to be designed to make sure the voices of 70million people are being fairly promoted and not being supressed?

Well, it's not. The reasons for this are simple: 1) That's not the agenda of this website and 2) The idea that a website can make sure the voices of 70 million people are heard is not realistic.

And which 70 million people are these, incidentally? You're in the UK whose entire population is less than 70 million - do babies get the vote too?

[Spearthrower]

So i would actually argue, that "Direct democracy", is historically proven to be the more reliable and successful type of democracy, and it only meets its demise when the democracy becomes led by a small number of individuals that begin to use the system for their own self interests, and want to assume themselves leaders, rather than good citizens.

Except that neither of your examples are remotely like a modern inclusive democratic state. In fact, if such a state were to exist today, we wouldn't call it a democracy at all - it would be an oligarchy.

[Spearthrower]

It’s not the procedure of voting that’s the issue. It’s the amount of information required to vote on any piece of legislation. I try to keep up with just municipal politics here. Budget committee meetings are streamed on Youtube and I likely missed half of them and then of the ones I saw I probably missed 1/3 to 1/2 of that, because well a job and life. That’s just one singular aspect of one level of government.

We vote for people to be our proxy in government largely because of the time involved in understanding the minutiae of issues takes more time than most people have. I could fix my own furnace if need be. I think my family would freeze waiting for me to do however.

Quite right. If voter apathy is a thing when you only need to vote once every few years, imagine if you were expected to directly vote on every minor issue that was raised! In fact, you'd need to be landed gentry to do so else how would you manage to work while making all these deliberations?

[Nevets]

It’s not the procedure of voting that’s the issue. It’s the amount of information required to vote on any piece of legislation. I try to keep up with just municipal politics here. Budget committee meetings are streamed on Youtube and I likely missed half of them and then of the ones I saw I probably missed 1/3 to 1/2 of that, because well a job and life. That’s just one singular aspect of one level of government.

We vote for people to be our proxy in government largely because of the time involved in understanding the minutiae of issues takes more time than most people have. I could fix my own furnace if need be. I think my family would freeze waiting for me to do however.

Excellent points.

You are getting to the nitty gritty.

The problem is, what information source are individuals using to form their opinions before voting?
This very problem, is a problem that would need to be reolved by forming a general consensus among people.
What sources are valid in congress, and what sources are not?
What constitutes propaganda, or unreliable personal opinion?

Whilst nothing is fool proof, i think we already have the foundations of a workable system.

Wikipedia for example is not 100% reliable, but it is possibly the best we have, and it has good sound foundations.

Wikipedia can also be edited by anyone, and anyone can post articles, so long as they can meet the peer reviewed guidelines and come from authenticated sources.

It is not fool proof, there is still the danger that a lot of "truth" will be dismissed due to not having an authentic source, but then if the issue is serious enough, one does not need to worry, an authentic source will appear soon enough.

This is better than other platforms, such as certain conspiracy forums, where you might be able to get "a little" truth, no matter how misrepresented, but the amounts of disinformation you will also be getting, because it is not peer reviewed, will be detremental to society.

Those platforms may be good for debating, and testing theories, but not good for presenting to congress.

Also anyone that says that this Wikipedia type peer reviewed platform, that works full-time removing bunk, and operates from a neutral political agenda, will only allow information that suits their agenda, or, the agenda of their paymasters, well, i have so far been able to put up a semi decent argument for the end of "representative democracy", which i would assume is the type of democracy that suits our world leaders, using "only" wikipedia articles.

[felltoearth]

I don’t think you understand how basic governance works. Information sources are supplied through department reports, hearings, and deputations. Typically from experts but also the publlic.

[Nevets]

I don’t think you understand how basic governance works. Information sources are supplied through department reports, hearings, and deputations. Typically from experts but also the publlic.

Yes, but you are talking about the "current" system.

I am talking about a hypothetical updated system.

The hypothetical updated system would need to also be created by general consensus.

I have no idea how the updated system would work.

I would be thinking along the lines however, that department reports in order to be considered reliable, would then need to be authenticated by a peer review panel, with their bunk removed, before being allowed on to a platform considered reliable to be used in congress.

