CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Logical Quagmire #22: How Can We Have A Democracy If There Is A Leader?
The very basis of democracy is that decisions are made by a majority vote of the people. You might presently think it is practical or reasonable to delegate these decisions to a handful of "representatives", but I urge you to think on it a little harder. Is this reasonable, or is it a symptom of a lifetime of political indoctrination?
My counter argument is simple. If we place decisions into the unilateral hands of individuals then we do not have a democratic political system. What we actually have is a dictatorship in which the dictator is chosen through a (semi) democratic election. Clearly, these are not the same thing.
I understand the contradiction. But it's just another example of trying to win a debate by definition, which frankly is among the least compelling ways to debate. If this is a quagmire then ironically I feel very little discomfort living with this quagmire you've pointed out to us.
I am afraid I don't even understand what you mean by "trying to win a debate by definition". I just like to make people think about the things they have been brought up to believe, and whether they are actually true or not.
You have stated that you understand the contradiction, but also that you are comfortable living with it. So does this mean you are comfortable with a Donald Trump or an Adolf Hitler making unilateral decisions on behalf of the people? Let's say for example that Trump comes clean and announces his staff colluded with Russian intelligence in order to win the US election, but shortly afterwards grants himself and everyone involved a full presidential pardon. Would you would be comfortable with that? Would you be comfortable believing he was acting in the best interests of the electorate?
No of course not. I'm just saying I'm comfortable that we elect representatives, because it's physically impossible to take a nation wide vote on any and every issue that comes up daily with government. I do not support Trump making unilateral decisions. I DO support the structure of our Constitution and our US government so as a group they can govern, and that group should be keeping Trump in check.
What I mean by argument by definition is the definition of democracy is everyone gets a vote, but the existence of a leader means by definition they don't get a vote on everything, thus a quagmire. A similar way someone used definition on this site was to say we're not a democracy at all, because a representative government is by definition not identical to a simpler definition of democracy. And indeed in that latter case they're technically right. But it neither makes us stop calling ourselves a democracy nor makes us want to change anything just because of the definition.
No of course not. I'm just saying I'm comfortable that we elect representatives, because it's physically impossible to take a nation wide vote on any and every issue that comes up daily with government.
Has this "impossible" feat ever even been tried? If not then how can you arbitrarily label it as "impossible"? Many things in history have been "impossible" right up until someone actually did them. I am confident you will discover, if you scratch beneath the surface a little, that much of what the government does it actually does just to justify its own existence. In England our MPs don't even work full time.
I do not support Trump making unilateral decisions. I DO support the structure of our Constitution and our US government so as a group they can govern, and that group should be keeping Trump in check.
But some of the examples I have already given show that neither the constitution nor the government can really keep a leader in check, so this second option does not exist. In fact it's a complete contradiction of itself. Either you have a leader or you don't have a leader. You can't say, "Oh we have a leader but he doesn't actually lead." The President can and does make unilateral decisions for his personal political benefit which contradict the interests of both justice and the electorate. Bush did it when he commuted the prison sentence of Scooter Libby.
What I mean by argument by definition is the definition of democracy is everyone gets a vote, but the existence of a leader means by definition they don't get a vote on everything, thus a quagmire.
Which reinforces what I said in the opening post. We vote on which tyrant makes decisions for us; and we are only given a choice between two of them. That isn't democracy. It honestly isn't.
A similar way someone used definition on this site was to say we're not a democracy at all, because a representative government is by definition not identical to a simpler definition of democracy
They are right. Being governed by someone other than yourselves is not democracy. Dictatorship is not a more complex version of democracy. It just isn't democracy.
You're right it may be possible. Maybe I've just become accustomed to (alleged) representative democracy.
And you're right that Trump keeps demonstrating how little our nation can do to keep a rogue President in check. But the main reason we're having that problem is he has been shielded by the Republican Congress. If there were any sort of real power share going on he would have been arrested a long time ago.
