democracy: best system ever or an utter failure?

[khushal]

Like how are people supposed to get things done related to social welfare, educational and healthcare spending, infrastructure development. These Theocracy fanboys are insane.

Many people falsely think democracy is a kafur system since the West is promoting it verbally but not through action ie overthrow of democratically elected Iranian mosaddeq and Egyptian Morsi. What the West is promoting through action is Western liberalism so people automatically think Western liberalism is democracy. Democracy existed long before Western liberalism.

[khushal]

I've never cast a ballot in my life and never will

People that don't vote are immoral since they are intentionally staying silent when given the chance to speak up on what should be or should not be done. When evil triumphs and you stayed silent given the opportunity to speak against it, then you are complicit in the actions that are taken.

Evil triumphs when good people stay silent.

[maneatinglizard]

the rights of a stupid person should be equal to a wise person.

Getting to make decisions for an entire nation shouldn't be a right. It's a privilege that only capable people should have.

If you ran an engineering firm and were designing a new product, would you consider the opinions of your janitors and your engineers equally?

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Getting to make decisions for an entire nation shouldn't be a right. It's a privilege that only capable people should have.

If you ran an engineering firm and were designing a new product, would you consider the opinions of your janitors and your engineers equally?

That's kind of a false equivalence wouldn't you say? Also, we're not talking about specialized things like design, but people's welfare and interests/

[khushal]

Getting to make decisions for an entire nation shouldn't be a right. It's a privilege that only capable people should have.

As long as those decisions affect the person, that person has every right to have a say.

If you ran an engineering firm and were designing a new product, would you consider the opinions of your janitors and your engineers equally?

If the product is for the janitor, by default the janitor's input is vital to the success of the product.

[maneatinglizard]

That's kind of a false equivalence wouldn't you say? Also, we're not talking about specialized things like design, but people's welfare and interests/

In what sense is it a false equivalence?

Just because something is related to a person's welfare or interests, doesn't mean they'll understand the options or what's best for them. If a question is so simple that an illiterate person with no understanding of policy can come up with the right answer, then why is his input even needed? On the other hand, if the matter is complex and beyond his understanding (as is usually the case with matters on a national level - consider the tax reform debate currently taking place in the US), why should his input he considered? At best he'll come to the right conclusion through manipulation or dumb luck. More likely though, he'll come to a wrong conclusion through lack of knowledge, competence, or intelligence, or by simply being manipulated into it.

As long as those decisions affect the person, that person has every right to have a say.

If the product is for the janitor, by default the janitor's input is vital to the success of the product.

Those decisions do affect the janitor. If the product is poorly designed and fails, the company would lose revenue, which could hurt his wages, or even cause him to lose his job.

So, would you include him in your design meetings? After all, his job is just as valuable to him as yours is to you.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

In what sense is it a false equivalence?

Just because something is related to a person's welfare or interests, doesn't mean they'll understand the options or what's best for them. If a question is so simple that an illiterate person with no understanding of policy can come up with the right answer, then why is his input even needed? On the other hand, if the matter is complex and beyond his understanding (as is usually the case with matters on a national level - consider the tax reform debate currently taking place in the US), why should his input he considered? At best he'll come to the right conclusion through manipulation or dumb luck. More likely though, he'll come to a wrong conclusion through lack of knowledge, competence, or intelligence, or by simply being manipulated into it.



Those decisions do affect the janitor. If the product is poorly designed and fails, the company would lose revenue, which could hurt his wages, or even cause him to lose his job.

So, would you include him in your design meetings? After all, his job is just as valuable to him as yours is to you.

But if you never have them make decisions for their life and their destiny, they'll always remain dumb. You can't dictate to them forever. People have to be able to live by their conscience.

As for this engineering comparison. What kind of engineering are you speaking of? Sure let's say it's engineering cars, well they can vote on carbon emissions that force the engineering team redesign the exhaust system. It's not the same as the design process itself, but their choices ultimately have a say because it goes by their interests. Engineers design based on demand as well as creativity.

[khushal]

Those decisions do affect the janitor. If the product is poorly designed and fails, the company would lose revenue, which could hurt his wages, or even cause him to lose his job.

So, would you include him in your design meetings? After all, his job is just as valuable to him as yours is to you.

Ofcourse. Companies use inputs from people that are actually going to use the products all the time. This is vital in the success of the product. The success of Facebook is a perfect example when they overtook myspace which was run by an experienced board with fancy degrees who had no idea how young people socialized or what was important to them. Zuckerburg on the other hand who did not have any fancy degrees easily defeated them because he himself was a young person who was around young people and knew exactly what young people wanted socially.

