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.
Thomas Jefferson intended the constitution to reflect the truest democracy, but of course the land holding aristocracy would not budge unless the power was consolidated to them. The last 200 years have only tightened this leash by widening the gap between the poor and the elite, and allowing aristocratic greed to go unchallenged through the use of propaganda, and fear campaigns. If it were a Democracy, then the people would actually be represented by there own kind. How is it possible that 4% of the people control 80% of the wealth and power? In a real democracy. Those 4% would control 4%. In a real democracy every aspect of the system would be engineered, promoted, and sustained by the constituents, and not appointed by what I would call Oligarchs. The only saving grace in this illusions is the simple fact that I can right this post at all. But as we see more and more, even in Communist China, and Tyrannical Iran, a squirrel gets a nut now and then. It's part of the propaganda model that helps to perpetuate the falsehood of a true democracy.
A fancy notion, but that will never fly. You can say it worked for the Indians, but not really. Look at them now. There is always some douchebag in the world you plans to dominate someone else. The only way to avoid this is to create your own strength. I'm not saying disband the government, I'm saying put it back in the hands of the population were it's actually supposed to be to begin with and create an actually democracy. Also Nomadic tribes are generally non democratic. Democracy can only thrive in Horticultural societies where the quest for food is already won. Nomadic societies can ill afford squabbling in their ranks, it could be the difference between life and death for them.
You can never put it (government) back in the hands of the population were it's actually supposed to be to begin with and create an actually democracy because there will always be some douchebag liberal wanting something from the government and thus empowering the government and weakening the power of the people.
The government does NOT create wealth. When anyone wants something from the government, the government has to take it away from someone else.
If the people want public schools, the government has to take money away from its citizens in the form of taxes in order to pay for it.
Guess what, animals kill each other on a regular basis! They don't have a stable food supply. They don't have shelter from the weather. They don't have access to healthcare or education.
Animals are not 100% free... for the same reason you say they are... "They can do whatever they want."
Animals are free... until another animal infringes on the natural rights of said animal... which they are free to do. Predator and prey. The prey loses it's freedom to live due to the hunger (hence the ambition of hunting) of the predator. So... looking at the big picture... almost every animal is not "100% free"... since almost every animal has a lower standing on the food chain than another species... which can hardly be called freedom since this results to a life which is consistently worried by the fear of death caused by another animal. That is why enforced moral codes aka laws are needed to attain freedom... or at least the highest freedom that is possible in this world. And I hope you know that a law... which can be enforced and can produce unfavorable consequences if broken... cannot exist without government.
Animals are 100 % free. Animals DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO ANYTHING. All animals are free to do whatever they want. If an animal gets killed, it does not mean that his freedom was violated.
Democracy doesn't have anything to do with the distribution of wealth. Your beef is with capitalism. Capitalism invariably concentrates wealth in the hands of a few. What you're advocating is actually communism.
"Communism is a social structure in which classes are abolished and property is commonly controlled"
Bad idea. Communism doesn't work. History has shown repeatedly that well regulated free markets are the best way to promote the overall well-being of society.
The answer is not to do away with capitalism, but to use government to lessen the damage it can do. Government can redistribute a portion of the wealth from the richest to the rest of us. Government can force big corporations to play by the rules. Government can keep failing companies from taking down the entire economy.
What we need is a wall separating corporate interests from government. We need to stop lobbyists from having too much influence over politicians. We need to make it so that the primary factor in getting elected is not the amount of money you can raise, but your ability to appeal to the voters. The Democratic party is much more in line with these values than the Republican party.
Don't give in to bitterness. Work to improve the system. And for the love of god, don't vote Republican.
I didn't mention anything about the redistribution of wealth, or communism. The question remains if America is a Democracy. I will say no. Should it be? probably not. Is power consolidated to a handful of elites? Most certainly. Do the represent the will of the public? No they do not. Even though this argument is about capitalism, since you brought it up, if your interested in seeing the failure of capitalism in it's finest form, please read The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair. You will see what unrestrained greed produces. Bottom line is America is not a Democracy, but rather it is a Republic, so it remains a myth.
"How is it possible that 4% of the people control 80% of the wealth and power? In a real democracy. Those 4% would control 4%."
What you're describing there is exactly communism. You seem to be confusing it with democracy. Democracy doesn't mean everyone is equal, it just means everyone gets to vote.
