Talk:Democracy

"all members of the society (citizens) have equal access to power" and "all members (citizens) enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties."

Would that not mean that there are no Democracies? Because I havn't heard of any where children can be elected to government and most so called democracies children don't have universally recognized freedoms. Also democracies with elections cannot exist because the wealthy will always rule because of the power, influence and resources they have, therefore not all members of the society have equal acess to power.

United States SHALL BE RED, NOT BLUE

http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html

Clearly states that United States gives off the allusion of a democracy, because other countries and Wikipedians want to brainwash you braindead Americans into thinking we're one. Not not even capitalist, we're socialist capitalist now like Australia under Kevin Rudd admission.

Is this article not capturing the full meaning of democracy?

This article defines democracy as a form of government, but theres more meaning to the term than this. Living in a democracy does not simply reflect the right to vote, but other rights also, such as living in a locality where people have freedom of expression, a right to a private life, etc. In a democracy you would expect people to be able to exercise choice over many things not just their government --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Not so, properly speaking Democracy is just that. It does not imply any freedoms except the freedoms necessary for a person to vote on issues without being coerced.

How democratic a country is not determined by how many freedoms it's citizens have, but by the extent to which those citizens by voting determine the policy, law and direction of the government.Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 10:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Democracy implies that citizens participant in the governing process. It's certainly not about the right to a private life. Pericles told the Athenian assembly, "Some say that a man with no interest in politics is minding his own business. We say that such a man has no business here." Kauffner (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, essentially there are degrees of democracy. Pure democracy is a situation where every decision made by the government is made by the assembled voters. This form never existed, since it is impossible to assemble everyone for every decision. Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 10:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Democracy

{{editsemiprotected}}

I propose the addition of the following paragraphs under the Section 'Criticisms of Democracy'.

 Not done: Thanks for wanting to improve this article. This is well written but it relies on a single author recent published through what is basically a vanity press. A quick internet search doesn't find any other mention of support-bargaining used this way. Can you find other references? Celestra (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Response:

The following response is made to comments appearing in the discussion page for 'Economics' under 'Criticisms of Economics'. It concerns the proposed 'Support-Bargaining' insertion below, as well as the proposed 'Money-Bargaining' insertion under 'Economics'. Please see also the discussion on the proposed deletion of the entries on 'Money-Bargaining' and 'Support-Bargaining' on the deletion page for 'Money-Bargaining'.

Thanks for all the comments.

It appears I am now permitted to edit the page directly, but the comments indicate that it would not be appropriate to make the proposed insertion. There is, in any case, a proposal to delete the main entries on 'Money-Bargaining' and 'Support-Bargaining', to which I have responded on the Money-Bargaining deletion page. I am copying this also to the Money-Bargaining deletion page, since it is relevant to the proposal for deletion.

We have to separate the questions of what is right and what is respectable. If Wikipedia is only concerned with material that is derived from respectable sources, then the queries about the sources (meaning the publisher, Book Guild), may be relevant. The question of what is right would be of no significance.

While the Book Guild is not a conventional publisher, it is not of the undiscriminating kind. It has some distinguished authors. It has published Lord (Denis) Healey, the former British Chancellor of the Exchequer. It also publishes Peter Evans, who was Home Affairs correspondent on the Times for seventeen years. [All the references have ISBN Numbers: Spread (1984) 0-333-36569-0; Spread (2004) 1-85776-860-4; Spread (2008) 978-1-84624-251-9.]

As regards what is right, the 'open edit' approach of Wikipedia suggests a commitment to a wider range of opinion than can be accommodated in formal 'establishment' encyclopaedias. This seems to suggest also acceptance of a broader range of sources. There is an implication that the establishment and its 'respectable' sources could be wrong, or at least incomplete.

In this case, there is a real probability that respectable sources are wrong. If needs and wants are situation-related (see 1 in the proposed insertion above, and 'Money-Bargaining/Situation related selection' in the Wikipedia article proposed for deletion), then economics has been wrong for over a hundred years. Money-bargaining gives a much more realistic account of monetary exchange. Democratic theory is more principles and aspirations than a theory of how government works. The people cannot possibly govern in any direct sense. Support-bargaining gives a realistic account of political, social and intellectual processes.

My entries and proposed insertions are designated 'fringe theory', which is fair enough from the viewpoint of orthodox economic and political theory. The designation makes it easy to delete them. But bear in mind that the fringe may become the mainstream when the paradigm changes. If my entries are designated 'alternative paradigm' it may not be so easy to delete them.

Furthermore, alternative paradigms will probably not be promulgated through orthodox institutions and publishers. Orthodox, or respectable, theory uses orthodox and respectable publishers. Because of the viability condition (see 2 above, and 'Money-Bargaining/Companies as money-bargaining agencies' in the article), orthodox publishers find it hard to publish unorthodox theory. Academics generally approve, buy, read and teach orthodox theory. So unorthodox theory has to use unorthodox publishers. If Wikipedia rules out the use of unorthodox sources, it may also be excluding right theory.

Papersign (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(start addition)

Support-Bargaining

The theory of support-bargaining suggests that the systems of government recognised as 'democratic' are better understood as processes in which support is assembled in groups and organisations through support-bargaining. In political support-bargaining, parties formulate policies and proposals that will attract support. People give their support to parties in accordance with their acceptance or rejection of the policies and proposals on offer. An electoral system, understood as an artificial support-bargaining structure, is used to facilitate the emergence of a party with majority support in a legislature. In contrast with democratic theory, which has difficulty reconciling parties with popular rule, the theory gives a central role to political parties, as the most powerful agents of support-bargaining systems.

Support-bargaining theory also draws attention to the importance of finance for political parties. The assembly of support across a nation for the same policies involves substantial costs. Democratic theory has no understanding of parties and consequently no understanding of the importance of finance in political processes.

(end addition)

If an established user approves of this addition, perhaps he or she would edit the entry. A link to the Wikipedia article on 'Support-Bargaining' should be included.

Notes

Further Reading

Spread, Patrick (1984). A Theory of Support and Money Bargaining, London. Macmillan.
Spread, Patrick (2004). Getting It Right: Economics and the Security of Support, Sussex, Book Guild.
Spread, Patrick (2008). Support-Bargaining: The Mechanics of Democracy Revealed, Sussex, Book Guild.

Papersign (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Organization of article

Ancient Athens is where the word "democracy" originated, the ultimate model of what it means to be a democracy. But this article throws Athens together with Iroquois, Sumerians, Bushmen and whatnot. Primitive societies all had consensus building mechanisms, but this idea is not quite government, more of a proto-government, and thus several steps away from democracy. Kauffner (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)