[maneatinglizard]

Islam is not against democracy. Shura is democratic.

Shura isn't democracy. In a shura, the final say is still given to the Amir, and the opinions of the representatives are often not given equal weight. Shuras rarely involve voting, and even when they do they aren't binding.

Like how are people supposed to get things done related to social welfare, educational and healthcare spending, infrastructure development. These Theocracy fanboys are insane.

These things existed and developed before democracies. Not like society was paused until the West forced democracy on everyone.

And a proper Islamic theocracy, if anything, should ensure the preservation and development of those concerns better than other governmental forms, since they are are all highly emphasized in Islam, and a proper Islamic system should have the favor of Allah (سبحانه وتعالى).

Many people falsely think democracy is a kafur system since the West is promoting it verbally but not through action ie overthrow of democratically elected Iranian mosaddeq and Egyptian Morsi. What the West is promoting through action is Western liberalism so people automatically think Western liberalism is democracy. Democracy existed long before Western liberalism.

Democracy is an invention of Greece. It's a foreign imposition upon our lands and cultures. Not every aspect of democracy is bad, but we have no need for a flawed foreign system that introduces more problems than it solves.

Just like we rejected communism before the rest of the world realized it was trash, we should reject democracy, especially when even Americans are losing faith in it.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Shura isn't democracy. In a shura, the final say is still given to the Amir, and the opinions of the representatives are often not given equal weight. Shuras rarely involve voting, and even when they do they aren't binding.

Yeah see, that type of autocracy is not divinely ordained. That's human workings right there. People who have vested interest in hijacking power. I would never trust a system that gave one person such absolute authority. Some type of counter balance to their power is a must.

These things existed and developed before democracies. Not like society was paused until the West forced democracy on everyone.

And they were poorly administered by people who had no practical relationship with the needs of the people.

And a proper Islamic theocracy, if anything, should ensure the preservation and development of those concerns better than other governmental forms, since they are are all highly emphasized in Islam, and a proper Islamic system should have the favor of Allah (سبحانه وتعالى).

It "should" but does it? When you have Mullahs who think by going to a Madrassa they can do statecraft and decide for whole populations. That's not a good governing Model. That's not the same as allowing people who have practical understanding of their own challenges and difficulties deciding on issues relevant to them.

Democracy is an invention of Greece. It's a foreign imposition upon our lands and cultures. Not every aspect of democracy is bad, but we have no need for a flawed foreign system that introduces more problems than it solves.

The Greeks may have been one of the most notable societal representations of democracy ...MAYBE ...but the concept is very natural and practical. Even Hunter Gatherers used some type of democratic system.

Just like we rejected communism before the rest of the world realized it was trash, we should reject democracy, especially when even Americans are losing faith in it.

We rejected communism because it was very overtly oppressive. Democracy in and of itself doesn't create oppression. In fact I don't feel directly oppressed nor do I think the way our society runs is wholly functional. but this doesn't mean throw out everything.

[maneatinglizard]

But if you never have them make decisions for their life and their destiny, they'll always remain dumb. You can't dictate to them forever. People have to be able to live by their conscience.

No government makes every single decision for its citizens. A shepherd who doesn't get to decide how much tax he pays, or how much of it goes to public healthcare, doesn't become a worse shepherd, or one incapable of improving.

He remains ignorant of tax policy, but so what? Not everyone needs to understand it; frankly, it's a waste of time and resources to force everyone to become an expert on every issue just so the society can come to a good decision. And since that doesn't even happen in highly educated, democratic societies like those in the West, we get situations where everyone gets to "take their pick" between two corrupt ****bags for president, or where the vast majority of a state votes against policies that would lower their drug prices, or where a country decided to leave a union to basically no benefit to them.

Division of labor is utilized in virtually every other aspect of society, but somehow we've decided that regressing in perhaps the most vital aspect of any civilization is a good idea? Why? Let the experts figure things out, instead of turning governance into a contest for who can fool the most idiots into favoring them.

As for this engineering comparison. What kind of engineering are you speaking of? Sure let's say it's engineering cars, well they can vote on carbon emissions that force the engineering team redesign the exhaust system. It's not the same as the design process itself, but their choices ultimately have a say because it goes by their interests. Engineers design based on demand as well as creativity.

How do you imagine this voting works? Do they vote for an emissions target? If so, what if they vote for an impossible target? Or one that is highly uneconomical and causes the project to incur huge losses? Why should janitors who have no idea how the design process work get to dictate it? Engineers are already frustrated regularly by the idiot decisions of business executives, why muck things up even further by including every person in the company? it's a waste of time and resources.