They would need also be able to show that they have got their information from this peir reviewed process, and anything presented in congress, and above the think tank stages, needs to have went through the peer reviewed process, and been accepted as not being bunk, whether that be coming from a group claiming to be a department report, an expert, or member of the public.

In this system, everyones freedom of speech would also be protected, as it would work in levels.
Conpsiracy forums could be accepted at a think tank level.
But not at a higher level, where all final conclusions drawn, and presented to the public as a legitamite proposal, must have all unauthenticated bunk removed

[Spearthrower]

Nevets... for me, behind all the detailed tos and fros, there's a core point of disagreement for me. It's not that I don't think there are potentially preferable, idealized ways of governing ourselves, it's just that I think you have to automatically discount forms of governance that also require an idealized people. People are just far too complex in terms of their available responses to model effectively, and that's being nice - in reality, people are widely misinformed, motivated by biases that have nothing to do with any factual information, unconsciously prejudice against nearly everyone who's not like them despite their forebrain's ideals of compassion, tolerance, acceptance, etc.

It's not that I think any current government is irreplaceable, effective, or even functional most of the time, it's that I think this accurately reflects the experience of being a human being in the 21st century. Perhaps one sunny day we'll all just be better little apes and thus deserve nice things, but for now, all we can do is try to curb the worst inclinations in us through independent oversight, while occasionally sneaking through bills that produce a more accepting, more liberalizing, more tolerant society which works just a little bit less shit, while representing just a few more of us.

[Nevets]

Nevets... for me, behind all the detailed tos and fros, there's a core point of disagreement for me. It's not that I don't think there are potentially preferable, idealized ways of governing ourselves, it's just that I think you have to automatically discount forms of governance that also require an idealized people. People are just far too complex in terms of their available responses to model effectively, and that's being nice - in reality, people are widely misinformed, motivated by biases that have nothing to do with any factual information, unconsciously prejudice against nearly everyone who's not like them despite their forebrain's ideals of compassion, tolerance, acceptance, etc.

It's not that I think any current government is irreplaceable, effective, or even functional most of the time, it's that I think this accurately reflects the experience of being a human being in the 21st century. Perhaps one sunny day we'll all just be better little apes and thus deserve nice things, but for now, all we can do is try to curb the worst inclinations in us through independent oversight, while occasionally sneaking through bills that produce a more accepting, more liberalizing, more tolerant society which works just a little bit less shit, while representing just a few more of us.

Bingo. Best post ever.
Completely agree.

Now i stand to be accused of messing about, that i agree with someone arguing against my viewpoint.
But my viewpoint "is", just that.

It would be a great system, if humans were not so complex, biased, misinformed, prejudiced, dysfunctional, and dare i say, still in the evolutionary process.

I am even going to take the liberty of adding my own word to that list. Self interested.

There is absolutely no way in this world that anyone could ever get the "rich" members of society to change the system. Why? Because the system is working absolutely fine the way it is, from their point of view, why change something that is not broken.

[Nevets]

Indeed, the Senate? Nevets, really. Tsk tsk. Roman senators were not even an example of representative democracy. They were not elected by anybody at any time of Rome's history. Initially they were appointed by the consuls, and later by the censors. Had you studied Roman history at all you would have realised that ancient Rome was never a democracy at all. Even during the period when it was called a republic between 509 and 27 BC it was an oligarchy, ruled by a small number of gentes.

In which case it would be considered an Oligarchy

Oligarchy meaning 'to rule or to command' and is a form of power structure in which power rests with a small number of people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy

But it did not necessarily start out like this

Robert Michels developed the theory that democracies, as all large organizations, have a tendency to turn into oligarchies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy

By the fact it was considered, the Roman Republic, and a Republic means government is property of the people, and not privately owned by rulers, would suggest it started out just that.

is a form of government in which the country is considered a "public matter", not the private concern or property of the rulers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

But there is nothing i can do about corruption.

And are you suggesting that it was Direct democracy that led to the demise of the Roman empire? Or Oligarchy?
Because if it was "Oligarchy", then this is not a great argument for "representative democracy".

The British empire also collapsed under the current system.