The term "democracy" refers to a broad range of social arrangements. It includes systems where every decision is made collectively and it includes systems where elected representatives make the decisions. Just because the US is not a pure democracy doesn't mean it's not a democracy at all.
A republic is a kind of democracy.
In The Jungle, Sinclair illustrates why it is that capitalism needs to be regulated. But go look at the USSR for an example of why communism doesn't work.
it means that everyones vote counts equally as well as everyone gets to vote. I didn't argue this point well, I'll admit to that, and I should have chosen clearer representation. But yours and my votes are insignificant because they carry little influence. Influence is usually purchased by the highest bidder, which is that 4%. To speak more to that, the Electoral College dictates our votes potentially carry zero influence since the Electorates are not required to vote with their populous (in most states). This is hardly the act of a democracy, and barley the act of a representative democracy.
It's a republic which is fine, but if the debate is democracy myth or reality. It's a myth since republic and democracy aren't really interchangeable. Similar, but not the same.
Ask the Chinese with their 18% annual GDP growth if communism is working. The USSR is a poor example. Their failure is a direct result of greedy Oligarchs, and not a direct failure of the system.
All systems are flawed. None are the best, and all are the worst. They always yield their particular oppression and marginalize certain segments. If people were not inherently pricks to one another Anarchy would probably be the way to go, and everyone could just do what they do without being subjugated in the first place.
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
Thomas Jefferson
The FF hated democracy as a form of government and hence provided us with a Constitutional Republic. A quick search regarding the aftermath of a true democracy reveals the ingenious intent of those who founded this nation.
The US was not founded as a democracy nor should it be considered as such. Only those with simple minds incapable of comprehending the ramifications of such prefer said argument. They also tend to be of the ilk that sacrifice their Liberty on the altar of their freedoms. I find it amazing that the shallow minded are more than capable of giving away everything that is NOT theirs.
No, this nation was not founded as a democracy nor should it revert to such a form of government. Those who gave their all to establish it despised democracy and a few minutes of your time used for research can readily understand why.
I agree that most of the FF detested democracy, and your quote is indeed from Jefferson's mouth. However, the context is a bit skewed. I probably should not have said "truest form of democracy", but rather the truest form of "representative democracy." He did intend to give the people the power to choose egalitarian representation but the wealthy elite could ill afford to allow the lower classes to control government functionality. This view was debated vigorously by the draft board, and Jefferson eventually had to concede to allow for more isolated controls. It truly does suck since it paved the way to what we have now which is a bastardized corporate controlled technocracy. It's a real shame it turned out that way. If Jefferson would of had his way there would have been term limits through all the branches of the government, and people could more easily oust those who are corrupt lifers blood sucking the citizenry dry.
Slightly off topic, but term limits have actually made it easier for the corrupt to stay in politics. Before term limits, so long as one did a good enough job to be re-elected, s/he would keep his/her job. Since term limits, however, it doesn't matter. The end result is that more "average" people can't run for office.
Imagine this: You run for congress and get elected. While in office, you lose your job. When you eventually lose that office (as you inevitably will, due to term limits), you have no job to return to. That transition is very difficult. But, if you have "worked with" some big corporations, they can easily take you into their fold.
Sure, in theory your employer should keep a position for you. But, keeping extra positions open for someone, for years upon years, is not typically viable for most companies, except for the larger corporations.
That interesting but I'm going to head the other direction. I know we are going on a tangent here but it's a cool idea that term limits actually breed corruption. I think it actually takes time to cultivate an atmosphere of corruption. I honestly think most people go into office with the intent of "being the change." But truth be told, money and power have a funny way of changing the attitude. I also think that "a good job" can be achieved within the specified term limits. Now I haven't done any research to check the stats on term limits vs. lifers to see where the corruption lies, but I'm going out on a limb to say that lifers are more corrupt simply based on the law of large numbers. To speak further to that I would say that even if limiters were corrupt, the amount of damage they can do is lessened simply because they aren't around long enough to wreck things. Alternatively, lifers can wreak havoc for decades. I'm going to look further into this. I like where it's heading. I think I'll open a separate debate on this. Kudos for bringing up the point.
I don't disagree with your post. What you fail to highlight is that individual rights is the crux of the debate. Democracy tosses individual rights by the wayside should the majority vote against said individual rights.
This nation is in dire straights. Individual liberties have been stripped....Kelo decision????