The idea reminds me of this episode of Simpsons: The Homer | Simpsons Wiki | FANDOM powered by Wikia

Let me give you another example, one that I'm familiar with. Say I want to develop a software application. Should the entire company get to decide the coding language? The backend database? The color scheme? Whether we use Waterfall development or Agile?

Note: I'm not saying they shouldn't be consulted with at all. They can give valuable feedback, and I think the feedback of citizens should also be taken in consideration in any form of government. There may even be cases where a public vote is the best way to settle a matter.

What I don't accept though, is the idea that everyone, no matter their level of knowledge or competence, should have an equal say in the decision-making process. Not in a business, and not in a government.

[maneatinglizard]

This forum needs to remove the censor on "****". It's not a bad word, but gets censored into looking like something else that is a bad word lol.

Edit: "s c u m" lol

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

No government makes every single decision for its citizens. A shepherd who doesn't get to decide how much tax he pays, or how much of it goes to public healthcare, doesn't become a worse shepherd, or one incapable of improving.

But he can and should decide how the tax money should be spent, whether to help economic growth rather than excess military expenditure, For healthcare or for social programs.

He remains ignorant of tax policy, but so what?

People should not be forced to remain ignorant.

Not everyone needs to understand it; frankly, it's a waste of time and resources to force everyone to become an expert on every issue

No one said you have to become an expert. But we should not simply be ruled by self-appointed elites either.

just so the society can come to a good decision

This seems kind of unusual compared to what you were saying before. Why should the select few have such disproportionate power? These are the foundations of corruption.

Division of labor is utilized in virtually every other aspect of society,

We're not arguing about division of labor, rather distribution of power.

but somehow we've decided that regressing in perhaps the most vital aspect of any civilization is a good idea? Why

You tell me, I would people to be able to be competent in deciding their fate. Without Mullahs thinking they know better, because let's face it, they typically don't.

? Let the experts figure things out, instead of turning governance into a contest for who can fool the most idiots into favoring them.

Who appointed them as the "experts" though? I'm not advocating that anyone with a megaphone get up and take charge. Competency is shown through merit, but even by having qualified administrators social consent and conference is crucial.

How do you imagine this voting works? Do they vote for an emissions target? If so, what if they vote for an impossible target?

Well that's why it's a deliberation we examine possibilities versus plausibilities and come to the best fit.

Or one that is highly uneconomical and causes the project to incur huge losses?

Again this still requires deliberation. What if the "experts" prefer profit over public welfare? checks and balances are must. This is why the current theocratic model is probably worse than the current democratic model.

Why should janitors who have no idea how the design process work get to dictate it?

Educate them

Engineers are already frustrated regularly by the idiot decisions of business executives,

Perhaps, but that's their job, they exist as Professionals to work in an industry.

why muck things up even further by including every person in the company? it's a waste of time and resources.

This is what I meant by false equivalence. We're not talking about who gets to decide things in an Engineering firm. But people who are apart of a society, need, by practical necessity be involved in process of how their society will be organized.

Let me give you another example, one that I'm familiar with. Say I want to develop a software application. Should the entire company get to decide the coding language? The backend database? The color scheme? Whether we use Waterfall development or Agile?

This is just a variation of the previous example, and not really the equivalent.

Note: I'm not saying they shouldn't be consulted with at all. They can give valuable feedback, and I think the feedback of citizens should also be taken in consideration in any form of government. I'm some cases I even thank that a public vote may even be the best way to settle a matter.

Sure but feedback means nothing unless its taken seriously. Consent ensures power mongers don't get to turn society into Assad's Syria.

What I don't accept though, is the idea that everyone, no matter their level of knowledge or competence, should have an equal say in the decision-making process. Not in a business, and not in a government.

The issue here is , how do the people in power get the validation/legitimacy for their power? Other people in power? This becomes a power cartel and very Hindu-caste system-y ....Not good.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

This forum needs to remove the censor on "****". It's not a bad word, but gets censored into looking like something else that is a bad word lol.

Edit: "s c u m" lol

Yeah I wrote sl*t and wh*re , I mean those aren't nice things to say but apart of common vernacular.

[khushal]

[MENTION=19985]maneatinglizard[/MENTION],
The analogies you are using don't really apply here. We are talking about peoples needs and interests, not about does Einstein need to consult an economist about the theory of relativity or the economist consulting Einstein about the division of labor and free markets.