I have always thought that if you look at history, there is really only two ways to rule people and organize society. Those are Bullplop and bloodshed. You can't keep everyone happy, so rulers/politicians say a lot of phony things. Doesn't mean they are bad, it's just an effective way to get people to let you tell them what to do. Well there can be some downright awful evil stuff that can come of it, but it can also be benevolent. The other way to keep a society in order is by violence or the threat of violence. Of course like everything this acts on a continuum, some (religious society) run on a BS threat of violence from an all mighty. I always keep this in the back of my head when people criticize modern democratic places, it's not perfect but we could be living under a very different system like a lot of the poor souls on this planet have.
I've always felt that for a truly happy world there would need to be the very basic ideology of communism in place, and I'm talking the very basic as in everyone the same and everyone equal. It will never work though because there would need to be others to try an maintain the system and as such they would be breaking the ideology. Plus it is a bad system to have because the human race will cease to advance and will likely die out within a couple generations.
That is true - you cannot please everyone. Laws and rules are made to govern because people have their own idiosyncrasies and characteristics. If there are no laws then chaos will reign for the reason that man is inherently selfish. Not exactly with the threat of violence but a warning for punishment if the citizens will not toe the line, that is one way of putting discipline. With bloodshed, I don't think that is necessary when governing people who are civilized and mostly educated.
Communism doesn't work because people will always want to out do one another. You cannot force people to change how they think and feel, yes there is brainwashing, but that's not exactly a great way to build a society. There will always be opponents to any government, they will always have enemies, and either they suppress them (or kill them) or in a democracy they allow the people to choose. If you think of places like China, and North Korea opponents are incarcerated or mysteriously disappear, and no one can stop them.
I agree with what you're saying and that's why the idealogical of communism will only work on paper and never in a real life scenario. There's a great book that I've yet to read that has a story based on the communism ideal called "Animal Farm" where pigs rule over the other animals in keeping a form or communist system in order. There's a quote that sums it up pretty well "Every animal is equal, but some are more equal than others". As for North Korea, the leader and his henchmen are pretty crazy people. But seeing views of the capital and the people going about their ways, you would never guess the country is ruled over by such a dictatorship.
The current democratic system is far from where democracy started out. That being said, there is still a voting system and we, the people, have some say in what happens which is a lot better than in many other countries. But it's never a "this or that" system, some sort of a balance is usually the best choice.
Are you saying that we have progressed or regressed since democracy started out? I do recall the original Athenian democracy was really only democracy for land-owning male Athenian citizens.
In my opinion, regressed. Sure I agree that everyone, rich or poor, male or female, should be able to vote. But it should be a vote that decides things. What do you vote for in your country? In the USA they vote for "electors" who then vote for someone. So they are not voting directly for Mr. A to become a president but they are voting for MR. B to be allowed to vote for who he feels like should be the president. Here I vote for individual people in the elections but the vote goes for that person AND his party. And the amount of votes the party gets decides how many people from that party get into the parliament. Say party X gets 57 spots in the parliament, so then the 57 most voted people inside party X go in there. So basically I can vote for person Y who is great and the vote goes for him and his party. Person Y doesn't get in but person Z, whom I don't like, just barely managed to grab a place because his party (that I voted for) did well. To make it even more simple it's also based on geography. I don't know how the system works in other countries but parties are a big part of the process in a lot of places. To sum it up: democracy began with the "who would you like to lead you" vote but now it's "who would you like to choose who leads you" or "which party should lead you" or something similar. Sometimes it feels like I don't really have a say anymore because my vote also goes to the party, helping out people whom I don't want in charge.
Interesting theory when I look at history I found something that you might've overlooked like how religions and philosophies/way of life has kept people in check as well, not everything needs to be a "threat of violence". Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and other religions have often led their followers to a non-violent path you should look into a lot of Eastern philosophy. The Dalai Lama, the Pope and other religious leaders have clout. Religion has had a lot of political power these are just some other examples.
Agree - It seems like most policies that are put in place are pushed by companies, unions and other non-profits rather than the common person. The problem is that even if we leave the vote up to the common person, these groups will make aggressive moves to change the common person's mind through manipulation of feelings.