If the majority votes that everyone take a chip, is that acceptable? It's certainly democratic but in no way acceptable based on a nation founded upon individual rights.
Whether America is a republic or not, that's not the core of the debate. The crucial point, however, is the wars waged in the name of democracy by a country which claims it has the duty to make the world "safe for democracy" and eliminate brutal dictatorships.
I'm referring here to America's foreign policy, yes!
What democratic country which still pokes her nose into others affairs, while forgetting about domestics problems?!
Where's the freedom of mass media? It is not free of biases. The news reported are utterly different of what is going on really in the world. We've seen how the war in Gaza was talked about on TV and in newspapers, of course making it look less damaging, i.e. a harmless conflict.
Is the majority with America in fighting her wars, or just a minority? Voting to select representatives, is different from voting to declare wars.
The ideals of a true democracy are completely different from America's faked democracy... but forcing it on others isn't wise, and not democratic either.
First off, we have more of a republic than a democracy. Sure, our representatives are elected by popular vote (except of course for the president), but we the people vote on a small fraction of the laws effected each year. Have you voted on the health care bill?
Moreover, there's a great deal of opacity in our government. Who enacted what law that caused which problems? We don't know! Too often, we hold one politician responsible for the problems created by the politician before him/her. At least in many monarchies, the ruling class is held much more responsible than here in America.
A republic like we have in the US is a kind of democracy -- a representative democracy.
All of the bills passed by our government are available for anyone to read. For example, here's a summary of the health care bill passed by the House: link. Don't blame government for your own laziness.
Should we improve our legislative process? No doubt. Why don't you do something about it? Or would you rather just whine on the internet?
At least in many monarchies, the ruling class is held much more responsible than here in America.
Yeah, right. Got an example? Seems to me the Republicans got held responsible pretty well in the last election.
I'm hardly whining about it. But, public discourse of the situation is indeed a viable first step in effecting change.
Indeed, we can read the health care bill. I, for one, have read the actual text of nearly all of the measures I have voted on, the others for which I have relied on what I consider to be trustworthy expert opinions. Moreover, I sincerely advocate that political responsibility necessarily transcends far beyond a single day of voting. Considerable time should be spent first investigating, then discussing the said measures, and finally expressing the thoughtful conclusions to the appropriate representatives, if actions are deemed necessary.
However, in regards to the question at hand, and this particular example, no, I cannot myself vote on the health care bill. I can express my opinion to my representative, although for this particular issue I prefer to leave the expression to the experts themselves. This is the result in part due to my inferior knowledge of the subject matter to these experts, and also due to the fact that my finite amount of free time is more effectively spent on concerns which fall within my area of expertise.
To clarify, I am not saying that either a republic or a democracy is better than the other, for each have their merits. While I resolve that government should be in the best interest of all its members, in fact many constituents simply lack the insight, whether due to reasons mental, educational, temporal, or otherwise, for which the provision of elected representatives is a very suitable solution. Furthermore, I maintain that political systems without proper referendum or reform fall short of the next step in political evolution.
To reiterate these latter points, and that expressed in my original argument, the ruling class should be held responsible by its constituents. When political measures which facilitate corporate abuse of the system come into practical effect after the effector's term is passed, often timely executed by the benefiting corporations and obscured through various other political devices, and with no means to be revoked or reformed by the constituents, the purpose of the political system is stained. This particular aspect, I maintain, is inferior to its counterpart found within monarchies, per conversations I have had and interviews I have read with various Arabs, and per my study of the Enron scandal's effect on California.
In regards to the Republican Party's relative defeat in the most recent election, I do concede you have raised a valid argument. However, I believe the actual benefiters, whether political individuals or corporations, were indeed not held responsible. Those now held responsible are simply associated. Also, consider the confusion around who was responsible for the Enron scandal, particularly as it pertains to California. In a monarchy, at least, one would know who is responsible.
More specifically, Gray Davis was blamed for the energy crisis, and in part for the Enron scandal, when the cause should be attributed to deregulation, an issue of Pete Wilson's platform. Sadly, this simple fact has been obscured. Referendum and reform will allow us to prevent this from happening again, however only if it is properly diagnosed.
And so, I conclude that referendum and reform allows for properly diagnosed shortcomings of any democratic system to be improved. This, one step closer to true democracy, is not present in most of America, and certainly absent at the federal level. However, it is present in California, among other states, as mentioned in another of my arguments within this debate.