And you're right that having either of two bad choices really isn't much of a choice. A part of that blame rests on those two dominant parties and part of it rests on us for allowing those parties to get away with rigging and hogging the power for the vast majority of US history.
Your final comment about dictatorship is of course true, but I don't think Trump technically has achieved dictatorship ability. If he had then the Russian sanctions never would have passed.
Anyway, we're in a bad situation and I don't like it. Whether it's one party controlling us, or two, or a wannabe dictator, it's looking grim.
You're right it may be possible. Maybe I've just become accustomed to (alleged) representative democracy.
Maybe we all have. We are all taught as children things by parents and teachers which are assumed de facto to be true, but what this really teaches us is not to question them.
And you're right that Trump keeps demonstrating how little our nation can do to keep a rogue President in check. But the main reason we're having that problem is he has been shielded by the Republican Congress. If there were any sort of real power share going on he would have been arrested a long time ago.
Yes, I can see your point here, and I do agree things would be more difficult for Trump without the almost total control the Republicans presently have. However, I also believe that on its deepest level the Republican v Democrat "power share" is a false dichotomy. In terms of the global political canvas there is very little difference between the two ideologies. What differences there are tend to be exaggerated into huge talking points to obfuscate the reality that they both fundamentally agree on the main issues. Most importantly, there seems to be tacit agreement not to significantly reform or change the system in terms of making it fairer for ordinary people.
A part of that blame rests on those two dominant parties and part of it rests on us for allowing those parties to get away with rigging and hogging the power for the vast majority of US history.
Absolutely. I completely agree with you, and this gets right to the heart of the philosophical argument I'm trying to incite. It is true that the people need to bear some responsibility for the American political climate. However, at the same time, if we give either an individual or a party power, is there anything we can do to stop them using that power to sustain or further their power? For illustration, if we use the most obvious example of pre-war Germany, then once the Nazis obtained power, they went about solidifying it by means of propaganda and/or terror. They were able to control what people thought precisely because the people had given them power, making it a rather vicious circle. I see political power just like I see genie power. If you give me three wishes, the first thing I'm going to do is wish for more wishes.
Anyway, we're in a bad situation and I don't like it. Whether it's one party controlling us, or two, or a wannabe dictator, it's looking grim.
Me either, and I agree it is looking grim. You and I think very much along the same lines, which makes debating you a pleasure rather than a chore.
I don't think that there is a "leader" as such, but a representative of the government..
Let's jump back to my hypothetical argument about Trump issuing himself a full presidential pardon. Would he be representing the government by doing that, or representing his own desire not to go to jail?
Let's jump back to my hypothetical argument about Trump issuing himself a full presidential pardon. Would he be representing the government by doing that, or representing his own desire not to go to jail?
I do agree with the consequence of that, but I'm kind of confident that there is something which will not let him complete the process legally.
Let's look at the hypothesis as you've put up, which is quite interesting.. when we elect a person, we elect someone who has similar thought process and ideologies. It would not be wise to actually take every citizen's opinion on certain issues and consider a poll to make decisions, which they should be doing, so instead people elect this person who has a similar thought process and expect to make decisions on their behalf, more preferably the decision they want.. when "leaders" make decisions people don't like, they get upset, which can be observed..
And also, people make decisions mostly from an individual's perspective, not for the country as a whole.. which makes it inefficient to directly consider people's decisions.
When we elect a person, we elect someone who has similar thought process and ideologies.
I can't agree with this. Firstly, it's a perception, not a reality. Political candidates know what to say to get themselves elected. Secondly, it is often the other way around: a leader's thought processes and ideologies eventually become the people's because he has the power to influence those people. America was founded as a secular society of immigrants but over little more than a few centuries has somehow descended into a quasi-religious cult of neo-Christian consumerists. There should be no hive mind in America. The fact that most people do now have "similar thought processes and ideologies" is precisely my point. The people have been influenced to think a certain way by the mechanics of power. The general principle is not much different from Saddam Hussein's 99 percent vote count in the 1995 Iraqi Presidential Referendum. Tell the people what to think and it's surprising how many of them vote for you in a "free" society.