Lastly, in an attempt to eradicate any possible debates of semantic nature, I admit that America is in fact a democratic system, as in accordance to your valid argument that our republic is of democratic form, however I do not perceive our current political system as the democracy it is often professed to be. (Though, as a personal aside, I esteem it as an exemplar system in our present context.) Apologies if the conclusions drawn of this inference differ or are less relevant.
You are right that big corporations have an undue influence that works against the democratic process. We should fix that.
However, I don't see swapping out our representative government for a more purely democratic one as a good solution. I don't think a more authoritarian government (like a monarchy) is a good solution either. I think we've struck a good balance with our modern republic.
I don't really have a good solution other than persistently working to restrain the power of big corporations to affect politics. Enact and enforce laws that keep their money out of the electoral and legislative process. Of course, it's hard to do that if the public is willing to vote away those restrictions, as they did to a certain extent over the last decade. Still, I think capitalism provides such an enormous benefit to society that its downside is worth enduring. The only thing I see to do is vigilantly restrain the negative forces of capitalism while allowing the positive to flow freely.
Hopefully this latest economic mess has reminded people of the importance of regulation.
And indeed you brought up some points I definitely needed to clarify. Admittedly, yes, America has one of the best governments around. However, I fear this has made many Americans complacent in many ways. I mistakenly confused you with one of them.
I can't agree more about supporting capitalism by regulating corporate America. There's a balance that few people seem to appreciate.
Furthermore, I agree that our current republic is most likely better than a direct democracy would be. However until initiative, referendum and recall are added on a federal level, it still continues to function more like a republic, and consequently less like a democracy, than it should. This was my original point, however in light of your argument, yes, America is still doing a relatively fine job.
And the only real solution I can imagine is through education, conversation, etc.
A democracy does NOT necessarily mean that everyone has the right to vote. That is called a republic. A democracy is when the people have COMPLETE control over the government, with no middle man. Currently, the process is as follows:
we vote-->our votes are recieved by our congressmen-->they decide whether they like our votes or not-->they vote, either following our vote or doing what they want.
This is not a democracy.
by the way this is a response to jessald's first comment.
democracy: ...a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
You make a good point, however, the congressmen and women do not always represent the votes of the majority of the people. Therefore it is not a democracy.
Now, I'm going to contradict my previous votes here in order to clarify that the State of California actually has a decent "democratic" government.
Indeed, there is still a state congress, just like on the federal level. However, in the state constitution, people are allowed to vote to overturn laws effected by congress. People are also allowed to directly effect laws, and even amend the state constitution, through majority votes.
Yet, this creates a sometimes interesting power struggle, such as with the laws concerning gay marriage.
I wish the federal government was structured like this.
I don't think this topic is worth debating. Democracy, whether you see it as a myth or reality, will never exist. We live in a republic. You see, a government controlled fully by the people would be chaotic and nearing anarchy. Just look at communism.
You said: " Democracy...will never exist". Well then, that's means it's a myth! What doesn't exist and we "people" believe in is a myth.
In America we have normally what we call a representative democracy. People vote for candidates which are their representatives. There's absolutely no government controlled by people, but those people select others who normally represent them... yet, do they represent the people, or serve their interests?!!!
Allowing a majority vote to overturn (most) laws sounds like a good idea to me. Well... maybe not a simple majority... let's say 2/3's majority.
Allowing people to vote to amend the Constitution, however, I think would be going too far. I can easily imagine the political winds blowing south just long enough for people to do something dangerously foolish like voting away their freedom of speech.
Obviously it's not a true democracy. Because a true democracy wouldn't work, there are to many stupid and religious people (if not one in the same) and our system is the best we can devise to keep mob rule from winning out; which it almost did in the last election...If you voted for Sarah Palin, hang yourself you dumbass; how irresponsible.
A government can offer equal opportunity or equal outcome. The American democracy has chosen equal opportunity. Democracy is democracy. Economic systems are a whole different thing.
What equal opportunity you're speaking about? Power and money are in the hands of the few, i.e the elite not the majority of the people. Business corporations which are dominating everything, and controlling even politics decision-making?!
I am supporting the view that American democracy is a myth, 'cause it's a mere image shown to the world, whereas I don't believe that a true democracy exists in America.