Though I agree with your argument, I'd like to put up a few points:
Political candidates know what to say to get themselves elected.
This is very true, but they speak with respect to the majority's ideology, so that they get the most number of votes, which is because the person knows, the only way to get votes of the majority is to speak what they want to hear, in other words, he/she knows that they are going to vote a person with similar ideologies...
Secondly, it is often the other way around: a leader's thought processes and ideologies eventually become the people's because he has the power to influence those people.
Again, a very agreeable point, but I have something to say: We are talking about orators in this case, who function on their own ideologies and possess the capability to convince others to some extent to vote them. But this is not going to work for all the people, I mean, there will be people in large numbers who are very clingy to their ideas (possibly the near - extremists) if I was to speak about my ideologies, let's assume it's neither the right, nor left, and I happen to be a good orator, I will mostly be getting votes from the ones who are leaning towards left or leaning towards right, but not the bigger crowd of people who seem to be hardcore right or hardcore left.. However, past experiences of governance with a particular representative can lead to increase or decrease of votes the next time that person stands for election.
Tell the people what to think and it's surprising how many of them vote for you in a "free" society.
For that, one should be effective in telling what to think and there should be people who are seeking an ideology..
If you have a LEADER, S/HE is the one that speaks, and acts, FOR THE MAJORITY! S/HE doesn't go off on his/her own agenda or party. S/HE acts FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE! No quagmire, no problem. #22 is illogical and gone.
Oh. You mean with a barrage of propaganda, voting booth intimidation (with Brown Shirts [aka, voting monitors]), A lot of yelling about how a minority group (Jews) were controlling the present administration ... about how they were draining money from the "Reich", about how much better and stronger "nationalism" would make Germany????
I understand .... I think..... Yeah, I can see the "democracy" in that election process ... and the similarity to our last one. ;-)
This is why there is legislative, executive and judicial. Checks and measures so if one starts being too much of a pain in the arse, the others keep him in line.
This is why there is legislative, executive and judicial.
But these things can be and are easily manipulated by the President and his inner circle, making it a moot point. Look at the war in Iraq as the perfect example. The president and his inner circle fabricated evidence to gain bipartisan support and passed a law in America which "legalised" a war which was unequivocally illegal by the stipulations of the UN Charter. They furthermore circumvented American law by torturing prisoners (including American citizens) in offshore holding facilities. If your argument is that the law holds the President's power in check then you are simply wrong. You are every bit as wrong as people are when they claim the media keeps the President's power in check.
The problem here is that no one takes international law seriously. The question is how do we come up with a system of international law that holds nations accountable.
The problem here is that no one takes international law seriously.
Everyone takes international law seriously except the US (and by extension, Israel). Stop talking nonsense. Without international law there would be no such thing as a war crime.
Did the fact that it was labelled a war crime stop it from being committed? My point was that there is no accountability. Perhaps you should read and pause for breath before you wade in and accuse people of talking nonsense and avoid coming across like a disrespectful little prick.
Did the fact that it was labelled a war crime stop it from being committed?
Oh please. Does any law stop any crime from being committed? Stop talking bozwallocks. Your analogy is relevant to all laws everywhere, yet you are presenting it as though it is only relevant to international law. This is a sure sign that you are burrowing down the rabbit hole of stupidity.
If there is an effective means and mechanism of holding lawbreakers accountable then yes a law will be effective as a preventative measure in many cases. My point was that international law is not effective in this way. Are you always this obnoxious during a discussion? If you toned down the disrespect for a moment perhaps you'd see the irony of persistently calling stupidity while being unable to follow a simple train of logic.
To start off, Democracy is, as far as I know, a dead political system. What we have here in the US is a Constitutional Republic with Democratic leanings.
Anyway, getting back to the issue at hand, the "leader" of a first-world nation is (supposedly) simply the representative of the views of the majority of the population. When powerful corporations and organizations become involved in politics, things get messy, but that's the basis for it.